Tag Archives: Alex Salmond

British Separatism In Scotland

Posted on by
26
The partition of Scotland the new Greater England

The partition of Scotland – and the new Greater England

So Scotland’s First Minister, Alex Salmond, has finally unveiled the long-promised date for the Scottish independence referendum: Thursday the 18th of September 2014. Good news for the broad Nationalist movement in Scotland which now has a target date to aim for (along with the encouraging – if slight – rise in the polls for the potential pro-independence vote seen recently).

However the political war over Scotland’s (and Britain’s) future is well and truly on and nothing seems to be excluded. I noted back in January of 2012 the calls emanating from leaders of the separatist British Unionist minority in the north-east of Ireland suggesting that their vital (as well as historic) links with Britain and Lowland Scotland should be secured by “partitioning” any future independent Scottish nation (essentially moving the border between Scotland and England up to a line between Kilmarnock on the west coast and Dunbar on the eastern coast, and taking in areas around or including Glasgow). Lord John Kilclooney, better known as the former UUP head-honcho John Taylor, was the first off the blocks with this:

“Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK… Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.”

Ah yes, because appeasing a small, violent and anti-democratic British separatist minority worked out so well in Ireland didn’t it?

But no matter, Taylor’s attitudes were reflected in those of other British Unionist leaders. Tom Elliot, the then worse leader of the UUP up to the present worse leader of the UUP, declared:

“…the constitutional approach of Alex Salmond appears to pose a greater threat to the union than the violence of the IRA.”

Ta-dah! But others remained focused on the idea of divide and conquer. Like Tory bigwig Malcolm Sinclair, the 20th Earl of Caithness (but of course):

“A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence.

The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood.

He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be binding on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted “yes”.”

For a while the battle-drums fell silent but they are droning loud again. From the Telegraph:

“The Orkney and Shetland islands could remain part of the UK if the rest of Scotland votes to separate, according to a report submitted by their MSPs to the Government. The islands could even declare independence themselves, it adds.

Alternatively, they could agree to join a separate Scotland only if they are granted a much bigger portion of North Sea oil and gas revenues, around a quarter of which lies in Shetland’s waters alone.

Tavish Scott, the Liberal Democrat MSP for Shetland, agreed the threat was political “dynamite” but questioned why Mr Salmond was the only politician who could use oil wealth to argue for self-determination.

Their residents have traditionally been extremely hostile to Scottish independence and preferred Westminster government to that from Holyrood. The SNP has previously recognised the islands’ right to decide their own future but Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, recently angered residents by stating this was wrong because they are “not a nation”.”

Could it be that one of the Unionist tactics for the Scottish referendum campaign is a simple threat: if you break up our nation we will break up your’s! And of course, all those oil and maritime resources in the northern extremes of the North Sea do help.

Related articles
About these ads

HMG Official Statement – Britain Is England

Posted on by
17
What is a Treaty worth? Not much it seems.

What is a Treaty worth? Not much it seems.

Did you know that Scotland ceased to exist as a nation after the so-called Act of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England in 1707 that formed the United Kingdom of Great Britain? Maybe, yes, though people’s views differ but did you know that England continued to exist as a nation? In fact, England as a national and territorial unit simply became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and the “Union” was nothing more than the annexation of a neighbouring (and rival) territory on the island of Britain by the Kingdom of England making it another region of the English state.

This is a claim that would incense most Scottish nationalists and even irritate quite a few pro-Union Scots. Yet, remarkably, this very claim is implied in a document released by the British government yesterday putting forward its case for the continued existence of the UK and its opposition to Scottish independence. From “Scotland analysis: Devolution and the implications of Scottish independence” comes this constitutional, legal and political analysis on page 73, Part IV “The status of Scotland and the remainder of the UK in international law”:

“26. From 1603, when the Stuart King James VI of Scotland inherited the English throne, Scotland and England (and its colony Ireland) shared the same monarch.

27. There is little reason to doubt that between that date and 1707, England and Scotland remained separate states.

(a) Whether the union of 1707 created a new state

35. An alternative view is that as a matter of international law England continued, albeit under a new name and regardless of the position in domestic law, and was simply enlarged to incorporate Scotland. In support of this view, among other things:

35.1 Scottish members joined Parliament at Westminster, but there was no new election of its English members. This was in accordance with the Acts of Union Article XXII.

35.2 Treaties concluded by England appear to have survived to bind Great Britain.

35.3 England’s diplomatic representation in the rest of Europe continued uninterrupted. The Acts of Union Article XXIV appears to acknowledge this in retaining the Great Seal of England for transitional purposes.

36. We note that the incorporation… of Ireland, previously a colony, under the Union with Ireland Act 1801 (GB) and the Act of Union 1800 (Ireland) did not affect state continuity. Despite its similarity to the union of 1707, Scottish and English writers unite in seeing the incorporation of Ireland not as the creation of a new state but as an accretion without any consequences in international law.

37. For the purpose of this advice, it is not necessary to decide between these two views of the union of 1707. Whether or not England was also extinguished by the union, Scotland certainly was extinguished as a matter of international law, by merger either into an enlarged and renamed England or into an entirely new state.

43. The same result follows from the alternative possibility, discussed above, that Great Britain was the continuator of England rather than a new state.”

While it is welcome to see the British government formally recognise Ireland’s incorporation into the so-called UK as a case of colonisation and annexation, it is bizarre to see such an explicit acknowledgement by the British state of the belief held by most observers: that Britain equals England and British equals English. Has the British English prime minister David Cameron just handed Alex Salmond and the SNP another propaganda victory in the Scottish referendum war?

More here.

Related articles

Thousands March For Scottish Independence

Posted on by
5

Alba Gu Brath – Scotland Forever. Thousands attend Scottish independence rally, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2012 (Photo: Wings Over Scotland)

Congratulations to the thousands who turned out for today’s independence rally in the Scottish capital, Edinburgh. At the advent, addressed by a number of leading Scottish nationalists, the First Minster of Scotland and SNP leader Alex Salmond announced that more than 100,000 people had signed up in support for the Yes campaign’s independence declaration. Despite the fact that the demonstration was not part of the official Yes campaign and only received wide publicity in the last two days several thousand still came out on a cold but sunny autumnal day to peacefully express their support for Scottish democracy and freedom.

A counter-rally by British Unionist protesters, including members of the far right British National Party and Loyalist-linked Scottish Defence League, drew a handful of flag-waving agitators.

Check out Wings Over Scotland for more.

