Salmond's running rings around Cameron

George Bunbury

Spot on Hamish. The UK government, the Scottish Labour party and others have all played right into Salmond's hands. A perfect storm is brewing and they underestimate this master tactician at their (and our?) peril. I am no Nat but he has making mincemeat of his political opponents.

Axstane

We have seen a unilateral declaration of independence once before. It ended in disaster.

A referendum held by the SNP would have no legal clout at all as such powers are vested in Westminster.

Salmond's reasoning to delay it by perhaps a year is unfathomable and is just a display of pure intransigence.

Scott

The Nats record with the courts isn't perfect.

They really thought the courts would admit Salmond to the leader debates at the GE, and were spectacularly wrong.

Ross Aitken

Yip I couldent agree more a master politician at work.

RichieP

Not so sure of your proposition. Once the referendum gets under way, with a bit of token flak from Cameron and maybe the Supreme Court, the SNP, the Liberals and Labour will start behaving like rats in a sack over the issue. What does Cameron lose? Only the prospect of a future Labour majority in the (ex) UK, with all those Scottish Labour seats dead and buried and out of the counting. That could be seen as a pretty good result for the Conservatives.

2trueblue

The UK government could refuse to fund/back any big projects in Scotland until this issue is sorted. Nothing talks louder than money. Scotland is living lavishly on our money.

Peter From Maidstone

The Scots are a tiny minority of the British population. They have no right to change the nature of the United Kingdom without the consent and will of the majority.

2trueblue

Forgot to say wouldn't it be lovely to say 'Goodbye, goodbye,.....'

Russell

Mr Cameron could easily call for a referendum in 2013 which would be legal and have the support of almost the entire government of the UK which Scotland is a part.
Where would your hero be running then Hamish?

daniel maris

Yes - a master politician leading a populist party. A lesson there perhaps.

There is nothing the UK government can do to stop Salmond having his way. If tehy impose a referendum, Salmond will call for a boycott and the referendum will have no credibility.

kein

when scotland gets it's independence will they assume the debts of the bankrupt scotish banks ?

andrew kerins

Tactically, it is a great victory. Strategically, it might not amount to much. Whether the vote is held in 2013 or 2014 is unlikely to make much difference - barring some unexpected economic or political earthquake.
Salmond is unlikely to get a second question because the unionist parties want a straight yes/no vote on independence.
He is unlikely to get 16 and 17 year olds included since that would be a challenge that the UK government would have to respond to in court and would be confident of winning.
Thus, it remains a referendum that all polls suggest Salmond will lose.

Fatbloke on tour

HMacD

If the union is so bad why wait?
Can we afford 33 months of waffle and uncertainty?

Why not 2013?
Anything to do with the 500 year anniversary of the Battle of Flodden?

Wee Eck got 200K votes less than TB?
Wee Eck got 100K votes less than GB.

He won in a partial vacuum.
He will collapse under pressure.

In2minds

"Salmond managed to capture the news agenda" - The sort of thing once said of Arthur Scargill, remember him?

Kelt

Peter from Maidstone. The Scots aren't a minority in their own country. And if they desire to be a separate political entity then all the Peter from Maidstone's, ultimately, have sod all input.

So, yeah, shut your cakehole.

Cynic

Frankly, I'd be delighted if the Scots won independence - as long as they shouldered the burden of RBS etc and their share of the national debt. Good luck to them. In return we get an end to the West Lothian question, the abolition of the Burnet formula and the Scots can join the euro in the EU as a separate nation with Bruxelles running their economy. I'd really laugh if we could be free of the EU and Scotland were shackled to it.

tombaldwin

the SNP are finished.

So long Salmon you joke....make sure you finish paying off that £1billion white elephant edinburgh tram before you turn off the lights!

Dogzzz

You want the UK government to try something that Salmond has not thought of... like the UK Parliament insisting (as is its lawful entitlement) to ensure that everyone in the UK gets a say in the referendum to determine whether the UK should be broken up, or if Scotland should be put firmly back in its little box for good!

