Calculation and fear
It can be intriguing to examine the motives underpinning political decisions.
A blend, perhaps, of party interest, personal interest, national interest and financial interest.
With Wendy Alexander's new-found support for a referendum on independence, I prefer more precise terminology.
It is driven, I reckon, by calculation and fear.
To be clear, that does not make the decision necessarily wrong. Merely fascinating.
We are led to understand that Ms Alexander has long been intuitively supportive of the concept of popular plebiscites, that she was an early advocate of such a ballot with regard to devolution.
Further, we are led to understand that she has been, from an early point, sympathetic to the notion of responding positively to the SNP demand for a referendum on independence.
We are led to understand that her reticence on the matter was simply driven by the times, by a lack of understanding with regard to the issue, perhaps particularly among her Holyrood colleagues.
If so, she hid it well.
Her Holyrood colleagues would, understandably, have been lulled when Ms Alexander said, repeatedly and as recently as the spring party conference, that independence and its associated referendum were an "obsession" for the Nationalists and not a topic for serious-thinking politicians.
Calculation and fear?
The fear is obvious. Fear of electoral defeat, fear of defeat even worse than the reversals in May last year at the Holyrood polls.
Wendy Alexander glances at Labour's collapse in the English and Welsh locals, she ponders Boris as London Mayor - and she thinks: Is Scottish Labour immune?
The situation is different, admittedly.
The Tories may be notably cheerful in Scotland but they are scarcely driving forward in a manner comparable to the march of the Cameronians.
In Scotland, Labour's big opposition - Labour's fear - is the Scottish National Party.
But there is a read-through from the locals nonetheless.
Voters disenchanted with the UK government, annoyed by totemic issues such as the 10p tax rate, may seek alternatives in Scotland too.
That alternative may be the SNP.
Which brings us to the calculation.
I believe this has two factors.
Firstly, Alex Salmond's strategy is to challenge his Unionist rivals to hold an independence referendum.
If they decline - which, until now, was the stance - then Mr Salmond takes the issue to the Holyrood voters in 2011, arguing that the people have been denied a say.
Wendy Alexander knows that is a highly potent argument. She now, apparently, wants to forestall it, if she can.
The second factor is her innate confidence that, presented with the choice in serious terms, the people of Scotland would reject independence.
She calculates that would undermine Mr Salmond, would set his administration off course.
In short, she is prepared to sanction a referendum she wouldn't, in other circumstances, want.
Which leaves us where?
Firstly, Ms Alexander's mates in the Calman Commission - which only began work last week - are entitled to feel somewhat sore.
The Tories and the Liberal Democrats thought they were joining an initiative to shore up the Union; an initiative which deliberately excluded the option of independence.
They did not know, they were not told, that there would be a side bet on an independence referendum.
Secondly, a referendum now seems likely by 2011.
We are very far from knowing precisely how or when. This was a speedy initiative of calculation and fear, not governmental detail.
However, the UK Government may eventually exercise its reserved power over the constitution and call such a ballot.
That could happen under the cautious Gordon Brown - or under his (Tory?) successor.
More probably, Mr Salmond's eventual bill for a consultative referendum will be tabled at Holyrood and Labour would support it.
At this stage, it would appear that such a referendum would be a straight choice: independence, yea or nay.
The alternative of "more powers" would sit on the sidelines, an available substitute.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~31~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
I think that we shall see Wendy rowing back on this in the coming days as Brown reasserts himself. She will be forced to come out and say I didn't mean an "independence referendum" (which is what I said): I meant a referendum with this horrendiously skewed wording and quite possibly multiple options.
Complain about this comment
Congratulations to Wendy. This is a good bit of political manouvering.
Her only mistake was not backing this from the start. Instead she has changed her mind far too late in the game and after saying so many things against a referendum that she will be ridiculed!
I hope for a referendum on Independance with an option for substantial new powers to the parliament as a pre cursor to independance.
Bring it on!
Chris
Complain about this comment
Interesting.
Scottish Labour copying their Main Parties Leaders move by doing a U-turn of their own?
Can it be that since Scottish Labour are now supporting the Independance option that it not not be all bad?
Scottish Labour appears to be sending mix-messages here.
I would also hope that the referendum does include more then the Independance option.
That way I can vote for Independance and vote for more powers for the Scottish Government.
Complain about this comment
It's about time Labour and the Opposition partiies had the b*lls to get this moving.
Independance is becoming the big distraction from actually getting on and running the country. If we can have a referendum and it's "no" then Salmond et al can actually be held to account for wasting Government time on picking fights.
The referendum should have two questions like the one for Devolution.
1st Question. Do you want Scotland to be independent. (Yes/no)
2nd Question. If No do you want more powers within the devolution settlement.
You can't have 3 choices in the referendum since "more powers" is predicated on not having independance. Therefore two of the choices would have to be added together to be the "no" vote.
Oh and by the way...
1) Australia and Canada are independant/separate states even though they have the Queen as head of state.
2) France and Germany are independant and separate states even though they share a land border.
So what was that nonsense about "thinking we're floating off iceland" or something like that. Do Salmond and Sturgeon think we're all morons?
Complain about this comment
the labour party are now not so much dancing a scottish jig as having an all out celeidh.
I dont doubt for a minute that this is not wendy alexanders idea. I beleive this has come from gordon brown himself. Why else the u turn. This decision smacks of desperation on the part of gordon brown who realises how unpopular he is and he wants wendy to take the blame to mollify his MPs who will be against it. Why else would she mention that it is nothing to do with brown.................
Complain about this comment
There must be thousands of people like me sitting with their mouths open these days as they read the news.
I'm thinking about those of us who remember the days when we could go for weeks (or even months) without hearing about the SNP never mind Independence.
And now, every day the SNP is in the news, not being ridiculed by more powerful opponents but actually setting the agenda in Scotland, an agenda which even Westminster must listen to.
Where did this new found power come from? Two words, The People.
People Power is emerging in Scotland from the grey shroud of Labour dominance and the SNP is the diamond tipped drill bit the people are using to power themselves back into the sunlight for a fresh look at their future.
And having felt the warmth of the sun, they are not going to want to go back.
As for Wendy and co. They will be playing catch up until Independence Day, but their real chance of resurrection will come in post independence elections. They should start preparing their agenda for that now.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Independance is just a distraction from running the country?
How hurtful, some actually care enough for Scotland and wants to put Scotland on the map. This is why we have a strong Nationalist country at the moment.
If Independance is nothing but a distraction to you then why do you care about what happens at the end of the day as long as its done and dusted?
Independance is going to be the most important choice Scotland makes that will decide our future for the rest of our lives.
Complain about this comment
I've just read Wendy's brother's piece on this website. Apparently Wendy and the Labour party have been in favour of a referendum all along.
Any more spin from Labour and we will all be thinking that it is they who have been arguing for an Independence Referendum and the SNP who have been running scared of one.
The scary thing is, these people actually believe what they are saying!!!
Complain about this comment
It is worth remembering what the LibDem leader, Nicol Stephen, said on the matter (and presumably was a reason why he was happy to go along with the Calman Commission):
"I made it clear to him that unless and until the SNP removes the fundamental barrier of a referendum on independence during the next four years, there can be no coalition."
So how will he square that wee circle?
Complain about this comment
BrianHillEdinburgh:
Perhaps Labour are copying SNP's strategy.
And that is to give the public what they want.
We have all heard Labour's loss down south with the councils and now they are trying to play the nice guys and allow the public to decide our own future.
Shall we continue to see 'Nice Guy' attitude when First Minister Salmond brings forward the referendum bill?
Or shall we witness what is going to be the lowest and most shameful game of tit for tat from Labour to try and discourage the Scots from voting for Independance?
The United Kindom is coming to an end.
But the 'United Kingdoms' era has just started.
Do we really want to leave a stain on what some would say was the best 300 years of our Nations lives?
Or do we have to part in good civilised manner that can spread throughout the world, perhaps even be a role model to those other Nations who are seperating due to differences.
Complain about this comment
I would say 'desperation' Brian as well as attempting to keep Browns woes off the Scottish broadsheet front pages.
If I were a Libdem or a Scottish Tory waking up this morning I’d be pretty hacked off after chanting ‘no referendum, no desire for independence, bread and butter issues’ for three months to be woken up slapped by Wendy’s desperate U-turn. I think there will be a huge amount of angst and pressure building up behind the Calman Commission. It’s hard enough to keep unity within one unionist party in these testing times for British nationalists, never mind keep three unionist parties singing from one bizarrely constructed hymn sheet.
Wendy is also filling her breeks as she knows only too well her slotting into the leadership of Scottish Labour is/was 100% reliant of GB’s patronage. Once he’s ejected, plenty Labour hacks will not be nearly as reserved as they have been until now- “wan mair clean shirt’ll do ‘er” as they say.
Complain about this comment
Alexander on front page of Daily Record: "We've always been at war with Eastasia!" I wonder if Wendy’s vitriol and contorted ‘I’m disgusted’ look will be distilled, bottled and sold for ‘Hate Week Ecosse 2008’, or perhaps more appropriately, bought and sold for English gold.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
Yes it is a distraction and will be until someone actually calls the referendum. I want to hear more about the SNP Poll Tax and how that will affect us. I want to hear more about Student/Education funding, etc.
What I don't want to hear is sterile arguments about how much better off Scotland would be with Independance and how we could do so much more if it wasn't for the tightfisted-ness of the UK Government.
Lets arrange the referendum NOW (for about 6 months time) and have a meaningful debate about the possible consequences. Then we can all vote knowing the facts.
The SNP was voted in on a policy of independence and if they actually care enough about putting Scotland on the map then why don't they call the referendum now.
Answer: They don't think they can win it and they're banking on Labour's incompetance to swing it for them rather that win it on the real arguments.
Complain about this comment
A reasonable political move by Wendy, though the economic implications at a time of global uncertainty will probably be painful. Quebec experienced capital flight and an investment freeze in the weeks leading up to their referendum (intensifying when the yes camp looked to be winning). There will also be a run on the pound, hurting everyone in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Brian, very good article. Are the media seeing through New Labour at last.
This is policy is made up in haste and total fear.
Broon and Alexander are finished, and they know it, but rather than do anything honorable like resign they try to muddle on.
In your article you say the SNP may be the beneficiary in all of this. One thing is for sure it will not be the tories, it can only be the SNP.
