Where's your referendum now?
So where's your referendum now? At Prime Minister's Questions, Gordon Brown offered an entirely different interpretation of the scenario offered by Wendy Alexander.
According to Mr Brown, Ms Alexander had not demanded an immediate referendum on Scottish independence.
"That", he opined in response to David Cameron, "is not what she said."
Rather she intended to review matters after - and only after - the cross-party Calman Commission has produced its ideas for the revamp of devolved powers.
So let me get this straight. When Ms Alexander deployed an unaccustomed demotic touch by declaring "bring it on", she was actually saying that this was an issue which should await the outcome of an extensive and lengthy review.
Mr Cameron said the Prime Minister was "losing touch with reality". Alternatively, one might suggest that he has apparently lost patience with Ms Alexander.
Far from endorsing her standpoint, he went out of his way to dilute it.
Substantial obstacles
This lends credence to the notion - floated on this blog yesterday - that there was both "anger and disappointment" in Westminster Labour circles over the manner and nature of Ms Alexander's initiative.
The Tory leader said, further, that Mr Brown had "lost control of the Scottish Labour Party".
Strictly, of course, this was a matter for the elected leader of the party at Holyrood. That led Team Alexander to insist that Mr Brown was "relaxed" about developments.
He did not look or sound hugely relaxed to me.
There's a further development on this story. It appears that there may be substantial obstacles in the path of Wendy Alexander's back-up plan - to table her own bill.
Firstly, she would require the support of at least one other party to table such a bill. Secondly, if there is the prospect of a Government Bill on a comparable topic - then a member's bill is ruled out.
Given that SNP ministers plan their own Bill for a referendum in 2010, this would appear to be a problem.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
There's more. Wendy Alexander tells me she has spoken to Gordon Brown post PMQs.
They are, apparently, "united" in their resolve to harry the SNP.
And those differences? Apparently, what matters is that they are, severally and collectively, targeting the SNP over the issue of an independence referendum.
Why, then, did the PM tell David Cameron that he was wrong in his suggestion that Ms Alexander wanted a referendum "now"?
Because, apparently, she doesn't. She wants to begin the lengthy legislative process asap so that the referendum could be held next year, not in 2010 or 2011.
Why did he say that the whole issue would have to await the report of the Calman Commission - when Wendy Alexander said the two issues were quite separate?
Apparently, there is no confusion. Both agree that reviewing the powers of the Scottish Parliament is important.
Both agree that it is right to harry the SNP who are, seemingly, backsliding over the issue of tabling a referendum bill. (That is, incidentally, news to the SNP.)
'Labour mess'
Is the issue damaging for Labour? Yes. It's a mess. SNP ministers in the Garden Lobby had to pinch themselves to stop grinning so evidently.
But, you know, Labour MSPs are, mostly, still adamant that the "early referendum" plan leaves them, ultimately, in a better place.
As one put it to me: "It's been messy, really messy, but we've got to the right strategy."
How did it come about? Wendy Alexander freelanced on a tactic she believes is correct without fully finalising consultation with colleagues, especially in Downing Street.
For Gordon Brown, this isn't part of the game plan. Quite simply, he doesn't want to talk about Scotland.
He needs to address Middle England/Britain: concerns over tax, housing, crime, immigration and the economy.
Further, talk of a referendum on Scotland is particularly unhelpful. Why would he favour a referendum on Scottish independence - a prospect he abhors - when he is simultaneously refusing repeated demands for a popular plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~42~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
Clearly wee Gordon 'Pa' Broon hasn't been watching his BBC iPlayer. If he had been he might have seen Wendy on Newsnight Scotland wanting a referendum now and not wanting to wait on the calman commission (which isn't looking at a referendum on independence anyway).
Clearly the communication lines between Labour MSP's and MP's is as non existent as it was when they were both in power.
Wendy looked desperate on Newsnight Scotland last night without really being put under any pressure.
PS: Why was it only the three unionist parties that were represented last night? And why wasn't nicol grilled about the liberals being able to have a coalition government if they didnt have to back a referendum. Now the SNP have a majority in favour it wouldn't be a problem!
Complain about this comment
What a fiasco, one woulds have thought that Wendy, suposedly "one of the best political minds in Scotland" would have thought this one through properly before she opened her gub.
Once again she has showed bad judgement over the issue, how her unionists pals must be reeling, what is concensus politics anyway?
Scottish labour is found wanting once again under the helm of Captain Wendy.
Keep up the good work!! Alex Salmond is proud of you.
Complain about this comment
Well, here we are again another day another u-turn. No support from pa broon for Ms Alexander (her with the foot in mouth disease). Now we find out that she may be in breach of parliamentry rules. Just because you got off scot free once Wendy doesn't mean to say they will bow to your "unintentional faux pax" this time. The week just gets more interesting by the minute. Maybe that's because that's how fast the labour party are changing their manifesto.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown "losing touch with reality".
Lost touch with reality is much nearer the mark.
Come on Scotland the Brave - demand your freedom - and set the English, Welsh and Irish free too.
We'll love you for it. Really - bring it on.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
'Curiousier and curiousier' seems to be the right adage to apply to the tactics being deployed by wee bendy in this matter.
We have now heard Pa Broon's complete reluctance to support wee bendy in PMQ's. And we are told (by a competent BBC website) that her plan to bring in a referendum bill on her own will be thwarted by the Holyrood rules that 18 members of other parties must support such a bill before it can be brought forward.
And with NicolS and Auntie Anna still picking the wee bendy knives out of their backs just where can those 18 votes come from??
Oh and was that the good ship SS Calman Commission just taken out by the wee bendy exocet??
You just could not make this up, but what a fascinating time in Scottish political history!!
Complain about this comment
I think Wendy's P45 is in the post!
Complain about this comment
Brian, I expect there are many in the political circles who like and admire Wendy. She gets a lot of slack from being one of the late Donald Dewar's favoured whizz kids. Equally, I am sure that she is probably decent company around the dinner table.
But the past is the past and surely now everyone can see that, as a political leader she has so many failings that it is sometimes hard to see past the hilarity of it all and focus on her being a major liability for the Labour Party's Scottish branch.
She and her team of advisors are more the equivalent of a bunch of "C-list" celebrities all gathered in the Big Brother house to entertain us, than they are a serious political force.
Wendy and her inner circle are good entertainment value for sure, but that factor comes at a heavy cost. They are a total embarrassment to Scotland and a sign that the Labour Party is doomed in this country.
Brown must be delighted that she is malfunctioning at the same time as he has done so! The man does not need to go seeking his troubles!
Complain about this comment
I have just watched PM's question time and, Brown was quite clear, Nothing will happen, if at all, until after the Calman Commission has reported. He also clearly stated that a referendum now was not what Wendy Alexander said, you could have fooled me I watched it and that is what she said. She has also been running around stating that she may table her own bill if the SNP do not hurry up and table the bill they are proposing. She almost certainly can't, given the parliamentary rules.
Another huge, unwanted and, unnecessary political mess has been created by Wendy. When Labour come to realize what she has done I wonder how long she will last.
Complain about this comment
I'm with Wendy, this far. Bring it on. Obviously I'm hoping for the opposite result from the one she's hoping for, but...
Whenever this referendum is held, there will be lies, disinformation, distortion. People (on both sides of the argument) will try to influence the outcome by manipulating voters emotions and fears. That's sad, but it's inevitable. Whenever it happens, it will be a gamble.
But now is a good time. The government is popular, and the unionist parties are all for one reason or another in disarray. Meantime, the price of oil is at an all time high, which would be good for an independent Scotland (a net exporter) but is bad for the United Kingdom (a net importer).
Alec's strategy is to assume that his government will continue to be popular for the next three years. He could be right, but there are many pitfalls in his way. The iron is hot now, and I think he should say 'thanks, Wendy, what an excellent idea' - and go for it.
After all, if we should lose, we will still have the opportunity for a second bite at the cherry later. The very fact that Wendy is putting it forward indicates that the union is now in play, and one referendum - unless it is utterly decisive, which is unlikely - is not going to save it.
We can afford to gamble far more than the unionists can.
Complain about this comment
Regardless of your position on independence, this is surely the beginning of the end for Wendy Alexander. Why?
- she has completed an astonishing U-turn in the space of a few weeks
- this started as a result of an interview on the BBC by the excellent Glen Campbell, i.e. making policies based on TV discussions
- she has lost the backing of, and frustrated and embarrassed Gordon Brown and others at Westminster
- she has put Labour in a position where they would now look incredibly foolish if they did not support a vote for a referendum when the SNP table it
- she has moved the party exactly where the SNP wanted it, in fact further than they could even have hoped, i.e. not just discussing constitutional change, but actually supporting a referendum
- she has isolated the Calman Commission before it has even got properly started
But worse of all for Labour supporters, she may have just opened the door for independence for Scotland.
Surely it is time now for Labour members to remove her and replace her with someone of sufficient standing to act as a proper opposition in Holyrood.
That would be to the benefit of all parties.
Complain about this comment
hahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
can you hear my sides splitting.....
You couldnt make this stuff up.......
SLP ...what a joke
even you brian must admit they are in a state....
Complain about this comment
and to think Scottish Labour used to label Salmond a reckless gambler, gambling Scotland's future....
Whit a disaster this woman is!
Complain about this comment
It's difficult to view this as anything other than chaos.
Complain about this comment
Oh Boy what a tangled web!
First there was Wendy on Sunday with Glen Campbell. (And only a few weeks ago, in Aviemore, she was saying exactly the opposite to you Brian)
Then there was Wendy on Newsnight last night when in between the 'bring it on' scenario she said that she had spoken to G Brown today.
And she never seemed to realise - or had she forgotten - that the Calman lot have not got a remit to discuss Independence from the way she was talking.
And there was Annabelle and Nicol, obviously had heard the same as the viewers and were not exactly amused. They support this commission.
Then Gordon in Westminster saying she did not say what viewers heard and that she was referring to the Calman lot(see above)
Where does this leave Calman and co? Who is being inconsistent? What is the remit?
What a tangled web or is it a cat's cradle?
