91Èȱ¬

This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the house rules. Explain.

Personally I haven't made my mind up on whether it'd be a good thing or not, but I'm sure we'll get the passionate ends of the spectrum discussed here at great length yet again shortly!

My one hope on the matter is that the people of Scotland actually get the referendum they are promised. This, after all, even on such fundamental constitutional matters as this, doesn't always happen...

Nick,
It is wrong to say that he does not have support for a referendum. Opinion polls put that support at between half and two thirds of the population in Scotland.

John

Because Nick he's a man obsessed. He wants his place in the history books and thats it.

If Cameron had any sense, he'd be promising a UK-wide referendum on the future of the Union. The Tories say they are in favour of the Union, let them make the argument.

Primarily though, it would be a welcome distraction for the English masses while he systematically disassembles the welfare state upon which so many of the Labour Party's supporters rely. Plus, when the Scots realise that a majority of English voters would just as soon rebuild Hadrian's Wall, maybe they'll realise independence is actually the best way forward after all.

Win-win for Cameron (and Salmond), I'd say.

Quick question for those who like conspiracy theories.

Let us assume that the tories are the biggest party in a hung parliament. The Unionists will support them in Ulster. Alex Salmond's price for support is a vote on a referendum and agreement that if it is in favour of independence that the Tories will enable the relevant bills through Westminster in the next Parliament.

The pro is obvious for the SNP for the Conservatives the pros are, as far as I see it.

1) A partner that has much more to lose than you do by rocking the boat.

2) Scottish independence and the abolition of Scottish MP's at Westminster would make a labour vicotry in 2014 or 2015 very very difficult if not impossible.

A very Machiavellian possibility.

Nick, you always get a "good" photo to go with your blogs but this one has excelled. Did Alex win the gurning contest ?

I'm sure I have read that Income Tax will be devolved. If so do we, ie those not in Scotland,stop bunging towards Scotland ? Or if they set a lower rate can we all move there. Or if it is a higher rate will they all move down here ?

This all looks as though it is going to be very interesting.

"The Scottish public doesn't want it;"

So we keep being told so why no referendum in the issue to settle it once and for all - maybe because it isnt as clear cut as you state and the Westminster parties are running scared.

Scotland is important for the next general election which is why despite general cross party agreement nothing is happening on "independence light" as Nick likes to call it until after the UK general election.

I believe their will be an increase in SNP and Plaid MPs in Westminster, who's only home in a hung parliament is in coalition with Labour, and the DUP (who may also get more MPs) has already shown that they will work with Labour when they supported 42 days detention to give Labour the majority of 2 or 3 they had in that vote.

I'm not sure Brown is the ideal person to manage a coalition, but likewise I can't see anyone working with Cameron; Clegg can hardly do so given the positioning on Europe.

Fine if Scotland fund the pensions of all the current Labour MP's in Cabinet eg Brown, Darling etc. when they are kicked out next year.
Do feel Nick that your "an old Etonian English Tory prime minister" is once again playing the class game unnecessarily. Or should you be introduced on tonight's news as a political editor educated at the "independent Cheadle Hulme School & University College, Oxford".

Go for it Alex.

Maybe now we can push for English Independence as well. There should be more local control over local issues and devolution is the right way forward.

As Gordon Brown likes to tell us. 'It is the right thing to do!'

Regardless.

So now put yourselves in the shoes of all those "Ukrainians."

George Soros, Zbigniew Brzezinski. a few unreconstructed Cold Warriors and a bunch of unlettered, jaded theorists in the West decide on behalf of some fifty million human beings "what's good for them.

They find a couple of corrupt hacks to front an "instant movement," bus in volunteeers from neighbouring countries, pay them $10 a day for jumping up and down (plus a few meals and cheap gifts) and voila: you make a nice big mess for everyone concerned.

And the media giants all take up the chant, because that's what's being pushed from Upstairs.

And now you get it in your own backyard.

Nice, isn't it?

Don't worry: it's not too late. Come to your senses. Pity about all those people who lost their health in the process, though...

"there will, he assures non-Scots, be no passports, no Hadrian's Wall, no ditch on the border."