Bill

@ Axstane The decision on the constitutional position of Scotland lies with the people of Scotland. The UK Parliament is NOT sovereign in these matters. The Act of Union 1707 is an international treaty which UK law is subservient to. It protects the constitutional rights of the Scottish people in perpetuity. The Scotland Act only has force if the people of Scotland decide it to be so. The legal position is set out in the following case-
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MacCormick_v_Lord_Advocate

Kane

"The Scots are a tiny minority of the British population. They have no right to change the nature of the United Kingdom without the consent and will of the majority" - Peter From Maidstone

I suppose this cretin said the same when the U.S.S.R broke up? Or more recently when Kosovo broke away from Serbia?

What an utter Plank.

Steve

Whilst this debate is tiring, Devolution was always the thin end of the wedge, which was obvious in 1997. Everyone has now fallen for Salmond's policy of peeing off the English enough to make them want Scots to go away because we all have earache from the vocal whingers. Funny that all the Scots I have worked with all say they'd move to England if Scotland broke away. SNP supporters are rarer than you might think. What will Scotland be left with? Dolies and swivel-eyed National Socialists?

If thats what they want then so be it, but in that case I demand that the UK or at least England has a referendum on the EU. What's sauce for the goose....

And politicians (especially Labour with Blair's populist gesture of Devolution, just like the fox hunting farce), it's YOUR muddled thinking that has brought us here. DEAL WITH IT!

It does hurt that the UK has terminal cancer (SNP/Plaid/ BNP), where Labour seemed to prescribe to smoke more Gallois rather than a course of chemotherapy, to follow the analogy, but we can't let the politicians drag out the disease further- Kill or Cure I say.

gr0uch0

Do none of you see Scotland as an asset to the union then? Our production of statesmen/actors/inventors/sportsmen etc. is astonishing for such a small nation, that and the fact the we are net contributors to the union by around £10bn a year.
To have england vote on whether Scotland should stay in the union is also quite preposterous. Would you allow Brussels to dictate the terms of a referendum on whether the UK should stay in Europe? hmmm.. thought not

David Lindsay

What would an independent Scotland be like? Much of Scotland hated Thatcher personally, but both her policies and her party were far more popular there than in many comparably populous parts of England.

Proportionately more people in Scotland than in England bought shares in the privatised industry, the Tories' number of seats was respectable, their share of the vote was more than respectable (at one in six on a four-way split, it is still quite healthy), their municipal base experienced nothing like the devastation that it did in much of England, and so on.

The Poll Tax was imposed early by popular demand, there was a never a riot against it, there was nothing like the problem of mass non-payment that there was in much of England, and at the subsequent General Election Scotland was the only part of the country to experience a net gain in Tory seats. People who shout the loudest are not necessarily representative of anyone but themselves.

All in all, it is no wonder that over half the Scottish electorate now supports what, for all its Hard Left activists all the way up to the Deputy Leader, is in practice possibly the most uniformly pro-big business party in the world, with its base in one of the richest areas in Europe, where private sector employment is higher than in the South East of England.

But then, per capita income in Scotland as a whole is 100 per cent of the national average. Poor Scotland is as much a myth as left-wing Scotland.

Frankly

The Rat Trap:

http://tinyurl.com/6qt2qsf

Steve

Salmond is running rings, partly because with a one-issue party like the SNP that is easier to do. Labour created this Devolution mess, and will pay by never forming a government again, if Scots go their own way. You reap what you sow.

Dave McEwan Hill

I continue to be amazed - nay gobsmacked - at the depths of total ignorance exhibited by many posters on this issue.
Perhaps the UN Charter on Human Rights should be taught at schools in England.
Sadly the great lie about Scotland being subsidised contimues unabated though why Cameron and Co should be bursting a gut to hang onto Scotland is never explained if this was the case. This lack of understanding is called the "half-wit " factor in politics but I'm not complaining if it wants many English people to get rid of Scotland.

Robert Christopher

If Scotland becomes independent will passports be needed to cross the Scottish/English border?

Will HBOS need to split into the Halifax and Bank of Scotland and bank accounts transferred to the appropriate country?

