'Ground shifting' for more powers
What鈥檚 your take on the decision by Holyrood鈥檚 opposition parties to band together to review devolution and block a referendum on independence?
There are two alternative interpretations. Either, it is a grudging compliment to the SNP, conceding impliticly that Holyrood will have to be given extra powers.
Or it is a concerted effort to isolate the Nationalists by stressing that they could only participate in the promised review by sidelining their objective of independence via a referendum.
OK, let鈥檚 slow down a little. What exactly is happening?
The leaders of the three opposition parties at Holyrood - Jack McConnell, Annabel Goldie and Nicol Stephen - have issued a joint statement.
In that, they object to the SNP executive鈥檚 plans to publish a white paper tomorrow setting out plans for an independence referendum - alongside other options for Scotland鈥檚 constitutional future.
The three - now, on this issue, a Unionist opposition coalition - say that they will 鈥渘ot give succour to those who want to end the Union鈥.
They say the SNP have no mandate for a referendum, plainly indicating that, as expected, they would block any such ballot.
But they go further. They suggest, without detail at this stage, that in the months to come they will consider 鈥渉ow best the interests of the people of Scotland can be served鈥.
What does that mean? Most likely would appear to be a joint parliamentary review of devolution. Not a resumption of the Convention.
Labour, the Tories and the LibDems would take part - with, of course, varying degrees of enthusiasm for enhanced powers.
The LibDems have already set out plans for new tax powers. The Tories have long nodded towards a review, 10 years on from the original devolution white paper. For Scottish Labour, this is relatively fresh territory.
It is stressed also that this opposition initiative would involve not just Holyrood but Westminster too. That鈥檚 because it would be down to Westminster to legislate for any change - and because the initiative is distinctly Unionist in tone and intent.
G Brown has been consulted as have the UK leaders of the other parties.
The SNP鈥檚 initial response? 鈥淭rebles all round鈥. They say it鈥檚 a clear sign that the ground is shifting towards more power for Holyrood.
The opposition three say, no, this stresses the Union - and distances independence, as per the intent of the original Convention. You judge.
I'm 
Comments
What is wrong with the ordinary Scottish citizen. Independence is the natural way forward for a country that has been muffled and controlled by the English Parliament for 300 long and dreary years.
Come on guys and gals lets go for it. Its OUR country not a suburb of England.
John Gunn
Perth
The great joke is that anyone believes the SNP would be satisfied with 'greater powers for Holyrood'. They do not. They will stop at nothing but achieving their goal of independence. The other option on a ballot is merely to placate and attract people other than their die-hard followers.
So the three unionist parties are so convinced of their own arguments they are denying the Scottish people a say on their constitutional future?! Lib Dems are identical to Labour, Labour to the Tories etc ... Great. Whatever way they dress this up, this plays right in to the hands of those favouring independence. Why do the opposition party leaders all rush to their collective end?
Once again the Old Parties gang together to stifle debate. The reason for Independence lies at their feet. They have done nothing until now when the SNP have brought forward the agenda and put Scottish politics on the map. So much for consensus politics from Labour, Conservatives and LibDems. They won't even listen to what is to be said tomorrow, they have already agreed to say no. If there is no stomach for Independence from the electorate as the Old 3 say, why are they so afraid of asking. I am not totally convinced that independence is needed but I am convinced that these parties have no place in Scottish politics and have and are holding us back from progressing as a country.
Surely it's the Multi Cultural population of Scotland's choice wither or not to have a Referendum. Not the Elected politicians choice. Politicians need to Stop Thinking for the People and Start Listening to the People.
Perosnally, I think it's too late for an Independant Scotland, as we don't have any assets anymore. It might have worked back in the 80's, but things were different then and opportunities fewer. Yes it might have been nice to be Independant, but alas I think we missed the boat, this time ironically, on this opportunity. WE should just make the best of it now and try and work together and get what's best for Scotland, before it's too late!!
As an Englishman I am all in favour of Scottish independence. I am fed up with hearing how the Scots have suffered under the English. I am fed up with paying money to Scotland to fund initiatves there which are denied to those south of the border because of lack of funds. I am fed up with having Scottish MP's able to vote on matters which have no impact on their own constituents.
This Government should give us all a choice. Either we get an English parliament to represent English interests, or Scotland should be given its independence.
Better still, how about giving England its independence.
The stance the opposition parties are taking on this certainly appears to have suspect motives.
Either they are correct, and the people of Scotland have no desire for an independence review (in which case why prevent the SNP making a fool of themselves), or they are wrong in their claim regarding the people o f Scotland's wishes (in which case they are deliberately, knowingly usurping the democratic will of the people).
I agree with the other parties. This is a total waste of taxpayers money. i object to this so called "national conversation" what was the election if not a poll of views on independence. The SNP just think we need to be talked around more. they just don't get it that most of us are happy with the way things are, having the Parliament but still being connected to the UK as a whole. The SNP honeymoon period will be over soon.
An Independence referendum was a key pledge in the SNP manifesto - are they expected to abandon their pledges for no good reason? They DID win you know!
The SNP stand at 48% in the polls. Alex Salmond is showing every day how he stands not just head and shoulders but an entire body length above the insignigicant poodles of the other other parties.
So, if the Unionists really want to unite then let them do just that and force through a vote of no confidence in the Executive - from their point of view that would be the honourable thing to do really wouldn't it?
Then we can have a new election - perhaps even one that's free of fiddling this time.
Bring it on!
I thought we lived in a democracy?
Surely if support for independence is dwindling, as is claimed by the opposition parties, there is no reason not to hold a referendum?
A no to independence would give the opposition a chance to say 'Told you so' and dent the reputation of the SNP - but at least the people would have had their say.
Or is it that the opposition are afraid of what the outcome of a referendum would actually be?
SNP won the election and they stand for nationalism and independence. Are the other parties a wee bit scared that people might think a separate Scotland might after all be an excellent idea?
alex Salmond is proving to be the best leader Scotland has had since devolution - long may it continue
The opposition parties are jumping the gun on this issue and not working in the interests of the people in Scotland. An overwhelming majority of people would like a referendum regardless of their pro-union/nationalist belief. These people see that this question should be put to the Scottish people, not just to the MSP鈥檚 in Holyrood. The SNP are the only one of the big four parties who are willing to put Scotland鈥檚 fate in the hands of the people. If Scotland is so greatly against independence, surely the opposition would welcome such a referendum but apparently the cost would be too great -拢7 million I believe- but this is surely a drop in the ocean since they can spend millions compensating prisoners who have been slopping out, not to mention the extravagant parliament building. In my view, the Scottish government will continue to be whipped by Westminster until more Scottish grown parties emerge into contention. I鈥檇 have much more respect for the Scottish Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat鈥檚 if they listened more to the Scottish people than to their bigger brothers down south.
Have I missed something?
In the 100 days since Alex Salmond became First Minister, what exactly has happened? Even though I don't want independence, and certainly didn't want the SNP to be the leading party, I DID hope that they would prove me wrong. that they'd sweep in and set Scotland ablaze with change, reform, and actually do something. In all honesty. there seems to me to have been no difference at all. Has anything been achieved?
But let's have a referendum anyway, let's see what Scotland really wants. And then let's stick with that decision.
I can't understand why the opposition parties are so opposed to a referendum on independence.
Afterall, this is supposed to be a democracy, and if, as Labour have repeatedly claimed in the past, two thirds of Scots are indeed opposed to Independence, then why not let the people decide. This bullying gang mentality clearly shows that the old, decrepit opposition parties are running scared, and that once again, the former labour government have been fiddling the figures to suit their own agenda. This is why young people like me don't vote, why can't politicians just tell the truth for a change?
