The battle lines that are being drawn over Scotland

Rhoda Klapp

They really don't have the right to cherry-pick a degree of outness, what taxes they will pay, what they will levy, who will get the benefit and so on, regardless of the effect on England and Wales. The right to self-determination does not extend to that. Devo max ought to be fully described in terms of its effect on the rest of us. Not used as a stepping stone to eventual independence at some other long-delayed future date. We in the rest of the UK may not be entitled to a voice, but we surely may ask for a timely resolution one way or the other.

MArk

Why not, as the coalition, simply state that they wish scotland to have independance. sooner the better.

That would deflate salmond immediately, and probably make the scottish people think that the english people stood to gain from such a move, hence question the motives of their SNP leadership...

Gawain

Scotland is boring. What I really want to know is what the BBC will be renamed as when the Scots march away from the Union in a sulk.

Salisbury

The UK Government should call Salmond's bluff and announce that there will be a yes/no referendum later this year. It has the right to organise one and, arguably, the duty to do so, as the one elected body with the authority to respond to the referendum "mandate" the SNP secured in last year's Holyrood elections.

What could Salmond do then? The more he tried to oppose such a referendum the more he would be exposed for caring less about independence than about manouvering for his own political advantage. And the chances of a yes vote in these circumstances would be much less than if Salmond is allowed to choose the time and battleground himself.

Jeremy

James Forsyth:

"So, what should the coalition do now?"

At this stage, I would suggest that the coalition bring on board those Scots - such as Alistair Darling - who support the Union and include them in the process.

Clearly Labour has a huge political interest in the maintainence of the Union, which means that cross-party support for the coalition's position must be sought and should not be difficult to obtain.

My understanding is that only Westminster has the legal right to authorise a referendum which might change the current constitutional arrangements, which means that the result of any referendum unilaterally organised by Mr Salmond would have only an "advisory" status, at best.

I actually agree with the coalition's originally stated position that the referendum should be held within the next eighteen months, should have simply an in-or-out question, that the fairness of the ballot should be overseen by the Electoral Commission and that only those aged eighteen years or over should be allowed to vote. This would keep it in line with UK norms.

Chris lancashire

This is about who gets their hands on taxpayer's money isn't it? Salmond would love Devomax - all that lovely taxpayer's cash to play with and not too much responsibility. No way Ally old boy. It's In or Out.

michael

Westminster needs to be mindful of where the hearts and minds battle is actually taking place. 'In or Out' is a perfectly reasonable position and in tune with the majority of the Scottish people.(I Reckon)
...All that they really want is is an undisputed written and unwritten moral entitlement to make a choice.

The whole of Salmond's hearts and minds strategy is the denial of a FREE Scotland, by the English .
-An object lesson in the subtle manipulation of 'hate' power.

Jan Cosgrove

But the UK Govt should make it a UK-wide referendum:

Do you want the UK to continue as it is (England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland)

YES NO NOT DECIDED NO VIEW

This would happen by constituency. We would then see what various parts of the UK felt and how strongly.

Shimple.

Do it soon, and then if the people in Scotland say yes, no need for SNP to bother, if No, then he can go for his 2 options.

No need form all this harrumphing.

George Shepherd

The politics behind the politics are fascinating and liven up the winter gloom - Cameron and Salmond are playing out a mutually beneficial political game and the only losers are......... yes that's right..... Labour !!
The preference of both Cameron and Salmond is Devo Max as an outcome
Cameron's intervention this week gets him a few days of good Daily Mail and Sun headlines and Salmond gets to complain about Westminster interference

This sort of ding dong sets ups a "racket" between the Cameron and Salmond and plays well to both sets of core supporters - and so the whole thing will carry on towards a Devo Max outcome in 2014/15 - this will ensure an on-going SNP gov. (competent, technocrats) and also knock out a few more shaky Labour MP's in the Central Belt as Labour looks increasingly irrelevant

This will be crucial for Cameron as he seeks his outright Tory majority in 2015 - Cameron will also be seen to hold the Union together (just) and keep control of the OIL revenues

Salmond will stay in power and be able to negotiate an even bigger share of the OIL / and other Energy revenues

Libertarians should support Devo Max as it will make the relationship between tax and spend even more transparent - ultimately the Scots will want to keep their taxes as low as possible !!

The next move after that will be Welsh and English region (and London?) devolution as the localism, low tax and low spend contagion spreads

Radford NG

Salmond wants a referendum in autumn 2014? Right;then give it to him good and hard.Set the date now:Mon.15 September 2014.~~~15 September:Battle of Britain Day.

Cynic

"So, what should the coalition do now? " Call a UK referendum on Scotland being in or out by May next year at the latest. There is no point in procrastinating. Carpe Diem. While they're about it, they can make contingency plans for moving the base at Faslane down to England (better use of money than HS2) and relocating the RAF stations south of the border asap. After all, an independent Scotland won't want to rely on the evil English for their defence, will they?

decafT

if the Tories had any brains they would have gone into the 2010 election promising a referendum on Scottish independence.

That way they could have already held it, or could be holding it imminently, with the likely result being the saving of the Union.

Most likely they ruled this out because they couldn't fight the 2010 election promising a vote on Scotland but not on the EU, and we know how determined the leadership is to avoid the latter.

michael

one people one realm one leader.

Kittler

Devo Max, isn't that what Mann and the Channel Islands have? Do the lot, except fight wars, with the populations of a market town.

WetherspoonThree

I'm do not understand why the whole of the United Kingdom shouldn't vote on the future of the Union.

And, if appropriate, surely the whole of the United Kingdom should have the chance to vote on DevoMax if they are to be asked to pay for more Scottish bribes and subsidies.

But at the end of the day, doesn't this show, all too clearly. that loyalty bought with bribes and special measures is infact, no loyalty at all. Quite the opposite; those in a position to offer bribes are despised for their misuse of power.

In may be too late, but for our own self respect, we should have the courage to stop all the preferential treatment (their over-representation at Westminister, the Barnett formula, etc) before the Scots are given the opportunity to vote on their future.

Fatbloke on tour

GS @ 12.27

Devo Max will start a civil war.
Wee Eck will play the RoI / US tax haven card if he can.

He will run with corporation tax at half of the UK rate.
Not to generate growth but to steal mobile tax revenue from England.

He will take bread out of the mouths of England's poor.
He believes in Laugh a minute curve economics.

He is a muppet.
Political souffle who grew up in a vacuum.

David Ossitt

All of this to and fro-ing over when Scotland might or might not have a referenda asking the Scottish people whether they wish to stay in or leave The United Kingdom is in my opinion far too much one sided.

We are told that Alex Salmond wants three questions on the voting slip, in, out, and devo-max, devo-max in my opinion is what the wily Alex wants, more power more money but still having the UK to lean on and as his fall guy someone to blame.

No one seems to want to discuss the other option; being, England having a referenda asking do you want to end the Union with Scotland Yes or No.

Even to suggest such an action would wrong foot Salmond and to actually have one and to secure a yes vote, would bring many benefits to England.

An English Parliament, Wales could leave the UK or stay but without that silly little assembly, Scotland costs the English they spend a far greater proportion of the kitty than do the English and so do the Welsh.

Without the Scottish labour vote England would be what it always has been a truly conservative country.

Of course none of this will happen the Scots are nothing if not pragmatic by nature, the majority and I suspect a majority of the English care very deeply about the union and whenever Salmond calls for a vote on this he will be defeated.

Percy

So Salmond is just a procrastinating bag of wind then? Or to use the vernacular, a bullshitter. No surprise then that political types hold him in such high esteem.

Kittler

David Ossett, the Scots do not spend a greater proportion of the kitty than the English. The Governments Revenue and Expenditure Scotland Reports(GERS) have Scotland contributing 9.4% of revenue with a population of 8.3%.

saddleworth

The idea of a referendum involving the whole UK is absurd. If the vote is Yes to maintain the Union is it really thought that the Scots would shrug their collective shoulders and say- thats OK then 'cos everyone else says we can't have it we stay as we are?
If Scotland wants to leave the Union there is no practical way of stopping them.
Of more concern is Salmond organising the referendum. He is a slippery little bugger and the idea of him putting together a fair ballot paper is a bit far fetched.
The three option paper is bound to confuse voters - how many ticks can they put? If there was to be a minority vote on Ind. and on Devo-max you can bet that then becomes in Salmond's eyes a big majority for Devo-max even though in isn't.
But of course Dev-max is not Scotland's choice to make. That means re-defining their part in the Union and that does require the consent of the rest of us as it is a pound to a penny that we will have to bear the cost. But Devo-max has major implications for Westminster and the government of the rest of the Union.
An in/out vote alone is the only logical way forward and supervision of the ballot paper and the election process by a third party state.

Fatbloke on tour

Kilter @ 4.30

You really are as thick as sh*t at the neck of a bottle.

The discussion is spending and you retort with revenue figures and give yourself a gold star. It is stupidity like this that brought RBS down.

Away and bile yer heid ya rocket.

Kittler

Read Ossetts post Fat tory. "Scotland costs the Engilsh" Answered the point, ye feel gype.

Coeur de Lion

What a chance to get rid of the Barnet Formula and the West Lothian Question all at once! And surely there is some way that Osborne (who runs sterling) can say " Sorry, you land of whingers and scroungers, you must have your own currency (subtext: the Euro)" Bye bye.

DeeJay

Why should the rest of the United Kingdom have the opportunity to vote on Scottish independence?

For the almost immeasurable pleasure of watching Alex Salmond's face when he is told that the his countryfolk have narrowing failed to vote for independence whilst the rest of the UK wants rid of him.

David Ossitt

Fatbloke on tour

Thank you.

2trueblue

It is all about the money. Frankly they are just too expensive, let them go and then England an have its own government and its own parliament. Demoracy at last.

daniel maris

I think one issue is coming to the fore but hasn't yet been resolved:

Are there going to be two successor states (as Salmond claimed in an interview tonight) or will the UK continue in being?

It must be open to question since it was the union of England and Scotland that created the United Kingdom in the first place (which Ireland can then be said to have joined later).

Andrew Morton

Re BBC, surely it should be renamed The Anglo Saxophone?

EC

The people of the Shetland Isles have a right to self determination. They should be allowed a separate vote.

RJBH

The Status quo... is already no longer available...The SNP leadership has ensured that ,that option is already history... so really there is only 2 choices.. and its about time Westminster realised it.

Andrew Morton

The Orkney and Shetland isles are constituent parts of the Scottish nation state. You might as well say that Cornwall and Lincolnshire can break away to join an independent Scotland.

Bill Fraser

Why is this such a big issue for Cameron and so-called coalition… it was not in the run up to Christmas, so why is it such a big issue now?

Like no doubt most other Scots who voted for the SNP in the last parliamentary election (Edinburgh), I had little interest in the SNP’s long-term goal of holding a referendum; they were simply the better party to govern (Scotland).

I can only conclude Cameron is using the issue of an independence referendum, as he will use the Jubilee and Olympics, to distract the electorate south of the border from his agenda of welfare cuts and means testing the disabled… An no doubt Tories are also hoping the issue of the referendum, the jubilee and the Olympics’ will whip up a ‘patriotic’ feeling they as a Party can capitalize on…

As a Scot I will say though, if Cameron, Milliband and clegg, force through Westminster a fixed ‘yes or no’ referendum at a date of their choosing… I will have no hesitation irrespective of the outcome in voting ‘yes’ … even though I no opinion on the issue.

As I have never in the last 30 years voted Tory or liberal, I certainly will not vote for them in fixed Tory referendum…

starfish

"The Orkney and Shetland isles are constituent parts of the Scottish nation state."

Says who?

Or are the SNP the only people allowed to define what the borders of an independent Scotland might be?

William Old

@daniel maris:
"since it was the union of England and Scotland that created the United Kingdom in the first place (which Ireland can then be said to have joined later)."

Errmmm... no. England + Scotland + Wales = Great Britain. Great Britain + Northern Ireland = United Kingdom.

Kapeesh?

NickW

The option of "Devo max" cannot go on any ballot paper until it has been agreed and defined. It is not a question of Salmond saying what he wants and the English agreeing with every request; Cameron would be slaughtered in the polls if that happened.

Salmond can tell us all exactly what he means by "Devo max", then it will be up to the English to say whether or not it is acceptable to them.

There is no point in having a referendum on an option that is not going to be offered and isn't acceptable to the English majority.

Note that the English are very much in the majority in the Union, and they will not accept any attempt by Salmond to impose his terms on them.

Picti

@William old The united kingdom was formed when Elizabeth 1st of England died childless leaving the throne without an hier the english parliment passed the throne to James 6th the king of Scotland.

Hence united lingdom as for the act of union as in the parliments we were sold out by our own goverment without a vote by the people in 300 years democracy has been a long time coming thanks to the work of the SNP we the people of Scotland will finaly have a choice.

"Soar Alba!"