Will the same need to happen with The Royal Bank of Scotland and NatWest?

Jayjay

Andrew, there's a new non-party initiative to campaign for greater powers for the Scottish parliament that consists of a group of civic leaders, including senior figures in the Scottish voluntary sector, trade union movement, churches and business. They are in the final stages of launching a new movement to campaign for a so-called devolution plus or "devo max" option for Holyrood which will formally unveiled later this month :-) Oh, and have a wee look at this.... http://www.votesat16.org/about/supportive-politicians/ then dry your eyes ;-)

daniel maris

1. No one can stop the referendum going ahead as the SNP with their mandate wish. Any Cameron controlled referendum will be boycotted by SNP.

2. What about the Shetlands? It was really the Shetlands that scuppered the last great push for independence. Are the Shetlands resigned to Scottish independence?

3. What about Rockall?

4. If the referendum is pro-independence what is the legal situation? Are there two successor states to the UK or does the UK survive? It's a serious legal question because the UK originally came into being only through the merger with Scotland. Of course Northern Ireland is a complication.

Steve

Columnists bend over backwards to try and prove every move Salmond makes is the work of sheer political genius. He couldn't belch without an army of sycophantic hacks applauding him. The truth is he is unlikely to win the referendum and every poll points to it.

Jeremy

Hamish,

You are seriously underestimating Mr Cameron.

The game is indeed afoot, but still very far from done.

Fergus Pickering

Kelt, don't they teach you the use of the apostrophe in Scottish schools now? Hoots!m Toots! They did in my day.

Scotland is not a country now, no more than Cornwall is. That is surely what fat Salmond is wittering on about.

Angus

No we will take our fair share of banking debt because only around 9% of it was built up in Scotland the rest was overseen by Londoners working in The City of London. Dave and Nick's old School Chums and relative's it seems. As for living on English largesse Yeah right Scotland has a surplus of 3.5 Billon and most of that is swallowed up by Government spending in London and the south east. We also would like you to take that obscenty that is trident and moor the subs in the East end and keep the warheads in Kent.

R.G. Bargie

"Frankly, I'd be delighted if the Scots won independence - as long as they shouldered the burden of RBS etc and their share of the national debt"

Yawn. We've been hearing this drivel for months now, astonishingly you're not the first genius to come up with it.

1. Scotland would be responsible for debts incurred by RBS in Scotland. Debts incurred anywhere else would be the responsibility of the countries concerned.

2. Scotland would of course accept a share of UK national debt, but set against a share of UK assets. You may be in for an unpleasant surprise when the numbers are added up.

R.G. Bargie

"everyone in the UK gets a say in the referendum to determine whether the UK should be broken up"

So if Cameron ever does allow you a referendum on EU membership, presumably you'll be demanding that the population of Greece and France and Spain and Belgium all get to vote too, as it affects them?

Please, if you value Britain half as much as you claim to, don't shame it by speaking while your brain's still in bed.

daniel maris

Andrew Kerins,

I am willing to challenge you to draw a silver coin from your sporran and bet on that one.

There is no way the SNP will lose the referendum as things stand. You think there's no difference between 2014 (700th Bannockburn anniversary) and 2013. Well - you obviously have no idea how people think.

The referendum will take place when Salmond wants it.

Clever Nicholas

Kane - you might want to note that Kosovo only broke away from Serbia after NATO bombed it. It was also originally Serbian but got demographically walloped by the Albanian breeding programme and Serbian indolence. Your example would be more like Corby declaring independence and NATO bombing London to tell us to let it go.

Croatia and Slovenia would be better examples, where Milosevic's Yugoslavian government stated that it was constituionally impossible for them to secede. Once they did so anyway, in Croatia's case with provocative and premature support from Germany then Yugoslavia attacked both countries and failed on both counts.

I look forward to France's early recognition of Scotland's 'illegal' declaration of independence. There won';t be damned thing London can do about it, except to kick Scotland's arse in the football and rugby world cups and ban bagpipes on Westminster Bridge (thank God). Plus ca change...