Scotland’s First Minister and SNP leader Alex Salmond adresses independence rally, Edinburgh, Scotland, 2012 (Photo: Wings Over Scotland)

BBC Alba Leading The Way For A Scottish Broadcasting Service

Posted on by
1

BBC Alba

Some potentially significant news for Scottish broadcasting reported by the Stage:

“Scotland’s first minister, Alex Salmond, has called for the country to have its own public service broadcaster, claiming the current situation is “failing Scottish TV viewers and producers”.

Addressing the Edinburgh International Television Festival, Salmond said that Scottish TV viewers and producers are being “failed by out-dated Westminster attitudes”.

He argued that Scotland should have its own public broadcaster outside of the BBC, which would be controlled by the country’s government.

“Scotland’s contribution to broadcasting is unparalleled. Television was invented by John Logie Baird and the very concept of public service broadcasting was shaped by Lord Reith. But Scottish viewers and TV production talent are today being short-changed,” he said.

He added that BBC Alba – the national Gaelic language station – had been a “huge success, with an audience size last month nine times the number of people who speak Gaelic”.

“So viewers are clearly voting with their remote controls for more Scottish content. Yet we do not have an English-language public service broadcasting channel of our own,” he said.”

At the moment Scotland contributes in excess of 320 million pounds (over 400 million euros) a year to the overall BBC budget via the television licence fee. However the money reinvested in Scottish broadcasting by the BBC will soon stand at some 80 million pounds (100 million euros) – around a quarter of what it taxes from Scottish television viewers. Using either a TV licence fee or direct public funding through general taxation, with limited commercial advertising, it would not be unreasonable to expect a Scottish public television service to be able to operate with a budget of between 400 and 500 million pounds (roughly over 500 to 600 million euros).

The total budget from all sources for Ireland’s award-winning Irish language television channel TG4 stands at less than 39 million pounds per annum (around 49 million euros), yet it is widely respected and admired internationally for the range of programming it produces and broadcasts. A future SBC would have a budget twelve times that of TG4.

Can anyone seriously question Scotland’s ability to produce and sustain quality television broadcasting?

Related articles

Craig Ferguson In Scotland

Posted on by
1

Thought you might like this one. Scottish comedian and (subversive) chat-show host Craig Ferguson has recently been presenting his US-based Late Late Show from Scotland and here is an interview with First Minister Alex Salmond:

Stars Come Out For Scotland

Posted on by
2

From the Scotsman:

“SOME of Scotland’s “leading stars” will lend their support to the campaign for Scottish independence when it is officially launched this week.

The campaign, to be titled “Yes Scotland”, will try to appeal to a broad church by reaching out to those beyond the SNP.

Friday’s launch is to be held in Sir Sean Connery’s old stomping ground in Edinburgh, prompting speculation that the star, an SNP supporter, will make an appearance to boost Alex Salmond’s cause.

The “Yes Scotland” campaign will begin on Friday at Edinburgh’s Cineworld complex in Fountainbridge, near where Connery grew up. The launch invitation states that “Scots from all walks of life will join some of our leading stars and community and political figures” to sign a “Yes Declaration” setting out why being independent offers the best future for Scotland.

Yesterday, SNP sources refused to disclose who the “leading stars” were but Fountainbridge was chosen over more obvious symbolic sites such as the Bannockburn battlefield or Arbroath Abbey, where Scots noblemen declared Scottish independence in 1320.

On the invitation, Friday’s launch is described as “the start of the biggest community based campaign in Scotland’s history, designed to build a groundswell of support for an independent Scotland ahead of the 2014 referendum”.

Friday will also bring the unveiling of the campaign’s website and official anthem plus contributions from “some of Scotland’s leading cultural figures”. Other prominent SNP supporters and donors have included Sir Brian Souter of Stagecoach and, from the world of films, Brian Cox and Alan Cumming.”

Hmm…

Related articles

Brit-Nats Jump Down The Rabbit Hole To Escape The SNP Vote

Posted on by
4

Apparently the Scottish National Party received an electoral drubbing in the local elections held in Scotland last week. Or so claims the British nationalist media (notably the BBC), and the Labour Party, Tories, Lib Dems and just about every Greater England amadán-with-a-keyboard.

However, jump outside the BritNat spin and what happens to all those salient factoids of alleged SNP woes? From Newsnet Scotland:

“According to BBC Scotland, Labour gained an extra 58 councillors to the SNP’s 57 after Friday’s count.  However it has emerged that the more accurate figures indicate the SNP gained 61 councillors to Labour’s 48.

Others who disagree with BBC Scotland’s figures include Scottish Television who accurately reported a 61 seat gain for the SNP against a 48 seat gain for Labour.  Respected commentator Gerry Hassan also gives as the figure for SNP gains as 61.

However several national newspapers appear to have picked up BBC Scotland’s interpretation of the results and have reproduced articles containing the same spurious figures.

There is also dismay at the BBC’s apparent refusal to acknowledge the SNP as having won the election, despite the party winning the largest share of first preference votes and to have amassed more councillors than any other party.

Newsnet Scotland understands that the BBC has already fielded complaints by many viewers unhappy at their interpretation of the results, as well as other aspects of the broadcaster’s post-election reporting.”

Well all that sounds pretty positive for the SNP to me. Where’s this bloody nose delivered to Alex Salmond by the people of Scotland that the British journo classes keep shouting about?

And how about this from Alex Robertson:

“At the launch of the local government elections, Alex Salmond set his party two objectives: win the greatest number of council seats, and win the greatest share of the vote.

The results were better than that: over 60 gains, over 32% of the overall vote and 424 council seats.  A clear triumph in achieving the goals set.

Yes, the ambition to wrest control of Glasgow City Council from Labour fell short of hopes, although the SNP did gain seats again.  It was a very creditable performance and everybody involved is to be congratulated for a fine piece of work.

As the dust settles, it is early days for a full analysis, but it seems clear that the collapse of the Lib Dem vote transferred very largely to Labour’s advantage. Unionists sticking together perhaps, although it would be interesting to ask a few questions and find out what really happened.   There are a few lessons to learn.

Just look at the ludicrous situation forced upon Scots by Westminster control. The Lib Dems have a long history or support for Home Rule, and Lib Dem voters would be the natural friends and allies of the independence campaign.  But Westminster says ‘no’ and Scottish LibDem voters are left with no home.

Our job now must be to win over Labour voters by appealing to their sense of nationhood, and their good sense to see the wisdom and case for Scottish independence.  And we must do all we can to bring into our camp the many Lib Dem voters who have seen their natural home blown away and where a welcome awaits to those joining in the campaign for all Scots to support a ‘yes’ vote in 2014.