I was interested to read that Hamish in the Scotsman reads your blog, he quoted a reply to you "making new friend" article.
He should keep reading as he may discover what even handed reporting looks like. Who knows he may even try it some day, rather than just regurgitate Labour press releases like he does at present.
P.S. Only visit the Hootsmon web site when I need a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
The Labour Quadrille?
Will she, won't she, will she, won't she, will she join the dance? Will she, won't she, will she, won't she, won't she join the dance?
I watched Wee Wendy's interview, and as usual she came across like a rabbit caught in the headlights.
PANIC seems to be the order of the day in the Labour Party. Well, they USED to be a Party! They used to stand for something that had meaning in Scotland, and our support for them showed the underlying desire from the people of Scotland to have a fair, just and socialist society. Their defeat in Scotland underlines the belief that the party no longer lives by the old ideals. If only Labour could find a real leader in Scotland, one that DIDN'T kowtow to Westminster and lived up to the expectations of the Scottish people (which Wendy certainly hasn't, and neither did the self-seeking Jack!) then they might have a fighting chance.
As it stands, Wee Alec and the SNP ARE providing the Scottish people what they want, at least as far as they can, given the Unionist party's venomous opposition and obstruction. None of the Unionists have shown themselves in a good light recently, and I suspect that when given the choice the people of Scotland will make this plain to them at the next election.
As for Wendy, I doubt she'd find any partners to take her TO the dance, never mind give her the option of a dance!
Independance? With the mess made in England by the greedy and insular bunch of no-gooders in Westminster, I'll for once agree with Wendy, BRING IT ON!
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
First Minister Salmond has said that he shall call for the referedum by 2010 to show that the people of Scotland that the SNP are capable of leading Scotland and of course when we are Independant, by 2010 the SNP will be coming to an end of their Government and we shall know what they are capable of.
And do you really want to take on the SNP when they are at their peak?
Latest polls show Independance is the majority and SNP gain more seats in Scotland and for Britain overall.
Plus arguments for Scotlands Independance has been going on for years and even more with an SNP Goverments now calling the shots.
I have done many reports for Scottish Independance and even made the flaws public for all to read. I am perfectly capable of choosing - Independance yes or no.
But can I ask something.
If you do not know all the facts then how can you decide to be a Unionist?
Can you not stay neutral until the facts are shown?
Why do you not read up on arguments (while ignoring the pointless arguments) now and then decide your stance?
Complain about this comment
Looks like bloggers beat the press to this story:
Waffle from Wendy? Or are Labour going to back a referendum?
http://politicalnewsfromscotland.blogspot.com/2007/09/waffle-from-wendy-or-are-labour-going.html
"Is Wendy Alexander Considering Support For An Independence Referendum?"
http://kevinwilliamson.blogspot.com/2007/09/sep-11th-is-wendy-alexander-considering.html
Complain about this comment
brian
I have to also ask where does this leave nicol stephen as he and his party refused to join with the snp in devolved government precisely because of the referendum. So nicol will be happy to continue in the commision with wendy holding a referendum but not the snp?
I think this leaves nicol looking very very foolish.
I think the callman commsion is now dead in the water.
I think you are right that the referndum will be a straight yes or no.
Complain about this comment
Maybe Wendy is looking at helping her good friend Nic out.
Poor Mr Stephen doesn't know what to do when he's not bowing to his political masters in a coalition government and has been largely innefectual since the SNP took power. Now the SNP have a majority in parliament FOR the referendum on independance Nic and his cronies could form a coalition and opt out of the independance debate!
Could we now see a SNP - Liberal coalition?
As an SNP voter and an interested observer I hope not. The last year has been incredible.
Complain about this comment
Karinm:
The Lib Dems would like more powers for Scotland.
Labour would like different powers for Scotland and for some powers to be returned to West Minister.
Tories I am currently unaware of their stance on the matter.
But the Commission was dead as soon as it started.
How can three political parties join forces to decide the fate of Scotland when they themselves have different ideas?
Makes you wonder what the parties really have in mind for Scotland. Perhaps staying together just to keep the SNP at bay.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
If you read my post in the Innocent Merriement thread (#36). You will see that I am prepared to be convinced about independence but I want to hear the arguments for independence laid out step by step for each main policy area and then properly costed with those costs properly debated.
What I do not agree with is Independence for Independence sake because I want to ensure that I am better off as a result and not just "independent".
And yes, I would take the SNP on "at their peak" because I think the debate needs to be had. If they are at their peak then why don't they have the courage to call it now.
And, as I recall, the last poll using the "separate country" wording was a resounding defeat for Independence. You may argue about the wording. But the "island floating off the North pole" comments were just plain ridiculus.
Complain about this comment
wendys "william wallace moment"after labours 24% in england/wales elections.
shes thinking--no more than 24% of scots will vote for independece.
lets give SNP there vote and put this constitutional question to bed.any vote 24% or less for nationalists is a disaster.
this change is GREAT NEWS for Scots who want Independence.its one less massive hurdle.
SNP are a minority gov and get this conccesion for FREE--LOL
unionists have always said--uk westminster elections is the only way for Scots to vote for it.NOT NOW.
also---SNP--can now have a referendem whenever they hold power.you only have to win once.
obviously wendy never told hers unionist mates in this puppett comittee on scottish constitutional affairs.lol
i see one of them walking---embarressment and loss of face is too much.
p.s.---im sure some of her labour pals are seething
HAPPY DAYS
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
We all have different 'wants' when Independance is declared.
I am a Nationalist because I would like Scotland to go a different way in terms of Economic's also because of family history where my family fought for Independance centuries ago. That is good enough for me.
What could yours be? Would you like a country nuclear free? Or would you like Scotland to take a different role in the world?
By the way. Seperate countries is deffinetly the wrong wording. The Queen would remain Head of State so in that sense we would still remain 'brothers and sisters' but in terms of Governments we would have complete control of everything.
I would to be honest be happier with a United Kingdoms attitude rather then a United Kingdom. The four nations co-operating together each Independantly from one another but on a world stage represented fairer together under the 'United Kingdoms' banner.
But there has been more polls since the last time the words 'seperate countries' was used if you and I are on the same page here.
But the debates have began years ago. It is up to the individual to get ahead of the game and read upon these posts no matter how old they may be.
The Freedom of Information Act also relased many peices of information of their own that shows and explains what the West Minister Gov has lied to Scotland about.
I could go on then I would be accused of favouring the SNP since I am a Scots Nationalist but like I have said it really up to the Individual to read past debates and blogs to find out where in themselves their stance.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
You are right, we all have separate wants but the debate has to be had so that we can see if our wants are being met before we can vote correctly. If it turned out that other peoples wants outweigh mine then I have a choice, stay and make the best out of the situation or leave for a place where my wants are better met.
As far as wording goes, "separate countries" seems to me to be an accurate wording.
As I said in my first post, are you really trying to tell me that because Canada and Australia have the Queen as Head of State that they are somehow not separate from the UK in terms of their governance?
Complain about this comment
Banginonabout:
For the record, like you, I’m prepared to be convinced either way on the merits of the independence/union argument (although I suspect my leanings are more pro-independence to your pro-union).
I suspect the reason is quite simple. As it stands, the SNP cannot just call for a referendum, the Scottish Parliament as a whole has to legislate for it. Up until today’s revelations, the SNP’s minority position meant that any attempt to legislate for a referendum would be voted down by the combined weight of numbers of the opposition parties since they are all on record as saying they would vote to block such a referendum. This would make the whole exercise academic since the SNP could bring a referendum Bill to the chamber and it would be voted down meaning, surprise surprise, no referendum.
For Wendy Alexander to suggest that the SNP are ‘running scared’ of a referendum is just sheer political gamesmanship. Now that Scottish Labour seem to be softening their stance, perhaps a referendum seems more likely which, as far as I can see, is all to the good as, finally, the Scottish electorate will get the chance to have their say (which the opposition bloc are currently denying them) and this issue can be put to bed, either way, once and for all (or at least for a generation or so).
Whatever our differences of opinions may be, I fully agree with you that what Scotland needs is a proper debate on this subject rather than the current ‘yah, boo sucks’ situation that is currently being employed by both sides. Hopefully, assuming another u-turn isn’t just around the corner, today’s news can pave the way for this debate to happen.
Complain about this comment
So the Alexanders are in the mainstream of Scottish public opinion, I take it that the mainstream of public opinion supports taxing the lower paid more than the well off? Did Mr Alexander not support this in axing the ten pence tax band?
Mr Alexander surely speaks to his wee sister, or perhaps he listened to her speech at the Scottish labour party conference when Wee Wendy declared that independence was not a topic for serious thinking politicians, Does this mean that wee Wendy thinks her big brother is not a serious thinking politician? (in which case she has just got something right!) Perhaps Wee Dougie has just told Wee Sister what to think from the Lord Melchett Brown.
Dougie has the gall to suggest that the SNP are running scared of a referendum, perhaps just perhaps if wee Dougie could extract himself from the PM’s posterior he would realize how stupid he sounds!
There was a time that people entered politics as conviction politicians for example the labour party once believed in a fair just and moral society, sadly this is no longer true! Power at any price, the labour party are not full of sleaze they are sleaze, they are bankrupt of honest ideas the labour party would not know fairness, justice, integrity or honesty were any of these things were to hit them full square in the face! This is the reason they lost in the English elections and the reason hopefully they will lose in any Scottish elections.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Canada and Austraila are seperate from the United Kingdom Governance. Last time I checked the United Kingdom was made out of Northern Ireland, Wales, England and Scotland.
But the Queen as Head of State does still have influence in the countries and united in some way. World Wars for example saw these countries fight with us.
Also I never said that Austraila and Canada were not seperate from the UK in terms of their Goverance.
But how can we 100% seperate when we share the same Royal Family? Seperate Governments, Same Royals would be a more accurate description.
And with being in the EU shall we not be co-operating with one another?
What shall really change apart from Scotland can Govern ourselves from Scotland by Scots once we decalre Independance?
But maybe if your needs are not met now that under an Independant Scotland they can be.
I am presuming you are Scottish and live in Scotland. Then you might not be alone and your views can be shared with a Scottish Government by Scots who can decide what happens.
Instead from a British Government that to be honest favours English matters because of the overwhelming English MP's there.
Maybe that can be a reason for you to support Independance.