Complain about this comment
What a disaster for both Gordon Brown and Wendy Alexander.
Last night Wendy Alexander said that Gordon Brown fully endorsed her position on an immediate referendum.
Today Gordon Brown is saying the exact opposite, he doesn't endorse the stated position of Wendy Alexander.
It is incompetence, dither and stupidity writ large. The Labour party can kiss goodbye to power in either Scotland and England for a very long time.
Complain about this comment
I feel genuinely sad for Wendy Alexander. What a terrible mess. Who is briefing her? It's no wonder the SNP government and their ministers are being admired by the electorate and business: this is spotlight on Labour and it's... painful. I hope Alex Salmond steers Scotland through this in a commanding and statesman-like way as Labour are not doing our country any favours by looking so lamentably ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
I'm looking forward to FMQs tomorrow!
With a week off and having to better Nicola Sturgeon's wonderful showing last week, Alex Salmond couldn't have wished for a better circumstance than Ms Alexander's on/off referendum call.
Hard hats everyone!
PS Got to feel sorry for Wendy a wee bit.
Complain about this comment
If this is what happens when Alex Salmond takes a few days off, can you imagine what would happen if he took a proper holiday? Prepare for a Treasury spokesperson to announce that it really was Scotland's oil after all and to offer to pay back every penny with interest!
It really is difficult to see what more the Labour party could do to improve the chances of the SNP achieving their goal.
But there is one thing that continues to puzzle me:
Alex Salmond, in a bid to get a majority in Holyrood to vote for a referendum, has said he would be willing to have a multi-option referendum.
Wendy Alexander has now said she favours a straight choice - independence, yes or no.
And yet surely it's in the SNP interests to have a single question because every poll shows that "more powers" would beat "independence". Shouldn't the main paries be arguing the other way round?
The only way I can understand it is that they both assume that the people would vote against independence. Salmond therefore reckons that a vote for more powers in 2010 would leave the door open for an independence referendum sometime around 2020. But Alexander's gamble is that a no vote to independence in 2010 would kill the debate (and the SNP) for at least a generation. Is that what is really behind all this posturing?
Complain about this comment
Yes , Alex, be nice at FMQ, its not nice to mock the aflicted...
Keep your Dignity Alex and dont gloat in public.
Wendy is doing anough damage , she doesnt need you to twist the knife, there will be plenty more chances to do that.!!!
Just stick to the facts.
Complain about this comment
I think this is a big mistake. Labour are either very sure they will win a referendum at a time when their support is faltering, not only in Scotland but across Britain, and the likelihood of a Tory government is on the horizon; or else they think they can derail the process by wording a question in such a way that it will not be acceptable to the SNP. The danger with the latter is that they might alienate large sections of the electorate who feel that their money and time is being wasted in being asked to vote on a non-question. I think that would be an incredibly stupid move but one that is certainly not beyond Labour. I predict a decline in support for the Labour party in up-an-coming polls in Scotland and a rise in support for independence. This has been a catastrophic error.
Complain about this comment
From down here in England - possibly Wales and Northern Ireland too - this all looks a little different.
It is a matter of supreme indifference to English people whether Scotland seeks independence now, later, or decides to continue with devolved powers alone. That's up to you.
What IS of concern to the people of England - as it should be to the people of Scotland, I think - is that the constitutional framework of the UK, of Scotland and indeed England is being decided by Wendy Alexander as an element of a political game of 'chicken', played for party advantage, in a electorate of less than 10% of the UK.
Complain about this comment
As one of Wendy's constituents (we all have our burdens to bear in life) I cannot wait on a referendum on her.
Is she secretly working for the SNP? The cause of Scottish Independence has never had a more diligent and dedicated campaigner than Wendy Alexander.
I have it from good sources that Wendy is now in line for the Montieth Prize for Outstanding Contribution To Scottish Independence - First Prize £950.
Complain about this comment
Are we moving closer to 1980,s style politic,s with the recent local election in England giving the conservatives another strong hold in the southern comfort zone been enough to pre-empt wendy on the constitutional question of Scotland,who knows?with the labour vote in meltdown can she be that confident that a referendum can be won?
Complain about this comment
Post 18/GrandfatherFlump raises a good point about Labour and SNP wanting a 2/3 question referendum.
I can understand why Salmond said he might consider a three option referendum (as opposed to not getting one passed at all) but really don't know why Wendy Alexander is wanting a straight Yes/No question.. seems to be against her interests.
The Brown vs Alexander comments are strange as well. It all seems to be turning into farce - you really couldn't make this stuff up.
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland, firstly welcome to the BBC Blether with Brian.
Without being rude to you, I fail to see you point on the 10% figure you quoted. Surely you are not inferring that the English People have any say on the Breakup of the United Kingdom. As in any contract each party has the right to say No Thanks. After all it would be a silly situation if a wife wanted a divorce, but the husband stated in court that he would not allow it. I'm afraid the Judge would lock him up.
Having said that, feel quite free to Vote for an Independent England. We applaud your right to do so and would understand if you felt exactly as we do. Westminster needs burnt to the ground, and we all need to fix things in our own Nations. You lot could do with an Alex Salmond, he spends money on the People whilst Brown spends money like its going out of style. He like all the Westminster Parties think it is their money and have the right to take more whenever it suits them. Well no more second class citizens are we. We are off, and doing things the Scottish Way for the Scottish People whichever Party they supported, or wherever they came from or who their parents where. Its a Scottish Thing you know. Brown forgot who he was and where he come from. He has brought shame on his fathers name and his Country. Cant get much worse.
All the best mate.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone remember the episode of 'The Thick of It" when Hugh was going to make an announcement, then Malcolm told him not to, so he didn't, then the PM changed his mind and they just phoned the press and told them Hugh had made the announcement anyway?
Well this is like the opposite of that...and that was a comedy programme...not real life. Does the Bold GB really think we will just forget what we actually watched and believe him instead?
No GB, we won't, we just won't.
I'm so pleased Wee Bendy decided to join the SNP, she has done so much for us already, thanks hen!
Complain about this comment
neilghall wrote:
"I can understand why Salmond said he might consider a three option referendum (as opposed to not getting one passed at all) but really don't know why Wendy Alexander is wanting a straight Yes/No question.. seems to be against her interests. "
I wondered about that as well.
The only way it seems to make sense to me is that Salmond suggested this in the off-chance that one of the opposition leaders was stupid enopugh to think that this was his preference (due to the potential of gaining independence only 26% of the vote).
Hey presto, step forward Wendy Alexander.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Broon, I knew the 10% (actually it's 9.34% if you include NI) would draw this reaction!
Personally it is, as I say, a matter of supreme indifference whether we keep a Union or not. But the old SNP canard that 'we can decide to leave and that's that' is barmy.
You can decide you'd *like* to leave, but then we - all of us - have to agree on how. That's what you do with bad contracts - you agree on how to end them. That's because we'll all be around after the Union ends and will need to get on with each other in a new environment.
On whether we need an Alex Salmond down here, I beg to differ. We have enough inflated political egos and bombasts of our own to deal with. Moreover, that fixed smirk would just be too much every day.
On whether English nationalism would be a good thing, I doubt it. It's nice that you are happy for me to choose an independent England, but I don't think I asked for approval (gosh, isn't that a rather hectoring, shocked-and-appalled SNP-type thing to say? Perhaps this incipient nationalism is rubbing off on me...!)
Anyway, if it makes you feel better forget I mentioned the 10%. It's not essential to the argument that Wendy A is playing fast and loose with all our futures for her party's advantage. (Quite how defeats me, reading Brian's post and others here).
However, when the time comes to vote for you to leave - if you do - we all have a stake in what comes after. Wendy, Alex and the rest need to remember that. And they need to note the views of the 90.7% of the rest of us too.
All the best.
Complain about this comment
Surely it is a good idea to put the matter of Scottish Independence to the Scottish people as soon as possible, since they "elected" a Scottish Nationist Administration and this is their only "raison d'etre".
The Conservatives should back this matter also and we will then see the People rejecting Independence outright and will show up the utter hypocracy of the SNP in wanting delay
Complain about this comment
This is the woman who would (if Labour were to get their way) lead Scotland as First Minister and who has just spent several months (we can safely assume with Gordon involved at some level) trying to decide whether or not she should bring forward a private member's bill that the rules forbid her from doing anyway. One would think it would be in her best interests to study the parliamentary procedures and then she may find herself in fewer fiascos and looking a little less silly.
What do we call two U-bends next to each other? A W-bend? Or unintentional?
Complain about this comment
U-bends? Too much time promising to fix the sink - I meant U-turns and a W-turn.
Complain about this comment
In some ways Wendy is not as daft as people make out. There's not sufficient support for independence right now, but that could change drastically once the Eton Tories (for whom Scotland is an electoral irrelevance) take Westminster. What will happen to Barnett then I wonder?
An early referendum favours the unionists. For Gordon to accept this means accepting he is destined for failure at the general election. Wendy seems to have accepted this already...
Complain about this comment
So where's your referendum now?
hmm interesting brian not our or their but your? Why not "the".
Complain about this comment
After watching Gorgon Brown back track on Wendy Alexanders comments, this is less of a U-turn on a U-turn and more of Merry-Go-Round at Blackpool Pleasure Beach.
I'm beginning to get dizzy. Can someone stop this thing and let me off.
Complain about this comment
what i really meant their brain was whos referendum were you talking about the labour one or the snp one? or are they both the same.
hang it i say lets have wendys first the the snp one. buy one get one free. next they will be selling them in tescos we will have a green one a tory one and a lib dem variety.
lol
Complain about this comment
Drat! Another cunning plan up the spout. The poor woman is not entitled to introduce her own referendum bill in the Scottish Parliament and she wasn't aware of this? She didn't know that the rules don't allow her to do this if there is the prospect of a Government Bill on a comparable topic?
The man or woman in the street might be forgiven for not being wholly familiar with this fascinating fact, but the leader of the main opposition group in the Scottish Parliament should know the rule book like the back of her hand. That is part and parcel of her job. Confirmation if confirmation were needed, which it is not, that Ms Alexander is not up to her job.