John Goode

So Salmond's argument seems to be:

We want independence because we know thats what all Scots want despite what the polls say. We want a referendum but er ... not quite yet. Ask us in 30 months time when the polls look a bit better and the euro crisis is over.

RJBH

Yup Spot on Hamish...St Andrews 1.. Eton Cambridge O

Holly ......

Is a legally binding referendum what Salmond
has REALLY been offering?
Why has Cameron mentioned the legal bit now?

I have heard Salmond and others go on about this for years, yet have NEVER heard it mentioned that any referendum would only be legally binding with the consent of the government in Westminster, until today.

Why would they leave out such an important detail?
This is being played as Salmond the genius, but I reckon Cameron has put him where he did not want to be.

Salmond is under the impression that the Scottish people would vote for independence and that the government in westminster would not recognise the result.
A legally binding result and now Salmond has no one to blame for 'denying the Scotts' their independence.

A glorified opinion poll is all Salmond really wanted, and a chance to slag off the Westminster government for 'denying' Scotts their freedom.
He does not give a hoot about which party is in power down here, he intended to play it this way all along.

EH

So why can't the UK govt take a leaf out of Gibraltar's book and announce that it will hold its own referendum on such and such a date, supervised by the OSCE or whoever ... Salmond would either have to bring forward his referendum or claim that that the UK government's referendum would not be fair - which, with enough outside supervision, would not be a credible position.

Boudicca

Not so Wee Eck looks as though one deep fried Mars Bar too many and his heart would give out (not that I'm wishing for it).

Labour thought John Smith would lead them to victory, but he didn't. It would only need Salmond to have a heart attack and the SNP would be floundering.

The whole 'independence' issue is vastly more complicated than a simple Referendum permits. It would take years to sort it out .... and Salmond may well not be around to do it.

Mike Towl

As this issue concerns all of the UK, surely everyone in the UK should have a vote. I'm amazed Wee Eck won't have this, if he did the result would be a landslide in favour of "bye-bye Jocks."

Iain

London attracts a large proportion of public spending because that's where the Government is. Not particularly surprising, but civil servants have been relocating out of London, and to the North West in particular, over the last two decades and the process is continuing.

The difference is that, unlike Scotland, London pays its way without relying upon someone else sucking a dwindling resource out of the ground in the North Sea.

That's what really grates with us Scots, isn't it? And that's why we're constantly sniping at the City of London and places like Kent. The hard truth is that Scotland is in the wrong place and there's no longer any reason for Glasgow even to exist.

Sean Haffey

Reading the article, the comments and much else it seems

1. The Scots should be the ones voting, not the rest of the British. How you define who is Scottish is another issue.

2. It is extremely hard to justify letting such an important issue (by the SNP's pwn standards) languish for another two to three years.

3. IF (big "if") the Scotish people vote against independence, can we please avoid having another referendum and then another until the SNP get their way? In other words, could we please say this will be a once in a generation (30 years) vote?

Angry of SE 1

Bill,

interesting post but I'm not sure you are right. When Labour kicked out hereditary peers, some scots peers went to court because their presence as "representative peers" was established by the Act of Union.

They (unfortunately) lost - so I'm not sure your point is strictly true.......

any comment?

Heartless P.

At every turn he has out-manoeuvred his UK counterparts

But is it really that difficult to out-manoeuvre the H2B?

Why, the H2B found it a struggle to shift even the Great Economic Pretender, - and that should have been a 'walkover', - as they say.

BS Crawford

Parts of glasgow and Edinburgh will end up like Belfast, those that aren't already, with Unionists and Separatists slinging Molotov cocktails at each other, and knee capping neds. I think that this is a very dangerous move, but if Mr Salmond thinks it's a good idea it will become his problem.

wrinkled weasel

The idea of an English Tory telling the Scots what to do plays right into the hands of Mr Goldfinger, aka Alex Salmond.

He has already described Cameron's moves as "Thatcheresque", which is a fairly blatant and not very subtle attempt at winning more support in Scotland.

"Do you want me to talk?" says Cameron.