It really is remarkable the number of own goals the opposition seems to gift the SNP. Labour and the Lib-Dems seem to have got themselves in a situation where they open their mouth and the SNP grows in stature and popularity, rightfully or not. It's like a suicidal continuation of their outrageously negative election campaigns.
Fine by me! But, seriously, it is a sad situation for the many talented MSPs in each of these parties to be in.
Re-think the chat!
The problem with a vote of no confidence in the Executive, is that none of the other three want it! Since coming to power, the SNP have fulfilled 3 of their key manifesto pledges: Scrap the bridge tolls, overturn the previous Executive's plans to kill off 2 A&E Departments and review the Edinburgh Trams/EARL situation. They'll be fulfilling another one tomorrow (publish a white paper on independence) and they're also looking at scrapping the council tax.
So they've done 3 things they said they would, with another 2 in the pipeline. To the average voter, the SNP are the only party in recent memory to do what they were elected to do! And then you have the other 3 parties calling a vote of no confidence, thus sparking a fresh election, it could lead to another large SNP gain, leaving them in the possible position of not requiring party support to get the referendum through!
I think the Other 3 will most likely just spend their time sniping from the sidelines. It's all they've done so far!
Hi Brian Love the Blog,
I think Its Trebles all round, we've seen the Labour party who had difficulty in holding their own ship together for the election now sitting down with the Tories to block an SNP white paper, has hell frozen over, is that a pig landing at Prestwick airport. Will (after the white paper is voted down) the Lib dems get back to providing their voters with the policies that they and the SNP previously agreed upon, probably not. Sour grapes and desperation is on the menu for the opposition at present, however no-one knows how to deflate Ecks popularity (if not his ego)unless the SNP press the self-destruct button again, doubtful but for some there is always hope. Whatever your opinions on the Independance debate, one thing is certainly clear, Scotland feels different, the polls tell us that, people have more confidence, government is more open and called "government" and it would seem the SNP can govern, at least so far. However its not difficult to see why the scottish people are so enamoured with the FM, his whole party is positive and full of energy, and no-one from their side of the chamber says there are things scotland/scots cannot do (although Im in a minority of Scots still thinking beating Italy or France to the european championships will be impossible). If popularity was all we could be independant by next week, however I like many others in scotland would only be likely to accept this route once we had a proven, sensible and mature government in place. I guess we wait and see.
Has anyone done the maths and decided that Scotland can stand as an independent entity. Do the sums add up? I left in 1970 and decided that the national culture is not mature enough to "go it alone".
The statement from the Unionists is narrow minded and petty. They are trying to criticise the SNP for apparently wasting time and money, and for not listening. In fact, the statement itself outlines the Unionists policy of 'if you don't agree with us, we're not listening to you'. What a wondefully mature and democratic thing to say: 'We will not give succour to those who want to end the Union.' So much for mature debate.
I feel that this is simply the Tories, Labours and Liberals way of crafting a weakness. If they can get the public of Scotland to percieve that the only ting the SNP are banging on about is independence they think they can discredit the SNP enough for future ellections.
It's quite ironic that the ones banging on about it seem to be the opposition.
These Unionists really know how to galvanise support for independence!
A couple of inconvenient truths the SNP fan club posting in this blog either seems to want to ignore, or does not understand:
1. In a proportional voting system, you can't 'win' an election unless you get more than 50% of the votes. The SNP did not 'win' the election this year. Nor did anybody else. They do not have a mandate to do whatever they want in Scotland and the other parties have no obligation, legal or moral, to allow them their referendum. The SNP gets the Executive, by convention, but the executive is held accountable by the Parliament, and the seats in the Parliament, thankfully, are allocated according to the share of vote each party won at the election. This means - guess what - it's the Parliament that is expressing the views of the Scottish electorate, not the SNP. Which leads me to my second point...
2. We live in a *representative* democracy. We elect MSPs to consider and act on our behalf because it would be wholly impractical for us to go to the polls and take every decision ourselves. This means that the Unionist parties are *not* being undemocratic in opposing a referendum. They are simply doing what we elected them to do.
If the people of Scotland wanted a referendum on independence, then they could have voted for any of the parties that support the idea in this year's election. The people of Scotland, overwhelmingly, chose not to do so.
The sooner the SNP and its supporters recognise this, and stop pretending the nasty Unionists have taken their ball away, the sooner I hope they can get on with the government by consensus they promised us.
To Number 18
Im not a Maths wizard, but
Our GDP is better than half of the EU member states (without oil) We would be far from the richest states in Europe, but we would be doing OK, we would cut costs on large embassy frameworks, Scotland need not be a world leader on every stage, just have representation on the few important ones for us, sustainable energy, oil, fishing, agriculture, electronics, Finance and whiskey. So Embassies in USA India And China, shared embassies with the EU smaller countries and one in Brussels this is how a lot of EU members manage.
Out of the UK regions scotland has the fourth largest GDP outside south east England, London and east England. its almost double that of wales and NI and 30 percent better than the north of England. We actually contribute more to the UK economy than we get back. We do spend a little heavily on services and Id like to see some changes happen but most of Europe find the question of independance obvious why? indeed why not? Theres nothing really to stop us.
This is not a sensible approach by the three UK based parties. How can they come up with such a daft reason for opposing an independence referendum? If they are so sure of the Scottish political mood on Independence they should call the SNPs bluff. I assume that they think that the stakes are too high to take the risk of asking us what we want. My biggest concern over the independence debate is trusting the mediocre politicians in charge at Holyrood with running our country. Having said that, the debacle of Iraq removed my last remaining trust in our UK government.
The only logical thing to do is to put me in charge! I'd soon have things running the way they should. Before you know it the trains would be running on schedule, Hamilton Accies would be in the Champions League and Scotland would win the Eurovision Song Contest...... Oh sorry guys - started to lose the plot for a moment there. Whew!
Where do we go from here?
With the Libs, Labs, and Tories getting together to vote down a white paper it strikes me that there is huge concern from these parties that their supporters may not be so enamoured with them in the long run.
Recent statements from Jack McConnell and the Liberal Demorats suggest that "the first minister should accept the will of the people" and that "there is nowhere near a majority for independence". Both of these statements may be true but I don't recall being asked this question during the last Holyrood election.
At the moment I am unconvinced as to whether independence is in Scotland's interest but would like to hear a real debate about the subject so that one way or another we can move on rather than merely stifling this subject.
Agree with #19 - Petty is the word. Though I can think of several others. What happened to the empty promises of working together for the betterment of the Scottish people?
The SNP are simply delivering on what they promised at the election - ie that if they were returned as the largest party, they would set in motion their plans NOT for independence, but rather for a referendum in which the people of Scotland would get the opportunity to decide their own future.
A Salmond has consistently stated his preference for a Yes/No question however has been willing to include to option of further powers within any referendum - which, though it appears to be the current "settled will" of the Scottish people, the opposition parties appear unwilling to let them have that say.
The "conversation with the nation" (which is totally a phrase they should be using!) is a sensible way forward, giving everyone the opportunity to throw in their tuppance worth to a debate which needs to be had. The fact that that SNP are a minority administration is irrelevant. Scots voted for them in enough numbers that the issue is now on the table.
Its time the Unionist opposition realised that.