Ms Alexander has managed in a few days to throw everyone into confusion as to what Scottish Labour's policy on an independence referendum might possibly be now or next week or next month or next year. A little clarity and consistency would be nice. Is that asking too much? These are, after all, important matters that she is playing fast and loose with. What an utter shambles!
Complain about this comment
It look like the fag-endy a career
Complain about this comment
MarkFromEngland wrote "Personally it is, as I say, a matter of supreme indifference whether we keep a Union or not."
...swiftly followed by a long embittered rant on the same subject, which displays a lamentable lack of understanding of the basics of the established right of self-determination.
Hmmm. Methinks Mark 'From England' protests too much...
On the subject of Wendy's motivations, I think it was pretty obviously another feeble fox-shooting plan. Get a failed independence referendum out of the way, so Gordon can go all out to woo the English electorate (and at the same time inevitably rub the Scots electorate the wrong way).
This is the problem with Scottish Labour. They're obsessed with shooting the Nationalist Fox. Perhaps they should Concentrate on The Bread and Butter Issues that Scots Care About instead of all this romantic British Nationalist nonsense :)
Complain about this comment
[quote from post 29.]
Surely it is a good idea to put the matter of Scottish Independence to the Scottish people as soon as possible, since they "elected" a Scottish Nationist Administration and this is their only "raison d'etre".
[end]
I disagree, those of us who voted SNP did not do so solely for an independent Scotland. There were may other reasons for doing so, like the abolition of Graduate Endowment (tick), lower prescription costs (tick), and lots of other stuff I won't bore you with.
But i don't think knee-jerk politics is the way to go...
Complain about this comment
@35
The 5 Referendums:
The Labour one - You'll vote on it and just as their about to start counting they'll perform a u-turn and decide a 'yes' means 'no' and a 'no' means 'yes'.
The Tory one - There will only be a 'no' box on the ballot paper but it wont matter because nobody in Scotland will turn out to vote for it anyway.
The Lib Dem one - They'll pull their referendum as they feel asking the people for their opinion is neither Liberal or Democratic. They'll then wait for the results of the other 4 referendums before deciding who to hop into bed with.
The Green one - A vote on independence not just from the UK but also from teh world economy. All power stations (not just nuclear) will be banned in an independent Scotland and you can only buy things made or grown within 2 miles of your home. Only people wearing hemp clothing will be eligible to vote.
The SNP one - They'll delay theirs until every other party has bored the electorate to tears. The 5th referendum in 5 weeks will attract a massive turnout of 3 voters. Big Eck and Sturgeon will vote for the bill, Bendy will decide at the polls of a policy change and vote for independence as well. The motion will pass with 100% in favour.
:-)
Complain about this comment
All we need now is for Lord Foulkes to open his gob on the issue and the ludicrousness will be complete.....
Seriously, however, FMQs tomorrow should be a real hoot. Will Eck politely ask Wendy to get her tanks off the lawn of Bute House (Does Bute House have a lawn ?) or will he more likely be handing her the monthly prize for recruiting most new members to the SNP ? Be nice on the poor girl, FM, she's clearly lost her marbles.
Will the Dowager Duchess take the Naughty Unionist Niece to task for making her Aunty Annabel look like a right numpty for supporting the Whatistname Commission on Stomping on the I-word ?
(Aside - Annabel, please, cut yourself off from Dave and put your talents to use as a Scottish Tory in a free Scotland. You may find that you have more support out there than you think - let's face it, it's only 50-odd years since Scotland returned 50+ Tory MPs ! I might even give you a second preference)
Will Nicol Who be true to his Liberal roots and support a referendum, any referendum, that's as long as he gets a Ministerial Modeo at the end of the process ? Tavish, you've been a bitty quiet my boy, too busy sharpening the knives ?
And what do Robin, Patrick and Margo have to say ? They may only be three votes in the chamber, but they could start to extract some real concessions here. Margo, how about we get the trams run out to Musselburgh ? Robin, Patrick, I'm sure that there are a few windfarms out there that need a helping hand to get back on the agenda....
The Concept that Broon could "inflict" a referendum on us is almost insulting.
But a NuLabour driven referendum on Scottish Independence would backfire. As we saw Darn Sarf, it would turn into a referendum on Broon.
And as such, we could be celebrating Independence Day 20 years sooner than we all thought.
PS: Wendy, Gordon Says the P45 is in the Privatised Post.
Complain about this comment
#29 "The Conservatives should back this matter also and we will then see the People rejecting Independence outright and will show up the utter hypocracy of the SNP in wanting delay"
The first seven words of that sentence show that you've lost all grip on reality, so I don't suppose it should come as a surprise that the rest of it turns out to be rubbish too. The SNP don't want "delay" - as anyone with eyes and a brain can easily read in their manifesto, they ALWAYS proposed bringing the bill in 2010, and they still do. No delay. No U-turn. No change. The events of the past few days clearly show that those are Labour's territory.
Complain about this comment
Hmm... I wonder if we'll be offered some extremely radical extended devolution powers by the Calman Commission to buy us off for another decade of oil?!
These new powers should start to be implemented immediately after the commission reports so that we can have a smooth transition to independence following the Tories taking Westminster in May 2010 and the independence election victory in Autumn 2010.
If they weren't such an incompetent bunch of lying, treacherous halfwits I might even be tempted to vote for Scottish Labour purely on their pro-independence stance!
Complain about this comment
'confuzatron' writes that I show "a lamentable [it's always 'lamentable' isn't it when people don't share our views?] understanding of the basics of the established right of self-determination". Lots of presumption there, confuzatron, that laden terms like 'basic' and established' are agreed by the way.
Anyway, whilst I hardly know where to begin, but let's see if I can calm you down a bit. This was no rant, but a simple statement of fact. Dissolve a political union by defection from it and you affect others in it; they have a stake in what happens next. They need to be involved.
Anything else sounds dictatorial, small-minded and unwise to me - and who would ever accuse the SNP of that?
Complain about this comment
So Wendy was being a little "cavalier " eh ?
Complain about this comment
It appears to me that the pressures of the past few months are taking their toll on Wendy Alexander. Even from my remote village in the Meirionnydd hills I could have sworn that I'd heard the SNP already had a referendum timetable. So what is she on about, and why raise it now when her boss in London has so got so many other problems to deal with? Maybe her friends should book her in for a nice, long rest.
Complain about this comment
After just listening to GB I get the feeling that Wendy should be had up for treason as apparently they both colluded to bring down the SNP government elected by the Scottish people. But as neither of them understand what each of them are saying it's about time that they both went back to primary school to relearn lessons that they have never learn't. (also there is a difference between 10% and 20% tax)
I hope we get triple Tesco points Karinm.
Complain about this comment
Brian
A question for Mark for England. Just how exactly are you going to make us stay in the UK when (not if) we vote for independence.
Brian
It takes considerable political skill to make Broon look even more of an indecisive ditherer that he looked last week, but Wen D has managed it. Friends Eh.
We will see by the time the Labour party daily broadcast, its other title is Newsnight Scotland, comes out, if Pia is worth his money. If he can spin this fiasco without us hurting ourselves laughing, he will be good.
Complain about this comment
#44 - I think, in this interesting state of angry nonchalance that you've got yourself into, that you've also got a bit confused.
The right of self-determination is not up for negotiation (okay, the Chinese government might disagree but that's a problem for you to come to terms with, not me).
In negotiations leading to independence, the right to a veto simply isn't on the table. So when you talk about the assertion of the right of Scotland to become independent being 'barmy'... nope, 'fraid not.
I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and note that you're back pedalling a bit by redefining your message as 'there would need to be negotiations if Scotland were to become independent'. To which I would respond: if you think this is news, um... deary me, do catch up. :)
Complain about this comment
Come on guys, make up your minds. You castigate Wendy for being in London's pocket, yet at the first sign of her doing something on her own, you put the boot in again.
#47 - you really need to look up the definition of 'treason'.
Complain about this comment
So where is this going to go next? The ball is in the SNP's court.
Either they can call Wendy's bluff and agree to vote with her for a yes/no vote on independence in 2009 when they might well have their best chance of winning.
Or they can stick to their clearly set out plan for a referendum in 2010 and challenge Wendy to support that when they present the Bill. It would surely be impossible even for Wendy to do a 360 degree turn and argue against a referendum in 2010 when she's called for one in 2009.
So yes, the SNP are in a stronger position now than before the weekend but they still have to decide on the best course of action.
Tomorrow's FMQs will be fascinating. Any guesses what questions Wendy will ask? And how on earth will the FM be able to avoid making her look so silly that the whole country begins to feel sorry for her?
Complain about this comment
OK, I've done laughing. Just.
Had to go explain to the missus why, and explain the background. My missus has little to no interest in politics outside of how it affects us (she too is an SNP voter though).
When I told her the goings on she said "Huh, that Wendy seems a wee bit daft, no?". If you knew my missus you would know the deadpan way in which she is the Arch-Mistress in Understatement.
Hilarity's aside, this has gone on long enough, Labour. We were willing to put up with her for a while, if only for the entertainment value. In practical terms she must up the SNP's poll rating at least 1% every time she opens her gob.
But it stops now. She's an embarrassment to not only herself, and to you, her Party, but to Scotland as well.
Vote that daft wee women out and this time, actually hold a leadership election, not just a coronation. We've all seen how well they go, haven't we Gordon?
Complain about this comment
GlasgowGooner:
A United Party is important.
Can you have the Labour Party in Scotland against the Abolition of the 10p Tax Rate and of course the British Labour Party trying to pass it in the budget?
These parties must stay united on all matters.
That is why on several occasions Scots Labour support bills that go against Scotland.
The whip line etc and Party Policy has to be followed and you have to copy your Leaders stance.
Complain about this comment
Brian - I don't see why everyone's so surprised at Wendy's latest "nonsensical" statements.
Her behaviour is easily explained when you realise she has STILL not accepted that Labour do not run the show In Scotland any more.
If she doesn't get with the programme soon she'll be savaged by Scottish voters at the next general election. One has to say she'll deserve it.