"No, Mr Cameron," says Goldfinger, "I want you to lose"

And that, in a nutshell, is the difference between the two protagonists.

Alan Hill

Well I hope Cameron calls referendum soon because this issue can only fester.
If the vote was UK wide then I bet the Scots would have their independence since most of the English are sick to death of the Scots, particularly after 13 years of Blair and the Scottish mafia. However a vote in Scotland alone would be far more problematical.

Mac

Forward to Autumn 2014

The UK economy deep in trouble due to austerity cuts and low growth.

Growing social unrest in the UK.

An unpopular Coalition. Unpopular Coalition leaders.

A failing Labour leadership.

8 months before a UK general election.

The Tories depicted as being ultra anti-Scottish and interfering in Scottish politics.

The 700th celebration of Bannockburn.

A successful Glasgow Commonwealth games.

A successful Ryder Cup triumph for Europe in Scotland.

Scots feeling good about themselves.

A referendum on Scottish independence and Devo Max.

Not has Wee Eck been running rings around Cameron, he is making sure that a YES vote in the referendum will have maximum opportunity to succeed.

Jack McNulty

Scottish Mafia? Are you including Moore, Dewar and Cameron in that?

There's a lot of whinging going on from Angles who want Scotland to go (no need for Glasgow anymore? How's Birmingham doing these days?) Surely Salmond consistantly making Cameron and Moore look a day late and a euro short is good news? It should guarantee our departure. Win/win, no?

Gwyn Jones

Perhaps, when Scotland gets its independence, Wales will get a fairer deal?

Checkootmasideshed

What percentage of yes votes would be required for independence to be achieved ? 60/40? 75/25? 80/20 ? The latter would be preferable.
Should the worst come to the worst,can we have suggestions please on what to do with Nicola'Wee Burney'Sturgeon..for the sake of Auld Lang Syne.

Mike, Brighton

For all the CyberNats on here.
If independence is so popular and wanted by the Scottish people why not hold the referendum as soon as possible.

After all the SNP has a massive majority and mandate as Wee Eck keeps reminding us and he's clearly an unparalleled political genius, so you can't lose?

So why not hold the referendum as soon as is practicable. Allow a month of campaigning (February) and hold the referendum on Thursday 1st March. I don't understand what is stopping you? Why all this 2014 BS?

Cameron is being perfectly reasonable in giving the Scottish Parliament legal authority to hold a referendum under the electoral commission and putting a time period on it. Frankly the legal instrument should expire on Dec 31 2012.

Alan Hill

Jack McNulty

I was in Birmingham before Xmas for the German Xmas market and the place looked to be doing pretty well, better than Edinburgh and Glasgow where I spent Xmas and the New Year (yes I'm half Scots) both of which are now looking
a bit tatty.
Strangely enough none of my Scots friends or relatives wants independence. Whereas their English counterparts feel the opposite.
As I posted previously the sooner there is a referendum on this the better. I'm pretty ambivalent about the outcome, but I'm enjoying the prospect of a very partisan and bitter campaign. Salmond had better hope for his own sake that he loses, because he'll be the first casualty of independence.

Gordon McKeown

I'm Scottish, living in England. My parents were Scottish. I've had my life expectancy reduced by supporting the Scottish football team. I should be able to vote on this issue. The SNP are a Nationalist party that are opportunistic with a massive contradiction at heart. Why should the random selection of people living in Scotland at one moment in time decide on a fundamental issue that affects the identity of the huge Scottish diaspora?

michael

Peter from Maidstone is absolutely right.
The only thing the Scots are entitled to do, is choose whether to remain, and campaign for Union change, or leave... in or out.
Devo max, is the 'blue pilchard' designed to indoctrinate the Scots that both Salmond and Anglophobia are conciliatory reasonable and democratic, Westminster however, portrayed as being a dictatorial, autocratic foe, having scant regard for Scotland beyond any rich pickings.

Arthur Greenwood

If Mr. Salmond is so clever, what has he done for the sick, the unemployed, the under-privileged, ethnic minorities, public transport, public utilities? He is just on one big ego trip. He should renember that the English don't like clever dicks.