Your 'wants' might be represented better by a Scots Government who has all the powers to deal with it.
Least with a Scots Parliament you will not have to worry about the other Welsh, Irish, English MPs voting against your needs despite alot of Scots who also share the same needs.
Complain about this comment
Fit_Like:
I accept your point about the opposition parties voting it down. However this situation is unlikely to change much.
Why?
1) The SNP are never going to have a majority in this parliament.
2) Because of the voting system, the SNP are unlikely ever to have a majority, the proportional representation system does not really allow it - it tends towards a coalition being required. Will the SNP be able to form a coalition with a unionist party? - I don't know.
Like it or not, if more people vote for unionist parties than nationalist parties, then you could infer that people want to stay in the union (since they are against the primary nationalist policy which is independence).
However you cannot necessarily infer it the other way - people may vote for nationalist parties because they think they'll run the country better than the god-awful shower that are the unionist parties rather than actually wanting independence (a protest vote if you like).
So, the unionist parties have a point to a degree - why have a referendum when clearly most people have voted for unionism?
But as I've said earlier, I believe that the constant independence/unionism mudslinging between the parties is now becoming a major distraction to actually holding the Government to account and I believe that a referendum - if not actually required following the unionist argument - will clear the air one way or another and let us all get on with our lives.
Complain about this comment
I suppose one must admire Ms "Brodie Set" Alexander's nerve.Not only for the biggest U Bend in Scottish History,but for staking all on a desperate throw of the dice.Of course it must be tempting to try to remove Independance from our Political Map for a generation,but it is also a huge gamble.Not only would defeat spell the end for her Political career but it could also mean Gotterdammerung for Scottish Labour as well. Little wonder that her colleagues who would be dragged down with her have ,apparantly,not been consulted on this one.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
You vote for a party who better respresents you.
Perhaps you want Independance but of course the Lib Dems has policies that better respresent you.
Ever thought of that?
I used to be a Labour supporter. I am now a Tory/SNP supporter. I would like an Independant Scotland under a Conservative manner.
But then if the Unionists already won the Union Yes or No vote then why run from it?
Only now Labour supports the referendum.
Just to warn you I have been educated with why people the vote the way they do (along with other areas of politics)
So if you want to carry on the debate that since the SNP never got a majority vote then a majority do want Independance then I would be glad to shoot your reasons down.
Complain about this comment
I very much like the idea and name as mentioned above by Thomas_Porter, of 'United Kingdoms'. It makes a great deal of sense and reflects the fact that most Scots would like some sort of continued partnership or union with England - albeit very different, one of equal states, one where we in Scotland decide for ourselves the issues currently decided for us in London. The United Kingdoms is an expression that would emotionally work and would enable the country to embrace independence and all its advantages and yet retain in a popular way a bond, headed by the crown, with England. With Wendy Westminster now staggering round to common sense in agreeing that the people should decide if the people want to, it's surely time to plan out what Independence is. The day of the United Kingdom becoming the United Kingdoms is coming, and Scots can be encouraged to embrace it if the details and terminologies are simply and clearly explained in the SNP proposal. Not the one from the unelected Calman 'commisson', though that may now unravel. As a firm SNP member and a longtime supporter of Alex Salmond I am sure that this is the way forward to an all-embracing settlement Scotland can win.
Complain about this comment
What are the possible reasons for this? Could it be that in 2010 after the tories most likely regain power people may decide that perhaps independence is a much more attractive option. Could it also be that she is hoping if she squashes the referendum with a majority in the parliament voting against it will be forgotten by the next Scottish elections. I think brian is right, this smells of fear induced calculation!
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
Sorry, but your "brothers and sisters" and "we're all cooperating so we're not really separate" speak just smacks of "Don't frighten the horses" to me.
I do not favour independence because I'm not convinced that not being part of the UK will bring me (or Scotland) any great benefits. I do, however, favour a review of the devolution settlement as a way of making it work better for both Scotland and the UK as a whole.
As to your assertion that we will not be influenced by English and Welsh MPs, I think that, if you asked them, they would consider that the boot is firmly on the Scottish foot and it's been Scotlands MPs that have had the undue influence on matters.
Personally I would stop Scottish MPs voting on English matters, etc. I would include that in the Devolution review. But I do think that we can benefit from a collective approach that being a member of the UK can bring.
Unfortunately, all my arguments are being well and truely scuppered by the cluster-**** that is the UK Goverment and Scottish Opposition. Oh how I wish for a bunch of politicians that can string an argument together and form coherent policies.
And don't tell me to vote SNP because I don't think their policies are coherent either!!
Complain about this comment
I have to ask will wendy and her brother under gordon brown now also be supporting a referendum on the EU constitution? If they are as you say brian
intuitively supportive of the concept of popular plebiscites,
Complain about this comment
If the Calman commission reports its conclusions at the end of 2008 then we might well have the utterly ridiculous situation of Labour spending all of 2009 demanding an early referendum. Assuming, the longer the SNP are in power, the more popular the idea independence becomes to voters we could have an SNP government being accused of delaying a vote on independence. Crazy times!
Complain about this comment
This United Kingdoms bit doesn't do anything for me I'm afraid. I think it's just a transparent device to attempt to fool people that "it's not really independence".
What form would this United Kingdoms take? Would it be like the Commonweath, a "mini-EU" perhaps.
Like any other separate countries, the UK and Scotland would work together on areas of mutual interest and go their separate ways when they couldn't agree. "United Kingdoms" doesn't alter that fact in any way.
But, at some point, following independence, people will have to chose whether to be "Scottish" or "UKish" and get the passport to suit. I greatly doubt whether there would be a "United Kingdoms" passport as that would require some sort of commonality in Foreign Policy, Border control, etc. that would transcend the separate states.
EU Passport, EU Foreign Ambassadors, EU Border police anyone? Noone seems to want those, so I can't see anyone wanting a "United Kingdoms" equivalent
Complain about this comment
Wendy Alexander - "I don't fear the judgement of the Scottish people" ... maybe you should Wendy - they wont be giving you 10 out of 10 anyway!
Complain about this comment
It must ,indeed , come as a surprise to supporters of the Union to find Ms Alexander doing a volte face over an independence referendum.
It should be pointed out to all ,and her in particular , that the Labour party is no longer in power despite their thoughts to the contrary.
The SNP has already stated that they wish to demonstrate their ability to govern , prior to bringing a referendum paper to the chamber.
It has also stated that this is unlikely to happen before 2010.
Plenty of time for debate and information sharing.
For her to assume she can hasten this is impudent, particularly as she has stated many a time and oft that she saw NO reason for independence to be discussed as the public had already voted on the issue by voting for more unionist MSPs last May.
If her dear brother has any say whatsoever on how the referendum will eventually be phrased, I may become violent!
In fact if Westminster has any say in the set up I may have to emulate a SUCCESSFUL Guy Fawkes.
Complain about this comment
Reading of this, uh, clarification of a long standing opinion, I could think of only one thing:
Freedom is slavery
War is peace
(and most definitely)
Ignorance is strength
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
The term 'United Kingdoms' was a word I used to describe the relationship that the United Kingdom could have under Independance for all.
Together we can talk as equals. Discussing and debating matters that may concern us as a whole.
And at the same time we have our seperate Governments, Governing the people of our Nations and bringing the best opportunites for us.
In otherwords, it shall be Independance but co-operation. Or are you implying the current Ireland/UK council is a joke?
If the United Kingdom can enter a council where Ireland and Britain can co-operate why can the Kingdoms in Britain become Independant and co-operate with one another?
Or does it have to be all or nothing with you? No compromise at all or solutions that can make it work.
And people have already chosen if they are Scottish or British. Legally I have to have a British passport. But I am Scottish now, tomorro and even after I die. I will never be British, never even if I was at gun point I would never admitt to being British.
But why would we have a United Kingdoms passport? If we are all Independant we all would have either a Scottish, Welsh etc passport.
If NI and Wales became Independant along with Scotland, and if they followed First Minister Salmonds proposal we shall share the defence of British territory and border control equally.
Scotland and England would have no borders set up either between us. Nothing would change in that sense unless West Minister disagreed with First Minister Salmond on that matter.
But I ask, what is wrong with the United Kingdoms theory? Independant but co-operative? We each have very different societies and businesses. Under a British policy we can not all be respresented equally. There shall be winners and losers but it does not have to be that way.
Pattymkirkwood: I would give her 10 out of 10. Without Wendy, the SNP would never of looked so good. Wendy is terribly clumsy and a weak Leader.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter - you will have no arguement on that one from me!
Just you would think that a year of opposition and absolutely disasterous results across the board, would have had some impact on Labour's continuing air of arrogance in Scotland ... judging from both the Alexanders recent pronouncements: it seems not!
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
I have no problem with cooperation, etc. I generally support the EU as an institution (even if I don't like some of the implementation). And, if Scotland and the UK want to cooperate on areas of mutual interest they are perfectly at liberty to do so. In fact I'd be very supportive of that if independence came about - cleary we have a shared border and mutual interests.
So, in that sense, "United Kingdoms" is fine in theory - but why call it that? Why not just say we can cooperate when we want to like any other separate countries.
What I object to is the way "United Kingdoms" seems to being sold as "Independence-Lite". It seems to me to be a marketing ploy to use the same words designed to placate the people who are uneasy about breaking up the union by saying "it's not like that really - we'll still be a union".
Otherwise why not call it "Former UK Countries Council" or "IreWelScotEng" (like Benelux)
Complain about this comment
It's absolutely mindboggling that I've been sitting watching BBC News 24 all day and have yet to see a single mention of this colossally significant story, events which appear to lead inevitably to a vote on the breakup of the 300-year Union, affecting every single person living in the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
"Lets arrange the referendum NOW (for about 6 months time)"
"The referendum should have two questions like the one for Devolution.
1st Question. Do you want Scotland to be independent. (Yes/no)
2nd Question. If No do you want more powers within the devolution settlement."
You can't have both of these things. If "more powers within devolution" is to be an option - even a secondary one, since the existence of a possible "third way" still affects the vote - then that option has to be properly defined, and presumably you'd agree that that won't happen until the Calman commission delivers its verdict, currently scheduled for an unspecified date in Summer 2009.
So you can either have a two-option referendum ASAP, or a multi-option one in 2010 (ie six months after the commission reports), probably after a UK general election. Which would you prefer?