Complain about this comment
On post 28 - Well said Mr. MarkfromEngland!
At last, some rationale behind some of the separatist vitriolic bull in some of these posts. The SNP are a force to be reckoned with mainly because of the train wreck of Scotland's only alternative - the SLP. Funnily enough much like the rest of the UK.
Complain about this comment
gordon brown---says wendy didnt call for independence referendum.wait for calum report.
independence isnt on calum report agenda
over to you WENDY
look forward to your response THURS in scottish parliament.
LOL
Complain about this comment
Wendy is at least 4 months too early with this, she should have waited till August then she could have taken her show onto the Fringe, she'd be a cert to be on the short list for the Perrier Awards with this comedy act.
But on a serious note Wendy Alexander is the sort of politician the Scottish Parliament does not need in ANY party, her attitude and behaviour display a complete contempt towards the intelligence of the Scottish people and quite frankly politicians of that ilk do not deserve to be in the Scottish Parliament. Do the decent thing Ms Alexander and go now.
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland:
Have you suggested that Northern Ireland, Wales and England can stop Scottish Independence if they decide that it is unacceptable?
Complain about this comment
Brian
Just watched the clip on PMQ about Wen D.
Another title, apart from indecisive ditherer, that we can attach to Broon is LIAR.
He deliberately lied to parliament today about the SNP manifesto commitment. So not only has Wen D made him look stupid, she has also exposed him as a liar.
Moral compass, you could not make it up.
His wee pal Gorbals Mick has tried to kick it into the long grass.
Complain about this comment
Dubbieside:
You noticed it to.
And a rule that states when a Minister knowing mis-leads or lies to the public they are expected to resign.
Since they have lied and lied on TV to alot of members of the public who are interested about Politics then he really should resign now.
Complain about this comment
Chaos reigns...
I watched in disbelief PMQ's. None of Gordon Browns answers were factual.
He was wrong on what Wendy had said. Wrong on the SNP's committment on the timescales of implementing a referendum.
Labour both sides of the border are now in meltdown. Complete disarray with both the PM and Wendy saying the exact opposite.
I have never seen it so bad......
Complain about this comment
The word "mess" seems less than adequate to desribe Scottish Labour's currant state.
When Ms Alexander began what now seems likely to be Her brief tenure as Leader She was trumpeted as having the best mind of any Scottish Labour politician.A worrying thought occurs. Maybe She has.
Complain about this comment
Further, talk of a referendum on Scotland is particularly unhelpful. Why would he favour a referendum on Scottish independence - a prospect he abhors - when he is simultaneously refusing repeated demands for a popular plebiscite on the Lisbon Treaty?
and there brian you have it in a nutshell why this isnt "his" idea but "wendys".
He fighting an election on two fronts brian or at least hes trying to?
Now if he only had one front to worry about it would be easier for him wouldnt it?
Does dave cameron have to fight an election on two fronts?
Does alex salmond have to fight an election on two fronts?
Complain about this comment
WebPendragon
She must have the best mind, as none of the rest of the Natural Numptie party looks like telling her to take a hike.
Just read the Daily Retard, they must now regret their opinion article, saying she now has Alex Salmond on the back foot.
How big an advantage will this fiasco give the SNP in the next opinion poll?
Also the Hootsman saying Broon has left a referendum to Wen D.
Trying hard not to laugh too much.
Complain about this comment
Karinm:
Tony Blair managed fine.
Complain about this comment
A number of English contributors seem to be under the impression that - if allowed to - Welsh and NI voters might block Scottish independence. As a Welshman I certainly wouldn't seek to obstruct the will of the Scottish people. And I doubt if many other fair-minded people would - even in England.
Though there might be problems with those who favour the apocalyptic term 'break-up of the United Kingdom'. (Perhaps hoping to conjure up images of death, destruction, famine . . . and the Old Firm joining the English Premiership.) Yet it would be nothing of the sort; it would simply be those over whom England has gained control by violence, by bribery and other spurious means choosing to go their own ways. A friendly handshake, a 'Goodbye', and then re-introducing each other as neighbours and equals.
If this is done peacefully and democratically then the rest of the world will ensure that it happens; not least by making sure that 21st century imperialists can not obstruct the process. The power players in London can't castigate Robert Mugabe and others then seek to practice something similar closer to home.
Complain about this comment
The woman has completely lost the place, Brown will remove her as quickly as he appointed her.If she had any of the intellect she is credited with she would go on her own without a push.Lecturing students is probably the extent of her usefulness in this world. Her brother I suspect will follow her into oblivion at the next general election when Brown himself is consigned to history. I, as I suspect a lot of other people in Scotland feel, is that if the SNP continue to operate as they have been doing then there is no reason why independence would not be a decided advantage to Scotland. There would also be a great benefit to the rest of the UK; without the blind faithful Labour MPs from Scotland, Labour would never again have an overall majority in England. This fact must concentrate the mind of Gordon Brown, his legacy may yet be the total destruction of the Labour party.
Complain about this comment
Surely MarkfromEngland's comments prove why we must become independent of Westminster and an increasingly hostile English electorate/media/establishment as soon as possible. His comments exemplify the undemocratic and authoritarian disregard that typifies the relationship Scotland and the Scottish electorate have had to endure at the hands of their southern neighbour for far too long.
As for the SLP: Wendy makes it seem as though silly season has come early. Roll on 2010 and end this nonsense once and for all. Independence is normality and thank the heavens for people like Alex Salmond.
Complain about this comment
Its all a question of panic isn't it and ultimately the infamous West Lothian Question, or rather its supplementary question - you know that charming Parliamentary custom whereby an MP can ask something innocuous like what Pa Bro0on had for breakfast and then try to bowl a complete googly by way of a supplementary.
In this case of course the question's straightforward: Scots MPs should NOT vote on "devolved" English matters... but then if they don't asks the supplementary, what happens to Labour's majority.
Right now our lords and master are in deep trouble; not only is their hold on England both in the north and south, and presumably the bit in the middle as well going into meltdown, but the unthinkable has happened in Scotland - the SNP are in charge.
What's more despite Wendy's constant shrieking of "Broken Promises" like some demented parrot, they actually seem to be doing a pretty good job of it.
As Wee Eck and the boys know perfectly well the longer they go on doing a good job the better they demonstrate that Scotland really doesn't need Aunty England to look after her and tuck her in at night. we can manage fine on our own and unless Wendy can throw a spanner in the works that referendum in 2011 or whenever is going to produce a yes vote and without the Scottish MPs Labour are never going to form a government in Westminster - ever again.
No wonder she's panicking
Complain about this comment
No.29
Like many others I was a former Labour supporter since I first voted aged 21
because I believed they were the representatives of the working man and were basically decent and honest and fair.
My views began to change when I saw that New Labour had adopted much of the Tory mantle on tax and were shifting the burden from the rich to the less well off - I leave aside their tax credits for the poor and children which I support but am glad I don't need or want.
What I do want is fair taxation and I voted SNP because of their plans to replace Council tax with a local income tax - I was totally undecided as to how I would vote if and when a referendum took place - since the SNP were elected they have proved a more than satisfactory alternative to New Labour and should Wendy manage to force through an early referendum, I would probably now vote for Indpendence but I am in no rush and can certainly see no reason why the SNP should 'bring it on' just because it would suit Wendy, you, or anyone else.
Complain about this comment
If it wasnt so serious it would be funny,Wendy calls herself the leader of the opposition what an embarassment to her party and to our parliament iam pro independence however it is a decision that is not to be taken lightly and on a whim just to save a politicians skin .
If Norway and Sweden or The Czech republic and Slovacia can live as good neighbours after years of being in a political union together but then deciding to seperate and be independent countrys then why cant Scotland and England.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
The day the Union denies Scotland her Independence once the public have voted for Independence will be the biggest mistake they could ever make.
Would the Nationalists take the quite way out or would the radical take arms?
Would the army or police be able to stop the Radical Nationalists since the Police and army have Scottish Nationalists themselves?
Course I am thinking completely over the edge but I doubt the Nationalists would be quite about it.
Caledonian54:
Some interesting posts you have made.
First the West Lothian Question...If this was changed then the Government would be more unpopular and Independence would increase in popularity.
In a British Parliament there is no such thing as powers resereved to England only. Maybe they should get a Parliament of their own?
Labour even without the Labour MPs in Scotland would still hold a majoirty of the House of Commons but it would be slim.
Of course just wait till the Elections and then you can bet that SNP would gain more seats at Labours expence and Tories will be the leading party.
Complain about this comment
Is 'Bendy Wendy' making a play for power? - maybe she thinks there might be a vacancy at Westminster !
Complain about this comment
To Thomas Porter and Dubbieside. I'm definitely not saying that the rest of us can keep Scotland in the Union. I AM saying that to assume that the decision of less than 10%
Complain about this comment
To Thomas Porter and Dubbieside:
I am certainly not saying that the rest of us can "keep Scotland in the Union". I AM saying that it matters to all of us - including Scots actually - how we arrange things afterwards. If you defect from the Union, we will need to make sure that the 90.7% of the electorate are satisfied with the arrangements. You don't get carte blanche on that.
I don't think any of that is controversial, but if you are determined to find it provocative, so be it. I'm only concerned with the majority here and its interests. Small but important thing, democracy - compared, that is, with pompous vain nationalism.
Complain about this comment
To bluelaw:
I'm quite enjoying this. I have never seen such a determination to ignore what I've actually SAID here before, so you are breaking new ground.
I am not showing an "undemocratic and authoritarian disregard" for anything. I just happen to think that the Union is about more than the wishes of rather less than 10% of the electorate. The rest count too. The consequences for them matter. That IS a democratic viewpoint, and you should respect it.
I repeat again, whether Scots want to be independent is a matter of supreme indifference to me. The question of how defection from the Union affects the rest of us DOES matter to me. And that is not for Scots to decide alone. I would have thought that was unarguable.
Complain about this comment
Brian, you wrote:
But, you know, Labour MSPs are, mostly, still adamant that the "early referendum" plan leaves them, ultimately, in a better place.