Michael

The Daily Mash, as ever, has it right:
http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/international/independent-scotland-could-be-exactly-the-same%2c-warn-experts-201201114752/

EyeSee

In the wider world, Salmond is seen as a pillock, mainly because he is. When your strategy is just to annoy, it cannot really be termed 'chess'. Salmond is just playing for power and then only for himself. If the people of Scotland had any idea about the damage done to their country, by their own politicians, the continuing whine about land clearances may move on to another target. If they also had any real understanding of the level of subsidy they require, they would be less keen on 'independence'. and if they undwerstood the kind of independence Salmond has in mind they would be even less keen; a country ruled entirely from Brussels and using the Euro both as a currency and as a further way to wreck what little economy they have. Salmond isn't the sort to run an expansionist economy, he has been reared on subsidies and will believe they will keep coming. From somewhere. And even if he had been running rings around Cameron, which he hasn't even got close to, that would hardly be an achievement.

General Zod

This article is nonsense. Salmond is going to end up looking a fool if the Government goes to court. Alan Cochrane in the Telegraph has this rightin sayingh that Salmond's overconfidence has led him to overplay his hand.

The idea that this is a matter for the Scots alone is absurd.

Foxy

The outcome of this referendum will affect all the people of the UK. The UK Parliament is entitled to insist the referendum should be held sooner rather than later, for the sake of certainty. In the interests of the British people the coalition government itself should enact a law for a binding referendum in Scotland by 2013 on independence. We need to know their wishes NOW.

pete-s

Can the Scots afford to leave. The price of joining was that we paid all their debts. Several million pounds compound interested for 300 years, plus their share of the National debt caused by useless scottish PMs and Banks. Lets see the colour of the Scots Euro first!

Boulanger

I have no problem with Scots having an in/out referendum however I fail to see why they should be allowed the "devomax" option. Surely the choice should be between staying in the uk with the status quo - I do not understand why scots feel they have a divine right to such special treatment over governance compared to the English - or they should leave.

Such a serious and potentially damaging issue of an independence referendum should not be used by salmons as a cynical ploy to grab more power from the uk govt.

Either Scotland should accept the benefits that it gains from being a part of a union as well as the downsides or get out entirely rather than constantly whining and trying to use the threat of independence to get more for itself.

salieri

The repeated European analogy - i.e. how absurd it would be if Belgium, Spain & Greece etc had the right to decide whether to allow the UK to leave if it chose to - is tiresome and misplaced. Member states of the European Union are just that: member states. Some may have a common currency but constituonally, in theory at least, they are all independent and autonomous entities. The same cannot be said of the component geographical parts of the United Kingdom which, constitutionally speaking, is still a single nation despite the malevolent tinkering of devolved powers.

As for which parliament has the power to do precisely what, the legal position is, to put it mildly, complicated. In any case English and Scottish constitutional law is quite different, and the summary higher up this thread of what was decided by MacCormick v. Lord Advocate (NB in Scotland only – it never went to the Lords and has no authority in England) is woefully inadequate.

Much of the difficulty lies in establishing what the original “Acts of Union” actually were. For a more informed discussion, see Professor Walker’s article for the Law Society of Scotland in 2007:

http://www.journalonline.co.uk/Magazine/52-6/1004238.aspx

Jolly Roger

The idea of "Scottish independence" is quite a conflicted one for me:

1) If People in Scotland really want to break away from the Uk, I believe they should be perfectly entitled to do so.

2) I am proud of what we have achieved as Great Britain, and I would be sad to see this broken up. I am also concerned that division of assets and debts will be a monumental task. Its also worrying that a divided Britain will be more vulnerable to EU domination.

3) I am sick and tired of Scottish whining and hatred towards the English. It will be a relief to not listen to that tired dirge any longer.

4) I still havent seen a convincing argument one way or another about whether Scotland is actually a contributor or a drain on the UK finances. I suspect the latter, but it is strange that none of the major players involved will produce such figures.

5) If Scotland left, then we would lose all the Scottish seats from Parliament. This would devastate the Labour party and would mean no chance of a Labour government for a generation.