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
You did not have a problem with how the polls which said 'seperate countries' Why do you have a problem how I imply my theory of Independant but co-operative theory?
But I did not invent the theory. Alex Salmond has stressed this matter countless times that Independance does not end the Union totally.
All Independance will do is allow the four Nations to Govern themselves.
And we can co-operate together like usual on matters that concern us as a whole.
Perhaps Independance will bring us closer by allowing one another to see why the Union was good in some areas and things like that without the bickering of differences that Scotland gets but England does not get (England faces higher perscription charges, Scotland is working on free perscriptions for example) and vice versa.
That would create a much more healthy and appreciated bond that beats any type of Union.
Anyone is free to argue about my idea that I just said. It really was just my honest opinion of how Independance can be better and more healthy for us.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campell.
You are absolutely correct. You can't have an option for more powers until you define what they are.
I will go for the two option ASAP. Then if independence is voted for, time and money will be saved by not having the commission and the country can get on with organising itself for independence.
If independence is NOT voted for then we can have a sensible discussion of the reallocation of powers within devolution without grandstanding from the independence movement.
Complain about this comment
Labour and the whole Brown/Alexander team have for months said they would not support a referendum with regard to independence. Now after getting the Tories and Lib dems on board (bet their pleased) to support a commission that under no circumstances will discuss independence they both do a massive u-turn. What a joke, they have made themselves a laughing stock, they have cost the tax payer money and they have caused upset with the other groups they cosied up to. Personally I wouldn't believe a thing they said, Ms Alexander is well know to be economical with the truth. Do they really think this will revive their flagging support. At least the SNP are upfront about independence while Labour will support the referendum as a means to end. A word to the wise for Gordon and Wendy, the people of Scotland are not as stupid as you both think they are, we can think for ourselves and we can probably see through a scam quicker than anybody else on the planet. Good luck Alex and co, Independence can't come quick enough.
Complain about this comment
While Ms Alexander's panic-stricken and unprincipled change of direction is welcome, I am left wondering about the reasons that unionists gave for not holding a constitutional referendum with independence as an option: independence was not their policy; such a referendum would drive away foreign investment and lead to a flight of capital that the UK government would have to counteract, etc., etc.
Their objections were not valid after all? What have the Tories and the Lib Dems to say about this? A week is a long time in politics. So is a weekend, it would appear.
We are now faced with the fact that an independence referendum seems to be going to be in due course yet another manifesto pledge delivered by the SNP in spite of the fact that they do not have a majority in the Scottish Parliament. You have to hand it to them. Well, Ms Alexander has just done that. Impressive.
Complain about this comment
"I will go for the two option ASAP. Then if independence is voted for, time and money will be saved by not having the commission and the country can get on with organising itself for independence.
If independence is NOT voted for then we can have a sensible discussion of the reallocation of powers within devolution without grandstanding from the independence movement."
A very reasonable perspective. It's an interesting dilemma for the Unionists (of which I am not one) - either a straight yes/no vote which current polls show would be incredibly close (41/40 in favour of independence according to the most recent survey), or a multi-option vote where "more powers within the UK" would be the strong favourite according to polls, but where the vote would take place after the very probable election of a Tory government in Westminster, which would significantly increase the independence vote as Scots feared years of Conservative rule, which is by instinct and habit hostile to Scotland.
I believe that the longer the SNP rule Scotland the more likely a vote for independence is, but even so I would happily take a yes/no referendum tomorrow, and I hope the SNP calls Alexander's desperate bluff.
Complain about this comment
A referendum to save the Labour Party's bacon? Not my idea of a noble cause. The panic button has been pressed.
We are evidently living in a period in which what seems to be impossible becomes possible if you just wait around for a little while. A good omen for independence.
We must have slipped into that alternative universe that the Secretary of State for the Scottish Region was wittering on about not so long ago.
Complain about this comment
GeneralPowers:
Are you suggesting that if a referendum about Independance was held we would loose foreign investment?
Considering that the main figures in Government come from business backgrounds I highly doubt that they would put Scotland into a position that we would loose investment.
Afterall what we loose would hit the Government hard and ruin their plans for their policies, which we can not afford if we can not tax new investments.
I doubt we would loose investment. Perhaps we would stall possible new investments untill the Government arranges their taxing policy etc So businesses know if investing in Scotland is profitable.
Complain about this comment
By existing international law, the vast majority of UK oil revenues would come to an independent Scotland, leaving it one of the richest countries in the world. (Particularly as our defence budget, to name but one thing, would also be microscopic compared to what it proportionately is now - what need would we have for warships and fighter jets and nuclear missiles?) The notion that foreign investment would recoil and withdraw from this scenario is baffling and absurd.
Complain about this comment
No, Thomas_Porter, I am not myself suggesting that foreign investment would be lost if an independence referendum is held.
I was merely referring to a unionist claim that I recall. I myself look forward to voting in an independence referendum in due course.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
We would continue to need a military with the same capabilities as we do now.
It would be smaller in size of course because Scotland has a population of around about five million but we do have responsibilities that require a military.
We should not rely on others within NATO for protection like many do already.
And...
GeneralPowers: I apologise for getting the wrong picture. I have also heard that claim but then England without oil would be more of a worry for investors since for their operations to work they would have to rely on imported oil.
But that is a personal opinion.
Complain about this comment
Brian where is the quote from the bard..how does it go ....... oh what a panic in thy breestie
A definite panic.
She says stop quoting polls at me but she obviously reads them
She says answer the question ........and when he does she asks it again and again and again.
He is running rings round her and she knows it time she was gone.
It is getting quite painful watching FMQs.
Does she really think the people of Scotland are that stupid. Does she think when we get the poll that says we want independence we would then vote labour, I don't think so Wendy
Complain about this comment
"We should not rely on others within NATO for protection like many do already."
Protection? From whom? The only country that's invaded Scotland in the last thousand years or so is England. We have no overseas colonies to protect. Large standing armies are no protection against international terrorism. Nuclear weapons are nothing but a tool for bragging and posturing on the world stage, which most Scots have no interest in. So why would we need any of those things?
I would imagine Scotland would maintain a small armed forces much like most of the "minor" European nations do. It would require nothing like the billions and billions that is our share of current UK defence expenditure.
Complain about this comment
37 - "EU Passport, EU Foreign Ambassadors, EU Border police"
All of these actually exist. The former will come into force in the UK, the recently ratified Lisbon treaty will entrench the High Commissioner for Foreign Affairs as a mouthpiece of European foreign policy (although there is some confusion as to whether this will overlap with the President of the European Commission and the new President of the European Council), but the latter does not currently apply to the United Kingdom, because we have an opt out from the Schengen Treaty.
One of the side effects of independence is a requirement to apply for membership of the EU, whose new framework (post Lisbon) will require all new members to adopt the Euro and Schengen, so Scotland will be winning powers from the UK only to hand them to Europe. This includes the central bank and monetary policy, justice, security, immigration, and much much more.
If you think having your voice heard at Westminster is bad (when to all intents and purposes there is a Scottish led government and has been for a decade), Scotland's 1% population of the EU will be crushed by the big five countries (UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy) just as happens to all other countries now with much consternation. And this will get worse when more member states join (increasing the population to a current maximum of 700 or so million!).
Complain about this comment
Phoney War.....
And So, to use the poker metaphors, Eck now shouts "All In" and tables the bill Tomorrow with the challenge for Wendy to demonstrate her new-found confidence in the will of the people by supporting a simple one-question referendum - Independence Now, Yes or No.
Of course, he won't, and of course, she won't.
Is it just me or do I hear the sound of Squeaky Bums emanating from Millbank. Or wherever it is NuLabour is run from these days.
24% in Engerland and such a screw-up in London that the racists/fascists get a seat. You can almost hear Keir Hardie and Nye Bevan revolving in their graves from here. Engerland traditionally turns Right in times of trouble but this time, We have an alternative to our traditional "socialist" home of Labour.
NuLabour have realised that the longer that Eck and the gang are in power, the more that the people of Scotland will realise that, hey, actually, they are doing not a bad job, and that actually, 2011 may well see if not a SNP Majority, then close enough for biscuits for a few disaffected Lib Dems to jump ship...
So what's it Going to be, Wendy, Jack seems to have got a nice cushy posting to Malawi when he got gubbed, Where are you going to be going ?
Can I be possibly the first to suggest Ms Alexander as the first Ambassador that we appoint from an Independent Scotland. To Join Broon in The Wilderness ?
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
Some points I want you to look up.
England was not the only country to invade Scotland in the last thousand years. Read up on it please.
An Independant Scotland would have responsibility of defending the Islands currently under British rule. We need an army there.
NATO operations that require soldiers of course we would have to contribute what we can to help out the best we can.
I also never once mentioned I supported nuclear weapons. I agree that Scotland would not need those type of missles in Scotland and I am more then happy to get rid of them.
Scots infantry are currently the worlds best infantry. We will continue to invest whatever is needed to ensure we keep that reputation.
Feel free to estmiate the cost of our army by dividing the cost of the current army between England and Scotland and the numbers involved then you should get a rough guess at what it will cost.
It is all in our price range. We can continue to have the best in the world and I hope you will not spread nonsense that you have pretty much shown you do not understand.
International Terrorism...and you have the perfect plan to combat Terrorism? Pfft please do not post what you simply do not understand unless you have something constructive to say.
Complain about this comment
The SNP's defence budget for an independent Scotland is £1.7 billion, IIRC. They have surprisingly ambitious plans for a Scottish armed forces, including warships, fighters and a large army of 20,000 men (5,000 more than now).
They think that these extra soldiers would be a 'boost to the economy'. They've also attacked Westminster repeatedly for not giving enough (useless) defence jobs to Scotland, so I think we can rest assured that they'll continue the British tradition of pouring money down the defence drain.
Given the frantic backpedalling about the monarchy we've seen from SNP supporters today, I reckon we'll see positive noises about NATO as well. Salmond will probably need to go with it to have any hope of winning a referendum. He'll gamble on the anti-american nutters who support independence sticking with him regardless.
Complain about this comment
This is not just only a very large U-turn ; it is Labour desperately trying to make the SNP seem cowardly,but the SNP have said all along that they want to show the people of Scotland that they can govern first. The SNP are doin a good job so far and labour know this and they`re more worried that with more time SNP will be riding even higher proving there worth in goverment. Labour had there chance and didn`t put the people of Scotland first and they deserve everything they get, its actually quite amusing that they dont know what they`re doing wasting time saying one thing and doing the total opposite .