They can't have an early referendum unless it is call for from Westminster.
The SNP has already proposals to bring a referendum in either 2010 or 2011, as the party of Government. Scottish Parliamentary rules state that if that is the case no other party can have a Bill proposing the same issue.
Even if the SNP Government had not already published its own White Paper, Labour would need the backing of at least 18 MSPs from other opposition parties, and as things stand Nicol and Annabell are not for U-turning...yet!
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland:
In what way would an Independent Scotland harm the others left in the Union?
All I hear from you is that if for some reason, negative or back lash if you like seems to effect Wales, NI, England then you can dictate that Scotland will not leave the Union?
England gets fresh water from Scotland during the summer.
If Scotland was to turn off the taps after Independence and Englands droughts become worse then the Union will keep Scotland in the Union, despite a majoirty for Indepenence?
Is that on the same lines that you are suggesting?
Complain about this comment
# 50 - "Tongue in cheek" ok.
Listened to Scotland at Ten on radio. ha Sam Galbraith! ignoring the question and blaming the SNP.
The Scottish National Party have never hidden its agenda that they wish independence for all Scots yet now that they are in power all the other parties keep sniping that that is all they want! Maybe if they had listened to the Scots in the past instead of following like lemmings in Westminster they might of shown that they are credible to hold the status that we have empowered them with rather that hiding behind their mothers skirts and complain that it "wisna me" it was him/her over there.
We elect politicians on their manifesto's and on their integrity neither of which the Labour party have shown to adhere to in their illegal wars or to alleviate poverty on these shores. The people who are frightened of us becoming independent are the majority of people in Westminster as they then have no one to blame for their own shortcomings and somewhere to retreat to when times are tough and we have obliged by toffing our caps and accepting their meagre renumerations. I will wait till 2010 as I don't need a bendy wendy to tel me that I need it now because she has got to make a name for herself.
Complain about this comment
Labour must be praying that Wendy disappears, most likely by falling into her own mouth!
She'd be better waiting, since the SNP have still to make a major failure - and this will happen.
She'd be better attacking the SNP as a personality, since it is Alex Salmond who ensured the number of votes they received. With possibly the exception of Nicola Sturgeon, the rest of the SNP are particularly weak and unknown. People forget that not so long ago the SNP were torn apart with internal issues, some of which are still there.
Instead of trying for an early referendum, why does she not press the SNP on their economic strategies, some of which are already failing. Student loans for example, the SNP obviously saw the true amount of money required to pay off all student debt.
It is supposed to be easier to be in opposition, however Wendy Alexander has shown she is completely incapable of presenting a strong opposition. She has much chance of becoming FM as Hilary Clinton has of being President.
Complain about this comment
To MarkfromEngland.
Scotland deciding to leave union with England is a matter for the people of Scotland and them alone. To imply otherwise would betray a deeply undemocratic and authoratarian bent on your part.
The terms of a post-independence settlement would have to be negotiated by Edinburgh and Westminster. I believe the negotiations would be civil and the divorce undoubtedly velvet in texture although no doubt Scotland will not be compensated for the losses she has endured.
You're welcome to be supremely indifferent to us. That's your perogative. Just as it's my right to remind you that England has had no finer or more selfless a friend than Scotland these last three hundred years. I wouldn't ever expect gratitude for such things but perhaps you could find it within yourself to remember this at times.
Complain about this comment
The legislative process for members' bills in the Scottish Parliament doesn't necessarily take a long time. Whilst a long and relatively complex government bill will usually get through all the stages in 6-9 months, members' bills are very often much shorter and simpler in their intent. So they could, particularly with a politically favourable wind, get through all the bill stages more quickly than a (typically) much longer government bill.
A referendum bill put forward by a member could be drafted in a concise form and be procedurally relatively simple to process. But, in terms of how long it would take, that isn't the main consideration. It's the timetabling of the bill's stages, determined by the Parliamentary Bureau, on which parties have voting strength proportionate to their parliamentary strength, that would be a bigger factor. (A former Scottish Parliamentary clerk writes).
Complain about this comment
To Thomas_Porter and bluelaw:
I think you are both being a bit obtuse here - maybe deliberately. YOUR view is that if you leave the Union then there is no further relationship between any of the nations that make it up. In effect your view (typically arrogant Scottish nationalism) is that with Scottish defection from it, the Union folds up and Scotland will in any case have nothing to do with what remains.
Well, I have to suggest to both of you that that is not necessarily the case. While Scotland is undoubtedly a lovely country with talented people and striking (if marginal) contribution to history (although as an Englishman I somewhat doubt the claims to being a 'selfless friend'...), to pretend that the wishes of the rest of us melt into air at the whim of a mere 9.34% of the electoral strength of the Union is fantasy.
I'm going to leave you both to your nationalist fantasies, but let me just go back to my original point, which is that Wendy A is playing with the future of Scotland and the Union for party political advantage. Ironically (and I never thought I'd say this) the SNP has actually being doing the right thing in proposing a measured and realistic timetable for a referendum while Alexander has been playing politics with it. That isn't acceptable.
Final, final thought. Many people in England feel that the extent and persistence of the Scottish whinge (of which you are both fine exponents) is the strongest tactic in the nationalist armoury. Whingeing through life is a very effective way of wearing others down. I can't think of a more effective one. Keep it up, and independence will be here all the sooner for you!
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw and Thomas_Porter
Sorry, one last comment.
I think part of the problem we have, guys, is a definitional one. For me the Union and the 1707 Act are NOT the same thing. The accretions to the Union since 1801 have been considerable, so that 'the Union' means much more than the 1707 Act did. For me it is NOT necessarily the case that 'the Union' [our peculiar and unique form of compact] melts away if Scots do their own thing. It matters to the rest of us what happens to it. It should matter to Scots too.
Complain about this comment
I think the nats and they're supporters are being too hard on wee Wendy. They should show they're appreciation and put her mug shot on our independent banknotes and stamps. Good on you lass, you have saved the people of Scotland a lot of time and saved them a lot of embarassment. What would the rest of the world think about Scotland if you and your ilk ever got to control one of Tony Blair's parish councils. Keep up the good work
Complain about this comment
To all those attacking MarkFromEngland...
You are correct in that the Rest of the UK cannot stop Scotland becoming independent.
However, as Mark says, what happens after that vote IS partially determined by the rest of the UK and that they DO have a say in the matter.
If you read the National Conversation: Chosing Scotland's Future publication (surely the SNP supporters on this blog have read it) you will read in section 3.14, that the transition to Independence "would require negotiations" with the UK Government to agree the terms of independence (eg how much of the UK National Debt Scotland would take on). If these negotiations deadlocked then international law would settle it, so, again, the rest of the UK could not stop it but they do have a say in the matter.
A vote for independence is not the end of the process but the start of it and, judging by the way AS likes to pick fights with the UK Government, it is likely to be a very long process which would in turn damage Scotland in the short term by the uncertainty it would all cause.
Complain about this comment
To MarkfromEngland
The right of independence for Scotland is a matter for the people of Scotland and them alone. I reiterate that to imply otherwise betrays a deeply anti-democratic and authoritarian bent on your part.
A post-independence settlement between Edinburgh and Westminster will no doubt have to be negotiated. I have no doubts the divorce will be velvet in texture though of course Scotland will not be compensated for the losses she has had to endure.
I believe that the relationship between Scotland and the remainder of the UK will remain important. It will matter to us all but all I wish for is to Scotland to interact with England the same way in which other small EU countries such as Denmark, Finland and Austria interact with their larger neighbours - that is on a more equitable footing under the EU and UN umbrella. You are being obtuse to even suggest that England would have a veto on Scotland seeking the establishment such a relationship.
You should be decent enough to either account for what the UK's 'wishes' would be regarding Scotland at independence or desist in such disengenuous and arrogant nonsense. What really galls Scotland's detractors such as yourself is that the future for an independent Scotland is overwhelmingly positive whereas the status quo, simply going on previous form, is not.
I'm sorry to have to be so stark in my rebuttals but Scotland becoming independent is an affront to many English people like yourself because it is the final emasculation of Empire, the final curtain on Empire and undermines the English sense of self. It is this that motivates such 'supreme indifference'.
Scotland, even as a devolved power, has a rapidly developing political and socio-economic culture fast becoming the envy of the rest of the UK electorate so progressive and representative is it. Yet in undermining Scotland you're really only revealing your wish to emulate us because deep down you know that the union is as defunct for you as it is for us. So let's all be civil and grown up and wish each other well as good neighbours do.
Scotland's contrbution to history is huge and magnificent and only an ignoramus would say otherwise.
I am not whingeing at all. I am exercising my democratic right to an independent Scotland and in expressing what I regard as the undemocratic and unjust treatment of Scotland which has informed my political stance on this. It's your arrogance that would wish to see people with differing opinions to yours quietened or dismissed in such a way. So really, take your scaremongering and bullying elsewhere. because, whether you know it or not, that's what it is.
The best 'tactic' for Scots acquiring independence and one that knows nothing of fantasy is reason and truth. If you knew anything about the Scottish Enlightenment and the Scottish contribution to modernity, or indeed if you knew anything about Scotland and her people you'd be aware of this.
To ThomasPorter
With the EU, USA and UN watching the UK would not try to deny the democratic mandate of the Scottish people. It's the actual terms of the independent settlement that will perhaps cause most concern as IMO a scorned England may seek to punish Scotland in some way. Hopefully English decency and common sense will prevail though. I know of no Scot who believes in independence who would ever countenance violence in support of this end. It's as unimaginable and unthinkable as it is unnecessary and rightfully an abhorrent notion to all Scots. For all our history England and the people of England are our great friends and partners.
Complain about this comment
Talk of 'uncertainty', of the UK spoiling negotiations and the need for an international arbiter, of Scotland absorbing debt is more shameful scaremongering.