In terms of the sums, with the current increase in spending (funding the reduction in ferry tolls, the abolition of the forth tolls, the student debt pledge, the blocking of A&E closures etc) and the reduction in income (the reduction in council tax, the reduction of business rates etc), an independent scottish nation would quickly go bankrupt.
The "oil revenue" so often harped on about by the SNP will quickly dry up (it's not good quality oil now and increasing taxes on the rich and large companies will mean they pull out of scotland) and there will be no funding from westminster along the lines of the Barnett Formula. We would find ourselves in a position of having huge debt and little way of paying it back (without some kind of forethought that does not involve "we have been cheated out of our oil revenue")
Like the proverbial three monkeys, the opposition squat aloof from the hustle and bustle of our daily politics.
At least the Tories are being philosphically consistent. And the Lib Dems are only living up to their current strapline - 'We think Scotland has a bright future'. No point in being sure about things. But from Labour, whose forward march hasn't just halted but frozen, we need so much more. For a party with plenty of intelligent individuals, many sound principles, some decent achievements in office, they have become the party of George Foulkes and David Cairns. Scottish voters deserve a lot better and, for now, the SNP are providing it.
What are the 3 parties afraid of. If they so firmly believe in their supporters put them to the test and end the independence debate by having all their supporters say NO. Support the white paper get a referendum moving and get the Scottish people to say no to independence. Or do they know that the majority of the population would say YES - yes to independence. Do the major opposition party in Edinburgh know that their supporters would vote for a monkey in red but would also say 'Aye' to independence? I say if they believe in their convictions and voters put them to the test - then we'll see what Scots really want. Independence I'm sure.
Agree with #6. Wait till the English wake up and get fed up of us. They will soon show us how quickly the union can be disolved! Surely the Union is the last vestiges of the archaic and crumbling British Empire.
I have never voted for the nationalists, and probably never will. However, I am more suspicious of the other three parties especially where the Tories and Labour are involved in a common cause. The Nationalists won the last election so the agenda has now changed. Jack McConnel is a political "has-been" and Annabel Goldie will always be a "never-will-be", . What the other three parties are showing is lack of confidence in themselves and undermining the Scottish people.
I honestly can't believe that the three Unionist parties are being so naive. They are being manoeuvred and manipulated by Salmond to such an extent that they may as well show the puppet strings.
Salmond cannot lose from this. Even if all attempts at a referendum fail, the Unionist parties are open to accusations of hiding from the electorate. More importantly though is that they will end up negotiating far more powers to the Scottish Parliament than Salmond could on his own. I suspect that "devolution max" will carry through and from that it is just a minor step to full independence
I find the attitude of the three opposition parties on this issue rather insulting. Why may I not be asked, amongst other options, if independence would be my choice?
The Scots are thrawn, and there's no better way of increasing the demand for independence than telling them it's not good for them, therefore the topic is not up for discussion.
Playing right into Alex Salmond's hands.
I'm not surprised that the unionists have closed ranks against the SNP and more importantly the Scottish people. Why should we not have a full and proper debate on Scottish Independence.
Or is their refusal and reluctance to engage in such a debate influenced by "the establishment" and the hope of one day being elevated to the House of Lords.
The SNP have not totally delivered on their manifesto commitments. The overturning of A&E departments have meant a no to cancer treatement hospitals being built. The Health Board now have to find money from somewhere for units that aren't sustainable. The Trams are still going ahead and big deal they publish a white paper - waste of money and will go no where. Wait until they publish their planned spending - there will be lots of - don't have money for this - can't do that anymore. Basically what Labour and Lib Dems told them the whole time - there is a big black hole in your plans!!!! They are playing at being in government.
As a Scot living abroad and occasionally grilled by our Union brothers and sisters on whether I am one of 'THOSE Scots' (never really understood that reaction), I find that my stock answer (in bizarre agreement with Nick, above) is one of the few that gives me the peace I desire - I am pro-independence for England... At least then I don't get the daft arguments about - (The Times) 'ah, but 'you' could never manage without 'us'' and (The Sun) 'we subsidise you' (ask for figures, that usually gets a funny silence...)
I fear that the average understanding is so low of what independence would really mean amongst us Scots that any referendum would be a farce, split between those who think Culloden was England vs Scotland and those who have been brain-washed to believe Scots are inherently inferior and fear the loss of Eastenders viewing rights. After all, some of my dear compatriots think there can be a 'Scottish' 'Sun' or a 'Scottish' 'Daily Mail' etc.
The (or rather my) only reason to not want a referendum is that I fear that the caution of the middle classes (stability is better than possible gain) would result in a depressing grind towards stag-nation (excuse the pun...)
Och well, to see yourselves as others see you. Have a wee look over the sea at Norway and WITHOUT getting daft about oil, think about agricultural area, coastline, wind/wave/hydro power, area per head of population and other income. Then postulate - 'why not'.
Hello Brian, and thanks for taking the time daily with the blog. Compulsive reading.
However, IMHO, A few inconvenient truths seem to be drifting by here.
1: The SNP exists to return Scotland to being an Independent Sovereign State, and it was a manifesto commitment that a White paper on an Independence Referendum be tabled. The SNP are carrying out a manifesto commitment.
2: Like it or nay, and it seems like 48% of those just polled do, there is an SNP Administration in power.
3: The reality is that Increased Powers must happen. All parties seem to agree on that in one form or another.
4: An Administration of any hue will use those Increased Powers to the full.
5: The more those Increased Powers are used, the greater will be the realisation that the wants, needs and priorities of the Scottish People differ from those of the South of England.
6: The Genie of the question is now out of the bottle and as the SNP seem to be proving a fairly competent and popular government, no amount of Unionist indignancy will force the question back in. Or the West Lothian Question either for that matter.
7: So, Unionists, what have you to be frit of, to quote Lord Forsyth ? If your position is that strong, force a referendum, and let the People say if it is time to assume the rights and prerogatives of a sovereign nation.
Damned if they do, Damned if they don't.
Is Tavish (Nicol Who?) Scott SO Anti-Nat that he will force sacrifice of the Liberal Holy Cow of Referendum to stop Eck at all costs ? Will Annabel realise finally that the game is up and the Union is Lost and it's time for that most Tory of Sports, Internicine In-Fighting ?
And most importantly, What does Wendy Think ?
A superb piece of manoevering by the SNP !
In Posting No. 18, Ian Johnston tells us that he left (Scotland presumably) in 1970 and decided 'the national culture is not mature enough to "go it alone".'
What can he possibly mean by this?
I'm pretty sure that the average age of Scottish citizens or the average levels of educational attainment would be pretty high compared to much of Europe - or England for that matter.
Certainly, Scottish trading companies and industry have lost much of their independence through concentration on a British, then European and increasingly global scale. Has 'mature' London-centred decision-making provided Scottish business with any greater protection from globalisation? I don't think that washes.
In sport Scotland traditionally punched above its weight.
Perhaps Ian Johnston is referring to the level of political debate?
As an Irishman living in England who frequently visits Edinburgh with my Scottish wife, I have been struck by the sense of provincialism in Edinburgh, when compared to Dublin for instance. Though it may be less than ten years old, perhaps there is something teenage about Holyrood. Perhaps this is the 'immaturity' Mr Johnston refers to?
It may lead to some hard-to-swallow maths (toll bridges and private hospitals are increasingly plentiful in the Republic of Ireland), but surely, the road to achieving maturity in the political culture is to properly investigate 'going it alone' - just as Mr Salmond and the SNP propose?
