Scottish independence

10 Pretty Unpersuasive Reasons for Scottish Independence

This week the SNP will launch their campaign for Scottish independence. Or, rather, it’s the official beginning of what they term the ‘Yes’ campaign. Prefacing this, Joan McAlpine uses her column in the Daily Record to list ten reasons why Scots should endorse independence. It is an interesting list, not least because McAlpine, who is close to Alex Salmond, is one of the higher-profile SNP MSPs and someone to whom it is always worth paying attention. This is her list: 1. An independent Scotland would be the sixth wealthiest country on earth. According to the OECD, apparently. It’s the Black Gold, silly. This is a very dubious statistic. It relies

Today in Stupidity: Salmond is Hitler & the Economist is Racist

David Starkey’s declne from competent historian to reactionary nitwit has been a sad business. I’m afraid it shows no sign of abating either. The Huffington Post has this: Historian Dr David Starkey has compared Scottish first minister Alex Salmond to Nazi German leader Adolf Hitler. “If you think about it, Alex Salmond is a democratic Caledonian Hitler, although some would say Hitler was more democratically elected,” he said. “[For him] the English, like the Jews, are everywhere” he added to gasps from the audience. Starkey was speaking at a debate, hosted by the Bow Group think tank, on the teaching of British history in UK schools. Oh dear. Granted, one

Skintland: Heads I Win, Tails You Lose

Crivvens, what a stramash there’s been over the cover of the Economist’s UK edition this week. Skintland is a pretty feeble effort, really, and one not entirely supported by the evidence the Economist brings to support its case. Nevertheless, the dismal chippyness of much of the nationalist reaction to this was more offensive than anything any London newspaper could say on the subject of Caledonian indepndence. There was talk, on twitter admittedly, of reporting the Economist to the Race Relations Industry as well as the Press Complaints Commission. The cover illustration was reputed to be grossly offensive (to all Scots, no less) and, worse still, it was said to be

An independent Scotland could pay its own way<a id="fck_paste_padding"></a>

The Economist has some fun with Scotland this week, running a cover suggesting my motherland would go bust if it was independent. The map has lots of gags: the Outer Hebrides is renamed ‘Outer Cash’, ‘Edinborrow’ twinned with Athens etc. But it suffers from one central defect: the thesis is nonsense. Saying that Scotland would go bust without English subsidy is the clichéd unionist attack line, which has lost force over the decades because it is demonstrably untrue. The emergence of new nation states, many much smaller than Scotland, has shown it that small is viable (something that wasn’t as evident in the 1970s) and even the Economists’ own story

Cameron’s Message to the Scottish Tories: Man Up, You Wimps

On the Daily Politics today Andrew Neil asked David Mundell Why are the Scottish Tories so useless? It will not surprise veteran Mundell-watchers that the member for Dumfriesshire, Clydesdale and Tweeddale did not have a great answer to this blunt question. Nevertheless, Mr Neil’s question was, in effect, the theme or premise of the Prime Minister’s speech to the Scottish Tory Conference this morning. Much of Mr Cameron’s speech was the usual conference boilerplate. All very well and good but not especially meaningful. There was one important passage, however: I say it’s time we stood up even more strongly for what we believe in. Because when you make a strong

The questions Alex Salmond can’t answer

Should Scotland be independent? I’d have thought that only a few people — most of them Scottish — would care enough about the question to come to a debate hosted by a think tank, but the Policy Exchange fight club was packed last night. The sole nationalist was the SNP’s Pete Wishart, allied with Sir Simon Jenkins making his English Nationalist points. Sir Malcolm Rifkind spoke against the motion, with yours truly his support act. As you might expect from a London audience, those opposed won easily. But two things struck me. The first is Sir Malcolm’s eloquence. He was brilliant, better than Salmond, a reminder of what was cut dead in the

Nicola Sturgeon: We Must Kill Britain to Save Britain

It is often said that the case for the United Kingdom needs to be made in a positive fashion. This is reasonable. Less remarked upon is the SNP’s cheerful use of negative arguments for independence. Today, for example, there is the sillyness of Joan McAlpine’s suggestion Scotland is somehow analagous to some ill-treated wife and, rather more importantly, Nicola Sturgeon’s assertion that the Union is a threat to the welfare state. So here’s another Scotch Irony: the advocates of change are the fiercest defenders of the status quo. Speaking last night, the Deputy First Minister promised there would be none of that reforming-the-NHS nonsense in Scotland and, no, there’ll be

Devo disunity

The trouble with the Unionist cause is that it’s so disunited. Douglas Alexander’s speech in Scotland today may appear to bring Labour in line with the Tories and Lib Dems by hinting at greater powers for Scotland in future, but the truth is that it’s just another piece of string in an increasingly tangled mess. And so we have Alexander saying that ‘we must be open minded on how we can improve devolution’s powers, including fiscal powers,’ while, we’re told, he’s also ‘cautious… about fiscal measures that undermine the stability of the block grant system used to fund the three devolved governments in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.’ We have the

Cameron Ducks His Own Scottish Question

Since the NHS is a subject even more boring than American healthcare, I was more interested by the Prime Minister’s response to a question from Angus MacNeill that, though I might have worded it differently, was a perfectly reasonable query that deserved better than the non-answer given by the Prime Minister. This was their exchange: Angus MacNeil: Last week in Edinburgh the Prime Minister said there were more powers on the table for Scotland but couldn’t name any. A few months ago he mocked the idea of Scotland controlling its own oil wealth. In the Scotland Bill, even the Crown Estate was too big. Can the Prime Minister now name

Can Cameron Deliver on His Promise to Scotland?

Well, Pete, I’m not so sure that David Cameron done brilliant in Edinburgh yesterday. To put it mildly, he has complicated an already complex situation. How does the Prime Minister think Scotland should be governed? How much Home Rule does he think is enough Home Rule? What “further powers” does he mean? Neither his speech nor his answers to questions give us any real idea at all. As I said yesterday, at least we have a reasonable – if still imperfect – idea of what Alex Salmond means by independence. Cameron’s preferences? An utter mystery. Moreover, if, as he plainly concedes there is a reasonable case for “further powers” then

Cameron’s new offer for Scotland could mean a new offer for England

The consensus opinion across most of today’s papers appears to be that Dave done good in Scotland yesterday. And now the Prime Minister’s cause has been helped that little bit more by the Lords Constitution Committee. ‘We are firmly of the view that any referendum that is held must be a straight choice between full independence or the status-quo,’ says the committee’s chairman Baroness Jay. ‘A third “devolution-max” option is clearly something every part of the UK must have a say in as it has the potential to create different and competing tax regimes within the UK.’ The strange thing is, a UK-wide referendum on ‘devo max’ could actually produce

Cameron’s risky move could play into Salmond’s hands

Not many politicians would conjure up the spectre of Alec Douglas-Home to scare the Prime Minister, but that is exactly what Alex Salmond did today — to some effect. The Scottish First Minister was responding to David Cameron’s ‘jam tomorrow’ offer to the Scottish people. ‘Vote “no” in the independence referendum,’ Mr Cameron effectively told Scots today in his latest attempt to make some progress in the independence debate, ‘And I’ll see that you get major new powers for the Scottish Parliament.’ It was one part bribery, one part political strategy and Mr Salmond was on to it quicker than the average Scot can order a haggis supper. ‘We’ve been

James Forsyth

Cameron’s plan to protect the Union

‘When the referendum on independence is over, I am open to looking at how the devolved settlement can be improved further. And yes, that means considering what further powers could be devolved.’ These words in David Cameron’s speech today, which follow on from what the Scottish Secretary Michael Moore said at the weekend, make clear what the Unionist campaign’s message will be. They’ll say to the Scottish electorate ‘Vote no to independence and then we can talk about devo-max’. This strategy will probably ensure victory in the referendum. But there are risks to it. First, more constitutional debate will create more uncertainty. Second, any changes to the devolution settlement which

Alex Massie

David Cameron Opens the Door to Devo-Max

At this moment, I dare say industrious hacks are searching for politicians to condemn David Cameron for “selling the jerseys” on the question of further powers for the Scottish parliament after an independence referendum (assuming that Alex Salmond is defeated). Isn’t the Prime Minister in danger of conceding what Salmond really wants? Well, maybe. But what if he is? Perhaps Mr Cameron is less beholden to out-of-date Unionist shibboleths than you might think. Or, of course, perhaps he knows not of what he speaks. His speech in Edinburgh today is not, in fact, a bad one. It is better than his article in today’s Scotsman. In fact, it was One

Alex Massie

Alex Salmond, Supply-Sider?

Today’s Chat With Dave is all very well and good but Alex Salmond’s speech to the LSE last night was just as significant. Much of the wrangling about Scottish independence has, for respectable reasons, concentrated on matters of process leaving the substance of what an independent Scotland might actually be like for another day. This too is reasonable since so much is speculative at this stage and, in any case, one should not necessarily presume that the SNP would dominate post-independence politics. Nevertheless, it is useful to have an idea of what Alex Salmond considers important. What he emphasises now is the best available guide to what might be emphasised

Alex Massie

Mr Cameron Comes To Edinburgh

So Dave meets Eck at St Andrews House today. Earlier in the week there had been talk that their tea-time chat was nothing more than a “courtesy call” from the Prime Minister, popping in for a cuppa since, well, he was in the neighbourhood anyway. Perhaps. More importantly, this is the first meeting between the two since Alex Salmond announced he plans to hold a referendum on Scottish independence in the autumn of 2014. The details of that remain unresolved and important but, in terms of mood and optics, Salmond’s meeting with David Cameron bears some resemblance to a press conference announcing and confirming an eagerly-anticipated prize fight is announced.

Alex Salmond’s problems with women (and the wealthy and the old)

Like the Peat Worrier and Kate Higgins, I think the headline figures on polls asking Scots whether they fancy independence or the Union are much less interesting than the numbers lurking beneath the surface. For it is these that reveal where Alex Salmond has the upper hand (at least for now) and where he most certainly does not. The latest Ipsos-Mori poll reports*, as Brother Jones noted the other day, that 39% of Scots certain to vote in the referendum favour independence. That’s dandy but not all that intriguing. Poke beneath the surface, however, and you find this: 45% of men back independence; just 30% of women do so.  45%

What difference the Scottish independence question makes

A very useful contribution from Lord Ashcroft this morning, in the form of a poll he’s commissioned on Scottish independence. What sets Ashcroft’s poll apart from previous surveys is that he asks three different questions to three different sets of around 1,000 Scots.   The first is the question Alex Salmond wants on the ballot paper at the referendum: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’ 41 per cent say ‘Yes’ and 59 per cent say ‘No’. The second alters the wording only slightly, to ‘Do you agree or disagree…’ and finds 39 per cent agreeing (i.e. supporting independence) and 61 per cent disagreeing. So far, fairly

A poll to darken Salmond’s day

It looks like Fraser was right to question Vision Critical’s recent Scottish independence poll. That poll surveyed just 180 Scots and found 51 per cent saying they would vote ‘Yes’ to Alex Salmond’s referendum question – ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’ – and just 39 per cent saying ‘No’. Today, Ipsos MORI has released a somewhat more reliable poll, sampling 1,005 Scots. It finds 50 per cent saying they’d vote ‘No’ and just 37 saying ‘Yes’. So, it looks like even if the referendum asks Salmond’s leading question, the Nationalists are likely to be defeated. And while the SNP may try to claim that 37 per cent