In what way could the remainder of the UK possibly dictate terms to an extent where negotiations would flounder when Scotland's borders and territorial integrity and membership of the international community cause no reasonable grounds for concern? What about the uncertainty and damage to the UK's reputation if they were to do this? Will Scotland be compensated for lost oil revenues and the wilfull destruction of her manufacturing industries before taking on her 'share' of the UK's debt? Similarly, how much of the military, of the BBC, of the civil service, of Embassies that Scots taxpayers have paid for for centuries - will Scots be compensated for this before talk of taking on the UK's debt?
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
I'm sorry, but have you ACTUALLY read the National Conversation publications (written by the Scottish Government) and do you READ the posts put up here by others.
What I said is NOT scaremongering. It is raised within the Chosing Scotland's Future publication.
1) I DID NOT say that the UK would spoil negotiations. What I DID SAY was that, on past experienece with Alex Salmonds stance with regards the rest of the UK, those negotiations may well be protected. Your arrogance in suggesting that the UK Government would accept everything that AS would propose without negotiation is staggering.
2) Chosing Scotland's Future raises the possible requirement for an international arbitor itself. I DID NOT say that it would be required I merely quoted it to support YOUR VIEW that the UK could not stop independence.
3) Chosing Scotland's Future (3.14) says that negotiations would include such matters as apportionment of the national debt. So it is NOT scaremongering to say that this will happen it is ACCEPTED by the Scottish Government by including it in the publication that there will be some absorption of the UK debt into Scotland's economy.
4) I DID NOT say that the UK would dictate terms. I pointed out that negotiations would take place. And if part of those negotiations include compensation for Scotland then I would expect them to be negotiated properly. However, in that process I do not expect Scotland to dictate terms either.
Your posts are typical of the SNP supporters on this Blog. You ignore the points made by others and resort to abuse when you can't make your own points effectively.
A true acolyte of Alex Salmond.
Complain about this comment
Its an interesting point about the wording on the question.
The UK government would deffinetly want the negative question and AS would want the positive question.
Perhaps we should have a referendum about the question.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I notice on another article on the BBC web site that Ian McMillan of the CBI is calling the independence vote a boil on the neck of Scotland.
What a pity he has never noticed this boil or raised any questions about it until now.
How was it not a boil and never noticed until Labour decided to be too clever by half, way cleverer than their collective IQ would indicate. How did this boil pop up over the weekend.
If it is such an important issue the Callman commission (or whitewash) should now have no excuse for it not being part of their remit.
Oh sorry I forgot this is a Labour party initiative, they of course have a long track record of setting up commissions to arrive at the answer they want.
After all these idiocies from Labour have the Callman any creditability left???
Complain about this comment
Whatisthejava
The question could be set by the United Nations as they have a track record with these things.
After wee Dougies proven uselessness with counting votes I hope Alex Salmond also asks the UN to run the referendum.
Does this mean I do not trust Labour to run this fairly, you bet, I would not trust them to run a raffle.
Complain about this comment
Er isn't Wendy Alexander related to the infamous Douglas Alexander, him of the Scottish Election Fiasco ?
If Muppet Dynasties are the best that Scottish Labour can do, then we really are in trouble.
Complain about this comment
I have not resorted to any kind of abuse on this forum.
Where did I say that Westminster has to acquiesce to everything proposed by the SNP?
Alex Salmond has never behaved abusively towards his opposition. Not so his opposition themselves.
It is scaremongering to make mention only of the negative aspects of independence. Perhaps I am reacting to the fact that this debate has never been handled honestly or openly by Unionists. If my tone has caused you upset then I apologise.
Complain about this comment
I think we need to clarify some of the statements made here if this discussion is to progress, rather than descend into a slagging match...
There have been a few contradictions that seem to suggest that Westminster, Llywodraeth Cynulliad Cymru and the NI assembly entering into negotiations is somehow the same as the rest of the UK having a say in the terms of independence settlement and beyond.
It's not.
The people of Scotland are the only ones who will have a referendum, therefore the only ones who will be given a say in whether we have independence or not. The people of England, Wales and Northern Ireland will not have this opportunity, their Governments will.
So if you believe we all live in a democracy that cares what its people think and majority opinion will always rule of Governmental decision making then so be it, but I believe you are mistaken.
This is why I believe you need to clarify what you have said. Just because your elected leaders (in Wales and NI) and leader by default (in England) will be party to the discussions, doesn't mean you will.
I'm sorry if that comes as a shock or disappointment to you, but I must say it shouldn't come as a surprise.
Complain about this comment
I'd have to agree with Markfromengland's basic message that Wendy playing politics with such an important issue is irresponsible.
As to the rest, it seems you're all talking at cross purposes. Of course there would need to be negotiations after a 'yes' result for independance. I think you're arguing about what would be negotiated.
I don't suppose for example that England would ask to keep the oil (or whats left it) or that Scotland would ask for... Umm... I can't really think of anything... Say free protection by the ex-UK army with out paying for it.
Its not about division of spoils, but about how currently shared responsibilities are divvied up.
Other than that, I think an effective opposition is important and Wendy's not doing it. I voted SNP but they need to be kept on their toes, they are after all; still politicians. (Damn my cynical eyes...)
Complain about this comment
JohnThompsonSNP:
Interesting point.
There is talk in the Choosing Scotland's future document about TWO referendums being needed. The first one to authorise negotiations, the second to vote on the outcome of the negotiations.
However this is argued against as the first vote (if sufficiently clear) can be construed as being the mandate that is required to conclude the negotiations.
So, in actual fact, the Scottish people may not be party to the discussions. In the same way as the UK people would not be. For example, Bluelaw argues a case for compensation to be made to Scotland. If the Scottish Government decided NOT to negotiate for compensation, would he be happy to accept that?
The point of a democracy is that we vote people in to do these things for us. It is unfortunate in the current political climate that we have very little confidence in our politicians to represent OUR views rather than their own self interest.
I would also argue that, if the Scottish people get a second referendum on the result of the negotiations, that the UK people should also get to vote on the result of the negotiations and be able to send the UK Government back to the table if they do not think they have been represented properly.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout (#86) has said it far more effectively than evidently I managed. Thanks for that, Bangingonabout. My point is that, just as in a business, a founding partner can DECIDE to leave, that doesn't mean that the rest don't have a say in the constitutional framework that follows it.
I'm much less concerned about the 'division of the spoils' (that we can hammer out, but we'll have back all that Portland Stone off your monuments! [Joke, that's a joke, honest!]).
All of this has obscured the main point I made in the original post, which is that Wendy A shouldn't be playing with the constitutional destiny of the whole 100% of the Union for party political advantage. Then again, I suppose she is desperate...
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
It has been opined by various political commentators that Alex Salmond's debating style tends towards avoiding answers and going on the "offensive" by making (sometimes) personal comments about the opposition. In fact the Presiding Officer has been roundly critised for allowing this to happen. So it's not just my opinion.
You may call this "robust" debating. I don't.
NOTE: I AM NOT defending the other parties in this. In fact I deplore the behaviour of all parties in this respect.
You may call presenting negative aspects "scaremongering". However, since I very rarely see pro-independence supporters putting forward any other comments apart from how wonderful Independence will be, I call it "balancing the arguments".
I personally can see pros and cons with both positions and accept that in some ways Scotland may benefit from more self determinism - which is why I would back a full review of the devolution settlement. However I don't necessarily see the benefit of leaving the UK and I don't see pro-independence supporters acknowledging the possibility that Scotland may well be worse off in some respects even if the "prize" of independence is achieved. For them the "prize" is all. In which case I can't really debate with them because I'm not interested in the "prize", I'm interested in whether my life will be better or not.
Complain about this comment
It is clear that there is a significant proportion of nationalist Scots who genuinely believe that independance for Scotland is achieveable.
It is sad to see so many people conned by politicians who fan the fires of nationalism simply as a means of achieving power in the current political machine.
Where Central Government (in the form of the Labour Party) has sought to devolve more power to the regions (except, perversely, England itself for whom all MPs still vote on England-only matters), this has been taken as a license to promote full independance as the next logical progression.
Some contibutors to this forum have pointed out - quite reasonably - that independance for Scotland (or any other country of the UK) affects all and it would be expected that, for the Union to be broken, it would be a decision for all to make. Any referendum must, therefore, be UK-wide.
Otherwise, the future of the Union would be decided by a tiny minority of the UK population.
Another reason for the importance of a UK-wide referendum would be that a large percentage of the population of the UK do not live in the country of their birth. In the case of Scotland, many native Scots (and I am one) have migrated to other parts of the UK and it would be wrong to deny them a say (and a vote) in the future of their homeland.
No-one (other than the hard-core nationalists and those conned by nationalists) truly believes in Independance for Scotland.
Very many more believe in progressing the cause of more power being devolved to the regions and it is in this way that Scotland can truly seek self-determination.
Complain about this comment
For the enlightenment of 'team' Wendy and Gordon, who are having such bizarre difficulty even understanding each other at present:
1. The SNP Government is enacting the referendum plan on which it was elected a year ago, and is not about to be 'bounced' or 'panicked' into a 'snap' referendum simply because Wendy just woke up with a changed agenda, and a different set of spin tactics, earlier this week.
2. Having historically blocked any and all meaningful discussion on independence until the SNP victory forced that position to change, Labour are now angling for a 'quickie' referendum to be held in a virtual vacuum, reliant on the minimum of discussion and informative discourse, in the cynical hope that the people will remain poorly informed as to the positive implications, enthralled to the scaremongering and myths that Labour have long fabricated about independence, and accordingly return a 'No' vote - and they present this as being in the country's (as opposed to their own) best interests!
Serious and meaningful debate requires to be aired and conducted prior to a referendum - and on the basis of the alleged merits and fitness for purpose of the union versus the opportunities and implications of independence - not on the basis of previous sample responses to a question which has been repeatedly blocked and misrepresented, but never honestly presented.
3. In the wake of Labour's ongoing electoral hammering, Ms Alexander is apparently keen to 'seize the initiative' in Scotland. The phrase 'hijack' would be considerably more appropriate, as we saw with Labour?s original commandeering of the Constitutional Convention (Independence blocked), then the hapless McCalman Commission, which, having been so recently concocted as a rigged unionist response to the National Conversation, has been summarily neutered by this latest inept stunt ? hanging the other unionist parties, and Gordon Brown, out to dry in the process.