The very fact that the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour are coming together to better focus their opposition shows that there is a level of debate (and the possibility of action) on 'what is best for Scotland' that was not possible in the past.
If, as the Opposition parties claim, the Executive have no mandate to even publish a white paper on Independence,why do they think that they have the authority to block legitimate debate by the people on the way they may wish to go forward? This seems an extraordinary move by any standards!
The Scots are as entitled as anyone else to debate or 'have a conversation' about their future and to take this attitude smacks of a most patronising arrogance towards the people they are supposed to represent.
Are they afraid of debate?
The majority of commentators here seem to be making two mutually exclusive points:
1. The SNP have the people's mandate.
2. The other parties are ganging up on them.
If 1 was true, 2 couldn鈥檛 happen. So which is it?
I don't really think we need a referendum, what with the whole 'nationwide election a few months showing the majority of people support unionist parties' thing.
Whether or not you agree with independence, surely it is the democratic thing to do to have a referendum on the constitutional settlement as it stands, and whether the people believe we should move towards greater devlved powers or independence.
Dont blame the SNP for all this. Its their reason for existence. What with so much question about whether or not a vote for the SNP is a vote for independence, or whether support for independence is greater than believed by some (which some polls suggest - upto 40-50% in some - which would mean some of the 65% who voted Lab/Tory/Lib Dem would be in favour), here is the opportunity for us to find out!
The opposition parties are forever reminding us of the cost of Independence. The cost to Scotland of staying in the union is far greater.
The opposition parties are forever reminding us of the cost of Independence. The cost to Scotland of staying in the union is far greater.
Only with independence can there be an end to the ludicrious and unfair position that Scotland can vote on English affairs in Westminster and not vice versa. Also the fact that many crucial matters are not devolved means Scotland's parliament has only limited powers. Finally it is hugely expensive to the UK to pay the salaries and other costs of a limited Scottish Parliament and Scottish MP's in Westminster. Let Scotland go it alone and prove it is not a parasite of England's wealth, and let it take responsibility and accountability for it's economy and governance. Despite the minority small minded Scots, most of us will remain friends of our neighbour England, a friendship made more full by mutual respect.
Lib-dem,lib-lab,lib-con,all-con. What are the 3 *big* parties scared off?.As I`ve said before "I`m no SNP supporter",but, if this is the way the other 3 are going to try to oust the SNP,then *they* better look out. The decision for independence is one for the people of Scotland,NOT one for party officers or MSPs to make.Give the people the choice, is that not what democracy is all about?.
Malc#23 has it right,"work together for the good of Scotland".
It`s time the WELL paid MSPs listened properly to the electorate{most of whom are poorly paid}and gave us what WE want.
In Posting No. 18, Ian Johnston tells us that he left (Scotland presumably) in 1970 and decided 'the national culture is not mature enough to "go it alone".'
What can he possibly mean by this?
I'm pretty sure that the average age of Scottish citizens or the average levels of educational attainment would be pretty high compared to much of Europe - or England for that matter.
Certainly, Scottish trading companies and industry have lost much of their independence through concentration on a British, then European and increasingly global scale. Has 'mature' London-centred decision-making provided Scottish business with any greater protection from globalisation? I don't think that washes.
In sport Scotland traditionally punched above its weight.
Perhaps Ian Johnston is referring to the level of political debate?
As an Irishman living in England who frequently visits Edinburgh with my Scottish wife, I have been struck by the sense of provincialism in Edinburgh, when compared to Dublin for instance. Though it may be less than ten years old, perhaps there is something teenage about Holyrood. Perhaps this is the 'immaturity' Mr Johnston refers to?
It may lead to some hard-to-swallow maths (toll bridges and private hospitals are increasingly plentiful in the Republic of Ireland), but surely, the road to achieving maturity in the political culture is to properly investigate 'going it alone' - just as Mr Salmond and the SNP propose?
The very fact that the Conservatives, Lib Dems and Labour are coming together to better focus their opposition shows that there is a level of debate (and the possibility of action) on 'what is best for Scotland' that was not possible in the past.
To the suggestion that the election in May was for independence, as implied by #22, I totally disagree. Voters in that election come from various backgrounds and nationalities, including English, and these people may agree with Scottish independence but not see it as a big enough issue to swing their vote in favor of the SNP. It鈥檚 na茂ve to assume that all Conservative, Labour and Lib Dem voters are against independence. I鈥檓 sure that it鈥檚 not impossible for an SNP voter to think that Labour have some better policies than the SNP. Labour would also have you thinking that independence for Scotland would be breaking up Britain- has Britain not been falling apart for over 100 years? Would it be fair to blame such a downfall of Britain on the wishes of the Scottish people, making us feel guilty?
What was the foundation of the Union built on anyway? It certainly coined the term 鈥榖ought and sold for English gold鈥 I should state that I do not believe that any current issue over independence is out of hatred for English, love of Scottish if anything, but this shows that it was never the will of the Scottish people to be part of a Union. I believe we would continue to have a strong relationship in every way with England and the rest of the U.K., should we gain independence. But surely we should be given the opportunity to decide that.
Re: Nick #6
I couldn't agree more with what you've written. I am a Scotsman, totally in favour with English independence.
The Union is finished.
Alex has the three amigos running scared of their own shadows. The SNP are doing and saying what the Scottish people want and it's working. Let them call a vote of no confidence and watch as the SNP Majority/Minority whatever you want to call it rake in more votes than you would believe.
What is happening in this argument over independance?
It seems to me the Scottish people after five hundred years are still facing the problem of not knowing what to do for the best, this keeps our political future turbulent. This must be to someones advantage,has nothing changed? Well we are all human what can you expect! At least it will keep lots of politicians in work for the forseable future may be that's where the advantage is.
Hugh White
Whether Scotland goes down the road of independence or stays within the union is a decision that should be made by ALL of the voting public. The Labour independence referendum was a farce as a tiny minority held sway over the result. This is a decision that should be made compulsory for all voters to make their mark and not let apathy choose the direction of Scotland's future.
NEWSFLASH FOR 'THE OPPOSITION PARTIES' - THE 3RD OF MAY WAS AN ELECTION WHICH THE SNP WON BASED ON THEIR ALL ROUND POLICY OFFERING, IT WAS NOT A REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE!
This is something that they really don't seem to be grasping. There is a very substantial case for independence but it is one that the majority of people in Scotland have been deprived of. They claim that independence would 'do great damage to Scotland' but have nothing to back that up at all. Even pointing a finger at Norway has more substance in terms of proving the reverse point!
Any time the topic of independence is raised before an election the SNP are shot down in cries of them being 1 dimensional. Alex Salmond alone has more dimensions than the entire collection of Labour, Lib-Dem and Tory MSPs!
I'm looking forward to seeing the paper tomorrow - another manifesto pledge met and the good work of our new government carries on...
Absolutely outrageous. The three tribes, led by London, object to dialogue with the Scottish people? Regardless of hidden agendas of total independence or not, it is the Scottish folks right to be able to say ye or nae to whatever is asked, without intervention from those NOT in power north of the border. This is not about 'braveheart' syndrome but is about simple dialogue and debate involving those who vote...it is essentially market research of the target consumer...nothing more at this stage.
Very well balanced blog from Brian Taylor. Thank you Brian.
PEOPLE POLITICS V POWER POLITICS
The Unionists are trying to look and sound powerful with their multi voiced attack on Independence. Clearly they forget this is also an attack on democracy.
The ultimate power in any country is the people. Democracies operating a People Politics regime tend to consult their populations far more than those in a Power Politics regime.
What we are witnessing in Edinburgh is the old guard, steeped in Power Politics attempting to stifle the new boys who are very successfully operating the UK's first ever People Politics regime.
The people will of course back People Politics which gives them a sense of being valued, a sense of belonging, a sense that the government actually cares about them and is genuinely trying to make their lives better.
In less than 3 months the people have experienced more benefits than in the past 8 years...even if that's only a perception, for them, that perception is reality.
Why would they want to go backwards into the darkness now that someone has shown them the way forwards towards the light?
The Unionists need to get behind this public discussion. Their voices and views are needed to enable a true consensus to emerge. Failure to do so will rightly take them out of the game for the foreseeable future.
Can't help thinking the SNP are so busy at showing how clever they are and torturing their feeble opposition that they have forgotten what they are there to do. This conversation with Scotland will take up a lot of time, energy and money that would be better spent on more practical and pressing issues.
The SNP did not win a majority of votes so I think it's a safe bet to assume that most of us didn't want independence otherwise we would have given them a mandate to secure it.
I was glad to see the back of Jack and Tony but 100 days in and already I'm beginning to think that maybe Jack wasn't so bad after all.Now that's a worry!
The SNP won the overall support of the nation and those that voted for the SNP did have a choice afterall. If Independence was the great fear that the other parties claimed it was, then Alex Salmond would simply not be first minister.
Scotland has made significant progress in the relatively short time Alex Salmond and his party have been given. They have more than earned the right to put the future of the Scottish population first as they always pledged they would do.
Alex Salmond's track record so far has been nothing short of exemplary and he is picking up the global respect as a leader he richly deserves.
The petty scare mongering of the main weakening opposition parties fell on deaf ears at the last election. Now that the SNP led by Alex Salmond have shown their true value and commitment to the Scottish Population, the many attractions of an Independent Scotland can only grow in popularity, just as it did in 193 other independent states recognised under the United Nations.
In the world of economics and politics bigger is nearly always better. Independence from the rest of the UK would leave Scotland as a relatively small economic entity and a minor political force on the World stage. I don't doubt the ability of Scots to manage our economy but I believe we are still better off being part of a larger economic power. Also, does Mr Salmond really believe that an independent Scotland would have much influence on the rest of the EU?
It was an inevitable consequence of devolution that the question of independence would and needed to be revisited, in order to define the limits of devolution.
Independence is, however, in today's inter-dependent world, an irrelevance and talk of it is merely divisive (exactly the short-sighted tactic being played to their advantage by the nationalists, but which will return to bite them when they are defeated - I'm sure many English would support the SNP just to rid parliament of the Scottish clique at the top!).
How far will the perversity based on a selective misinterpretation of history extend - will the northern or western islands also be offered their own referenda on independence from Edinburgh?
What conditions would be placed on the Scots should a change of mind occur and reunification be desired a generation after any potential split?
For the benefit of the wider population this consensual alliance shows how to overcome abusers of democracy, but it remains to be seen whether sufficient opponents have been invested with enough selfish interest to deny the common history and defeat the common interests of the common peoples of our islands.
It is 60 years since the partition of India and Pakistan was supposed to solve the problems of sectarianism and poverty, yet millions have died from violence and poverty in that period and are still suffering today from the same effects.
Does history have any new lessons to teach us? Can we show that we have learnt?
If the SNP didnt publish this white paper, the other parties would cry foul, damned if they do and damned if they dont.
however can someone remind me when there was an independence referendum a few months ago, i only ask because Labour and the toher unionists are forever saying Independence was rejected in May. Now that either suggests the parties are unbelievably stupid or the think the voters are, that they'd vote for a parliament purely on the basis of one single issue
Given that a Scottish Executive spokesman has said, "To some extent the opposition parties have misunderstood the nature of the document tomorrow ... ", I think the other 'big' three parties may have just made a pre-emptive faux-pas! I'm looking forward to seeing exactly what this white paper says.
Oh! And for those suggesting that this issue was settled at the general election, let us remember that a general election is a multi-issue poll on who should govern the country and not a mechanism for constitutional reform ... that's what referendums are for.
And one more thing. Alex Salmond was voted in as the First Minister by the Parliament ... he and his position was endorsed by the parliament.
I voted SNP, mainly for independance. To begin with, I want a .sco or .sc URL, not a .co.uk
That should make Holyrude .gov.sco or .gov.sc
I look forward to the day it happens.
The point has been made that Scotland is a representative democracy, and as such, our representatives should be allowed to make the important constitutional decisions for us.
Why then, did Labour feel the need to ask us if we wanted a Scottish Parliament in the first place, if our representatives can make these decisions?
Seems to me that they thought devolution would quell the independence movement. And it has, to an extent. But whether the SNP have a mandate - and in a PR system which was explicitly designed to stop them from having sole control of the country - who does? They are the government, as as such, get to set the agenda.
As the central pillar of their existence, a conversation about our constitutional future is not only expected, it is required. If only to allow the discussion on this blog to take place on a larger scale!
The Unionist parties complain about the SNP meeting an election manifesto pledge but if they had not done so then these same parties would have been complaining of broken election promises.
The SNP are doing the right thing ignoring these people and talking directly to the Scottish people who if the polls are to be believed like what they are hearing.
I find it strange all this gnashing of teeth over the recent poll showing 32% in favour of outright independence, 49% opposed and 20% undecided. Right now, neither side has a majority,
If the undecided broke evenly, the poll would be 41.5 in favour and 58.5 opposed. In this scenario, a unionist majority but hardly a landslide vote.
Given the strength of the question and the options, the easiest answer would be the status quo and still only 49% indicated that choice. The rest, either support independence or are undecided. The undecided vote is at least considering independence as an option.
The real news here is that anything can happen in a referendum vote. That is why our unionist friends are terrified of even considering it. Their own internal polls show that the nationlist vote is hardline, while the unionist vote is softer. It also shows that the majority of the undecided are leaning nationalist.
Niether side is guaranteed a victory but the nationalist side has the momentum, the emotional argument, the change argument and holds the reins of power. The unionists are arguing for the status quo and are blinded by the politics of fear.
Hope trumps fear, time after time.
As the party polls show, the sides are firming up. The SNP on one side and the unionists dominated by Labour on the other. LibDem and Tory support is bleeding away and only the Brown bounce is keeping Labour at present levels.
Three months ago, the unionist parties garnered 66% of the vote. Today, they have 48%. Parites representing the nationalist cause are now support by a majority of the scottish people. Almost a full third of those who supported unionist parties on May 3 are no longer supporters.
WHY IS THAT?
Perhaps my unionist friends can offer an explanation.
I eagerly await your thoughts.
Isn't it quite ironic that the party that claims to further the interests of Scotland most will be the one that leads to its demise? The fact that only about 75% of people who voted SNP also want independence I think also shows either that 1) a large number of people voted for that party out of exasperation at the others, and don't actually support independence, or 2) people don't know what they're voting for.
In any event, support for the SNP and support for independence are clearly not synonymous. Mark my words, Brian, there will be riots if independence is forced upon us.
"Independence" has been the tag-line for the SNP campaign for years, we all knew this.The great thing about a referendum is that it involves a VOTE.
We also knew that as soon as the matter arose the opposition leaders would gang up like a trio of witches to devalue the SNP plan. As far as I can see that's absolutely fine, that's just politics.
What does concern me is that the opposition want to stop the plans for referendum before they even get off the ground. But in their statement they claim to represent 65% of Scottish voters. Is this a pre-emptive panic? With that much support surely they should feel safe enough assuming the votes at the end of the day will be counted in their favour. Labour, Tory and Lib Dem MSP's are playing a dangerous game. If they keep cornering the SNP, Jack, Annabel and Nicol are going to get bitten, not by the First Minister's bulldog, but by the Scottish people. It will not be long before we get fed up with opposition parties wrangling political capital rather than working with our elected government for our immediate best interests. The SNP are publishing their white paper on independence, let us decide for ourselves, I think there's a word that - democracy.
My wife and I both voted SNP because we believe that independence is the best way forward for Scotland. However we are also aware that Scotland is one specified region of the ever growing and integrating EU. (England is, I believe, nine EU regions, including London. For those Englishmen demanding THEIR independence, the North-East region has rejected, by referendum, electing their own regional assembly which governs them nevertheless, unelected.) So we shall no longer be ruled from Westminster but from Brussels. Our personal preference would be to join Norway as an independent country with trading relations with the EU and secure our fishing rights and oil in the North Sea, without EU participation. I trust that the whole picture of what lies ahead will be spelled out in the white paper but somehow I have my doubts. The leaders of all the parties in Edinburgh must be aware of the EU treaty that replaced the EU constitution transferring greater powers to Brussels. They must also know that their recent fit of pique is meaningless in light of the emergence of an even greater governiong power than the one in Westminster. The entire charade demonstrates their untrustworthiness. Jack McConnell is listed as a full member of the European Commission of the Regions so he knows whereof I speak. The determination of British, and Scottish, politicians to keep their constituents in the dark about what is really going on in the corridors of power in Brussels, is despicable. Let us have a conversation by all means about the political future of Scotland but let us have it right out in the open. The choice should be between independence OUTSIDE the EU and independence INSIDE the EU. More devolved powers within an old, toothless, British lion is just postponing the inevitable, pretending we don't know where we are going.
I think that Alex Salmond has dealt a hand of political poker and the combined opposition parties have bought the bluff; come the next election:
Who will be clearly labelled as the parties who have blocked an independence vote?
Who will be labelled as not permitting the Scottish people to voice their own opinion?
Who will be labelled as untrusting of the Scottish voter鈥檚 ability to come to a reasonable decision?
Which minority of 78 MSPs, Labour 46, Conservative 16, Liberal Democrats 16, feel they have the right to dictate to the 5,062,011?
When it suits these overpaid underworked individuals they claim they are elected to represent the views of the electorate, when it does not they claim they were elected to express their own views, voting on their own when they choose to elect issues as a matter of conscience.
The people of Scotland will exercise their views at the next election, they will not forget, nor will they be allowed to forget which politicians and political parties felt that they were neither worthy nor intelligent enough as are those 78 MSPs to make such lofty decisions.
I don't really want independence, although I voted SNP for the first time in May. Scotland NEEDS the SNP in power in the Scottish Parliament, as Labour were just London's lapdog (with a tartan collar). Alex Salmond has been superb so far.
I don't believe that a referendum would lead to independence, but the fact that the other parties don't want a referendum automatically makes them hypocrites! The only reason why they don't want a referendum that makes sense is that they think the majority of Scots want independence. If the majority of Scots want independence then who are they to stand in the way of the majority by refusing to have a referendum?
The SNP have delivered exactly what they said they would i.e saving A&E depts at Ayr and Monklands Hospitals and removing the tolls on the Forth road bridge.
I think we should trust them to deliver a better Scotland through Independence.
I think the 3 opposition parties have jumped the gun on this one. They are immediately blocking the white paper without having read or reviewed it in any way. The SNP appear to be asking for a "discussion" and in that sense they are more than likely to offer up (suggest) a multi option referendum after debate on what those questions are to be. That means that the 3 have banded together to see how best to forward devolution when that suggestion will more than likely be in the White Paper and therefore the 3 parties will look juvenile for ridiculing a paper that contains more than 1 suggestible outcome and is more than welcoming of what is suggested in their statement. On the other hand the "We said it first. Look it's in our joint statement that came out 1 day before your paper." will probably be the argument for the Union parties at the next election as the others used in previous elections have thus far been proven wrong.
Someone above wrote that the SNP will stop at nothing to gain independence, I agree but having waited 300 years I am sure they will accept fiscal autonomy or the like and when the economy succeeds to ask the independence question in a few years. What seems to escape the other parties and the die hard Unionists who are not open to suggestion, is that the SNP is actually listening and (so far) doing a good job. I am not for independence as yet but I can be swayed by several good years of fiscal autonomy or swayed to the Union by the contrary. To close yourself off from opinion or hard facts is a nonsense, there will always be arguments for and against the Union but these need to be discussed in full.
The 3 parties denying the people of a choice may not work in their favour. People may not want independence but people want a chance to be heard. 2/3's of the votes did not go to an independence party but 2/3's of the votes went to parties who promised change. Why are they jumping the gun and denying the 2/3's their voice in what that change is to be in the multi option referendum from the SNP?
I just don't understand those who oppose Scotland's independence, but offer no option other than something within the existing union. Mainly its seems they are against Scotland running its own affairs on the grounds that we're too small (Iceland manages a reasonable economy with only 300,000 of a population), too poor (well that's the fruits of Union for you - wealth creation is not just about having masses of natural resources Switzerland manages pretty well) or too thick (given we've had 300 years of Union maybe they have a point, but we do seem capable of producing statesmen, entrepreneurs, scientist, engineers and others who are able to hold their own with their peers internationally.
People need to make their minds up if they are Scottish or not. If they are, then they should have the confidence to want to look after their own affairs. I don't see many householders rushing into their neighbours on payday and handing over their wages for their neighbour to decide how it should be spent. Working alongside neighbours is healthy, allowing them to dictate how you should live is not. It gets you into wars on false pretences.
Well, what an unholy alliance - Labour, Conservative and Lib Dems joining up to tell us what we shouldn't have. Now there's a reason in itself to want it!
If the voters in Scotland had wanted independence we could all have voted SNP; 3/4 of us voted for Unionist parties. This action by the SNP is pathetic and a blatant disregard for what the voters in Scotland actually voted for. I am so sick of Salmond assuming that because I live in that part of the United Kingdom called Scotland that I am not British and that he is free to foist another nationality on me.
On the assumption that it's not only those wanting the opportunity to have a say via a referendum who can write e-mails, the balance of comments to date indicates that the 'gang of three' have badly misjudged the opinions of the electorate; or do they just not care?
It's incredible to see Scottish Labour and the Lib Dems standing shoulder to shoulder with the Tories. They have united, not against independence, but against talking about independence. I really can't believe that they have fallen into Alex Salmond's tar pit. Did they not think that this is exactly what the SNP expected and hoped that they would do? I can see splits within each of the parties as anger mounts from their membership about this anti-democratic alliance. For the Lib Dems especially this is a disaster. What on earth are they doing? They are finished.
Bob - You suggest that independence would leave Scotland as a relatively small economic entity and a minor political force on the World stage.
Ever been to Norway? I have many times over the past 25 years.
Norway has a bustling economy with more than a sprinkling of global players especially in the energy sector. They are well ahead of not just Scotland but the entire UK in terms of developing alternative energy technologies and even have a couple of companies building electric cars.
Compared to Scotland Norway is an industrial giant and they got there because their Govt, their industry and critically, their financial institutions got together to make it all happen.
There isn't a hope in hades of Scotland getting anywhere close to emulating their success until we get out from under the stifling influence of the UK Treasury and the City.
Independence is a big step but it's the only way we will ever achieve anything close to Scotland's real potential.
Very simple this, the Unionist coalition might not like the result of a referendum so will attempt to stop it happening.
however if their campaign is as effective as George Robertson's "devolution will kill the SNP stone dead" keep up the good work Unionists.
Shawdow boxing,clever politics,critical theories,self determination,not a bit,simply ask the question?in a world of uncertainty the only certain answer you can find is stability lies within the union;i dont think there can be no doubt,we would seriously damage our security with an independent foreign policy."stop driving the stake Alex and start driving the wheels of progress.
If this white paper is being decried as a waste of money, then how come we do not have published here on the 麻豆官网首页入口 just how much money it cost to get this paper out?
Unionists are just British Nationalists by another name. They believe in the British 'nation', even though there is no such thing. Time for a reality check. Time for Scotland to check out! Brian, think of it, this should give you some exciting foreign forays in future.
I listened carefully to Jack McConnell and compared what he said with the SNPs comments about the referendum. Sadly, Jack seems to have missed the boat. There was no vision for Scotland, no ambition, just more of the sad restrictions and being too afraid to move Scotland on. Alex Salmond is a godsend for Scotland.
I can understand the Unionists collaborating to prevent any move to Independence - it clearly shows their priority to the United Kingdom and metro-centric government from London, ahead of the best interests of the Scottish people.
But these same parties will then agree on more powers for the Scottish Parliament, taking a step closer to full sovereignty. Is that not a touch hypocritical? If the Union is so good for Scotland, why do they need devolution? let alone more autonomy?
Why in this fantasic country are we still scared of our own potenial? Im not saying we are going to be the richest nation on Earth.(oil riches unknown) but why dont we at least give it a try?
There is a support for independence which i believe is growing.
Why is it that the major parties in Scotland (apart from SNP obviously) against the democratic right of some 5 million people?
THIS IS THE LAST STRAW WITH THE THREE OPPOSITION PARTIES,THEY HAVE REALLY ANNOYED ME NOW.I WILL ALWAYS VOTE SNP FROM NOW ON FOR SCOTLANDS BEST INTERESTS.COME ON PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND ITS TIME TO SHOW WHAT WE CAN DO FOR OURSELVES.
Hi Brian
Although living in the USA now, i thoroughly enjoy your blog. Anyway, do the 3 Opposition leaders not realise that Eck would have anticipated this pathetic response, and will no doubt benefit from it. Eck has proved to be the consumate politican and the best Scottish leader to date(not difficult to come out on top there!) I am confident that the SNP will only benefit and grow stronger as a result of the forthcoming white paper. I can't wait to see how this unfolds - gripping stuff! Trebles all round again :)
"I just don't understand those who oppose Scotland's independence, but offer no option other than something within the existing union."
Err... that's probably because those are actually the only choices available. We're either independent or part of the union whether our government is either devolved or centralised.
As for a referendum on independence my worry would be that people will vote on the paucity of the quality of current unionist parties' representatives rather than on sound issues like our ability to manage an economy and having a sound social structure. Until we see hard facts with no spin on how we stand up - and at the moment we simply don't - on these criteria then I'm not interested in independence in the slightest.
In all honesty I find it totally outrageous that these Unionist parties would block such a document of national importance.
It's time Scotland was given a fairer deal and the people of Scotland a better standard of life .. two things I believe the SNP can deliver on. Clearly there is a large support for the SNP in Scotland, as can be seen from the May elections!
Labour, Tories and the Little Labour Liberals all complain that the SNP are not being clear enough about their plans for Scotland's independent future! However, when the party try to outline these prospects and agendas they are blocked by the same parties who argue for them!?
This is a democracy .. or supposed to be! Let the paper go through and give the people the power to choose whether the union is good for Scotland or whether they too believe that the true way forward for Scotland is through an Independent nation run by the SNP! Power given to the people not the narrow minded unionist politicians!
The question of independence needs to be settled (finally) so that people can get on with their lives undisturbed by the machinations of point-scoring politicians.
I'm not convinced the issue isn't a screen for rump dissatisfaction relating to political failure rather than a positive vision for the future.
Have a referendum by all means, but make sure the choice is made in full consciousness of what it entails and not under the influence of immature illusion and adolescent parochial bias.
That said, independence IS increasingly meaningless in an overwhelmingly inter-dependent world.
In response to Mark's comment about the SNP never being satisfied with more powers for Holyrood and anyone who thinks so is a joke. Well of course they are! If you believe the SNP would be happy with this or are making any pretence at this then you shouldn't comment on politics until you understand the basics. The SNP are pro-independence NOT pro devolution and they're not trying to hide that fact. The joke is on anyone who thinks that they are and who thinks by letting others know this that somehow the SNP's support will fade away. Those who vote for the SNP know that their goal is independence that's why you vote for the SNP!
Just what exactly is the problem with having a referendum? Agreeing to one isn't agreeing to independence, it is accepting that the PEOPLE of Scotland have a right to decide for themselves what happens to their country.
To go so decidedly against even wanting Scotland's inhabitants to have the chance to say what they think is NOT democracy, it is trying to control the electorate and have things your own way.
I don't live in Scotland so this is nothing much t do with me, but from what I can see the three parties in question seem to be running scared of what the people they are supposed to represent might actually want.
If there WAS a referendum then let the result of that dictate the future , then everyone can move on in whatever way is appropriate. Otherwise they are just playing into the hands of the SNP who will be making much of the opposition being against the people even having a say in the matter.
I think one thing that is lacking in this whole debate is a lack of respect for other people's opinions. I'm quite indifferent to the whole argument but do find myself getting slightly vexed when I see the three parties in question tear into 'wee Eck' like it's all about his personal philosophy. What they are actually doing is isolating thousand of voters and I find that completely inexcusable in todays 'tolerant' society. This kind of attitude makes a complete mockery of democracy. Are the Scottish voters only to be trusted when they think like 'this' or 'that', otherwise they are to be treated with contempt and as though they are utter fools?
In the old Scottish Constitution it clearly stated that the Parliament and the sovereign were the servants of the people of Scotland.
Alex Salmond was elected to Govern Scotland by the Scottish People without trying to hide any parts of his manifesto. We voted for this Party and their Manifesto. Alex and the SNP have carried out all their promises to us to the letter. The sky did not fall in as these other three parties claimed it would and the SNP have listened to the Scots and tried to seek middle ground despite being continually attacked by the general media and especially the 麻豆官网首页入口 who are an English Corporation.
I am surprised that anyone could have bitten their tongue the way the SNP have. Alex is proving everyday that he stands up for the Scottish People now its our turn to back him up by voting these parties out of Westminster. Vote SNP for Westminster at least they will put us first.
hi brian, independence,yes please.
bring it on.enjoy your blogs, keep it going.
This tired old notion trotted out by Unionists that "two-thirds of the country voted anti-independence so there's no need for a referendum" always makes me laugh. Two-thirds of the UK voted in the last General Election for parties opposed to ID cards, but we're still going to get them, because that's how the system works. If the Scottish Parliament election was a referendum on independence, all Unionists would have voted Tory, since they're the party by far the most committed to retaining it. It's a mark of how desperately the Unionists are clutching at straws to see them try this feeble line.
The facts of the matter are abundantly clear, and consistently show in every poll - regardless of their position on independence, around 80% of Scots want a referendum. That the Unionist parties are too terrified to give the people what they want speaks far louder than the weasel words spouted by the unholy alliance yesterday.
Good Gracious this has fair provoked a response!
Was just wondering if anyone else felt that The Terrible Three were reciting their lines as if they had learnt them by rote? And delivered so unconvincingly too in Newsnight. It almost seemed to me as if they were puppets delivering pre-recorded messages because they had to!
The real problem with the concept of independence is that it ignores the reality of an ever shrinking world and the fact that small units carry much less "clout" than big ones. Forget independence and, to an extent, existing devolution. Let's have a framework that allows us great freedom as local communities to decide our own destiny and allows decisions to be made at regional and national and international levels when appropriate. As to the question of referendums - we have a represetative democacracy - I want MSP's, MPS and MP's tp make measured decisions. Referenda are the usual prerogative of dictators and dodgy governments.
Philip:
So is Switzerland, a country using referenda for much more than constitutional issues, dictatorship or a dodgy government?
I'm sure you've taken the time to read the white paper and know that an independent Scotland would, in the European Union, have twice as many deligates and its own representative in the European Comission. We would have substantially more clout, not less!
There are three thing we can't have with Devolution Max which we can get with independence. These things are defence, international relations, and immigration/nationality. So the choice between DevoMax and Unthirldom comes down to questions like:
Do you want the Scottish Regiment to go to war without a Scottish majority?
Do you want Nuclear Weapons stored on the river Clyde?
Do you think Scotland's interests are best served by UK ministers and ambassadors, or will Scotland's interests be best served by representatives of the Scottish government?
Do you want to have Scottish nationality and citizenship in addition to (or exclusively of) British, or only British?
Do you want to reverse the trend of a shrinking population with a relaxed immigration policy, or by some other means?
Devolution Max with powers over everything but those above will probably be the choice of the many. It would even allow Scotland to escape the Barnett Formula if full fiscal control (bar exchange rates and central banks) were devolved. It would provide an environment where our confidence could grow as a nation, and then, ten or twenty years down the line, we would see that we can "make it" and enjoy the benefits of independence.
Philip Quite a lot of 'small countries' would take issue with you on your sentiments.
A large number and increasing number of Scots wish to participate in this discussion, just to give us freedom to decide our own destiny.
As for referenda - used in many countries who cetainly cannot be described as dictatorships or dodgy!
Let's talk!
Personally, I feel Scotland would be better off remaining within the Union and working on ways to gain more autonomy and revitalise its economy, rather than going it alone, but I'm prepared to go with the majority should it ever come to a referendum.
Although born in England I now live in Scotland with my family and find the many negative and insulting comments by other English born contributors depressing. Most are ill-informed and only serve to demonstrate how uneducated and lacking in knowledge so many English people are.
That's not to say they have a monopoly on ignorance. There is plenty of the same coming from north of the Wall.
I would hope that this discussion of the future of Scotland can bring out only the very best in people so that a truly informed debate can take place.
Independence? Not for me thanks. My identity is a bit more sophisticated than some of the SNP supporters seem to be able to grasp. I see no problem in being both Scottish and British, None whasoever. Could Scotland go it alone. maybe maybe not. Thats not the issue. Why throw away three hundred years of succesful Union?
It certainly needs some remodelling but we would be fools to throw it away.
The UK needs to evolve into a more federated type of entity. A parliament for england and one for scotland with a federal structure involving representation from each parliament/assembly. that way we keep the strengths and design out any current weaknesses.
My perception of the pro-union parties is they are stubborn, intransigent and refuse to accept change. They seem to think they know best and care little for the general public's viewpoint.
The pro-union parties maybe feel entitled to refuse calls for a referendum, as they believe the people who voted for them don't want independence. However, they don鈥檛 know this for certain. Perhaps people who voted for them do want independence but just don鈥檛 value it as highly as those who vote for pro-independence parties.
Having a referendum would settle it once and for all鈥t least for a few years.
It is good of Bryce and Sandra to try to put me right! (97, 98 and 99) I am told to compare Scotland with Switzerland - no thanks - everyone knows the Swiss have no clout. I am asked about Scottish regiments going off to fight without consultation - likely to happen anyway with or without independence. I am asked about the nuclear subs on the Clyde - have you considered the Scottish jobs dependent on them? As for the EU and having more delegates - we all know that the EU is hardly very democratic and has been kept that way by the governments of the member nations who insist on keeping all the power to themselves. I honestly don't believe that Alex, Wendy et al are any better than the current Westminster shower and that what really matters to most people is what happens close by to them. Maximum decentralisation is what I want. I do not want to replace Whitehall with an Edinburgh equivalent holding and gathering as much power as possible to the centre.
History demonstrates that every government since the second world war has centralised and dominated and I fear that is always likely to be the case. I don't believe independence will help with this - it could make it worse!
Would Labour, the Lib Dems and their Tory Party hangers on be talking about more powers for Holyrood if the SNP hadn't won the largest share of the votes in May?
I think we all know the answer to that one.
More power to Alex Salmond.
Foe heaven's sake; nationalism is not an economics argument; it is an argument about cultural / historical (spiritual?) perception. Half the counries of the world would not exist if it was just about the economy; it's how people see themselves first and foremost. So those who don't like independence better get ready for the end of the six nations, the English (soccer) football team, the English cricket team, we'll need to ban 'Braveheart', the term Scotland better go as it supports the idea that Scotland is different, and we'd better ban all the flags of the differnt nations (bye-bye St George)... Or, perhaps it's sensible to recognise we are different. If so, the logic is an independent Scotland.
It's funny that almost every ideological fault that can be levied at those seeking independence is probably more applicable to those seeking to retain the union.
Narrow minded nationalists - not so narrow minded as they're not willing to explore the possibilities beyond our current position ... rather open to the possibilities
Backward looking nationalists - not as backward looking as those that harp on about "throw[ing] away three hundred years of succesful Union?", it might have been a success once upon a time, but it's time is past ... let's look to the future without the shackles of the union.
Arrogant nationalists - isn't it more arrogant to tell the people what they think rather than letting them speak for themselves.
I could go on, but I think that'll do for now ... oh! this isn't a new conversation, it's a very very old one ...
A.Gunn:
You're right that Nationalism is a cultural argument. Polls have shown that the cultural argument has been won. More than two thirds of Scots consider themselves Scots first, and Brits either second or not at all. However, support for independence amongst these groups is in the minority. One reason for this is that the economic argument has not been made or is not convincing.
If you support independence, and want others to do so as well, saying independence is a matter of the heart will not be enough to convince people. The ordinary voter has genuine concerns about independence which cannot be pushed to one side. They must be addressed.
Independence is a coin. It has two sides. We know we have won their hearts, now it is time to win their heads.
I love my country and hate no others麓. Does this make me samll minded or xenaphobic?
As such I would back Scotland to the hilt each and every time, be it fishing, ship building, stance on Iraq, position in EU or anti nuclear weapons, etc.
Who do the Unionist麓s back - answer = London! Scotland comes a significant distance behind the needs of London.
Edna Cameron
"If the people of Scotland wanted a referendum on independence, then they could have voted for any of the parties that support the idea in this year's election. The people of Scotland, overwhelmingly, chose not to do so."
I feel that's large generalisation.
People vote particular parties for many reasons.
There seems to be considerable enthusiasm for a referendum among the voters. I wonder if this reflects a desire for a more participative democracy as compared with the representative version, distorted by factional interest, which we have endured for so long? And is the unionist alliance becoming today's "parcel o' rogues in a nation"?