So from all those points above, Im afraid number 5 swings it for me. Good luck Scotland, I wish you well!

EC

The people of the Shetland Isles should also be granted a referendum on whether they would to be independent from Scotland. That would snooker the oily kleptocrat!

MilkSnatcher

Given the performance of the UK Government, they need all the time they can get to marshall arguments for the Union. 2014 seems a bit close for that.

Cameron and Co should agree to the date and stop nitpicking. Then they should, once Salmond has published his details, publish the terms on which the UK would agree to devolution, with justifications for each one and costs for Scotland for their new economy, plus the dreaded Euro. That can trash the idea, which at the moment is being played out as if it were Mel Gibson versus the Evil English.

awhaudyerwheesht

@EyeSee
Just so. And the Neds and other assorted afternoon trampoline filmers wouldn't care for their benefits being paid in Euros.

William Blakes Ghost

So says someone called Hamish. Clearly a neutral objective viewpoint. Since when did the Spectator begin publishing propaganda for the SNP?

In anycase, the reality is that when you remove the obsessive Scottish hatred of the English from the debate only an idiot would want to make Scotland independent and turn it into a fifth rate Haggis Republic and an international irrelevence.

Whilst it causes short-term difficulties for England, Wales & Northern Ireland in the medium to long term its far more beneficial to the English to be rid of Scotland than it is for Scotland to be rid of England.

The Scots should be wary of what they wish for.....

andrew kerins

jayjay

The people who gave us the Constitutional Convention and the Calman Report are preparing another treat for us. Who will be on it ? Will it be Joyce McMillan or Ruth Wishart this time ? Which cleric will be on board ? The Christian churches are in such rude, good health that there are so many to chose from. Who will the token business leader be ? The people who brought us Devolution, will now bring us More Devolution. I can hardly wait.

andrew kerins

daniel maris

You will bet a silver coin (ten pence ?) on a Salmond victory. Such confidence. Using 1314 is a two-edged sword. Banging the 'anti-English' drum will alienate more people than it attracts. There is already a move to replace Flower of Scotland on this basis.

Radford NG

Surely Cameron has an interest in this?Isnt his father- in-law one of the richest lairds in Scotland?Hasn't his wife £30million from her father?~~~And when did Cameron's fore-fathers leave Scotland?

wrinkled weasel

Arthur Greenwood

I suggest that before you post your uninformed rants you take the trouble to answer your own questions.

For the others, the people who appear to take this personally but who do not actually live in Scotland, please don't forget that at the heart of nationalism is a desire to be represented by people who are socially and culturally a part of a nation. Moreover, it is a nation which is not just England with funny accents.

There is only one important contradiction about the issue which is that the SNP want to embrace the EU. Until this is addressed I don't believe that even the most rabid nationalist will have the heart to exchange rule from Westminster to rule from Brussels.

MLB

The question is would brussels want to embrace Scotland if it were not attatched to England, what currency would Scotland use,How will they deal with their deficit and a small final point what about tourism,when such people as Americans or the Japanese do the grand Tour of Europe, whilst here they visit London, Bath, York and a Scottish City, Will they still visit the Scottish city if it is no longer a part of England considering the main attraction is the royal Family.

Drew Edward

The idea of "Scottish independence" is quite a conflicted one for me:

1) If People in Scotland really want to break away from the Uk, I believe they should be perfectly entitled to do so.

2) I am proud of what we have achieved as Great Britain, and I would be sad to see this broken up. I am also concerned that division of assets and debts will be a monumental task. Its also worrying that a divided Britain will be more vulnerable to EU domination.

3) I am sick and tired of Scottish whining and hatred towards the English. It will be a relief to not listen to that tired dirge any longer.

4) I still havent seen a convincing argument one way or another about whether Scotland is actually a contributor or a drain on the UK finances. I suspect the latter, but it is strange that none of the major players involved will produce such figures.

5) If Scotland left, then we would lose all the Scottish seats from Parliament. This would devastate the Labour party and would mean no chance of a Labour government for a generation.