4. Contrary to Wendy?s 'strategy', there can be no end - swift or otherwise - to the constitutional debate. As a sovereign people, our aspirations and rights to greater self-determination will self-evidently remain. Or does she envisage that, following her hoped-for 'no' vote, Scotland will accept the consigned status of a subsidised region of little significance within the London-centric UK, devoid of aspiration, at the mercy of outside influence and perpetual jibes about living off the English taxpayer, while turning back to the Labour party in numbers??
5. Contrary to simplistic assumption, Scotland, and not independence per se, is the SNP's 'raison d'etre'.
The party is the cutting edge of a vital and centuries-old political movement, and has been the true voice of the country's potential and aspiration, not just since last May, but for generations.
At its heart is a determination embodied by the Declaration of Arbroath, the timeless spirit of Scotland herself, and an eternal drive for equality and justice.
If Labour, or any unionist doctrine, supposes that that cause will 'go away' in any cynically projected scenario, then they are even more unprincipled and clueless than they are currently making themselves look!
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland
"My point is that, just as in a business, a founding partner can DECIDE to leave, that doesn't mean that the rest don't have a say in the constitutional framework that follows it."
Do you mean the remainder members of the business or the departing member? The remainder of the UK would have no say in the constitutional arrangements of Scotland but of course, and as has been said repeatedly, would have a say in the immediate post-independence settlement.
Bangingonabout
I would ask that you give direct evidence of Alex Salmond being abusive or evasive to the point of causing offence. You will find there is no evidence and his statesman-like conduct is precisely why his standing is so high with the Scottish people.
Considering the disgraceful scaremongering, dishonesty and downright lies that have permeated the Unionist argument against independence is it any wonder that so many of us who believe in Independence view it so positively? I think independence would be a new beginning for Scotland and there would be much work to do but when I look at the experience of Denmark, Finland and others as small independent EU countries I really do feel the Scottish future would be so bright as to demand sunglasses.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe that some contributors genuinely believe that the rest of the UK should have a say in whether or not Scotland leaves the UK. So what if Scotland votes yes for independence but England and Wales oppose it? Are any of you seriously suggesting Scotland would simply have to abide by the decision of the English and Welsh electorate and remain a part of the Union?
I too am a Scot who no longer lives there (I live on the continent) and whilst I passionately believe in Scottish independence the idea that I should have a direct say in whether Scotland becomes independent is absurd. Only the residents of Scotland should have a deciding say in a referendum. No-one else.
Complain about this comment
Can I *slightly* disagree with youngerap?
I DO think that Scots have the right to decide they they not longer wish to be part of the UK.
I DON'T think that they have the exclusive right to determine what comes after it, or what happens when they leave - to them or to the rest of us. That is because we live in a democracy; I tend to cherish that. So does 'Choosing Scotland's Future' and, I hope, so will Calman - if only in spirit.
Even with my 'undermined...English sense of self" (#87) - those SNPers are great at long distance diagnosis aren't they? to think we've never even met! - I can recognise an affront to democracy when I see it.
Ignoring 90% to pander to a fraction of the other 10% voting for independence for Scotland is thoroughly undemocratic.
But then again, whoever thought the SNP and Alex Salmond ever cared about democracy?
Complain about this comment
There was no democracy in the act of union itself, but there was a lot of bribery and corruption.
Let's at least have some democracy at this end of the "end" of the union.
There are clear boundaries along which everything must be split. Let's do it.
Complain about this comment
It's very funny.
MarkfromEngland needs to know that England is in total control of the rest of Britain, and with even just talk of a possible referendum on possible independence, and the possibility of losing some of that control, he feels undermined.
That's democracy for you.
Complain about this comment
"Bring it on" indeed.
And while you're at it let's have a referendum on independence for the Islands from the Central Belt.
SS Welfare won't float without *our* oil. It's not *yours* to take.
Complain about this comment
Hurray for Wendy!
Finally, Labour in Scotland are doing what it thinks is right for Scotland, without deferring to 'London Labour'.
And if the vote goes the right way, we will never have to do so again.
Complain about this comment
MarkFromLondon.
I accept that you have a valid point about the rest of the Union having a say or at least being involved in the discussion but how does this fit with the Kosovo model.
Serbia were completly against Kosovo becoming independent and if given the vote could have prevented it BUT they were not given the vote and Kosovo only was and voted for independence.
Is this the same discussion or are there differences.
Complain about this comment
#104 MarkfromEngland!
You expose yourself badly with that last remark.
The answer to your cynically rhetorical question is: Anyone who actually has a clue about the subject matter, and in particular the Scottish electorate, who voted them into Government last May.
May I suggest that you, Youngerap and some other contributers of hopelessly unionist ilk who are so evidently giving opinions from such positions of blind ignorance, actually take the trouble acquaint yourself with the facts before further indulging your blinkered pro-unionist crusade?
Complain about this comment
Orkadian,
They spell it OrCadian (btw). There's not a great deal of oil in the vicinty of Orkney (Shetland perhaps - and the Scottish mainland).
However it belies a subtle point. Orkney and Shetland if they wish, have exactly the same choice as the rest of Scotland.
Many people (particularly south of the border) see Orkney and Shetland as one homogenous entity. Clearly, to anyone who's visited these islands, that's not the case. Even within the islands themselves, there is a strong local identity cf Hoy, Sanda etc.
But in my experience in these islands, there's greater support for Scottish self determination than in the central belt - which is far more unionist IMO.
There's one thing those SS Scottish Oil has kept the United Kingdom afloat for long enough.
Time for Scotland to get its payback :-)
Complain about this comment
Dougie Dhub says it more clearly than I ever could.
I'm not rabidly pro-independance, in fact I was a bit of a tory (oh the shame) until the last scottish election.
As to Mark from down south, I think you're looking at it from a British or English point of view. You have to understand that Scots see Scotland as a country in and of itself.
Put it this way, turn it all around. If the balance of power was with us up in Edinburgh or Glasgow and had been for 300 years, would you be happy to accept that even with a pro-independence for England party (ENP?) in your own devolved parliament (say in... Manchester ;-) we Scots (and Welsh etc) even after your positive referendum outcome had the power to tell you England couldn't become independant?
I think not.
Complain about this comment
pa_broon
I totally agree with your second point there, and was just missing the eloquence to say it...
the 90%/10% argument is irrelevant because The UK is not one country, we are not 100% together, we are each 100% in our own countries, and therefore on a Scottish matter, like succession, we are the 100%.
That is just the way it is.
Complain about this comment
One last comment from me, then I'll shut up and go and do something more worthwhile than arguing with the SNP...
Dougie-Dubh (#110) says I slight great democrats and a great man in Mr Salmond and his party. I think that is called an opinion and you are entited to hold it as I am to mine. Mine, however, has evidence on its side.
pa-broon (#74) says that I and others (at least he hasn't assumed I am a rabid pro-Unionist!) fail to recognise that Scotland is a country that may want to become an independent nation. Far from it. I believe in self-determination - but not at anyone else's expense. and at any price. I have a stake in this Union; I want my voice heard on what happens.
Cheerio.
Complain about this comment
The great philosophist Jagger once said;
"You can't always get what you want"
I'm afraid Mark, that is true much more often than we would like it to be, and just because you want your voice heard doesn't mean it will happen.
I'm not saying it's right or wrong, I'm just telling it how it is.
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland
"I believe in self-determination - but not at anyone else's expense. and at any price. I have a stake in this Union; I want my voice heard on what happens."
You have a right to be heard but not a direct say on whether Scotland becomes independent or not. You have a stake in Union not Scotland. Believing that you do is the real affront to democracy here.
Complain about this comment
#110 Dougie-Duh
Is this how the Nationalists propose to participate in this debate? If you dislike anothers opinion, respond with accusations of 'blind ignorance', of being on a ' unionist crusade'?
Bully-boy tactics that don't really work in a digital forum other than to demonstrate your own weaknesses.
I am not aware of any unionist crusade. I simply believe that being part of the Union provides for a better future for Scotland. In the event of any referendum, I also want my say on the future of my homeland. I am as much entitled to that as any rabid nationalist.
Complain about this comment
Youngerap:
While I sympathise with your wish to be involved in the future direction of your homeland, I do have to question where the opening up of who can vote will take you.
Are you saying, for example, that Sean Connery who has lived abroad for more than fifty years (source Wikepedia) and has paid no tax to his homeland in all that time should be able to vote?
Express an opinion? Yes, Campaign for a Yes vote? Yes. But I would be very unhappy if he was allowed to vote since he doesn't have to live with the consequences of his vote.
Same for all other Scottish ex-pats.
Complain about this comment
Youngerap I refer you to my previous comment 115.
Also, do the Unionist intend to participate in the debate by;
A) telling us that there's more of you, so you win, (bullying in my book).
B) if you dislike another's opinion, respond with accusations of being "hard-core nationalists" or "those conned by nationalists"
C) play fair and allow us to vote on what is rightly ours?
Remind me again how the Act of the Union came about? Then remind me what it was you were saying about "bully-boy tactics"...
What this topic has proved is that there is a lot of passionate feelings about Independence, rightly so. It also has proved that a lot of discussions still need to take place before anyone is in a place to take part in a referendum.
Hence the reason the date was set, and will remain to be, 2010.
Complain about this comment
MarkfromEngland:
I never said that there would be nothing for the Union and Scotland to negociate afterwards.
What you said that if the Union got a bad deal then you wouldnt allow Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Do you know why he left Scotland?
Because the British tax is far to high and he had to jump ship for loosing so much cash.
Britain is not his homeland. Scotland is and we have no power to raise our own taxes and spend our own taxes without it going through the British Treasury first.
He is however a supporter of the SNP and has donated to their cause.
That would give them a right to vote in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
So, a being a supporter of the SNP and a donor gives (buys?) him a right to vote!!
How very ironic that you are suggesting that one of the first acts towards possible independence could be marked by people buying influence.