Only by reaching out to all Scots, of all political persuasions and preferences, persuading and convincing them that Scotland needs to have the power to make its own choices and decisions, in Scottish interests, and not to have our interests swamped by Westminster politicians, desperate for their political survival on English votes, will Scotland have a future all Scots can be proud of and share.”

The very embodiment of upbeat nationalism? Shouldn’t these folk be crying into their (Scotch) whiskeys? And now we’re told that both the Labour Party and the Lib Dems are biting their lips and making with the smiles as their new partner in local government across Scotland steps forward – namely the SNP.

Some defeat!

Related articles

David Starkey And The Dark Side Of English Nationalism

Posted on by
6

Well, we’ve seen the SNP leader and Scotland’s First Minster, Alex Salmond, compared to the dictator Robert Mugabe by the “respected” BBC journalist Jeremy Paxman (recent convert to the cause of the Apologia Pax Britannica), so should it come as any surprise that he is now being compared to the dictator “Adolf Hilter”? This latest jibe comes from the right-wing British TV historian and English nationalist David Starkey. An unapologetic defender of Greater England, the controversy-seeking academic made his claim at a conservative think-tank meeting in Britain (quelle surprise!).

The Huffington Post carries the details:

“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.

“England has shaped the world and now the world has shaped England” he said, “every other country focuses on its own history and it’s absurd that we don’t.”

Teaching should, he said, “unashamedly focus on political history. Social history is… mere sentiment”.

The British needed positive teaching of their history, Starkey argued, to preserve national identity.

Starkey lamented that in the wake of Enoch Powell’s controversial Rivers of Blood speech, it was “no longer” possible to speak about nationalism.“

Starkey, of course, rose to particular infamy last year with his “…the whites are becoming blacks” declaration on British television following several days of rioting in a number of English cities. However he has repeatedly expressed his distaste for all things “Celtic”, dismissing Scotland, Wales and Ireland in a previous TV performance as “feeble little countries”, to the delight of the extreme right in Britain. In his warped worldview the natural supremacy of the English race and its dominance over its neighbours is the only matter of worth in the history of the island of Britain and nearby nations – including Ireland.

Will this latest outburst finally put paid to his inglorious career? Probably not. The more likely scenario is yet more academic respectability-by-association for the extreme right of English nationalism as it slowly creeps towards the centre-place of British politics and the media.

Incidentally David Starkey is a patron of NOGOE (No to Greenwich Olympic Equestrian Events) a local pressure group in Britain opposed to aspects of the London Olympic Games. Amongst its more recent pronouncements have been these particular gems, along the lines of: No Olympics Here, And No Irish Too!

Related articles

Today, Scotland! Tomorrow, The World!

Posted on by
10

Are you looking for an example of dirty politics? Then look no further than the British Nationalist camp in Scotland as they rage against the drive for independence by the SNP administration in Edinburgh with this contribution from former Liberal Democrat bigwig and holier-than-thou politico Lord Steel, via the right-wing Daily Telegraph:

“Lord Steel of Aikenwood [ASF: actually its Aikwood] said broadcasters have told him that “SNP heavies” contact them so regularly trying to influence their coverage that it is verging on “intimidation”.

He said he has also been informed the Nationalists make more complaints to journalist news rooms than all the other political parties combined.

The former Liberal leader and Scottish Parliament presiding officer delivered the extraordinary attack during a House of Lords debate on the Government’s plans to devolve new powers to Holyrood.

Comparing Mr Salmond to Kim Jong-il, North Korea’s former dictator, the peer said: “We are seeing a trend towards the attributes of the one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the Dear Leader has been doing today.”

He said he was also worried about the SNP administration’s “touch of L’etat c’est moi”, referring to the alleged statement by Louis XIV of France that: “The state is me.”

Lord Steel also used the speech to attack the SNP’s “little Scotland” mindset. Although he is friends with a former Danish foreign minister, he said he does not want to see an equivalent Scottish post “with similar limited global influence”.”

Brit Nats. What are they like? Not so much a case of L’etat c’est moi as Le monde, c’est moi!

Related articles

GQ Magazine – Rebellious Scots To Crush!

Posted on by
2

Crikey, law’ luv-a-duck! The ‘nglish meadja establishment is so bloomin’ terrified of Alex Salmond an’ ‘is SNP stormtroopers that even the toff magazine GQ has joined in the fight fer queen an’ country, lor’ bless ‘em!

“In Scotland, Salmond’s popularity rests not so much on his politics but his ability to string a sentence together – not something his two predecessors were very good at. He at­tracts left-wingers by maintaining Soviet levels of state spending in Scotland. And he talks about low tax, good enough for the reformed Tories. In England, his strategy is to provoke. He loves that Scottish university students pay no upfront fees, while English ones are billed. He loves that the Scottish elderly are given more expensive care – all due to the £20bn subsidy that England gives. The more Englishmen find this outrageous, the better.

And his trap? He’ll hold his referendum probably in two years time, after the Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the subsequent upsurge in Scottish patriotism (nothing stirs Scottish blood more than sporting failures). He hopes to allow 16- and 17-year-olds to vote (independence is more popular among the young). And then: the celebs. His cam­paign already has the posthumous backing of the Makar (the Scottish poet laureate), Edwin Morgan. He bequeathed the SNP almost £1m in his will last year. The UK’s biggest lottery winners, Colin and Chris Weir from Ayrshire, are longtime SNP supporters and are reported to have pledged another £1m to the pro-independence campaign. Then we have the bus tycoon, Brian Souter, who has already bankrolled two successful SNP election campaigns. The devoted, bearded, folk-music-loving SNP members can be ex­pected to dig deep for a once-in-a-lifetime op­portunity to break free from the Auld Enemy. It’ll have the cash, the money, the glam – and Sean Connery.”

Its like wot I told ya, those Scotch are not trus’worthy, not civilized like wot we normal ‘nglish folk are. Altogether now, in yer best Vera Lynn:

“May by thy mighty aid

Victory bring.

May he sedition hush,

And like a torrent rush,

Rebellious Scots to crush.

God save the Queen!”

Related articles

More Parallels Between Québec, Scotland And Beyond

Posted on by
3

Some more lessons for Scotland and the SNP from the history of the independence movement in Québec? A Reuters report in the Chicago Tribune:

“Bernard Landry, who as deputy Quebec premier in 1995 helped prepare for independence, sees a strong parallel between Scotland and Quebec. “It’s not the same case, but the fundamentals are the same. Scotland is a nation. Quebec is a nation,” he told Reuters.

“A nation when it’s possible has the duty to be free, and that applies to Quebec and to Scotland,” said Landry, who went on to become premier and now teaches at the Universite du Quebec a Montreal.

The biggest difference between the two cases is that Quebec’s separatists were – and are – driven by language. French is the native language of four of five Quebec residents, whereas Gaelic is spoken by only about 1 percent of Scots.

Another difference is historic: Quebec, colonized by France in the 16th and 17th centuries, was conquered by Britain in 1760. Quebec and Canada are both creations of empire. Scotland, on the other hand, shared its monarch with England for most of the 1600s, and formed its union with the south in 1707 peacefully, even if many Scots opposed it.

Landry said he has long been interested in the Scottish question and had met Salmond many times over the years.

He spent much of the year prior to the 1995 referendum asking diplomats for recognition of Quebec in the event of a ‘yes’ vote. Most South American and French-speaking African countries told him they would recognize Quebec, he said, “so we were not anxious at all.”

The Quebec premier of the day, separatist Jacques Parizeau, made elaborate economic and political preparations, and reportedly told diplomats that Quebeckers would be like lobsters in a pot of boiling water if he got a majority.

He denied making the remark but later conceded that a unilateral declaration of independence was ready if he had won the referendum.”

The National Post carries a more hostile though perhaps in some ways more insightful piece by the veteran Canadian journalist Andrew Coyne on the political contest between the British and Scottish governments over the terms of the Scottish referendum on independence:

“…[British Prime Minster] Cameron has been bold enough to demand that the referendum be held much sooner, within the next 18 months, rather than subject the country to the three years of uncertainty of what he called, in an obvious bit of borrowing, Salmond’s “neverendum.”

Provided his conditions were met, he promised, he would accept the result as binding — which is to imply that if his demands were not met, he would feel free to ignore the result, as he is fully entitled to do. There has been no suggestion that Scotland could ignore the law and simply hold a referendum on its own, still less that it could declare independence unilaterally. Whatever comes to the United Kingdom, it will be by a decision of the British parliament, and carried out under the law.

…Cameron is playing this game more aggressively than most. I can’t imagine he would actually sit down to negotiate the breakup of the United Kingdom, three centuries after the Act of Union: no Prime Minister would. His promise to do so must therefore be regarded as a bluff. There’s a certain game-theoretic sense in this. Not only does he avoid accusations of high-handedness, but by making “clear” the consequence of a yes vote, he warns off strategic voters who might be tempted to vote no just to extract better terms of union.”

One wonders if Andrew Coyne is reading the situation correctly in terms of British government thinking and that of the British Nationalist and Unionist camp in general? Will the Tory-Lib Dem coalition in London really reject a “Yes” vote for independence from Scotland? I strongly suspect that they will but not explicitly so. Instead a deliberately protracted period of “negotiations” and fights over legal and constitutional rights will be used to undermine any separatist mandate for the SNP administration in Edinburgh. After all the British have a proven track-record in this area the last time the so-called United Kingdom faced a breakup. The refusal of the British state to accept the democratic wishes of the majority of people living on the island of Ireland to national self-determination, expressed by repeated mandates for their political representatives in Sinn Féin from 1916-1922, led to negotiations that eventually split the Irish Republican movement while securing independence for the greater part of Ireland and the Irish people.

Will we expect to see the same sort of political, legal and diplomatic tactics and ploys employed by the British in early 21st century Scotland that they employed in early 20th century Ireland?

But of course.

Related articles

Independence, Devo-Max, Status Quo: 1, 2, 3

Posted on by
1

Back in December I wrote an article suggesting that the SNP should consider staging the forthcoming Scottish independence referendum (now scheduled for 2014) using a system of preferential voting based upon a series of optional questions.

“…no one is sure what rules will govern the referendum on Scottish sovereignty when it is held. It seems likely to have more than a simple “Yes” or “No” question on full independence. Several questions are possible. All of which would helpfully muddy the waters for the SNP – and not so helpfully for Nationalists of the Greater England variety. Additionally it may be a proportional referendum, with voters asked to number their choices in order of preference. That could certainly lead to some interesting results.

For instance, those voting “Number 1” for Independence would be very likely to also vote “Number 2” for Devo-Max (on the basis that if we don’t get full independence at least we 90% of it).

Many of those voting “Number 1” for Devo-Max would likely also vote “Number 2” for Independence (since I’ve gone this far in voting Devo-Max, I’m obviously dissatisfied with the current UK status quo so why not give my second preference to Independence?).

With those voting “Number 1” for the UK status quo the Independence choice is a highly unlikely option to make, so while some might vote “Number 2” for Devo-Max (better 90% of the way than the full 100%) most will probably go no further than their first choice.

In these circumstance a significant vote for Devo-Max looks likely, with Independence a strong second, and the current constitutional arrangement a poor third. A carefully worded and organised form of maximum devolution could then give the Scots the independence that many seek in the space of a few years as the new arrangements evolved and grew. There is certainly precedents for this throughout European history (not least in Ireland).”

Now this idea has been taken up by Quintin Oliver in a piece for Slugger O’Toole, as he examines the small print elements that may make up the Scottish drive for independence:

“My first observation here is the absence of much serious commentary that I have seen, on deployment of the recently tested (although rejected in the UK) Alternative Vote as a way out of the ‘Sweden Conundrum’, when voters in 1980 opted indecisively for conflicting alternatives on the speed of decommissioning the nuclear industry, one of which actually included an increase in nuclear turbines.

One could easily devise and negotiate the wording that would allow voters to opt in order, by the now familiar 1,2,3 for independence, for Devo-max or for the status quo; if the lowest successful option were then eliminated, and preferences transferred, a simple majority would then have been achieved for one of the three.”

If the SNP wish to reinforce their mandate to negotiate Scottish independence on the back of a positive referendum result then the best way to do that is to ensure that the poll vote reflects the widest number of voters in Scotland.

Related articles

Latest Poll: 51% Favour Scottish Independence

Posted on by
3

According to a Sunday Express poll 51% of the voters in Scotland now support independence, the first time this percentage has been reached in a survey conducted on behalf of a national newspaper in the UK.

“A CLEAR majority of people in Scotland now back independence, according to an exclusive poll for the Sunday Express.

In the first such result since the SNP came to power – and using Alex Salmond’s preferred referendum question – the Vision Critical survey found 51 per cent would vote ‘Yes’, with 39 per cent against.

If such a dramatic result were repeated in the autumn of 2014, the First Minister would have an absolute mandate to negotiate an end to the Union with England.

Carried out on Thursday and Friday, the poll is the first to use the exact wording of the question proposed by the Scottish Government…”

However there is a caveat:

“The survey canvassed 2,019 adults, including 180 people in Scotland…”

180 voters seems a very small sample, in statistical terms, yet:

“Despite the relatively small numbers north of the Border, the pollsters said the result was valid as they had sampled a representative cross section of society.”

Even allowing for caution, the survey is clearly indicative of the rising numbers in Scotland for the independence option. The recent New Statesman poll showed 44% of voters favouring independence while previous surveys have chartered a steady growth in the nationalist vote from around the 29% mark to averages of 34 or 35%.

Related articles

Scottish Troubles?

Posted on by
Reply
The partition of Scotland the new Greater England

The partition of Scotland – and the new Greater England

Two weeks ago I reported on calls by some politicians from the British (Unionist) minority in Ireland, notably former senior UUP leader John Taylor, for any future independent Scotland to be “partitioned” in order to ensure that those regions with a significant pro-British voting population were retained in the “United Kingdom”. Taylor’s exact words were:

“Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK… Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.”

This caused quite a reaction, coming as it did with demands from the English Democrats urging the London government to redraw the boundary map of the North Sea to ensure that the maximum amount of the current UK oil fields remained under British (for which one should read, English) jurisdiction. John Taylor’s party leader, Tom Elliot, also made several hostile attacks on Alex Salmond and Scottish (and Irish) nationalists culminating in the claim that:

“…the constitutional approach of Alex Salmond appears to pose a greater threat to the union than the violence of the IRA.”

Shortly thereafter news came that the two main British separatist parties in Ireland, Elliot’s UUP and Peter Robinson’s DUP, were now considering launching a joint campaign in Scotland to fight the SNP and the independence referendum. Considering that the historical reaction of the British ethnic minority on the island of Ireland to democratic outcomes they didn’t agree with was (and is) a ready recourse to violence and the threat of violence, many people in Scotland were alarmed by the implications of these aggressive moves by the UUP and DUP (not to mention the insidious influence of British terrorist groups based in the north-east of Ireland upon “Unionist” communities in southern Scotland).

Now we are beginning to see the slow creep of the idea of a partition of Scotland from the wild fringes of the British national minority in Ireland to the mainstream of British nationalist politics in London, with news from the BBC of some high-level support for the basic concept:

“A former Conservative minister has said Orkney and Shetland should have the right to remain part of the UK if Scotland votes for independence.

The Earl of Caithness has tabled amendments to the Scotland Bill, which gives further powers to Holyrood.

He said a referendum vote favouring independence should not be binding on the Northern Isles, unless the majority of islanders voted “yes”.

The Scotland Bill is due to be discussed in the Lords later this week.

The Tory peer’s proposed changes to the bill are among a number of newly-published amendments.

Malcolm Sinclair, the 20th Earl of Caithness, said a “yes” vote in a Scottish referendum should be followed by a referendum held throughout the UK, a proposal he sets out in an insert to the bill that the peer has labelled subsection (2B).

In his amendment, he said: “A vote in a referendum held under subsection (2B) of this section which results in Scotland leaving the United Kingdom shall not be binding on the residents of the Orkney Islands or the Shetland Islands unless a majority of the residents of the Orkney Islands and the Shetland Islands who voted in such a referendum voted that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom.”

The Earl of Caithness has also proposed that the North Atlantic islet of Rockall should remain part of the UK in the event of Scotland becoming independent.”

It is notable that British claims to Rockall would be reinforced through UK control of southern Scotland, and part of the western seaboard south of the city of Glasgow, and the extension of British territorial waters north-westward, including from north-eastern Ireland (not to mention the claims on large swathes of the North Sea by retaining control of south-east Scotland). Coupled with the “exclusion” of Shetland and the Orkneys from a Scottish nation such an arrangement would virtually “squeeze” an independent Scotland between various “British” jurisdictions, rendering much of its independence and sovereignty moot. In fact, just as the partition of the island of Ireland deliberately crippled the economic sustainability of a separate Irish state with the loss of its natural tax-raising base and home-market (not to mention the former industrial heartland of the north-east), a partition of Scotland would hobble a free Scottish state from the very start.

The potential loss of agricultural and industrial zones in the Borders and some of the Lowland regions (along with their populations), lack of control over cross-channel trade and movement with north-eastern Ireland (and the revenue derived from that), and the redrawing of Scottish territorial waters and seabed jurisdictions in the North Sea and Atlantic (leading to the loss of substantial oil and fisheries reserves) would be a heavy financial blow for any future self-sustaining Scotland. As with Ireland, it would probably be a form of permanent national disfigurement and a source of continuous instability.

However such a situation could well match future British strategic interests, whether political, economic or security. For no London-based state or government would wish to see a strong political and economic rival to the north, anymore than they wanted to see one to the west in Ireland.

If the Scots think 21st century Albion is immune to 19th century perfidy then they may be in for a shock.

Related articles

British Hacks Turn “Black And Tan” For 2014!

Posted on by
4

Is it me or have we finally seen the dropping of the British Unionist mask to reveal the English Nationalism that hides behind it? Since British PM David Cameron and the coalition government in London issued their soon-to-be-amended diktat to First Minister Alex Salmond and the SNP administration in Scotland about the forthcoming referendum on Scottish independence journalists and various fellow-travellers in the British media establishment have gone into a frenzy of nationalistic chest thumping. Each seems eager to outdo the other in the levels of vitriol and venom directed towards all things north of the border, while simultaneously proclaiming the importance of the “Union” and of “Great Britain” (or do they mean Greater England?).

For instance bulldog-granny, Melanie Philips, devotes a lengthy article in the Daily Mail extolling the virtues of British Unionism and the British Union, by attacking Scotland and everything Scottish that makes up that so-called union.

“…opinion polls have now shown that support for Scottish independence is actually higher among the English than the Scots — with one poll even showing that a majority of English people want to get shot of Scotland — while just about every such survey reveals that the Scots themselves would vote against it.

So it would appear that the nationalist Mr Salmond will have his work cut out trying to persuade the Scots to wave goodbye to England, while the unionist Mr Cameron will have his work cut out trying to persuade the English not to wave good riddance to the Scots (if, that is, he ever deigns to ask them).

You can see why it’s happened. The Scots know they stand to lose big time if they divorce themselves from Westminster.

For its part, however, England is fed up to the back teeth with the Scots pocketing a whacking subsidy from Westminster while constantly — and offensively — whingeing about England.”

Notice the language? The Orwellian uses of certain words designed to influence and assuage the in-built prejudices of the average Daily Mail reader? Just look at them: “get shot of Scotland”, “good riddance to the Scots”. And what about “the Scots pocketing a whacking subsidy from Westminster”? Is there a bible of anti-Scots terms somewhere that all these English nationalistic hacks work off?

“And if Scotland has a referendum on its independence, then, in any just universe, the rest of the UK must vote on the proposal, too. For while those five million Scots may argue that they have the right to decide how they are governed, they do not have the right to break up the United Kingdom regardless of the wishes of the remaining 55 million of its citizens.”

So the people of Scotland are to be denied their democratic rights? The voice of a historic national unit, a recognised polity, is to be simply disregarded and silenced by the cries of the English chattering classes?

“Nevertheless, there is undoubtedly a strong nationalist feeling in Scotland. Much of this is based on the fact it is a historic nation with several features which distinguish it from England and Wales, such as its legal system, religion and educational and cultural traditions.”

Oh, so you do recognise Scotland as a separate nation then, with several key differences from England? Just not the most important key difference – the right to democratic national self-determination.

“The fact is that England needs Scotland just as Scotland needs England. But they need to pull together as one country in a relationship of equals.

And there’s nothing like hard cash — or the loss of it — to concentrate the mind.

By casting his line with the juicy bait of a legally binding referendum, Mr Cameron caught this Salmond neatly on his hook. Now the Prime Minister should also dam the river of Westminster cash if this most puffed-up of fish is to be served up on a plate and the Union saved”.

A relationship of “equals”? Is there anything in Melanie Philips’ article that would lead one to believe that she genuinely believes that the Scots are equal to the English? Does her language, her use of certain key words and phrases, the sub-violent tone of the whole piece leave an impression of equality and respect? Or is this rather just another defence of Greater England, a piece of propagandising no different from the type made in times past by those who defended a Greater Serbia or a Greater Germany? British Unionism is simply a form of Greater English nationalism and is quiet distinct from any form of progressive English nationalism. It is a nationalism of territorial acquisition and cultural eugenics, a nationalism of an assumed order of natural selection and of natural superiority; of superior and inferior peoples and nations.

If the article by Melanie Philips represents how “British Unionists” hope to promote the continued existence of their so-called United Kingdom over the next two years, by denigrating the very nations that comprise it, then the Scots have won their cause already.

Related articles

The Partition Of Scotland?

Posted on by
12

Well, the Scottish leader Alex Salmond came to town for the Irish-British Council summit yesterday and hit all the right notes for an Irish audience (and quiet a few of the wrong ones for a British/English one). I wonder did he read my earlier posting on the “Ireland Scenario”? (not really!)

The Guardian carries some of the details of the event for the folks back home in Blighty:

“Alex Salmond has invited David Cameron and Nick Clegg to visit Scotland to discuss the UK government’s proposal to accelerate the timetable for a referendum on Scottish independence.

But Salmond launched a strong attack on the UK government for what he described as bullying tactics as he appeared to draw a parallel between London’s treatment of Scotland and its historic behaviour towards Ireland.

“I am sure many people in Ireland will remember that sometimes people who are in leadership positions in big countries find it very difficult not to bully small countries,” Salmond told RTE on Friday morning. “What we have seen over the last week is a most extraordinary attempt to bully and intimidate Scotland by Westminster politicians.

“Sometimes Westminster politicians, and Nick Clegg is very much a Westminster politician, find it difficult to let go the strings of power and believe they are still in a position of dictating terms to Scotland. I’m afraid Nick Clegg and his colleagues David Cameron and George Osborne, who is very much in charge of this, are going to find out these days are over.”

Salmond was speaking shortly before the start of the British-Irish Council which is taking place at Dublin Castle, the seat of British rule in Ireland until the 26 counties of the Irish Republic achieved independence in 1922. The castle is a mile from the General Post Office on O’Connell Street, the scene of the Easter Rising against British rule in 1916. It was Britain’s violent response to the rising – the leaders were executed by firing squad – that helped trigger the Irish war of independence.

Salmond’s decision to draw a parallel between Scotland and Ireland, however obliquely, may stir a debate in Scotland, where sectarian divisions are still pronounced.

The first minister was warmly greeted by Martin McGuinness, Sinn Féin’s deputy first minister, when he arrived at Dublin Castle.”

While the majority of the Irish media seemed to enjoy the discomfort of the British delegation amidst expressions of Celtic and Gaelic solidarity, back home the Scotsman newspaper claimed that the First Minister’s comparisons had caused outrage in Ireland and beyond. Really?

“ALEX Salmond has sparked a furious row by comparing his bid for Scottish independence with Ireland’s violent struggle against British rule.

In Ireland, politicians from both sides of the religious divide criticised his remarks, which were made before he met Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg at the yesterday’s British-Irish Council summit.”

“Religious divide”? I presume the Scotsman means the political divide between the two communities on the island of Ireland, Irish and British. But then again those old propaganda lines are much easier to rehash, aren’t they? On the other hand, someone who knows a thing or two about religious fundamentalism does have an opinion to make. Though, be warned, you might be struggling to remember his name.

“Mr Salmond’s comments were criticised by Lord Trimble, the former Ulster Unionist leader who was awarded a Nobel Prize for his role in bringing peace to Northern Ireland.

Lord Trimble said Mr Salmond had been “playing to the gallery in spades”. He went on: “It is grandstanding on stilts. It is totally divorced from the reality. My understanding is that the government have been trying to get into a conversation with Mr Salmond for the past year, but he has been declining to talk to them.”

As one of the main architects of the Good Friday Agreement – the template for the settlement that has brought today’s peace to Northern Ireland – Lord Trimble took issue with Mr Salmond’s comparison of Scotland with Ireland.”

Wow. David Trimble? Blast from the past, that one. Though hardly, um, current. But wait, there’s more:

“The First Minister also angered politicians on the other side of the political divide.

Seamus Mallon, a former leader of the moderate, mainly nationalist SDLP, suggested Mr Salmond should brush up on his history, saying many Scots were members of the Black and Tans, the notorious British militia that gained a reputation for violence in Ireland after the Great War.

Mr Mallon said: “Scotland was part of the bullying that took place in Ireland. People from Scotland were the cornerstone of the plantation of Ulster. I think Alex is a very able performer, but his knowledge of history is a little weak.

“As recently as 15 years ago, you had Scottish regiments here, enforcing the writ of Britain so, I think I could recommend a good history of Ireland for him.””

Okey-dokey then. Someone woke up granddad, he’s realised its not 1998, and he’s a wee bit grumpy. So that’s the outrage sparked in Ireland by Alex Salmond’s remarks? Would the words, “bottom”, “barrel”, “scraping” have any relevance here?

Meanwhile, over on the other wing of an increasingly desperate British Nationalism, more ghosts from feasts long past, via the Scotsman again:

“AS AN Ulster Scot I know there would be concern in Northern Ireland should Scotland vote to leave the United Kingdom.

Northern Ireland is not only geographically close to Scotland but shares more with Scotland than with any other country. When the majority in Ireland voted for independence from the UK there were 220,000 people in County Donegal. After independence thousands emigrated back to the UK – especially to Glasgow and Londonderry. Only 100,000 now remain in Donegal.

Northern Ireland remained within the UK as was the desire of most people in that part of Ireland. Should there ever be a majority in Scotland for independence it should not be binding on all the people of Scotland.

If, say, Strathclyde or the Lowlands prefer to remain in the UK then that decision should be honoured by a partition of Scotland.

(Lord) John Kilclooney

House of Lords

London”

Partition Scotland! Now there’s an idea we’ve been waiting to hear. Come on now, you know it was bound to happen sooner or later. Lord John Kilclooney, or former UUP politician John Taylor to mortal folk like you and me, knows a thing or two about partition. For instance, a “border” never stopped him having a foot in both camps as it were, with business interests across the island of Ireland. Politics and nationality is one thing, but someone has to pay the bills. Right?

Of course this could just be the start, as a report in ForArgyll points out:

“When Scottish independence was no more than the aspiration of a small minority, few, if any, questioned the nationalist claim ‘It’s Scotland’s oil’, made in the fervour of the 1970s.

However, in 2011, with the Scottish Nationalists already in their second successive administration of a devolved Scotland – and with every prospect of at least a third one should the present political arrangements still obtain – serious attention has begun to be paid to which nation really owns what.

As in most relationships, as soon as divorce is on the horizon, even as a possibility, minds turn to the issue of division of assets.

The English Democrats are now claiming that, depending on which territorial convention is applied, either half or a quarter of the North Sea coastal sea bed, with its oil  and gas reserves, belongs to England.

They say that the geological test – the same as is applied to try to determine who owns what in the pillaging battleground to come in the Arctic – would see England own one half; where the national land boundary test would give it one quarter.”

Would a partition of Scotland, moving the traditional border forty odd miles further northward, enhance the claims of the “UK” under international law to the southern reaches of the current “British” North Sea oilfields? What about communication links to the last remnants of the British colony in Ireland? Would a remnant UK state be content for its nearest direct route to the North of Ireland to pass through the territory of a “foreign” nation? Under these circumstances a new border stretching from beyond Stranraer to North Berwick, encompassing much of the population of the “Borders”, and placing the Scottish demographic hubs of Edinburgh, Glasgow and the Central Belt strategically close (should the “need” arise), would be a tempting proposition for any far-thinking British state.

And lets not mention the Shetland Islands.

Now what were those Ireland comparisons Alex Salmond was making?

Related articles

Greater England Or Great Britain

Posted on by
5

Journalist Ed West has an interesting article in the (former?) British establishment newspaper, the Daily Telegraph, examining the controversy raging around the attempts by the British government to dictate the form and circumstances of the Scottish referendum on independence. The most interesting, and honest, part of it is this:

“…the English will suffer very little psychic damage from the break-up. All the ideas of “Britishness” we have are basically Englishness by another name; when the English think of Britain they are essentially imagining Greater England, which politically and demographically the United Kingdom has always essentially been. An independent England would not see itself any differently…”

Which sums up three centuries of English and Scottish history rather neatly.

Related articles

The SNP, Scotland And The Ireland Scenario

Posted on by
5

Has the British Prime Minster David Cameron hit the self-destruct button on the so-called United Kingdom?

The legalistic diktats from the British government in relation to the referendum on Scottish independence seem to have fallen apart at their first airing and the Tories (and their gormless Lib-Dem allies) look to have gone into reverse gear double-quick. From the Irish Times:

“THE SCOTTISH National Party said yesterday the attempt by British prime minister David Cameron to set a quick deadline for a Scottish independence referendum would bolster support for a breakup of the union.

The SNP had promised to hold a referendum later in the life of the Scottish parliament, possibly 2014, but the British government believes a speedy vote, offering a choice between independence and the status quo, would be lost.

However, Mr Cameron’s campaign to push for a binding 2013 referendum risks increasing support for the campaign led by the SNP, which has majority control in Holyrood, particularly if Scottish voters interpret his move as interference from London.

Even Scottish Labour, which supports the continuation of the union, though with the devolution of more powers to Edinburgh, and also wants a speedy referendum, believes Mr Cameron’s intervention could backfire.

Up to now the SNP has favoured a 2014 referendum, and has rejected charges that it is seeking to exploit nationalist fervour on the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn, the biggest ever victory over the English.

Equally, it has favoured putting a three-part question to voters on whether Scotland should be independent, or stay in the UK,  or whether it should opt for the so-called “devo max”, where control over full tax powers and other issues would be ceded to Edinburgh.”

Both the Left and Right in Britain’s media establishment oppose the Scottish move towards independence, as do of course the British political classes, and a nasty campaign of vilification and misinformation against Alex Salmond and the SNP is already well in place. However every move of the British Nationalist caucus (or perhaps we should say, the caucus of Greater England Nationalists) seems to make matters only worse for their cause. Hence the attempts of the London-based government to gerrymander the democratic processes in Scotland to a more favourable position.

So the question is now this:  what if the Scots are denied a referendum (or the referendum they want in the circumstances they want)?

In this situation what’s to prevent Alex Salmond from calling an early Holyrood election, strengthening the electoral vote of the SNP on a wave of anti-Westminster sentiment, and returning to the Scottish parliament with a mandate to implement a version of the “Ireland scenario”.

For those of you who are unaware of what that means, in 1918 the Irish republican party of Sinn Féin gained an electoral landslide across the island of Ireland in the general election of December that year, with 80% of the total vote. In January of 1919 the party gathered together at the Mansion House in Dublin as Dáil Éireann, the “Assembly of Ireland” or the new parliament for the people of the island of Ireland. On January 21st the Dáil voted for and issued the Irish Declaration of Independence, recognising and mandating the Irish Republic proclaimed in the Easter Rising of 1916, three years previously.

Through the mechanism of a general election and unanimously-backed motion in the new Irish parliament or Dáil, Ireland was formally established as an independent sovereign nation state (though ultimately, of course, a minority of the Irish people were forcibly torn from the nation by the terrorism and violence of the British separatist minority on the island and their British sponsors).

So, the political precedent in the history of the “United Kingdom” for a move to independence through an electoral mandate is clearly there (even if the British refuse to accept it). In the event of a future SNP election landslide in Scotland one wonders if a motion could be brought forward in the Scottish parliament by a new SNP administration declaring independence for the country on a simple majority vote of Scottish MSPs? And if so who could gainsay it?

Well, of course, many British nationalists could, as would their government and press. But how far would that rejection go? Could we really imagine British troops on the streets of Edinburgh? The mass arrest of SNP politicians and MSPs? Alex Salmond in the Tower of London? Unlikely to say the least.

It’s a high-stakes game but one where it may be necessary in the future for the Scottish Government to call the British Government’s bluff.

Related articles

The SNP – Going For A Proportional Measure Of Freedom?

Posted on by
2

A new poll, reported in the Scotsman newspaper, shows an increase in the support for independence amongst voters, with the majority plumping for “devo-max”:

“The survey suggests 38% of people would vote to take Scotland out of the UK which is up three points from a poll in August.

A total of 57% of respondents were against breaking away from the UK with 5% still unsure.

Among those saying they are certain to vote, 68% back the second option, known as “devo-max”, up one point from August, 28% do not back it and 4% are unsure.

The poll follows survey results last week which showed the SNP is twice as popular as Labour.”

In political and constitutional terms “devo-max” is a slippery concept. It’s generally taken to mean the maximum devolution of political, economic and judicial powers to Edinburgh without full independence. However, exactly where the line on “full independence” would be drawn is open to debate. As more than one writer has speculated there are versions of the devo-max option that would see Scotland in a constitutional arrangement that in a few short years of use would be virtually indistinguishable from independence.

Scottish voters could vote devo-max but get independence without anyone even noticing it.

Likewise, no one is sure what rules will govern the referendum on Scottish sovereignty when it is held. It seems likely to have more than a simple “Yes” or “No” question on full independence. Several questions are possible. All of which would helpfully muddy the waters for the SNP – and not so helpfully for Nationalists of the Greater England variety. Additionally it may be a proportional referendum, with voters asked to number their choices in order of preference. That could certainly lead to some interesting results.

For instance, those voting “Number 1” for Independence would be very likely to also vote “Number 2” for Devo-Max (on the basis that if we don’t get full independence at least we 90% of it).

Many of those voting “Number 1” for Devo-Max would likely also vote “Number 2” for Independence (since I’ve gone this far in voting Devo-Max, I’m obviously dissatisfied with the current UK status-quo so why not give my second preference to Independence?).

With those voting “Number 1” for the UK-status quo the Independence choice is a highly unlikely option to make, so while some might vote “Number 2” for Devo-Max (better 90% of the way than the full 100%) most will probably go no further than their first choice.

In these circumstance a significant vote for Devo-Max looks likely, with Independence a strong second, and the current constitutional arrangement a poor third. A carefully worded and organised form of maximum devolution could then give the Scots the independence that many seek in the space of a few years as the new arrangements evolved and grew. There is certainly precedents for this throughout European history (not least in Ireland).

However, proportional votes are a funny old thing, even in referenda. They can produce the most unexpected results with late swings or sudden surges changing outcomes dramatically. Given the circumstance above, it is not entirely outside the bounds of possibility that enough first and second preference votes for independence could in fact produce just that. Especially if Unionist voters abstain from going beyond their preferred choice.

So which long game is Alex Salmond and the SNP leadership looking at?

Related articles

The SNP And The EU – We Have The UK Surrounded

Posted on by
1

Just a quick post to note the latest – unprecedented – polling numbers for the SNP, reported in the Herald Scotland over the weekend:

“SUPPORT for the SNP has risen to an all-time high and Alex Salmond’s popularity has increased, while Labour’s decline in Scotland has continued, according to the latest survey.

An Ipsos MORI poll shows that 51% of those certain to vote would back the SNP in an election to the Scottish Parliament, up two percentage points from its last poll in August and six points from May’s election.

Support for Labour stands at 26%, down two points from the group’s August poll, while backing for the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats remains largely unchanged, at 12% and 8% respectively.

Mr Salmond also continues to rate well, with three in five voters (62%) satisfied with his performance as First Minister compared to 27% who say they are dissatisfied, giving him a net satisfaction rating of plus 35%, up one point from the last poll in April.”

Meanwhile Alex Salmond smells blood in the air as David Cameron walks away from the hucksters and shysters of the EU, giving Wee Eck the opportunity to take a nip at the British PM’s heels, as the BBC notes:

“First Minister Alex Salmond has written to the prime minister asking him to explain why he vetoed European Union treaty changes.

He accused David Cameron of “blundering” into altering the UK’s relationship with the EU.

Mr Salmond is worried about the impact the decision could have on Scotland.

The SNP leader has asked Mr Cameron to attend an “urgent” meeting of the devolved governments to explain why they were not consulted.

A Downing Street spokesperson said the PM would respond in “due course”.

The spokesperson added: “This does seem to be an opportunistic attempt to deflect attention from some serious questions the Scottish government has been asked about its currency, fiscal and monetary proposals for an independent Scotland and has so far failed to answer.”

At a summit in Brussels on Friday, Mr Cameron blocked changes to the EU’s Lisbon Treaty, which were aimed at addressing the euro crisis and preventing a repeat in the future.

He and Chancellor George Osborne have insisted the veto was in part to protect the City of London from excessive intervention by Europe, but Labour and the UK Independence Party (UKIP) have both argued that actually no additional safeguards were achieved.

The treaty changes needed the support of all 27 EU members – including those not in the euro, such as the UK – to go ahead.

In his letter, Mr Salmond demanded answers to “crucial questions” on the decision.

Mr Salmond also asked about press reports that Mr Cameron’s negotiating stance was based on “big internal problems” that agreeing to the Treaty change would present.

The first minister said: “It is an extraordinary state of affairs that while the Scottish government and our agencies were working hard to promote Scotland’s interests and industries in China, David Cameron was blundering into apparently changing the UK’s entire relationship with the European Union – without even discussing it with his own Lib Dem coalition colleagues, never mind the devolved administrations in Edinburgh, Cardiff and Belfast.

“Given that David Cameron took it upon himself to isolate the UK in Europe – from non-euro and the euro members alike – and without a word of consultation, he now needs to answer six key questions about the implications for Scotland of what he has done.

“As the price of playing to his own backbenchers, the prime minister now leads a riven administration – with zero credibility in EU negotiations across the range of policy areas where Scotland’s interests are crucially affected.

“Last week’s developments in Brussels demonstrate that Scotland urgently needs a voice at the top table when our vital national interests are being discussed, by becoming an independent member state, instead of being shut out of the room.”

Here’s an interesting new dilemma for a revenant United Kingdom to face sometime in the future. A euro-trading continent to the south, a euro-trading Scandinavia to the east, a euro-trading Ireland to the west – and a euro-trading Scotland to the north?

Where then the pound and the City of London?

For those British nationalists clinging on to the desperate hope that the European Union would automatically reject an independent Scotland from the EU… Hmm. Think again…

Related articles