So from all those points above, Im afraid number 5 swings it for me. Good luck Scotland, I wish you well!

No problem, allow me to answer some of your questions:

1/ Correct, the referendum will be held in 2014

2/ True, but times change and a number of geographical boundaries and responsibilities drawn up under devolution should act as a guide to make this process simplier.

3/ A quick look at the comments pages and articles in the Daily Mail and London Evening Standard would show the balance is switching the opposite way. The SNP has nearly 10 per cent of it's MSPs born in England, so perhaps you misunderstand the difference between ethic nationalism and civic nationalism.

4/ The SNP have, it's called GERS and based on ONS figures. Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population but contributes 9.4% in tax revenue, i.e net contributor.

5/ The majority of the post-war Labour Governments have held a majority of English seats, as well as seats in Scotland and Wales. The majorities on all occasions have not required the 50+ seats in Scotland

Fatbloke on tour

Hopefully history will play a part.
2013 represents a bigger anniversary for Scotland than 2014.

Bannockburn vs Flodden.
One marked the way up, the other the way down.
The power of masses vs the decay of the elite.

The SNP establishment is a personality cult.
How very un-Scottish

People need to know that 1314 was only a stepping stone, it took another 50 years to finish the job and even then the foundations creaked from time to time.

The SNP are Tartan Tories with a tea towel outlook on history.

Dominic

When propaganda is good, fools fall for it.

"4/ The SNP have, it's called GERS and based on ONS figures. Scotland has 8.4% of the UK population but contributes 9.4% in tax revenue, i.e net contributor."

This nugget could easily lead any biased Scot to the conclusion that Scotland is a "net contributor".

Here in England, however, we know the difference between net and gross. Perhaps somebody could supply the balancing factor (expenditure per capita)?

Andy

I don't think an article on this topic by someone called Hamish is likely to be particularly impartial.

And it's not a game of chess. The UK government hold the legal cards, whatever Salmond says, and the Scottish people, not Salmond, will decide - as Cameron has pointed out.

Watta Tadger

Chums,

Just a wee point it is not Act of Union it is the Treaty of Union between England and Scotland - there is a major legal difference in international law and that is without spelling out that Scotland has its own retained Legal System pre and post Treaty of Union..

Yes I know they are "Act of Union" 2 pound coins out there, I suspect they were a job lot.

daniel maris

Watta Tadger,

I think it's you who don't understand the legal position. US Secretaries of State are forever signing Treaties that don't get put into effect because COngress fails to ratify them. In the case of the Union, the Acts of Union of 1707 put into effect the Treaty.

daniel maris

It will be sad when the Scots go, but go they must, disappearing into the mist of the glen.

The Scots were keen slavers, colonialists and imperialists. As soon as the Empire faded,so did the Scotch liking for the Union.

I think when you get down to it, the Scots are quite an enterprising people, and they like to hitch themselves to something big. Whereas to us they appear as a sort of wilderness beyond the outer limits of civilisation, to themselves they no doubt have all this Athens of the North, cradle of industry, explorers of the globe thing going and feel we down south short change them.

Personally I feel that we should offload Northern Ireland to them (as most of its people are of Scotch descent - it's really a Scotch colony). England and Wales seem quite well suited to each other in a sort of Jungian "Other" way.

Barbara

Salmond running rings round Cameron, I've never heard any thing so daft. Salmond wanted to keep the fire burning on independance without intending to do nothing, Cameron's opened up the debate to us all including the Scots.
Now the Scottish people and us are debating what it will mean to the Scottish people and us. He's questions to answer, he's answered nothing yet. Salmond as said he's adopt the euro, he never told his voters that. How will they support themselves, get their own defence, schools, nhs, tax system, curancy, etc and etc. Salmond as not said anything about this at all. There's more to leaving a union than he's been prepared to state. Utilmately he does not have the final say, the Scottish people do, and when they realise what he intends he may find things very different. Those in work will have to support those out of work, and there are many, the country is half inhabited and sheer beauty, but that does not bring in enough cash to fund a nation. Salmond is not truthful, he needs to be challenged.