Hurrah! All my visits to Scotland will be trouble-free!

Wait, when was the last time I even thought about visiting Scotland? And when was the last time anybody south of the border cared about this issue? If the Scottish public want independence, let them be independent. If they don't, don't. Simples.

501

Saga,

Good definition, demonstrates my point precisely.

For the one, you decide where your money is spent to do good.

For the other, someone else decides for you.

Thanks. And have a lovely weekend everyone.

I can where Mr Salmond is coming from, but unlike electing a new government, which can always be outed later if things don't work out, independence would be a once-and-for-all move, and I'm not sure that such a decision can effectively me made on the whim of an electorate who may well have good reasons for not liking the cut of Mr Cameron's jib, but who, during what would be a drawn out process, might find other things they don't like even more, which might then make Mr Cameron the lesser rather than the greater of evils. To be successful Mr Salmond must convince his electorate that there is a long-term advantage in independence for Scotland; taking advantage of a dislike of the Tories is a good tactic to push him over the winning line if things are close, but he will need something much more solid to get him close enough to that line in the first place, and even more so to see him through to the end of what would be a long and tricky road. Mr Salmond is an able and clever man, a fine political tactician with a sure touch who regularly outwits the opposition, but he is not universally loved north of the border, so even his skill and tactical nouse might still not be enough, even with an anti-Tory wind behind him, to overcome the doubts in many Scottish hearts.

A politician actually keeping a promise, whatever next!

p.s. could you not have found a worse picture of him? He may not be an oil painting but that is a really bad photo - was he standing next to Nick Griffin at the time?

Although one recent opinion poll showed support for independence below 30%, typically the polls on the 'binary question' over the last couple of years have shown independence 40%, status quo 40%, don't know 20%.

If you add in a third option of unspecified "more powers", that takes first place, with a typical split (it depends how you ask the question) of independence 30%, more powers 40%, status quo 10%, don't know or don't care 20%.

If you ask how many people want the Scottish parliament abolished and all power sent back to Westmisnter, the answer is about 8%.

So there is strong support in Scotland for the Scottish Parliament, and for more power to be taken by Holyrood, but no solid majority for any constitutional option. The pro-independence vote is generally seen as having a very solid core, the pro-union vote rather less so. (No-one was out on the streets two years ago celebrating the anniversary of the Act of Union.)

That is the territory on which this political battle is taking place - Labour wants to make concessions of power as slowly as they can get away with, the Tories more slowly than that or not at all, the Liberals are in favour of a radical transfer of powers but have little influence...the SNP stands for independence and that is clear. Game on.

I'm really looking forward to this white paper. It'll be great to see the figures set out properly, rather than the half-truths that are always bandied around by the Unionist parties at election time. People will of course claim that the document has been created with a pro-independence bias, but nonetheless, they should see some things that make them wonder if perhaps there is some truth in the seemingly outrageous idea that an independent Scotland would manage to not just survive, but prosper, on its own.

The phrase about independence not being a magic bullet is an extremely important one, I feel. Labour et al try to claim that the SNP and its supporters think all our troubles would just disappear if we suddenly became independent, that we'd live in a happy land with bunnies bounding around and that we'd suddenly be bathing in cows milk from gold taps (or something like that). They do this, of course, to try and belittle the idea of independence, and therefore belittling the people who believe in independence. But people are starting to see through this, and wondering if the SNP - who are proving to be the first effective Government Scotland has ever had - might actually know what they're talking about after all.

Independence will happen, it's just a matter of when it does. I hope it happens while Alex Salmond is still around, since he's done more for the cause than anyone since the Jacobites in the 18th century.

Nick, You say

"The Scottish public doesn't want it; the Scottish Parliament won't vote for it - so why on Earth is Scotland's first minister about to publish the first-ever official plan for one part of the UK to break away from the rest?"

I can not recall the referendum being held (yet). Only opinion polls (and we all know how accurate they are)

BTW - are you related to Brian Taylor (Scotland's 'political' commentator?. Similar sort of language regarding the SNP ambitions.