Can`t understand why Labour supporters would still vote for them cause they`re in disarray and not fit to govern anything.
Complain about this comment
Charleshand:
The EU has said already that the United Kingdom would not have to apply again.
But at least Scotland can decide for itself what is good for us and what is not good for us rather then West Minister down south.
Scotland would only gain more respresentatives within the EU and if you have only spoken on myths of what might happen.
You've shown no hard facts.
Complain about this comment
Brian, your column has fast become the house magazine for the lunatic fringe of the SNP. The standard of debate is nothing short of disgraceful and heaps shame and embarrassment on the few people who bother to look at it any longer. If your cyber-nat chums what somewhere to share their snide comments and personal insults, they should put up their own website and not seek to use a public news site.
Complain about this comment
"An Independant Scotland would have responsibility of defending the Islands currently under British rule. We need an army there."
Absolute cobblers. Such things would no longer have anything to do with us, they would be the responsibility of the rump UK, which Scotland would by definition no longer be part of.
As for "the perfect plan to combat terrorism", I would hazard that the core of it is to not go around illegally invading Muslim countries. Why would terrorists even WANT to attack an independent Scotland any more than they currently send suicide bombers to Iceland or Switzerland? Heck, they tried it once when we WERE in the UK, and got their backsides kicked.
I'm sure we would retain our well-regarded infantry for UN peacekeeping duties and the like. But aircraft carriers, fighter jets, submarines and nukes? No need for them and their colossal price tags whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
It is a shame that you show no respect towards our servicemen and woman.
They do a fantatstic job with what little the Government gives them.
Its well known that they are actually under funded and forced to rake in the junk yards of Iraq for twisted bits of metal that can help with repairs.
Britain has had a Tradition of not paying enough. Tories cut the military spending when they were in power and Labour did not increase it enough despite fighting in Iraq and Afganistan.
Complain about this comment
63
I'm sorry but that's just mince.
In the independence scenario, the United Kingdom would be England, Wales, and Northern Ireland, and this country would remain within the EU.
Scotland, if it wanted to, would have to reapply, which would require it to accept the Euro, the Schengen treaty, and the Charter of Fundamental Rights, all of which the United Kingdom has opt outs from. The UK also has a large budget rebate, won by Margaret Thatcher and her hyperactive handbag.
If Scotland were to join the EU, it would probably gain a similar number of MEP's to Ireland, at the moment 13. But the Lisbon treaty restricts the members of the European Parliament to 750 MEPs, and as new member states join (there are about 250 million folks not currently in the EU) they will get a share of the pie. And so Scotland would have about 5 MEPs (or 0.67% of the total) and would not have a prominent position in the European Council like it does at the moment.
Complain about this comment
Here are the official UK defence stats:
http://www.mod.uk/DefenceInternet/AboutDefence/Organisation/KeyFactsAboutDefence/DefenceSpending.htm
By the time any independent Scotland existed, the UK's defence budget - NOT including the costs of the occupation of Iraq and Afghanistan, which add billions directly out of the Treasury, not the defence budget - would be about £40bn. So even the SNP budget suggested above of £1.7bn would be substantially less than half of our current share of the UK figure. That's well over £2bn a year extra to spend in Scotland, which buys a fair few schools, hospitals and projects like dualling the A9, to name but one. Heck, it might even pay to expand the Edinburgh tram system into something halfway worthwhile...
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
Britain has an enormous military budget that is horribly distorted by inept procurement projects, like the Eurofighter, Trident and the Type 45. If we got rid of them, we could give our soldiers better wages and equipment. Though it would mean fewer defence contract jobs for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Charleshand:
You are very wrong.
The European Union has said that if the United Kingdom was to break up then they would not have to re-apply because they were members before.
Some matters would have to be sorted out though of course with negociations but we would not be kicked out immediatly.
But you have forgotten that when we signed these treaties we did so as the United Kingdom - Wales, Northern Ireland, England and Scotland.
When one leaves the treaties become void because we would no longer be the same United Kingdom that first signed the treaties. Fact.
But there are other countries which has opt outs in these areas.
And I do not see the EU giving Scotland a hard time when we have the largest oil and gas reserve in Europe and we are positioned almost directly above all main member states.
You really under-estimate Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
"As part of most recent settlement, the Defence Budget is set to increase from a baseline of £32.6Bn in 2007/08 to £36.9Bn in 2010/11 in Total Departmental Expenditure Limit (Total DEL)"
Yes they are yet to increase the total. I am going by the approx £30 billion costs.
Scotland can afford it.
But did you know that the occupations in Iraq and Afganistan has cost well over £6 billion.
Did you also know that this money came from the British Treasury from Scotland's oil revenues?
Scotland has currently well over $200 billion sitting in the Treasury that has been spent funding nuclear missles and the Iraq wars.
(FreedoM Of Information Act)
Now that can be spent on roads, schools, hospitals and possibly a nice pair of shoes for everyone living in Britain.
Complain about this comment
I've just looked 'independance' up and it appears to be an arts and culture organisation.
Complain about this comment
I would also stress that the information that I brought up today is 100% true.
Disagree or not it will not change it.
I will also stress that you as individuals should quickly catch up and discover more what exactly will happen if an Independent Scotland occured.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
I've completely lost track of what point you're making. By any measure whatsoever, an independent Scotland would save a huge 10-figure sum on defence. We would have no obligations whatsoever to former UK colonies, no need of Trident, no need of massive capital ships, no need for our sons and daughters to occupy Iraq and Afghanistan (and die in the process).
Even retaining armed forces far in excess of our actual needs would leave us billions of pounds to spend on more valuable things for the benefit of all. Which is all I said in the first place, so I don't actually know what you're arguing about.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
"So even the SNP budget suggested above of ?1.7bn would be substantially less than half of our current share of the UK figure."
I called 1.7B ambitious, because it really is for the SNP's plans. Especially when you take into account the cost of setting up an independent command structure, officer school etc.
There's also the chance of the SNP bailing out the Scottish defence industry with old-skool socialist subsidies. I can't think of many things more likely to tug the heart-strings of a nationalist than cloth-capped navvies on the Clyde being sacked.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
You said that Scotland has no right to claim parts of Territory currently under British rule.
Which we do and we have a right and responsibility to defend them to. We fought for the Islands just as much as the English, Irish and Welsh did.
You also said that Scotland would not need fighter jets.
If they really were not needed why does every military force have fighter jets?
That was what I was arguing about.
You started adding other matters though.
Complain about this comment
This situation is very easy to explain. Wendy Alexander, Gordon Brown and the Labour party are so far into the sheer panic mode that they have lost the ability to think properly.
It has suddenly dawned on them after the English elections, that the more time that passes, the more they become unpopular. To this end they think that total U-turn on an immediate referendum is their only hope of survival.
- Opportunistic politics or what.
What the have failed to realise during their headless chicken moment is, that they will have no influence on the timetable of the referendum. The referendum will be put forward as outlined previously by the SNP. At that point if Labour blocks the proposals, they will be seen by everyone as not fit for purpose and the SNP will be returned to power with a landslide victory.
I genuinely believe Wendy Alexander could do her self serious damage in a padded cell.
Complain about this comment
As an independent nation we'd have neither right nor responsibility to defend former UK colonies. If you share a house with three other people and then leave, you don't have to keep paying the gas bill.
I notice you still haven't named these countries we're apparently at risk of invasion from, nor how an army would protect us from terrorists.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
I live next to an Offcier School where young officers are trained.
I also live next to one of many barracks.
I guess we are already half way done.
Did Labour not claim to be a Socailist Party at their Conference?
Can we expect anything different from Labour? No.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
Your first said that England was the only country to invade Scotland in the past thousand years.
The vikings were not apart of England.
Your wrong there.
We do have a responsibility wether you like it or not. England can not deny our right to the islands since we died for the Islands just as much as the next person.
The SNP has pointed this out and we hear no complaints from West Minister. End Of.
And if I shared a house (I own part of it right?) and left I would still own my part of the house.
Since Britain owns these Islands and we left we deserve our share of these houses (Islands)
The SNP pointed this out. West Minster did not deny the thought. End of.
If you have a problem send a letter to West Minister. Do not take it out on the messenger.
I'd rather have an army here to take action against Terrorism. Afghanistan, army is being used to keep the Teleban at bay and help with construction.
But you have not told me your great idea against Terrorism? You seem to have a better idea then I. Maybe you should give George W Bush a phone and tell him that you have a solution against Terrorism.
Complain about this comment
Here's the Labour brief to their footsoldiers for pre-referendum canvassing, newspaper interviews and TV soundbites.
1. We don't make that much from oil anyway so it won't help an independant Scotland (don't mention that it's kept the rest of the UK on it's feet for the last 30 years).
2. We'll all need passports to visit our relatives south of the border (don't mention that no such thing will happen).
3. We'll have to re-apply for the EU since we joined as the UK (although on the same principle so will England but let's not mention that).
4. We'll need to pay for our own armed forces and civil service (don't mention that all we need to do is take our share of the existing ones).
5. The day after independance, every company north of the border will up sticks and move to London (don't mention the companies that will move here to take advantage of our more business friendly tax regime).
5. We won't have the same influence on the world stage if we separate from the UK (don't mention that this would mean we wouldn't have to get involved in illegal wars).
6. We won't be subsidised by our kindly benefactors in the SE of England (don't mention that it's Scotland that has been subsidising them for the last 30 years).
7. Keep dreaming up similar scare stories (ignore the fact that it was the same tactics that got us chucked out of power in 2007).
Complain about this comment
Researcher 190830:
Bravo.
Several clever points mentioned.
Complain about this comment
It transpires that Wendy Alexander has not fully consulted with either Gordon Brown, Des Browne and David Cairns on this matter and that the telephones are now red-hot at Labour Scottish HQ.
Further WA's "bring it on" comments have gone down like a lead-ballon in Downing Street.
Wendy Alexander's has stuck her neck out on this and it looks like Labour MPs at Westminster are about to chop it off.
Complain about this comment
Wow! what a U turn by Wendy - can we now hope for another one and see her support the replacement of council tax with a local income tax - I'll vote for that.
Seriously though, I watched Wendy tonight on the news and I don't think she has a hope of pushing Alex Salmond into holding the Independence Referendum until he is good and ready, any more than Gordon Brown will be pushed into holding an Election before the time is opportune.
Alex would need to be a fool and he is most certainly not that. Of course Wendy will be hoping to gain the initiative and put the pressure on the SNP by using the media to influence public opinion, but I think she may have miscalculated and suspect the Scottish public are not that foolish either - the days when we voted Labour because we thought they stood for fairness and improving the working man's lot are long gone - too many snouts have been in the trough for too long.
Complain about this comment
Wendy might now find herself transported back to never never land for opening her mouth and saying the wrong thing. However it appears that her wee brother (Brown's official bootlicker) says Big Broon is not averse to a referendum, or is he getting this wrong like his election organising. The last thing the fading British Labour party needs is to lose the Scottish nodding dog MP'S that keep it in power in Westminster, without them it would probably never form a government again. Certainly to date referenda have been a no no as far as Brown is concerned,he certainly has no intention of holding one on the surrender of Britain's independence to Brussels. Wendy I think should concentrate on practising the long suffering glance heavenwards, the apopleptic look, and the squeaky squeal of indignation that causes so much amusement on the Holyrood benches.
Complain about this comment
"The vikings were not apart of England."
Ah, right. So we need an army in 2008 to protect us in case the Vikings make a big comeback...
(One could, even on the insane technical point, argue that the Vikings never INVADED Scotland, only raided it and settled the outer islands. And in either case, they were pretty much done by 1000AD, so my original "in the last thousand years or so" claim is pretty much bang on the money.)
I honestly don't know where you're getting this other crazy fantasy from. Scotland would have ZERO claim over, or responsibility for, the Falkland Islands or any such similar territory, any more than Canada or Australia do. It doesn't matter who died. Gurkhas died on the Allied side in WW2, it doesn't make them responsible for Poland now.
Complain about this comment
"But you have not told me your great idea against Terrorism?"
Yes I did. I said we should keep our illegally-invading armies out of Muslim countries where they've got no business being. Then terrorists would have no reason to attack us in the first place, like they haven't attacked any of the other countries in Europe that didn't take part in Bush and Blair's crusade. All our warmongering has done for the people of Iraq is make their lives 100 times worse, which is why I worry when people like you get a big boner for armies.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
Alexander the third the King of Scots fought the Vikings.
And they were around in the past thousand years.
And you said invaded. They entered our country and attacked us. That is an invasion. Just because occupation did not follow did not mean that it is not classed as an invasion.
You dont know your history very well.
But my point was England has not been the only country invade us in the past thousand years that you say.
Your a liar for saying something that is not true.
And now you do not know your politics.
The SNP said we have to pull our own weight on the defensive side and West Minister has not argued with them.
End of.
Now read up on your history and please read through Alex Salmonds proposals for Independence and learn the rights Scotland will have.
Stop arguing with a total stranger over matters that I simply have no control over and learn your facts next time.
Complain about this comment
"Your a liar for saying something that is not true."
Oh for Heaven's sake, man, grow up.
http://www.vikinganswerlady.com/scotland.shtml
"In the North, the men of Moray continued to stand fast against raiders from the Orkneys, until the Earl of Orkney, Jarl Sigurðr digr ("the stout") Hlodvisson was killed in 1014 at the Battle of Clontarf, marking the end of the Viking Age in the Celtic World."
Got that? The END of the Viking Age in the Celtic world was fractionally under a thousand years ago. The years of "invasion" were before that. And what I said was "a thousand years OR SO". So even on the ridiculous nitpicking level you're employing, my statement is perfectly correct. And the idea that we should fear the Vikings now is some way beyond doo-lally. I fear you need to sober up.
NOBODY is going to invade Scotland in your lifetime or mine, or our children's or our children's children's. We don't need a big army to defend our own country. We have no right or responsibility to "defend" former UK territories, except perhaps as part of a lawful UN peacekeeping force. And if we stop marching across the world sticking our tanks in other people's business, we won't have to worry about terrorists, not that an army's any use against terrorists anyway.
If you want to play with toy soldiers, get an Xbox 360.
Complain about this comment
70
You are assuming that if Scotland won independence the UK would break up. It wouldn't, not unless England, Wales, and Northern Ireland wanted it to. Wales certainly doesn't, and most people in Norther Ireland don't either.
The United Kingdom would be a legally separate entity from the brand new state, Scotland, and you know what sticklers the Eurocrats are for anal details like that.
Just because the UK has changed, doesn't mean any of its legal arrangements with the rest of the world change!
The only other countries that opt out of anything are Denmark and Ireland, and they were members before the legislation that says all future members must adopt the whole shebang.
Norway actually has the largest oil reserves by current estimates, and Norway and England have the bulk of the gas. It's not a particular advantage to Europe for Scotland to have a small - medium amount of hydrocarbon resources, because the EU will not see any revenue from taxation, and the EU consumes 80% more hydrocarbons than it produces, making it the largest importer of hydrocarbons in the world. And the future is all about not burning oil and gas if we want to reduce our carbon emissions.
I never underestimate Scotland, and I don't doubt that Scotland could become independent of the United Kingdom if it wanted to. But I understand that it is more difficult for a small country with a middling GDP per capita to influence supra national and international bodies, even with the goodwill that Scotland has in the world, especially amongst our 'extended family'.
The question for me is not so much can Scotland become independent, it's do we want it to. I'm personally happy to be part of the United Kingdom, the greatest country in the world ever! :-) Although I would prefer a truly federal solution to government, with the creation of a separate English parliament, and devolution of taxation, welfare, energy, and transport.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
You ignored my post about Alexander The Third and the battles he fought against The Vikings. Or does that not count because it would make you wrong?
But how do you know that we will not see another war soon?
Natural resources are running out, food and water and also becoming limited.
Perhaps Russia will get fed up with the NATO expansion or maybe the Chinese will decide to take what they need for their development and growing population.
Perhaps an Arab country will manage to aquire some nuclear weapons and use them on the infidels of the world (Us, The West)
You have no idea what the future holds for us but with a growing world population and less resources it would be wise to expect that it is not going to be the best years.
Are you really that blind to the world of today?
And if you knew anything about Terrorists then you will know they do not just hate us for the invasions into their countries. They hate us because we are not their 'type' and we have Democracy and other issues that they simply do not agree with.
And I do not see why you are complaining about our claim to the Islands scattered accross the world. We have a right for them and we are taking what we are able to claim.
Again. If you are unhappy then write to West Minister or start a club about it but its a known fact we have a right to claim a fair share in the Terrority and even the UN could back it up.
Complain about this comment
How does Wendy Alexander manage to transmutate everything she says or does in to manure so rapidly? She is a reverse alchemist, this could have been a great angle for Labour, but because of bad press work, poor wording, a sneering tone and a failure to get her allies and party colleagues on side - it has turned in to yet another damaging dead end for her! Simply remarkable.
Complain about this comment
Typical of bendy Wendy her party have denied the British public a referendum on the EU constitution yet suddenly she is all in favour of one on Scottish independence, the mind boggles on some of the quality and integrity of some politicians. Her latest revelation just shows that her number one priority is self motivation and nothing to do with the populace that she was elected to represent. Carry on Wendy you are doing the independence argument for them but don't get foreign funds to finance your campaign it would be frowned on.
Complain about this comment
We should have a dual referendum if Labour are up for it
1) Scottish Independence
2) EU constitution [Lisbon Treaty]
Save us all a lot of time, and keep promises
Complain about this comment
Ah, what a shame. This thread started out so nice but now seems to have decended into name calling - and that seems to be between people on the same side !!
Thomas_Porter:
What you seem to be describing with regard to "claims" seems to be a rather messy divorce not the nice cuddly "Union of Kingdoms" that AS is espousing.
Alex Salmond is no fool. He knows that the biggest obstacles to Independence are the people who want to stay in the Union and be British. He has very deliberately (and cynically in my view) chosen the words "Union of Kingdoms" to try and soften the image of Independence to try and get some of those people on board.
But your comments give the lie to that image. As I said above, it's a transparent marketing "ploy" and treats the people of Scotland like fools.
Complain about this comment
"And I do not see why you are complaining about our claim to the Islands scattered accross the world. We have a right for them and we are taking what we are able to claim."
Seriously, I would love to know where you get this utter garbage from. Please link us to your actual proper source for these deranged claims, not just some vague rubbish you've made up. If you're suggesting Alex Salmond wants to claim the Falklands for Scotland, I think you need professional help.
And Alexander fighting the Vikings doesn't mean the Vikings were invading Scotland, you balloon. Quite the opposite, in fact - they were being driven out of Shetland, Orkney etc, which had never been part of Scotland at that time. They were the victims of invasion, not the perpetrators.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vikings#The_Viking_Age
"Viking refers to a member of the Norse (Scandinavian) seafaring traders, warriors and pirates who raided and colonized wide areas of Europe from the late 8th to the 11th century."
I can't believe that I'm still arguing with someone who thinks that battles with Vikings a thousand years ago are a reason to have an army now. I think I'll leave you in the capable hands of your long-suffering nurses.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Alex Salmond never used the words United Kingdoms.
It was Sir Tom who spoke the words recently.
I think you owe Mr Salmond an apology for that remark.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
I'm very sorry Mr Salmond for erroneously suggesting that you cynically manipulate language to try and hide the true meaning of what you're saying (rolls eyes).
I didn't hear AS contradicting them tho'.
Oh, and seeing that your such a stickler for accuracy, it's Westminster (one word).
Damn, now I've decended to the same level. Think I'll go to bed.
Complain about this comment
can she get the 100
Complain about this comment
yes she can
unless the moderator is a meany?
hunner bagging on the brian taylor thread a first woo hoo.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell:
You wanted to know which country has attacked Scotland in the last 1000 years.
I said the Vikings which was true and you somehow think that is why we need an army?
I said my worries of today that may be a reason on why we need a large army. Growing powers Russia and China and lack of resources to share with a growing population etc
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2007/08/13103747/0
This will explain everything from EU to NATO and other optioons that we have discussed today.
You are now making up alot of bull that I have not said because you can not handle that I am right.
I never said we needed an army to protect ourselves from the vikings. I said they attacked in the last 1000 years to answer your question.
I never said Scotland would claim the Falklands to ourselves. I said we would defend it together etc
Any other lies you might want to add?
Feel free your only making yourself look bad if anyone actually reads what we have spoken about then they will know your all over the place.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Good thing my Politics class does not mark you for your use of English or maybe I would be failing the course.
Complain about this comment
Sorry to butt in (me being a Englishman and all :) ) , but if Scotland does leave the Union how are you going to trade with Europe ?
I presume by joining EU ?
But the UK at this moment can not get its own way in critical matters of self Governing (thats with 60 million people) , how is Scotland going get its way in Europe on its own ?
Are you not going to trade in one lot of sharing power with another lot , but percentage wise be even smaller and have even less of a say on laws imposed on you from the EU ?
Don't get me wrong , I am not having ago , I just interested in how its going to work ?
Most English peoples want to leave the EU project and go back to the free trade agreement that we gave consent for in the early 1970's . So we can regain some law making powers again !
Yes if this happed this might even mean you will have to put up EU border controls between England and Scotland as the rest of the UK will be outside of the EU.
Look forward to any reply's
Sorry if I ramble on a bit !
Complain about this comment
Steve-London:
You do not need to be in the European Union to trade with other European countries.
Scotland would be entitled to greater respresentation since we have smaller population. I guess it would be a gamble and we can only hope that we can argue our case for what Scotland needs well enough for the European Union to leave us alone in that area.
If England and Scotland stay within the EU we shall share our own borders. We are already seperate in this area with Brussels having no say but even an Independent Scotland and Independent England would share a border force to control what gets in and out.
It would be in our best interest since for example having a great border force down south would be pointless with up north the border had 'holes' in it.
We would share the resources and create plans etc to make sure we are doing our best.
Complain about this comment
104
If you are not in the European Union then you will need to negotiate bilateral trade agreements with all EU members countries, or join the European Economic Area (if that's still possible post Lisbon?)
As I've said before, if a new state of Scotland wants to join the EU it'll have to sign up to Schengen, which means that it will share a common immigration policy with the EU, but separate from the UK. So there will need to be a border crossing point with a passport control, unless Scotland can negotiate a special opt out.
Complain about this comment
I think Wendy is correct in her support for a Scottish referendum!!!
If Labour is actually listening to people as they promised to do, then Labour in Scotland, has no choice!!!
However I do not think that Wendy’s reasons for supporting the referendum are honourable.
Like Labour in 1979 I believe that Wendy and Co will be hugely awkward, will attack, and attempt to hinder, bend the results and, if possible, even scupper the referendum process before it’s conclusion. They will campaign against Independence regardless of facts or Scottish opinion just to serve their England based masters!!! Just as they have for years until now, against Scottish opinion, against the very notion of a referendum in the first place.
Be very wary of Bendy Wendy Brown Licker and her rogues.
Complain about this comment
Steve - London
If Scotland becomes independent, it would according to international law be a member of the EU and every other treaty that the present UK is party to, as would the remaining part of the UK.
We would still be neighbours and share many common interests on the international arena. Within the EU our combined EMPs would increase, our commissionaires would increase, in short our combined influence would in fact increase.
Complain about this comment
look forget the arguments about the eu for the meantime.
brian can you please find out if wendy is now supporting a referendum what is the purpose of the callman commsion.
also why is the bbc saying an aide close the prime minister is not worried about independence when the PM is apparently saying
nope nope nothing to do with me it was all wendys idea.
why couldnt she say when on channel four news she had her road to damascus moment then why did she avoid saying wether gordon brown approved or not?
could someone please find out?
we need to know the answers to these questions?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
Hi
Thanks for the reply Thomas.
"You do not need to be in the European Union to trade with other European countries."
Thats true , but your goods would have a import surcharge put on them by the European Country ?
Would this not make goods harder to export to the EU , if you were not a member ?
"Scotland would be entitled to greater representation since we have smaller population. I guess it would be a gamble and we can only hope that we can argue our case for what Scotland needs well enough for the European Union to leave us alone in that area."
So the plan is to join the EU.
I know what you are hinting at , the UK Gov does not argue in the interests of the Scottish people in the EU, I would say they do not argue in the interest of the English people either .But thats another subject :)
Thanks for the info on the current thinking of how a independent Scotland would deal with these issues.
We do not hear the details of the discussions Scotland is having , so we are in the dark down here.
Anyway good luck , whatever happens .
Complain about this comment
Thanks for all the information , I just wanted to know current thinking in Scotland.
I'll leave you to your discussion .
Good luck whatever happens.
Complain about this comment
wait till thurs--scottish questions
firstly wendy will humiliate herself
then big alec--will humiliate her
then tories--will humiliate her
then libdems-will humiliate themselves
Complain about this comment
Steve-London:
We could get a free trade agreement without joining the EU but that would take negociations but yes we could face our goods being taxed including what we buy from them.
But I do not like the EU personally. It puts to much pressure on the member states to change faster then the public wants them to.
The UK does not always argue in our interest. We've lost alot due to them and their Labour MP's, that is why there is alot of fuss with the Nationalists very popular that they may get alot of seats in the next General Elections.
But because we have different economies and what not there will always be losers. But thats why I also agree with Independence that we can create an economy based on what we can build on instead of one of us loosing out.
You could say because of the high tax then Scotland looses out and England pays the bill for placing those in Scotland either in unemployment or those who manage to keep a job then whatever they sell is subsidised for them to compete.
Complain about this comment
Do it Scotland - the time has come.
Sadly there's no chance that England will even be recognised as a nation let alone be given a voice on this issue.
Complain about this comment
Aye, but, no, but, aye, but
So now that Wendy is all for a referendum, does that mean the Constitutional Commission, will now discuss what Sir Kenneth Calman said they would defiantly not be on the agenda, I hope the other members of that parcel of rouges agree.
Sound a bit like knee jerk politics, maybe Brown thinks now is their best time to win a referendum before the SNP show Scotland just what it can achieve if they controlled their own future.
Isn’t it good to see the control westminsters Mr bean has over his wee Scottish lap dog, come on wendy “walkies” bring the poop bags.
Steveh
Complain about this comment
Although it will not happen, there are four key options that are argued about. First independence, and second more powers (Home Rule). Third there is the status quo, but let us remember there is a fourth option too, the one at least in part supported by Gordon Brown and some conservatives, of returning powers to Westminster. This option might be styled the pre-1999 constitutional arrangements. Furthermore, there are significant numbers in the electorate who would support each option,and all voices should be heard.
Having the full range of options on the table would seem an exciting prospect, and therefore perhaps, one to be avoided by governments!
Complain about this comment
well , all of a sudden no one is talking about the labour party getting an absolute drupping last week.the lib dems and the tory's have just been politically shafted by u-bend wendy.if the lib dems and the tory's actually have a spine will this mean the end of the calman commision ?having a yes no question is no use to me or millions of others. i back devolution max with no powers given back to westminster. the status quo is no longer acceptable to the vast majority of scots and as usual the people of scotland are way in front of our political class. can someone please remind them all it is actually up to us the people to deicide our future not them!!
Complain about this comment
Calculation and fear, a good choice of header
I too see the issue as a blend, but merely one of party and personal interests driven I feel by the currently unpopular Gordon Brown; there is clearly a need for Labour to maintain its Westminster numbers or the games a bogie.
I find it difficult to square as honest Wendy Alexander's new-found support for a referendum on independence, with her previous utterance that independence and its associated referendum were an “obsession” for the Nationalists and not a topic for serious-thinking politicians.
The fear is obvious, the fear is of a double whammy, electoral defeat at both Holyrood and Westminster; David Cameron’s attitude towards Scotland's Conservatives makes it clear he feels they are a waste of effort and places his bet on the SNP delivering a double defeat to Labour, an act which he is incapable of achieving with the aid of the Scottish Conservative rump.
Wendy Alexander's gamble for that is what it amounts to is a bluff in an attempt to pull a referendum forward from the currently stated timescale to one which would suit Labour at both Westminster and Holyrood; possibly before the SNP could further demonstrate their ability to Govern and before the Scottish voters have had time to assess the alternatives but more importantly before the next General Election.
I think that both Gordon Brown and David Cameron if he ever gets into office would be wary of the independence referendum; many commentators were astounded at the figures pertinent to the financial losses were released quoting £50 million per day when the Forties pipeline was shut down; shooting oneself in the foot would seem an apt expression.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown's droning on about 'Britishness' is part of a calculation. he daren't have Scots independence until he and his EU friends have completed the long held plan of abolishing England and breaking it into euro-regions. As soon as the Scots get independence, so, de-facto, will England, as the Welsh will not be far behind. At which point it will be much more difficult for Brown and the EU to break us up, so I say, go for it Scotland! England forever!
Complain about this comment
Many Scots may well not vote for full independence should a referendum come earlier than the next Westminster and Holyrood elections. Labour should not however take that to mean that the electors will vote Labour rather than SNP, and Wendy should certainly not imagine that she will be occupying Bute House after the subsequent elections.
Another factor Wendy should consider is the resentment of many electors, if they feel they are being pushed into a referendum to help Labour out.
Be careful Wendy, very careful.
Complain about this comment
"BE VERY, VERY CAREFUL ...WHAT YOU WISH FOR (A vote on Indypants) ...IT MIGHT JUST HAPPEN!"
and when you wake up in the morning?
"Maaaaam .. we've painted our bedroom black!"
Complain about this comment
The First Minister will no doubt be considering taking an early opportunity (the next FMQs, just conceivably) to propose that, in view of Ms Alexander's somewhat fishy conversion to the independence-referendum cause, a cross-party conference should be organized within the framework of the National Conversation to agree the wording, organization and timing of a consultative independence referendum to be held under the aegis of the Scottish Government.
While I would not claim to have any particular expertise in political strategy myself, I would be surprised if a response along these lines is not being prepared.
The little fishie has taken the bait. Now haul her in, Mr Salmond.
Complain about this comment
Thanks AberEnglishman !
But you have to play your part!
Started well with the local elections ,keep up the pressure! ( Not forgetting the lovely Boris!!)
Brian , I do hope you watched Channel 4 news!
Complain about this comment
Why has the UK PM not expressed a view on the Alexander referendum initiative?
As The Times has put it, he used to be indecisive ... but now he's not so sure.