Complain about this comment
Globaltaveler @112,
Some other beggar swiped the Orcadian username! Besides, Ks bring out the viking in me.
The fact is I am a belonger, but to Orkney, not Scotland. I feel as much Scottish as I do British. (Not very, if at all.)
And we've got a heck of a Flotta oil, thank you kindly.
Good to know you don't even know it's there: it means you won't miss it.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Explain how he is buying the vote?
I actually went on how Scotland was his homeland and how he supports the SNP enough to donate large amounts of money.
That gives them the right to vote.
Complain about this comment
#117 youngerap
There is a clue in the title of this thread as to the tide of current events in Scottish politics - specifically with regard to the leader of the 'Scottish' Labour party's antics.
And yet, for you, the issue is how people are being 'conned' by the SNP.
Perhaps you can explain to us how the SNP is achieving this feat in a country with a wholly unionist-biased and London-centric media?
Personally, I feel the people are more than capable of thinking for themselves - hence the growth in confidence in the positive and aspirational politics offered by the SNP, their historic breakthrough into government and commendable performance, leading to record popularity levels, while Labour's stock continues to plummet.
You express regret that you have no democratic franchise over the future of your 'homeland' from your residence south of the Border - which implies that you may have some misgivings about not living in Scotland.
Let me guess - perhaps you left for economic reasons?
Should feel a little out-of-touch with events in your 'homeland', may I suggest that, as a free thinker, you might subscribe to a certain 'populist' daily tabloid being circulated from Anderston Quay in Glasgow?
It should help to keep you fully in touch with the kind of 'open-minded' views you have expressed in your own comments.
Complain about this comment
#123 Orkadian
As far as I am aware, the oil in Flotta is shipped in from the oilfields and there is no oil pumped up from under the island or Scapa Flow for that matter. It is a transhipment point.
You may be a 'belonger' as you put it, but you seem unaware that the Northern Isles can cede from Scotland as they are held in pawn from Norway. (Maid of Norway?)
If they are as Scottish as you say, why have they returned Lib Dems to Parliament(both) from time immemorial?
And most true Orcadians and Shetlanders claim to be that first - not Scottish
But to this contorted tale of what they said/did not say - the performance on Newsnight last night was totally and completely insincere from the Labour reps while from the SNP ones, cool, direct and sincere. As for the Tories and Lib Dems at other times, their shock and disbelief at the WA and GB tactics was real(for once). As for Calman - I am at a loss as to where this Commission stands now. Does anyone know? Do you Brian?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
"I actually went on how Scotland was his homeland and how he supports the SNP enough to donate large amounts of money.
That gives them the right to vote."
No. You actually said.
"Britain is not his homeland. Scotland is ...
He is however a supporter of the SNP and has donated to their cause.
That would give them a right to vote in my opinion."
The clear implication is that as he is a supporter of the SNP and has donated to their cause he should be given the right to vote.
Who's the "them" in your statement anyway?
Anyone who considers Scotland as their homeland?
Anyone who supports the SNP?
Anyone who has donated to the SNP?
All three?
Complain about this comment
#126: There's no oil under the Orkney islands (there was more than one last time I looked), but in our territorial waters? Brae, Sedgwick, Piper, Maccullough...
I think you missed my point. I was precisely saying that we're not Scottish. This noise about "Scottish" oil driving Scottish independence presupposes that we (Shetland and Orkney) are prepared to bankroll Scotland in the same way we've bankrolled the UK.
That oil isn't yours to play with.
Howver we can certainly agree that labour's in mental tailspin after Wendy's ploy.
What does "bring it on" mean? To paraphrase one WJ Clinton: "It depends on your definition of 'it', doesn't it?"
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Exactly. I did say that Scotland was his homeland and went on to say that they were a SNP supporter and a donater.
I was also reffering them as Sean Connery. However, there are others Scots in the same position as Sean Connery and them would be more suitable since there are a number of Scots worldwide who are in the same boat.
But why would their right to vote be effected?
You said.
"Are you saying, for example, that Sean Connery who has lived abroad for more than fifty years (source Wikepedia) and has paid no tax to his homeland in all that time should be able to vote?"
There are hundreds, if not, thousands who do not pay tax.
I know of many who work abroad for the Oil Industries and do not pay into tax.
But they still live in Scotland.
Are you going to deny their right to vote for simply not paying taxes to?
You may be against the right to vote but I bet if the SNP started to clamp down on your Freedom of Speech then we would never be able to quiten you.
And last but not least Sean Connery has vowed to return to Scotland once we are Indepenent.
Complain about this comment
Orkadian:
If you look at map you are clearly see that Scotlands Territory stretches enough to claim those Oil Feilds.
And I know of a few from Orkney and Shetland who are happy to call them Scottish and at the same time support SNP.
Perhaps, many more are Proud Scottish Nationalists at the end of the day.
Complain about this comment
Some myths that need to be addressed:
Connery has always paid tax to the UK. He went public about this a few years ago.
The SNP don't, as a matter of principle, vote on English legislation unless there are consequences for Scotland.
There are still vast amounts of oil in Scottish territorial waters.
Complain about this comment
~129 You merely referred to Flotta as your source of oil, hence my reference to island.
And all Scotland's oil is NOT in the Northern Isles waters so do not delude yourself that it is ALL 'Viking' oil.
Re Scottish - you missed my point that true North islanders are Orcadian or Shetlanders FIRST and usually nothing else.
As for Wendy and co- bring on the next installment - this is great her trying to justify her changing with the wind direction.
And despite the spat on who is entitled to vote, it used to be who is on the voter's roll and as far as I know that has not changed, nor should it.
And what now for the Calman Commission? Is Wendy's behaviour not a kick in the teeth for them? If that is how she treats them, she cannot have much respect for the electorate.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
I really don't understand what you're talking about half the time. And you had the nerve to criticise my English on one of the other threads.
1) Choosing Scotland's Future says that the draft referendum bill will follow the same model as the devolution referendum. Ie it will be based on residence in Scotland "and does not attempt to define categories of people resident outside Scotland eligible to vote in the referendum, nor to exclude any people resident in Scotland from the poll"
If they are not resident in Scotland they are not entitled to vote. If they are resident in Scotland they are entitled to vote even if pay no tax.
In making my comments I'm not denying anyone's right to vote who is eligible. Nor am I against the right to vote (whatever you mean by that) - you just made that up to try and score points. A pretty pathetic debating style if you ask me.
2) My original post was directed at Youngerap who was advocating that ex-pats should be able to vote. I think that that is wrong and cited Sean Connery as a high profile example.
You are the one talking about "suitability" to vote rather than "eligility" to vote by referring to people as being "more suitable".
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
You admitted to being upset that Sean Connery would be allowed to vote.
I got the opinion you were against the right to vote.
But you ignored my question about why should they not be allowed to vote?
If you are unhappy at the way I debate then I could not care less.
I simply try and make the person explain in my depth their own position so we all can understand.
You were unhappy about one guy voting, I asked if you were against the right to vote (Since Sean Connery does have the right to vote) And then asked why would a persons vote be effected because they dont pay taxes.
That was the current position I thought you were on.
If that is wrong then of course you can explain it in another way so we all can understand.
Complain about this comment
Thosmas_Porter:
You talk about "the right to vote" in the abstract sense (like Stan/Lorreta's "right to have babies" in Life of Brian).
My comments have never been about the right to vote in the abstract sense - that's something you have introduced into the debate.
My comments have been about the right to vote in the very specific case of the Scottish Referendum. That boils down to whether people are eligible to vote based on the rules of the referendum.
As I understand it, Sean Connery and other ex-pats are not resident in Scotland and are therefore not eligible. In my words that means they do not have the "right" to vote in the Scottish Referendum - while still retaining the "Right to Vote" in the abstract sense.
If I'm wrong then tell me, specifically, why Sean Connery has the right to vote in the Scottish Referendum.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
One thing you have ignored.
Sean Connery has donated to the SNP.
Are you like Wendy and ignore the rules that state Political Parties are not allowed to accept donations from those who are not UK Voters?
I rest my case that for Connery to be able to donate to the SNP they must be allowed to vote in the elections.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
Wrong. The fact that he can donate to the SNP is irrelevant to whether he can vote in the Scottish Referendum.
He can donate, even if he is non-resident, if he is registered on the Electoral Role. Ironically, the reason that he is still on the electoral role even though he has been absent for more than 15 years, is that he spent a year filming in LONDON in 2003.
However the criteria for voting in the Scottish referendum is proposed to be RESIDENCE. So he is not eligible unless, of course, he moves back before the referendum takes place.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
I am perfectly sure that they are capable of affording a house in Scotland.
It would not suprise me if they already owned a house in Scotland.
But you cannot ignore my point.
Oh he is on the Electoral Role?
Then if he is on that then I am guessing he is capable of voting in the Scottish Elections to and would be on a referendum.
And that would also explain how he is allowed to donate to a UK Political Party.
Because he either is a Non-UK voter and that would make his donations illegal.
Or he is a UK voter and that explains how he can donate.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
I sure he can afford a house in Scotland - but that is irrelevant.
He may also own a house in Scotland - also irrelevant.
He may be capable of voting in a Scottish ELECTION because he is on the Electoral Role - then again he may not be because he may not be on an Electoral Role in Scotland - but it doesn't matter because being on the Electoral Role is irrelevant.
He can donate because he is on the Electoral role but that still makes it irrelevant.
If you bother to check "Choosing Scotland's Future", rather than guessing, you will see that the criteria for voting in the REFERENDUM is RESIDENCY.
Demonstrate to me that Connery is defined as RESIDENT in Scotland and I'll accept the fact that he can vote in the Scottish Referendum. You can be on the Electoral Role if you are non-resident so being on the Electoral Role is not an argument.
As far as ignoring your points. I can ignore them because they are irrelevant to the argument.
Complain about this comment
Sean Connery is a Scottish hero who has done nothing but good for Scotland. I for one am eternally grateful to his dedication and support for Scotland. He has never forgotten where he came from and for that I applaud him.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
So where's your referendum now?
[I think it did not happen in the year 2008; could it happen in 2009?]
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS