Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Ian Swanson: A bold step on the independence road

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the Edinburgh Evening News site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 26 February 2009
ALEX SALMOND took his case for Scottish independence to the United States this week, boldly seeking to link the SNP's cause to America's 18th century struggle to free itself from British rule.
The First Minister claimed the Scottish Government's vision of "freedom" was the same as that which inspired the America's 1776 Declaration of Independence.

And he predicted the "timeless principle" enshrined in the Declaration of Arbroath in 1320
, which influenced America's founding fathers, would come full circle with Scottish independence.

Any Americans depending on Mr Salmond for their understanding of what's happening in Scotland might be forgiven for thinking the country was about to stage a tartan version of the Boston Tea Party.

Meanwhile, back in Scotland, Mr Salmond's Finance Minister was setting out options for increasing the Scottish Parliament's tax powers. After presenting his document explaining the various degrees of "fiscal autonomy" which might be available, John Swinney unsurprisingly said the Government's preference was for full independence.

But the report is being widely interpreted as opening the door to "devo max" – full tax powers for Holyrood, but with Scotland staying inside the UK – as a compromise option if independence cannot win enough support.

Mr Salmond has been accused by opposition politicians of breaching diplomatic protocol by using his US visit to attack the British Government. Scottish Tory leader Annabel Goldie says he abused his position because he was in the States representing Scotland as First Minister, not the leader of a "minority party".

But Mr Salmond won't be unduly concerned about such attacks. After all, the trip gave him the publicity coup of a meeting with Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. He was also able to announce the formation of a 30-strong Friends of Scotland caucus in the US Senate to promote links between the two countries.

However much anyone might take issue with it, his lecture at Washington's Georgetown University gave him a world platform for his independence message.

Tartan Week is a well-established annual event in the US which gives senior Scottish politicians the chance to parade through the streets of New York and promote Scottish businesses. But this was a different kind of opportunity.

Mr Salmond told his audience: "I speak here today as the head of the Scottish Government. And yet the ancient nation of Scotland remains, for the time being, a member of the United Kingdom rather than a fully independent country.

"Only with full responsibility for our destiny can we make Scotland an even better nation. Make our people more free, more prosperous and more secure. That is our vision. And it is the same vision that resonates in your Declaration of Independence."

Mr Swinney's message about fiscal autonomy was ostensibly similar – "An independent Scotland with full control of all financial levers would both be able to do more in the short term and put our country on the path to long-term success."

But while his report was dismissive of the status quo – "not a positive option for Scotland" – and unimpressed by assigned revenues – "could leave Scotland worse off" – and enhanced devolution – "would not match the economic ambitions of Scotland" – it was much warmer towards "devo max".

The Government said this option, giving Holyrood "maximum policy discretion" short of independence, "would provide significant autonomy" and "represent a significant step forward". Mr Salmond has long made clear he is willing to include a "more powers" option alongside independence and the status quo in the SNP's promised referendum.

And if the Liberal Democrats – who have long supported maximum devolution – could be persuaded to drop their opposition to a referendum, the SNP could be well on the way towards securing a majority of MSPs backing a major increase in Holyrood's powers and ready to put the issue to the voters.

It may not have the same romantic appeal as the vision of "freedom" Mr Salmond evoked in his Washington lecture but it could offer the SNP an attractive alternative to seeing their core belief rejected at the ballot box.

Labour's support, announced this week, for borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament adds to the picture of a growing consensus for further devolution, although the party will be keen to avoid anything which makes it look as if it has got into bed with the Nationalists.

The Scottish Government has earmarked St Andrew's Day, November 30, 2010, as the date for its independence referendum and Mr Salmond has appointed the extremely capable Mike Russell as the minister to take charge of the build-up to it.

There is still no evidence of a majority in favour of independence – but that will not deter the SNP.

The party has shown this week that it is more than happy to mix passion and pragmatism, romance and reality to promote its cause at every opportunity.

Latest polls claim an increase in those supporting independence and a drop in those opposed to Scotland going it alone. Opposition parties have no room for complacency.





The full article contains 835 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 26 February 2009 9:50 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Ian Swanson
 
1

Salthorse,

Undergrun 26/02/2009 09:59:52
Thud! Sorry I just fell off my chair. A balanced article wtf?

It's coming for a'that

2

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 10:01:23
If, in fact, when David Cameron's Tories win the next Westminster election, the politics of Scotland will be transformed. At the moment, although a minority in the parliament, Labour have a lifeline to power through the Scottish Office and the Prime Minister. This cord will be cut with the election of a Tory Prime Minister. However, the Tories in Scotland are not as significant a group that they will be able to milk it in quite the same way as Labour.

If there are still Labour voters who are able to deceive themselves that things are going their way, they are in for a rude awakening. The party has not yet hit rock bottom but with Labour in opposition, a long protracted blame game, and a leadership election to follow, Iain Gray will find himself in a very difficult position. With Labour MPs from Scotland in fewer numbers and out of power, will Iain Gray be left to take more control of his party and offer the electorate in Scotland the Devolution Max they so clearly want, or will he be in thrall to whoever arises to lead the raggle taggle band that Labour will be by next year?
3

The Master,

26/02/2009 10:59:39
"Any Americans depending on Mr Salmond for their understanding of what's happening in Scotland might be forgiven for thinking the country was about to stage a tartan version of the Boston Tea Party."

This gently mocking tone is the best way to burst Supernat's bubble. The only reason there has been a surge in support for separation is sheer desperation caused by the current economic dislocation.

Also, many see a senior politician, such as Salmond, loudly supporting the policy and fail to realise that it is in actual fact a crackpot agenda, disdained by all of the mainstream parties in Scotland. The truth is that Supernat himself only gives the policy houseroom because he has an ushakeable belief in its virtues, induced, we now know, by the influence of a father who, to this day, refuses to visit the House of Commons to hear his own son speak.
4

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 11:10:08
#4 Mock all you like. The fact that politicians and journos of bygone years mocked supporters of devolution didn't stop it happening. In fact, it may have been the mocking tone that helped push the debate for more localised decision-making forward.

Why shouldn't people in Scotland have still further control of their own affairs? Why should we let Westminster decide what we can and cannot decide upon? People in Scotland are used to being mocked by those who think themselves above the herd, part of a metropolitan elite, smug in the fact (delusion?) of their own certainties about how much control Scots should have over decision-making.

So mock all you like. It didn't stop devolution. It didn't stop an SNP government...
5

The Master,

26/02/2009 11:58:52
#5 Addison: how you can compare the foolhardy major constitutional change, which the Nats are advocating, to the devolution of powers to a national regional parliament is completely beyond me.
6

,

26/02/2009 12:01:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 12:09:20
#6 Firstly, you would have to put a case why you think independence is 'foolhardy'. I guess you're assumption is that Scotland, for some reason as yet undefined, is incapable of economically supporting itself. In this case, it must be rather unique, since other countries of a similar size can. The fact that this is 'beyond you' isn't really my fault.
8

davpc,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 12:38:12
I think Scotland should be independent. Under the condition that SALMOND stop running round like a mad man, screaming and crying to anyone who will listen. I find it quite humiliating. It makes us sound like some weak persecuted people. Remember our Prime Minister isn't English, though I wish he were as he is a ####. In fact I'm quite sure we don't just rule Scotland but also England. We just use English offices, its by a river.
9

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 12:39:00
Gregor - "Labour have a lifeline to power through the Scottish Office and the Prime Minister. This cord will be cut with the election of a Tory Prime Minister."

Gregor, don't kid yourself that this will make ANY difference to the Labour drones in Scotland. The preservation of the dreadful Union will outweigh ANY other priority. All that will happen is they will uselessly gnash their teeth and rattle their sabres, but the Tories will know fine well they will stop at anything which in any way threatens their precious Union.
If you want an example of such spineless, craven cowardice, look to Scotland's shame which was the self-termed "fighting 50" Labour MPs in the 80s, led by Scotland's most overrated politician Donald Dewar.
I will be astonished if anyone can provide even one wee example of how this sorry bunch of wasters "fought" while Thatcher raped Scotland.
They were shameful then, they are shameful now. The only difference is now they are yesterdays men, the SNP are the party of the future.
10

The Master,

26/02/2009 12:49:05
#8 Addison: I could go on all day about why separation is a complete nonsense, but let's try it another way.

Answer me: how will public services be maintained in light of Scotland's low tax base, once the finite oil runs out. (And don't bother going on about how the wider UK is going down the tubes: this just won't wash long term and the UK still has a triple A credit rating).
11

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 13:08:33
Master - By the time the oil runs out - at least 30 years - Scotland will be harnassing the immense renewables potential it has in the form of offshore wind and marine energy.
Even you cannot argue that Scotland has 25% of Europe's available wind energy potential, and 10% each of wave and tidal. I won't quote figures at you, but be assured if we can harness anything like that within 30 years (and there is no reason we can't), we won't miss oil.
Of course, we could listen to Labour, who profess not to believe this and who are advising we scale back on renewables and build new nuclear (technology in which Scotland will never play a leading role).
We lost our lead in onshore wind under Labour's watch and the Danes now have full order books for their turbines, their main problem being satisfying demand.

Will I trust anything Labour advises again? - I don't think so.
12

The Master,

26/02/2009 13:13:59
#12 West: the basic troble with the case for separation is it all comes down to "my expert is better than yours".

Everything's debatable from a potential Scottish budget deficit post separation to the potential of renewables.

You Nats don't stand a snowball's of persuading the public to take the great leap into the unknown in these circumstances (and I'm trying to be charitable here!)
13

The Master,

26/02/2009 13:25:34
I have to say that the separation debate in Scotland reminds me of the debate over global warming.

Like the Nats, the global warming sceptics can marshal the odd expert to support elements of their carefully constructed case, but overall opinion is substantially against them.
14

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 13:38:06
Master - Your 13 post is contradictory. You first state that the case for seperation is "complete nonsense" and your case for this rests on your assumption that there is no way Scotland could pay its way after oil. I don't accept either, but at least you're explicit here.
2 posts later you have arrived at "the case for separation is it all comes down to "my expert is better than yours"."
Regarding finances you continue "Everything's debatable".
- With all due respect, you need to know what you think before you make sweeping, dramatic statements which you then go on to undermine.
Regarding never taking the Scottish public with us, I have been a Nationalist since they celebrated holding a deposit. At every step of the way we have been told, "this far and no further".
You can imagine how I treat such statements these days.
15

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 13:40:25
#11 "Let's try it another way" is a nice cop-out. Answering a question with a question? And then deciding to limit how I answer: "And don't bother going on about how the wider UK is going down the tubes: this just won't wash..."

Since I'm not an economist I'll side-step your request but point out that other countries like Denmark (with similar populations) seem to do alright. The standard of living in Denmark is very good.

As for the oil running out; there's obviously less, since we've been taking it out of the ground. However, that doesn't mean that we can't get benefits from what's left. (Sorry, I broke your rule about what I can and can't discuss). It is interesting that we have Tavish Scott, a man who know doubt thinks he is of First Minister quality, representing a seat that got rather a good deal on oil returns (due to Labour trying to be devisive and see off the Nats in the 70s), but who - if he did become First Minister - wouldn't extend to Scotland the financial benefits his constituents enjoy.

I'd like to see Scotland have a larger return on oil revenues, not have to pay more money to put power on the national grid, be able to get rid of Council Tax without Westminster interference, be able to scrap PPP/PFI (which is now discredited but to which Labour still clings), and to transfer further decision-making powers to Scotland.

How is it that those who brought us Devolution now say no more? Do you support Devolution Max? Labour were dragged screaming and kicking into the devolution debate by the Lib Dem carrot and the threat of the SNP stick. It's supposed to be about democracy and returning decision-making powers to the electorate.

On retained issues Scotland remains a minority voice that can be over-ruled. That's where the connection between devolution and independence lies. If you can't see that, is it because you are ideologically opposed to people power?
16

The Master,

26/02/2009 13:43:10
#15 West: I am 100% sure that the separation case is really only founded on the call of "songs and heroes".

I only say it's debatable because cybernats on here seem to be able to dredge up facts in support of their case (however much a qualified economist would mock them!)
17

Mikey,

26/02/2009 14:11:04
Master of Puppets is blowing out hot air again. You have the embarassing habit of writing as if everyone agrees with you when, in fact, the opposite is true.

Still, you'll be able to move back to Westmonster soon. How does it feel to be away from your spiritual home?
18

The Master,

26/02/2009 14:44:21
#16 Addison: " On retained issues Scotland remains a minority voice that can be over-ruled. That's where the connection between devolution and independence lies. If you can't see that, is it because you are ideologically opposed to people power?"

Scotland is part of the UK, which is a modern democratic democracy. I'm not a nationalist, so I just don't get all this selfish chippy ranting about how Scotland's interests must be promoted over those of the rest of the country at all costs. In fact, I'm not at all anti EU, so would not even classify myself as a "Brit Nat", as Scot Nats seem to assume I must be.

I'm open minded about whether the SP should be granted more powers, but my overriding concern is that the Nats' separation agenda should be treated with the contempt it deserves (three of the four main parties in Scotland will have no truck with it, for crying out loud!)
19

Eve,

Scotland 26/02/2009 14:48:23
"The Scottish Government has earmarked St Andrew's Day, November 30, 2010, as the date for its independence referendum and Mr Salmond has appointed the extremely capable Mike Russell as the minister to take charge of the build-up to it."

Excelent date to hold such a referendum.
Oh and it's on a Tueday, what a nice change it will make from the whole Thursday thing the unionist seem to be obsest with.
20

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 14:56:53
Master - I have to say, I don't know what you're master of, but it's certainly not debate.
Your post 17 is franky confusing. The Independence case is being extolled at the moment by many individuals, groups and parties, including the Scottish Government. The days when it was the preserve of "songs and heroes" are as far back in the dim and distant past as Labour's socialism. You're seriously out of date here.
As to "I only say it's debatable because cybernats on here seem to be able to dredge up facts in support of their case (however much a qualified economist would mock them!)" What does that mean? Are you suggesting Nats don't bother "dredging up facts in support of their case", perhaps recite poems instead? Maybe some of the songs you reckon we go around singing all the time?
You seem to be vaguely but firmly against anything Nats do or say, why isn't clear and your alternative is as vague as your reasoning.
I reckon the Nationalist cause is safe for now.
21

Queen D,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 15:00:55
The Masterdebater as usual tries the side step,
"I'm open minded about whether the SP should be granted more powers, but my overriding concern is that the Nats' separation agenda should be treated with the contempt it deserves (three of the four main parties in Scotland will have no truck with it, for crying out loud!)"
Your contempt, certainly not mine!
Three of the four MAIN parties??
Who might they be? Tories? Liberals? Neither of them can be called MAIN parties in Scotland.
Which leaves only the discredited ,trough snufflers of the Labour Party.
Personally , I would'nt trust them with my dog.
"#8 Addison: I could go on all day about why separation is a complete nonsense, but let's try it another way."
Now , you have been asked to state what the advantages of the Union are to Scotland , you side stepped yet agin , like all pro unionists.
So I ask you , nicely , to list all the wonderful benefits of the Union and why separation is such nonsense and I'm willing to let you list them " all day!"
Can't say fairer than that, can I?

Mr Addison , nice to read you!
22

The Master,

26/02/2009 15:19:49
#21 West: " You seem to be vaguely but firmly against anything Nats do or say, why isn't clear and your alternative is as vague as your reasoning."

I'll tell you why.

Apart from being concerned about the future of public services in Scotland and the damaging effects of the inevitable dislocation, not to tell the expense, I just don't see the point and it's not something I'd want under any circumstances.

This, you Nutty Nats will find, if a fairly worded separation vote is ever heard, is the predominant view of the electorate. I just don't believe rogue opinion polls or surveys based on the Nats' *rigged* "consultative" question.
23

Davie08,

Edinburgh 26/02/2009 15:25:01
#23 There would seem to be little point debating anything at all with you as any evidence that contradicts your case you 'don't believe.' You wouldn't happen to be Alan Cochrane would you? You seem to share the same style and irrational devotion to the union.
24

The Master,

26/02/2009 15:31:29
#22 Queen: may I show you one I did earlier (I don't usually repeat posts, but just for you, queenie sweetie:

http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Scots-need-new-powers-Salmond.5005000.jp?CommentPage=1&CommentPageLength=1000#3783165

#80 Democratic: I could witter on about the personal preference of many Scots, the fact that a separatist Scotland would become very reactionary, the finite oil, GERS data, the lack of a decent Scottish tax base, strong cultural links, economic security of being part of a large UK wide economy, how political unity makes sense in light of Scotland's dependence on UK markets, the world tendency towards the creation of wider entities such as the EU, the prestige of being part of the UK etc etc.

However, none of that is unlikely to convince a committed Nat such as you (and I'd be better employed trying to convince someone from an Evangenical Church who rings my bell that there's no God), so let's turn the question around and ask if you can think of 10 good reasons why Scotland (separate or as part of the UK) should remain in the EU? Let's face it, Scotland's membership of that institution is hardly more contentious than its membership of the UK to many voters!
25

Queen D,

Glasgow 26/02/2009 15:40:50
As it is we are governed from the EU ,Westminster and Edinburgh.
Personally , to be rid of one tier seems like excellent cost efficiency to me.
It should be easy to guess which of the three I find singularly useless, indeed entirely detrimental to the health of the Scottish nation.

Davie08, I keep an eye on the witterings of the aforementioned " journalist "and he has'nt been published in the Telegraph for a few weeks.
His lady wife does the business in the Sunday Times and is even boring the English with her vitriolic anti SNP guff.
My husband enjoys reading the dead trees after work ,but for him I could save myself a few ulcers and quite a few quid!
26

The Master,

26/02/2009 15:50:17
#24 Dave: now you come to mention it, I think Alan Cochrane has been a major influence on me over the years.

I read the Independent or Times during the week, but I invariably buy the Sunday Telegraph and have come across his work there.
27

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 15:52:46
Master - "if you can think of 10 good reasons why Scotland (separate or as part of the UK) should remain in the EU"

What about the fact that it is the biggest economy in the world?
What about the fact that we would face difficult obstacles to trade with it if we were outside?
What about an end to trade barriers and mutiplicity of confusing national regulations?
What about one single currency?
What about the fact that it is the closest market to us?
What about the fact that it will act as a sensible bulwark to aggressive US and British foreign policy.
What about the state of our ex-EU biggest trade market - the US?

Can't be bothered reciting more.

- Wish I could find as many reasons for staying in the UK.
28

The Master,

26/02/2009 16:09:41
#28 West: you've fallen right into my bear trap! Democratic Scot on the thread which I linked to at #25 unconvincingly avoided it by coming up with how a separatist Scotland could take up the cudgels to promote chippy Scottish grievances about its treatment and subjugation etc (we all know the usual Nat drill).

All of your pro EU reasons could just as easily be applied to Scotland's status within the UK:

The UK is a major world economy, there are no barriers, one currency (the pound), the UK is able to push its weight around in the world (particularly through backing up the US if need be).

You get my drift, anyway!
29

The west awake,

Argyll 26/02/2009 16:48:27
Master- there are pro-EU nats and anti- EU nats, I'm one of the former, - so what?
Regarding my arguements for being in the EU, they DON'T amount to the same as remaining in the UK, for one thing Scotland would have an independent voice within the EU, something it desperately needs right now.
regarding pushing our weight around the world with US help, one word - Iraq.
30

The Master,

26/02/2009 16:58:13
#30 West: I think the Iraq War was worthwhile to the extent that we rid that country of a corrupt dictator who had inflicted genocide on his own people and threatened his neighbours.

As to the weapons of mass destruction, there's evidence from a senate hearing that many within Iraq itself (including possibly Saddam himself) thought they existed: http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3827/is_200402/ai_n9385971

Why Nats like you are so against the war is completely beyond me. Would you rather Saddam were still in power?

As to your other point, Scotland already has voices within the UK through the 59 elected MPs. Like I said before, most pro EU reasons apply equally well to Scotland's status within the UK. The fundamental contradiction is that the SNP is now officially pro EU membership for a separatist Scotland.
31

British flag,

26/02/2009 17:49:51
Slimy salmond's making a complete d_ck of himself,who does he think he is,typical nat,power's gone completely to his head,bet the yanks just humour him but are wary he's going to try stiring up chippy grievances in Texas lol
32

British flag,

26/02/2009 17:58:34
I've found the Nutty Texans site:
http://www.texasnationalist.com
Wonder if there's a Texan Supernat,bet they have a thing about oil and loads of chips (or is it fries) as well
LMAO
33

Time to Show Courage,

26/02/2009 18:01:06
#4 The Master
"The only reason there has been a surge in support for separation is sheer desperation caused by the current economic dislocation."

How right you are. And by all reports, the "economic dislocation" is likely to coninue and probably worsen over the next 12 to 18 months. And that takes us up to when? Approximately November 2010. If your theory above is correct, the electorate aill be queueing up to put a cross against "Alex Salmond for First Minister".
34

Time to Show Courage,

26/02/2009 18:03:15
It must be that thing called destiny. Bring it on.
35

The Master,

26/02/2009 18:19:48
#34 Time: they can queue up to vote for the Nats' separation if they like; the question's only consultative and as such pretty well meaningless.

What are the odds that there'll be a campaign by the 3 mainstream parties to discredit the *rigged* Nat Friendly question(and rightly so!)
36

Salthorse,

Hame 26/02/2009 19:33:27
Westy, "As to "I only say it's debatable because cybernats on here seem to be able to dredge up facts in support of their case (however much a qualified economist would mock them!)"

Qualified economists my elbow, they didn't predict the credit crunch why should they stand there accountable saying in faith, truth and honesty that Scotland can't stand alone? NO REASON AT ALL.

Master debater - London centric papers know very little about the voting political pulse of Scotland, take Jenny Hujl hurl urge or whatever she's called in The Times - all she can write about is anti Scots and SNP articles, is it a wonder why she gets ZERO comments week in and out? It's because she's flat lining as a reporter, much like this daily missive to Unionism.

It's coming for a'that

SH
37

ExpatNL,

glasgow 26/02/2009 23:09:18
#31
The Master

"Why Nats like you are so against the war is completely beyond me. Would you rather Saddam were still in power?"

Eh, YES!
38

Marian,

27/02/2009 10:04:53
Due to a primeval fear of the Tories, the Scottish voters en masse may once again vote for New Labour at the next UK Westminster election in a misguided attempt to gain protection from a UK Tory government but little realising all the Tories have to do is to win the south east of England to get back into UK government office irrespective of whether Scotland votes for New Labour or not.

If Scotland votes New Labour it will once again send down a bunch of New Labour's west central Scotland numpties, spivs, and chavs who have no real interest on what happens in Scotland but are more concerned with what expenses and perks they can hold onto.

It is time that Scotland woke up and realised for the past 50 years Scotland has voted like sheep for New Labour yet got nothing in return.

Scotland's Labour MP's were especially impotent when Thatcher was in power and imposed the Poll Tax, decimated industries, etc
.
In light of New Labours imminent political demise in the UK as a whole and the inevitable election of a very strong and commanding Tory government, Scotland must have a strong and patriotic voice in Westminster and the only way she will get this is with the election of more SNP MP's into Westminster.

Scotland electing 21 or 25 SNP MP's does not automatically mean Scotland's independence but what it will do is send a clear message to David Cameron if he treats Scotland with contempt, that it will not take a great deal more to break his UK union in half.

New Labour in opposition wouldn't send such an ultimatum to Cameron and to be honest they would just be an embarrassment to Scotland.
39

The Busman,

Edinburgh 03/03/2009 12:11:58
The idea of independence for Scotland has promise ... as long as Edinburgh, East and Midlothian and a good swathe of the Borders are left out of it.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.