Complain about this comment
Why is this just a Scottish decision? We English (and the Welsh and Irish) should also have a vote on whether Scotland should be independent. Personally I have thought for decades that we are millstones around each others necks and that both of us would be better off without the other so I would certainly vote for it.
Complain about this comment
Well, at least Wendy got tongues wagging, this wil be the 125th? post on Brian's blog. Brian, you're right, this is the Labour party playing politics. They are not even remotely concerned about what the people of Scotland think, just trashing the SNP Government. It will fail to damage the SNP as the Scottish people ain't stupid and will see through this as pure political manoeuvering. Salmond has planned to put this to the people from day 1 of his Government. All he wants is the issues to be debated, in the National Conversation, while proving what a Scottish Government, with the cajones to stand up for Scotland, can do. Wendy and her cohorts should be ashamed of not doing so when they were in power. Roll on 2010....
Complain about this comment
Support an independence referendum? Thanks, Wendy! I can't wait to come home after all these years!
Complain about this comment
Both sides have miscalculated here, with results that would be funny if not so potentially dangerous for us all.
The Nats thought it would take time to prepare the ground, and now fear missing their chance.
Labour feared a poll too soon after the SNP win, but now realise a "no" vote is winnable.
It cannot be good for the SNP that in the midst of turmoil, even ridicule, Labour see an oportunity. People are adding up the costs of Salmond's efforts so far, and see no Westminster bail-out being prepared. But the SNP can take comfort - Labour will do the stupid thing, whatever it is.
On a non-partisan basis, a plague on both your houses, chums, I think both parties should think carefully about a referendum when public ignorance and confusion is at its peak, and the waters have been deliberately muddied.
The unionist within me sees the bigger danger as independence, but a close result either way could leave us counting the cost for generations.
Please Mr Salmond, Ms Alexander, could you not just try to make things work as they are? For a wee while? Don't get caught feuding while Big Boris whips away Scotland's share of UK cash for London.
Complain about this comment
Another comment from an interested Engishman.
It seems that perceptions over who is doing well out of the current Union vary wildly north and South of the border (you believe we are and we believe you are!); some independent clarity would be good.
A decision on a wholly independent Scotland is properly a decision for Scotland to take; however any decisions on assets and debts of the Union and how they should be divided up are matters for discussion, not for unilateral decisions. As for additional powers for Scotland within the Union again this would be a matter for discussion; there is no way that most of England would accept this without the West Lothian issue being sorted once and for all.
Researcher 190830 made some interesting
points:
3. "We'll have to re-apply for the EU since we joined as the UK (although on the same principle so will England but let's not mention that)" - wrong, the UK joined the EU and unless it breaks up completely (ie Northern Ireland and Wales also leave) then it will continue - there are no proposals (yet!) for an independent England.
4. "We'll need to pay for our own armed forces and civil service (don't mention that all we need to do is take our share of the existing ones)" - that gets you the bodies (if they opt to become Scottish) but not the budget.
5. "The day after independance, every company north of the border will up sticks and move to London (don't mention the companies that will move here to take advantage of our more business friendly tax regime)" - the current UK tax regime was put in place by Mr Brown and continued by Mr Darling, they do not represent English (or Welsh or Northern Irish) constituencies and as such will have NO place in any post-Scottish independence Westminister parliament; given that England has NEVER voted Labour what do you think the chances are that there would not be radical changes in such a situation? London attracts business because of the City or else many companies would be now tax resident in Ireland or Holland for exactly the reasons you give.
Complain about this comment
With reference to Wendy, I dont think that she is right to endorse a referendum, as I think that correct mechanism for decision making is election time. It seems to me that to have such things decided by the internal wranglings the Labour party or the dateline established by the nats as more likely to produce the 'right' result, is surely undemocratic.
However, if Wendy is going to go down this road, then surely she will have the good sense to propose a referendum in partliament in 6 months time or whatever, and see what the nats do.
She will also need to be on her toes at FMQ's as Salmond has beaten her hands down on every occasion so far. If she thinks this is a winner for her, she's going to have to have an answer to the torrent of abuse (and newspaper quotes) which Salmond will through at her.
Complain about this comment
In my time I was considered a fairly prolific writer. But having re-read the whole blog, I am convinced that no three people could produce so many words as those whose views comprise more than half the space used.
You know who you are. Not a word of sense, compromise, or future ideas among you. Do you really think this puerile exchange of slogans helps our country? Yah boo, we're better than you!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I have just listened to Radio Scotland's lunchtime news programme and heard the Dowager Duchess herself (that's your Aunte AnnaB) completely destroy this new approach by the 'wee bendy'.
It was wonderful, even the redoutable Mhairi hardly got a look in.
To translate Annabel: 'here endeth the Calman commission'; and, by the way, 'wee bendy is dead in the water'
Vintage stuff from the DD.
(And Brian can you and the blog managers get to grip with the 3 or 4 bloggers who seem to have hijacked this blog for a while and made it their personal fiefdom!!)
Complain about this comment
BridagdierJohn/Freedjmac
I assume that I am one of the three people you are referring to.
I'm sorry that you think I (and the others) hijacked this forum and that you think that our opinions lack merit.
However, I believe that this thread has actually been one of the best ones in the blog. Until it decended into personal abuse between Rev_S_Campbell and Thosmas_Porter in the evening, for me it actually contained some interesting views and arguments. Infinitely better than the abusive sloganising that normally passes for debate on these threads.
Having some opinions and being prepared to defend them is much better than the "bendy wendy" comments which, while being true, actually progress the debate not one iota.
So, get involved, don't just report what has been said on the radio, state your position and be prepared to defend it vigorously. Maybe then we can raise the level of debate and educate the masses as to the real issues at stake. It might even have the effect of making me talk more sense.
Complain about this comment
I suspect even the SNP secretly realise that genuine Scottish independence would likely be at best disastrous for Scotland, and at worst a much worse situation than the current "have your cake and eat it one".
It's a shrewd move from Labour in Scotland though, as it is the only way to disarm what is a very hefty political weapon, and ironically one that is most dangerous when constantly threatened and never actually used.
Complain about this comment
MightyFop, shrewd ??
How do you work that out?
Deathwish maybe!
Complain about this comment
When the Independance debate is finally engaged, I hope that some consideration will be given to the rights of those Scots living abroad? It would be wrong and most improper - presumptious, even - to disenfranchise those of Scottish birth by denying them a vote on the future of their homeland. It is equally wrong to afford the right to vote on the matter to those foreigners who happen to live in Scotland and are on the electoral roll.
This poxy Labour Government did this when devolution was first introduced and I would not like to see that tactic repeated.
Complain about this comment
No wonder Wendy is worried, a swing away from Labour will have catastrophic effects on her party. It is highly unlikely that the Scots will flee to the Tories, their natural refuge will be the SNP, who haven't been putting on a bad show so far. The Liberals will get something back, because they remain the acceptable face of unionism, but without the conviction of the Labour camp. So problems for Wendy and Gordon. Without the significant numbers of Scottish Labour MPs, they will lose the UK and probably never get it back. This leaves the Scottish people facing a majority government in the south with unpalatable right wing leanings, no matter how they dress it up. ( The Thatcher legacy lives on) This is likely to drive the Scots further towards the SNP as the moment they have a majority, all things change. It's actually the safest way to vote. Wendy can't get away from this reality, supporting the referendum may be an attempt to prepare for the future in which, in a multi party system, there will be a place for a Labour party in the independent Scottish Government.
Time for Alex to start laying out the real detail of the costings and revenues, there are literally thousands of institutional expenses which will come our way post independence, I hope the planning is well advanced and it's time we had the information.
As for UKs, nice idea, but we have the EU, which has political philosophies much closer to the Scots than those likely to prevail in a Tory England. Do we even need Royalty, we will be able to ask the question.
Wendy may think that a referendum prior to the next parliamentary election will defuse this situation, she's kidding herself. Better to prepare for the influx of refugees from the south, who will not like what they are left with, maybe Gordon will move back into the family manse.
Complain about this comment
As an Englishman, I see no reason why Scotland, after independence, should not have the same relationship to us as do the Isle of Man and the bailiwicks of Jersey and Guernsey.
Complain about this comment
Don't you just love the english? Not only are they ignorant, hypocritical and imperialist they also have no say at all on the matter. Being Welsh I also have no say on Scottish matters - or shouldn't.
Before this comment gets censored by the probably english moderator let me just prove my points.
1. Ignorant - many of the english people commenting here and on nick's blog are assuming that Scotland will get chucked out of the EU and that england will be welcomed with open arms immediately! Wrong.
2. Hypocritical - How can a country be a "client state" (which means that it should decide on it's own internal affairs without outside iterference) when you english want a referendum on independence for Scotland.
3. Imperialist - This third point is tied up to the second point by calling Scotland a client state! read the treaty mate! It was a union of two countries (at least we Welsh were placed under the english yoke by conquest!). So the comments of "client state" is completely absurd! Where the hell are you living? Googoo gaga land? This point incidentally ties in with point 1 as well.
And also the assumption that you english want a say on Scottish matters i.e. referendum and yet you don't want Scottish MPs in Westminster! You just don't understand it do you.
While we're at it let's not forget Wales!
Complain about this comment
I had to share this example of dribbling unionist mentalism in all its spectacular glory from Nick Robinsons blawg.
"1. At 12:33 pm on 06 May 2008, Charles_E_Hardwidge wrote:
This is a shrewd and brave move from Wendy Alexander. By robbing Alex Salmond of his straw man argument almost his entire programme for governance goes up in a cloud of smoke, and by giving people what they want Wendy Alexander?s star will shine accordingly.
Another plus from this may be that resolving the Scottish question may help provide a counterbalance to London and the, mostly, insignificant Mayor Johnson. A strong Scotland would be confident and assist the English in throwing off the arrogant yoke of a self-serving financial industry.
Wendy for the win-win. Hazzah!"
Complain about this comment
As an Englishman who believes firmly in the Union I'm always disappointed in the Independence view especially as the Unionist argument never really gets played out. What's more, the practicalities of separation would, most likely, be a disaster for both countries.
However, I'm sure the majority of people outside of Scotland don't really care either way and would be quite glad to let you fall flat on your faces should that be the case.
The big benefit would be an end to your whining on about it!
Separation, and no more will they won't they - Bring it on!
Complain about this comment
-osian-
Sounds like you got issues with the English ?
Oh to be able to discuss them , you might learn we are not all as bad as you think !
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS