Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

Endinburgh Council
 
 
Saturday, 7th November 2009 Change Date

Independence: 'The US allows separate states to be different'

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: 07 April 2008
ALEX Salmond took the opportunity on his visit to the United States last week to talk about the merits of independence.
Speaking at Virginia University as part of his Scotland Week programme, he invoked the spirit of Thomas Jefferson, telling the Americans: "Where you chose independence, we have yet to follow." But comparing Scotland's position now with that of the 13
American colonies in 1776 is stretching historical analysis, to say the least.

By the time the British Empire was reaching its zenith in 1763, with the defeat of France in Canada and India, Scotland was a full and willing participant in, not a victim of, the global spread of British influence. If anything the reverse was the case and Glasgow was on its way to becoming the Second City of the Empire.

However much Mr Salmond would like to identify with America's 18th century rebellion, there was never any likelihood of a Scottish version of the Boston Tea Party – dumping crates of tea into the Forth or Clyde with cries of "No taxation without representation" – and if anything the rebellions of 1715 and 1745 could have seen the return of an absolutist monarchy and the removal of representation.

A much more realistic comparison than likening 21st century Scotland to 18th Century America is that between modern Scotland and the individual states of America.

Most state legislatures have more power than the current Scottish Parliament, including levying their own local taxes and control over law and order, up to and including whether or not they impose the death penalty.

But another key observation is that despite their fierce defence of state rights, none question the fact they are all part of the one United States of America.

The US allows its component parts to be different, make their own laws and find their own ways through problems, but there is a universal acknowledgement that they are stronger together than any of them could be on their own.

Even the most independent-minded southern governor in the US salutes the Stars and Stripes, which is in sharp contrast to the SNP attitude to the Union flag.

Back in the early days of devolution, rising Nationalist star Andrew Wilson caused an outcry when he referred to the Union flag as "an offensive symbol". And in 2004, another SNP MSP Bruce McFee objected to "flying the butcher's apron above the Scottish Parliament".

But there is nothing contradictory in dual loyalty. The American Civil War remains one of he most brutal conflicts of modern times and the north-south rivalry is just as much alive as the Scots-English rivalry here, yet they recognise there is more that binds them together than keeps them apart. And that's just not in Mr Salmond's script.





The full article contains 468 words and appears in Edinburgh Evening News newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 07 April 2008 9:53 AM
  • Source: Edinburgh Evening News
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish independence
 
1

shivago8,

livingston 07/04/2008 10:59:36
Well done Alex,keep the kettle boiling,soon we will be our own nation again
2

Alfred E. Neuman,

07/04/2008 10:59:52
Butcher's apron. Class act. Typical SNP Government class. You can take the man out of the gutter...
3

Alan B,

07/04/2008 11:08:12
"Most state legislatures have more power than the current Scottish Parliament, including levying their own local taxes and control over law and order"

And hence one of the biggest problems with the Scottish Parliament. It was created to stop indpendence not for the benefit of scotland. Even after 10yrs the unionist parties have to dragged kicking and screaming to give the parliament more powers; neither tory nor labour offered more powers at the election barely a yr ago.

"but there is a universal acknowledgement that they are stronger together than any of them could be on their own"
And that really is the arguement for the EU. The UK however is completely outdated and any theoretic benefits of the uk have been superceded by the EU. eg freedom of movement of people, single market, common currency. Economic it is almost without question that the euro interest rates would be more inline with the scottish economy rather than sterling.

4

Union is Best,

07/04/2008 11:10:43
2. Nice one! Hit them a Nazi jibe to finish them off!
5

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 11:17:48
3. Why do people still claim Scotland doesn't have tax-raising powers?

Council tax, business rates, +/- 3% income tax plus any other traffic-related income are all set, collected and spent here. And then there's the LIT.

This is more fiscal freedom than many US states.

Anyway, it's good to see there are TWO articles today on the non-event that is this latest independence campaign. We missed a couple of days last week with Salmond off globe-trotting at our expense.

Is he keeping the air-miles for himself? He must have gazillions now with all his biz-class flights!
6

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 11:20:38
3. Excellent work.

Complain about the lack of fiscal autonomy and then claim Scotland will be better off with the Euro which is controlled from Frankfurt.

So the SNP believes that Scotland's economy is more strongly linked to the continent's than to the rest of the UK. Interesting.
7

Alfred E. Neuman,

07/04/2008 11:21:27
4 Union is Best

They will just peck at my head with a retalatory pincer actions.

You know what they are like, they just blitz everyone with made up rubbish.

Did you see there was an SNP voter on another thread claiming 40,000,000,000 people read the national geographic and 40,000,000 are coming on holiday to spend £1,000 each on the basis of a engineering prize.

I thought it was someone lampooning them at first, but this guy is for real. And I have to say he's pretty typical of these guys.
8

Union is Best,

07/04/2008 11:39:52
6. HM, Great stuff! And ignore that the official policy of the UK is actually to join the Euro! If that happens, we shall just skip away from our Euro argument to something else! Float like a Unionist, sting like a Wendy!

7. LOL - Nice one! Of course Nats can't count - look at how our £5000 tax bill scare and deficit stories flummox them! If they could count they would see that all that in a minute!
9

Miss H,

07/04/2008 11:41:46
Perhaps is Scotland was allowed the autonomy given to individual states in the USA independence would not be so high up the agenda. But as we are seeing Scotland is not allowed autonomy even acting within the existing powers of the Scotland Act and the framework that surrounds it. For example the UK Government is seemingly refusing to refer the discussion over the council tax rebate to the joint committee that was set up to address such matters! What is that about?

Des Browne's petulant and frankly embarrassing rant publshed in SoS this weekend is another example of why independence is still the biggest idea in Scottish politics. When it happens we will all have to drink a toast to our friends in the Labour Party who are doing so much to bring independence about. Wittingly or unwittingly? I am starting to wonder!
10

Alan B,

07/04/2008 11:49:20
Highland Mighty

It is not just the lack of fiscal powers that i would complain about but others too. U previously said u supported dev max and i too would support that position if we were to remain in the union.
1)energy policy: i believe this should be fully devolved. the mess we have with brown pushing nuclear which tends to go against the will of the sp not just the snp is silly. (personally i am no ideologically against nuclear but support the right for that to be decided by sp). We can see problems with regulations that are controlled by westminster hindering a separate policy.
2)transport: i think it is stupid for the sp to fund trains while the structure is controlled by westminster.
3)law and order: firearms, id cards, number of days held without charge etc.
4)even silly regualtions like the super casino thing. why did scottish cities have to compete with english ones. if the sp thought it was a good idea we should have done it.

"Complain about the lack of fiscal autonomy and then claim Scotland will be better off with the Euro"

I support fiscal autonomy (which does not mean independence which i also support) as it would give the sp many of the powers i believe it would need to help solve our poor economic performance. it also lets us be nibble enough to compete with other nations. ireland for instance gave tax breaks for filming which we were unable to do and allowed scottish films to be filmed there.

Fiscal autonomy is also necessary beyond economics (which is my main driver) within the union to solve many issues that have arisen from devolution. eg English grievences, making the sp more accountable for money spend, and stops the problems we have seen with LIT. Where scotland contributes it share to the uk treasurey but will only get its share back 400million in council tax rebate if the sp follow the same policy as westmister. i realise this is just childishness from Brown but constitution foundations need to be more grounded.
11

Alan B,

07/04/2008 11:50:52
cont..

As for the euro. I support the whole uk going into the euro but i do recognise significant problems for the south of england economy in doing so. Scotland on the other hand would more closely fit the euro interest rates than sterling ones. Although this would be better argued if we had a separate scottish inflation figure published.

In the past policies like mirus were particularly damaging to the scottish economy.
12

Alan B,

07/04/2008 11:58:09
One point to mention about the keeping sterling was the statement by a senior person in the bank of england (cannot remember if it was the governer) who said at the time: that higher unemployment in the north of britain was a price worth paying to control inflation in the south.

13

cuthbert,

Barabhas 07/04/2008 12:11:06
"Butcher's apron. Class act. Typical SNP Government class. You can take the man out of the gutter..."

Indeed. As pointed out in the article the Scots were more than willing participants in empire and the attempts by the nationalists to make Scotland out like some kind of victim abused by England (i get the impression many nationalists are deeply envious of Ireland in this respect) has no real basis in history. Scotland was not conquered, it chose to found a united kingdom of Great Britain under the rule of the Scottish royal family and went on to be (proportionate to its population) man for man the most influential part of the united kingdom and a driving force in the empire - an empire which would never have come about without the Scots, who formed the elite in almost every field be it military, administrative, philosophical etc etc.
14

Alan B,

07/04/2008 12:26:03
cuthbert

While think we should look at constitutional debate round independence as what is better for our future rather than from a historical perspective, what evidence do u have for saying "Scots were more than willing participants in empire". Yes those in the ruling elite may be and similar in england. There was no real democracy in the way we have now. Rioting at the time of the union and also the general historical consensus tends to suggest the scottish people did not want to enter a union with england. The union was taken by an elite against the population wishes with bibery of the elite thrown in.

Much of that is history now but one thing that concerns me about ur position. Even if scotland did participate enthusiastically in britain colonial past it does not make it right. Colonialism whereby we invaded other countries was wrong. It is interesting talking to many indian people who think that britain owes them becuase of what happened in the past.


15

SC,

07/04/2008 12:47:08
Cuthbart says, "Scotland was not conquered, it chose to found a united kingdom of Great Britain under the rule of the Scottish royal family and went on to be (proportionate to its population) man for man the most influential part of the united kingdom and a driving force in the empire - an empire which would never have come about without the Scots, who formed the elite in almost every field be it military, administrative, philosophical etc etc."

Who is the misty eyed Scottish nationalist now? Wha's like us?

Surely you know Scotland's acheivements are greatly overstated by both unionists and nationalists alike to make themselves feel better about being from a pretendy wee country, dominated by their oblivious neighbours.

We should just aspire to be a normal, successful country as other nations - including the English - do.
16

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 12:49:54
8. Still going down that road then?

UK policy is to join the Euro if it overwhelmingly suits UK interests and there is no sign of that happening yet.

In fact, many believe that is just a fop to the pro-Europe crowd and that the UK govt (as well as the majority of the population) have no wish to abandon the pound.

And again it has to be explained that the "£5000 tax bill" was about the immediate cost of independence. As Holyrood has no power to raise £5000 in extra taxes now, it obviously isn't referring to the status quo, is it? Do you understand that yet? Mmm?
17

Linda,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 12:53:23
Scotland is one of the oldest nations in the world. Not a federal state. Bring on the referendum.
18

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 12:54:12
I thought the nats had faded away from this oh-so-unionist paper and taken to the Herald instead.

This latest independence campaign is dead. It has too little support. There is no interest in the debate. It is a non-event.

"Scotland free by...." when?
"Independence Heaven by...." when?
"Scotland free (again) by...." when?

And all this after 11 months of the SNP trying so very VERY hard to get us all angry with the UK.

What a hilarious failure. Must be gutting for the nats. It must cut, oh, so deep.
19

SC,

07/04/2008 12:59:29
As for the author's original point about shared American identity. There is no parallel to UK. Americans evidently see the US as one country.

You cannot tell me that most English people see Scotland as a part of their country. Just consider the way even the BBC will refer to 'the North of the country', which happens to be in the middle (of the British Isles).

Increasingly Scots, are recognising that British nationalism is relatively rare, existing only in Wales, half-of Northern Ireland and Scotland, and Westminster. In England as a whole, there is English nationalim, as it should be.
20

Alan B,

07/04/2008 13:02:40
"UK policy is to join the Euro if it overwhelmingly suits UK interests and there is no sign of that happening yet."

That statement by itself tells alot. If it were in scotlands economic interests to join, under the current constitutional arrangements we could not, even if the majority in the scottish parliament supported scottish membership.

All the parties in scotland outside the tories support the euro. Jack McConnell the previous labour leader wanted scotland to join. The problem is that the union is so centralise that we have not even had a debate in the sp on whether it is good for our economy.

While i can understand that people may nore support the euro for political reasons, the economic reasons for scottish membership are very strong. It basically comes down to the fact that interest rates in sterling tend to be higher than those of the euro area. Interest rates for sterling are always too high for scotland economic circumstances. As such over the medium term scotlands adoption of the euro would be beneficial.

Personally i could see nothern ireland join the euro while remaining in the uk.


21

Sedov,

Scotland 07/04/2008 13:06:42
Of course the US is a brilliant model of democracy and independence for Salmond to follow. Or is it? Hated all over the world, has serious race problems, has huge divisions between rich and poor, is shaky on environmental policy, has a reputation for being war mongers and imperialists, etc etc. Great music though.
22

Union is Best,

07/04/2008 13:08:25
18. HM! Great stuff! You show them there is no interest in this debate by damn well debating it with them! That will flummox them!
23

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 07/04/2008 13:16:41
So Alex Salmond is in America drumming up trade, drumming up tourism and talking about Scotland. This is surely positive for Scotland regardless of your political flavouring.

Of course he will be talking about independence, of course he will be talking about history and Scotlands shared heritage.

To compare our historic nation with the component states in the US is a little pointless and inaccurate. I am looking outside of my window and can see buildings older than the entire USA. Why are you comparing local government with soveign nationalities.

As for the last paragraph about

"The American Civil War remains one of he most brutal conflicts of modern times and the north-south rivalry is just as much alive as the Scots-English rivalry here"

American civil war killed about 625,000 people including 250K non combatants compare this to the Taiping Rebellion (1864) with 20,000,000 or Russian civil War, Napolionic Wars, etc, etc. There have been several wars in the last 20 years with a muich higher death toll. Consider the Second Congo War (1998-2003) 4 million of which many killed by machette.

Why not report on the facts about who attended the speaches and what was said and how it affects us or not. In this article you quote Alex Salmon as saying "Where you chose independence, we have yet to follow."

What a total shock. Stop Press!! Salmond supports independence from Westminster and the Americans gained indepenence Westminster and he had the cheek to mention this.

Pathetic journalism and as usual no attempt to represent facts just the distortion of truth in pursuit of your agenda. Do you work for the Scotsman or the Labour Party
24

Alan B,

07/04/2008 13:19:20
Highland Mighty

Do you agree that interest rates in the UK over the last 30yrs have been too high for the slow growing scottish economy?

When u run an economy interest rates are set to manage inflation. U lower intest rates to increase economic growth if growth is too slow. If u have low growth and inflation the country needs to do something about the economics of supply side. Sterling interest rates are generally set at a rate too high for scotlands economy. There are a variety of reasons sterling interest rates are higher than euro ones.
25

Jock MacTamson 2,

Highlands 07/04/2008 13:23:27
#18 Union is Best - Amusing post recently. The best way to deal with some of the smug high and mighty types.

They keep telling us there is no interest in Scottish Independence then complain when people comment in support claiming we all work for the SNP.

Where is all the support for the Union from the population. Instead the union cause is championed by the same old names and alternative names posting the same old establishment drivel.

I wonder if any of them are actually in Scotland or just posting from London
26

Calum Crubag,

07/04/2008 13:38:30
You have to hand it to Salmond. Indpendence by stealth... he has the Brit Nat parties dancing to his tune and now they're all scrambling to give 'new powers' to our wee parly, hoping this will stop more of us voting for the SNP.

Is HM in favour of more powers? If so, why? If not, then why not raise the issue with your Brit Nat masters? And should Eire return to Westminster rule? And won't Labour's new rasing of taxes for the poorest in society drive those voters in SNP hands here?

Funny, i can't recall any POSITIVE postings on what we SHOULD. Only negative sniping... more Labour bitterness...
27

Alan B,

07/04/2008 13:40:53
#26 Calum: HM posted previously he supported dev max. A bit weird given most of his posts.
28

,

07/04/2008 13:41:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
29

Union is Best,

07/04/2008 14:02:41
28. You Nats can demand whatever you want, but until we Unionists check with Westminster to see what is best for Scotland, you will get nothing!
30

,

07/04/2008 14:04:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
31

Merouane,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 14:25:30
#9. Miss H, this is the crucial point in all of this IMO. The only thing that will stop independence is if the Union works in Scotland's interests.

We voted for a Scottish Parliament to be re-established and we voted for the SNP to be the biggest parry in the Parliament. That Parliament voted for the SNP to form the government.

For the UK government to treat a devolved administration the way it is doing is to be disrupting the system. If Labour don't think the SNP are doing a good job in Holyrood, then it is up to Labour in Holyrood to make that point, NOT the UK government. How can we trust Brown and Browne et al to treat Scotland fairly when they treat our government with such contempt? They should treat any administration they have to deal with in Holyrood with equal respect. For them not to do so leaves devolution as an unstable and unsustainable form of government. I very much doubt the Tories will be any better than Labour.

So we either move toward independence or formal federalism with strict structures in place for the UK and Scots governments to deal with each other. The Editor of the EEN would appear to be backing full federalism (although I'm sure he doesn't and is just desperately searching for an argument against independence).
32

dude,

wishaw 07/04/2008 15:05:29
I think AS has the right to tell anyone in the world about his core belief and his vision for his country same as browne has the right to slag him off, but who has come out of this weekend looking like they are sticking up for Scotland rather than bringing it down. The more these fools like browne, broon & wendy etc. come out with their personal insults, rather than win the arguments, the more dispicable and finished they sound.

Im not totally convinced about independance but something has to give and if westminster does not move in its continued slagging and blocking of the SP then i think independance is the only way forward. The other option would be for full powers to the SP including fiscal powers and control over our seas.

Alex is the man to lead us forward, the dude has spoken...
33

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 15:24:07
With all due respect to the Nationalists, I don't think the full Scottish vote will go for full independence, no matter how well, competent and impressive the first SNP led Scottish Government does in it's first term at Holyrood.

As for Highland Nighty and the Unionists, the game's up. Status Quo is no longer an option.

Methinks Alex Salmond has it well sussed.

We WILL have a major part of independence. Certainly enough meat for a proposal that the bulk of the electorate can stomach, though I reckon the heavily pro-Unionist and the ultra-Nats will be disappointed that it doesn't go far enough in either of their preferred directions.

My bet is Alex is lining us up to be part of the:-

UNITED STATES OF BRITAIN

Any takers for the bet?

£10 for starters :@)
34

haggis 10,

The Capital City "of "Scotland (not "FOR") 07/04/2008 15:37:21
I remember the good old days when Leith was a thriving metropolis in the 1950s Shipbuilding at Henry Robbs, Shipping companies sailing out of The Port of Leith Ben Line, Salvesen Line, North Of Scotland & Shetland Shipping Company . Fishing boats sailing out of Newhaven and Granton The Paton & the Croan Fishing Companies, Dry Docks Where ships were cleaned & reffited. Huge grain elevators Between Leith and Newhaven to supply grain to our whisky distillers Glayva Easter road, Bells, bottom of the Walk! and of course the bonded Warehouses in Junction street and Commercial street. All gone since the Sixties and with it "JOBS" is it any wonder that Leith is a depressed area now!!!! WAKE UP PEOPLE this is Socialist Realism gone bonkers. Thank god for people like Alex Salmond and the SNP bringing in practical ideas to the forefront of the Scottish Political Arena. Keep up the good work. We've got these peehee b'tards on the run.!!
35

Edward,

07/04/2008 15:48:29
#33 Angus Ogg
So your money is on a Federated United Kingdom?
If we had predisposed UK government in London, tha may be possible, but would mean that there would have to be a seperate English Parliament (which I think is long overdue), which doesnt have to be in London.
Westminster to be retained as a Federal Government looking after foreign policy and defence. Best models I would think would be Germany and Canada perhaps.
BUT I personally think this will never ever happen, mainly due to our current not being disposed to the idea of change that would benefit the population.
In fact if attitudes dont change in Westminster, the United Kingdom will be sliding towards its own destruction. Case in point , currently we have a UK Labour Government led by a control freak, that wraps himself in the Union Jack and is now doing everything in his power to rubbish the Scottish Government, manipulating all the Whitehall departments to work against Scotland and the Scottish government. I cannot see opinion in Scotland remaining un affected by this
Even when the Scottish Government tries to use the instruments of mediation set up by Labour. the Labour government have made it clear that they will ignore these lines and instruments of mediation. How any people can put up with that is beyond comprehension.
If the Brown government continues along this path, the possible scenario is that by the time 2012 comes along, it will no will not be protesters about Tibet and Tibeten flag waving, but replace that with Scots protesting on the streets of London! (I appreciate, many may not see this as likely, but you never know)
36

FrancesP,

07/04/2008 16:12:53
So the premise of this article is that Scotland is not in fact a nation at all, but instead the rough equivalent of Wyoming or South Dakota? I'm sorry, but that notion doesn't figure in Scotland's "script", let alone Alex Salmond's.
37

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 16:19:50
#35 Edward,

A breath of fresh air. Some debate and reason. Thankyou for that.

A long time ago, Strathclyde Police wanted a US Style S.W.A.T division in their force. Some bright Chief Super called it the Fast Action Response Team.

A few weeks into the project, and a panicky telephone call from the tailor said did the police really want F.A.R.T embroidered next to their police logo?

So I think that a Federal United Kingdom might not work because of the same reason ! Though the principle is sound.

My own thinking is that poor old Gordy is on the way out. Shame as he spent all of his adult life wanting to be Prime Minister, then when he finally evicted Tony, he hasn't a clue what to do with his premiership. So he has about 300 days left in office.

My bet is that Cameron is a shrewd puppy, and will launch his own version of the Clause 4 battle, but he will go for dropping the union from "Conservative & Union". The reason, if he floats Scotland off from Westminster, then Labour will never ever be able to form another Government down south. So it may be worth the battle for Cameron to secure the Conservative inheritence of the southern parliament in perpetuity.
38

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 07/04/2008 16:21:29
I seem to remember some of the States tried to leave the Union a wee while back and it caused a bit of a stooshie......
39

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 16:30:49
#36 Good Afternoon Spook,

You are spot on about the failing Labour administration. It has repeated all the mistakes of the Tories under Major & Lamont and deserves the same exit. Not long to go.

Though many would like independence, and I am becoming one of those, there is an arithmetic and pragmatic problem.

I simply don't think it will happen. A little like the debate about Monarchy. A lot are for a Republic, but when push comes to shove, the actual person in the form of our Queen has done a pretty good job over the past half century, and whatever way you lean on that subject, the general view is that the Monarchy is more than safe whilst Queen Elizabeth is on the throne.

The difficulty for independence is that you have a solid core for it, matched by a similar arithmetic immoveable core against it. The big problem is the lump of electorate in the middle. They are the ones that will sway the vote. When you look at Australia, they eventually voted to keep the Queen. Their battle on that vote was tough, but in balance enough Australian's were convinced to keep their UK Head of State, and they are half way around the world and much farther away from Westminster than Edinburgh is!

So my reasoning is that we won't become independent, but fair play to Alex Salmond, we won't have to endure the status quo either.

It is just what form the next move takes. I think Edward is right about federation. My own thinking is the United States of Britain, or perhaps somewhere between the two. For example Scotland as an independent nation within the Commonwealth.

That would be a way forward that could be stomached by those voters in the middle who don't want to leave the Uk, but want their own, proper government, not the pretendy thing that William Connolley referred to !

40

Edward,

07/04/2008 16:45:04
#38 Angus Ogg
thanks for that, didnt realise the initials!
Im of the same opinion regarding Gordon Brown. Its all stacking up now. Think the tipping point may be the local english elections and the London Mayoral elections. If it goes pear shaped for Brown it will be the back benches for him by autumn. But who would take his place (not really fussed who does as I think there all as bad as each other).One side event would be the removal of Wendy's puppet master, with the strings cut , what will she do (she probably doesnt know either). The likely replacement I think for Brown would be Alan Johnson. Its difficult to tell as there were no proper contenders against Brown (about says it all of Labour). So either Brown will go for an election and try and bluff it (but then again he isnt one for quick decisions)The pressure will be on from the Tories, who as you say will probably drop the 'Unionist' part of there party title, to give it a more modern edge. I dont think tyhe number of Scottish Labour MP's make much of a differnce, but I also agree that Cameon is more likely to seperate Scotland out from Westminster, which would really consign Labour to the wilderness in England (eclipsing the Michael Foot period as a low point)
It will certainly be an interesting 4 years :
possible scenario :
2008 - Labour loose large swathes of England in the local electios, loose london Mayor election
2008 - Labour Parliamentary party call for Brown to step down
2009 - General Election called, possible hung parliament with the majority of MP's being Tory. SNP return the largest ever number of MP's in its history, sit down and set up timetable with new PM Cameron on referendum for Scotland
2010 - Referendum held in Scotland, in which a majority decide to go for independence
2011 - Conference between the UK Government and the devolved governments of Scotland , N Ireland and Wales on the future of the United Kingdom, including the settlement and timetable
2012 - London Olympics, th
41

Pat Scot,

07/04/2008 17:00:11
41 Ed

My issue with your 2009 hope is based on the fact that I can't see the electorate backing the SNP for westminster in any significant way.

I won £70 by betting on the SNP to be the largest party in holyrood after May's election. I thought it was a cery, but they only scraped it. I reckoned Labour deserved an almighty kicking, but got nothing of the sort.

Good luck to them, but I can see them only gaining a handful of seats in Scotland, as will the Lib Dems, and maybe even a tory. There's still no getting away from the fact that the electorate won't see the SNP as having a relevant place in Westminster, especially when in power here. They'll get their core vote, plus a wee bit, but not enough to hold the balance.
42

,

07/04/2008 17:22:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
43

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 17:26:14
And the nats are still forgetting the lack of support for independence!

What the hell makes them think this will ever happen?

Support for independence is going DOWN in all polls despite all of Salmond's little tricks to make us angry with the UK.

Support for the SNP is down on their November peak (although the nats will continue to spin that its higher than May 07 as if that is relevant).

There is no interest in any petition, any national conversation, any white paper nor any of the anti-UK campaigns such as the Norwegian chessmen or "bringing Berwick back into the fold" (has anyone heard anything about these SNP-promised campaigns?)

Anyway, back to the nats and their bizarre and psychotic "independence is inevitable" nonsense......
44

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 17:31:22
#41

Hi Edward,

I hadn't even factored in the SNP showing for the forthcoming Westminster election. One of the most seizmic elections I saw at first hand was in Hamilton in 1979. Labour won over the SNP, and George Robertson was actually a very good constituency MP. The big issue then was the Conservatives and the mess they were making rather than any worries about Labour.

I think you are onto something here Edward. It probably hasn't registered on many people's radar, but it is going to be a very interesting Westminster General Election for the SNP in 2009. If Alex Salmond continues governing with his team in the reasoned, effective, imaginative and highly competent way he has managed in the past year; and Labour continue with fear over hope, and a quagmire of sleeze, then you could well be right. SNP could, ironically (because of the Nationalist's didain of Westminster) figure in one of their best ever performances at Westminster.

If that happens then how will Cameron, or Alan Johnson react?

For the sake of a bet, what number of Westminster MP's do you think the SNP might manage in 2009/2010 ?
45

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 17:36:24
#44 HM

How can you possibly argue that "There is no interest in any petition, any national conversation, any white paper..." ?

Every time the subject is mentioned, either here, or on the Herald or BBC or wherever, it is like lighting the blue touch paper.

A HUGE amount of interest literally errupts.

If you are to argue, PLEASE try and make your point reasoned and logical.

Personally I don't think Independence will happen, but you cannot possibly be taken seriously if you argue that the current status quo is acceptable to the majority either?
46

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 17:37:20
And their grasping of endless straws.

Forgot about that one.

Yes, according to the nats, the Tories will go into partnership with the SNP in Westminster.

You couldn't make it up.
47

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 17:38:26
46. And around we go again.

The last poll had 23% in favour of independence (the lowest poll for a long time) compared to 76% in favour of the UK in various forms.
48

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 17:41:13
46. Just because several nationalists post countless comments on these pages alongside a handful of unionists, do not confuse this with widespread interest.

Look to the heavily publicised petitions, campaigns etc and see how few people participate.

Apathy towards independence is widespread. There is nothing to suggest otherwise.
49

Highland Mighty,

07/04/2008 17:42:28
On that bombshell, I'm off to enjoy the evening.

(It's called 'having a life' and maybe some of the angry adolescents on here should try it for a while.)
50

Edward,

07/04/2008 17:44:34
#45 Angus Ogg
Based on current polls it would be 15, but I can see by the end of this year polls suggesting something like 20 to 25, enough to play a role in a hung parliament. I also think the Libdems are going to get squeezed into single digits
Labour , based on current polling, would be in the low 30's (33/34), but I think the way things are going this could drop to the mid to upper 20's, based on lowering percentage share
If you consider in the latest poll (MRUK/Cello I think) it placed Labour with 34% and SNP with 34%, but in seat terms that would equate to 35 seat to Labour and 15 to the SNP. But if the share for SNP went to 36% and Labour dropped down to 32%, the seats would be SNP 28 and Labour 24, then if the swing went a further 2 percentage points to the SNP, they would haul in another 10 seats from Labour
As long as Alex Salmond keeps the pressure on and keeps givig a good return and Labour continue to be negative, instead of working for Scotland, then the trend against Labour will continue.
The big 64 thousand dollar question is how hard core is Labour support in Lanark?. If thats rocked, then it will be interesting
51

ratzo,

07/04/2008 17:49:59

In 1763 Britain was an oligarchal state that ruled by by ruthless bribery. In Scotland, where it was most rigidly enforced, this was described as a kind of 'despotism'.

The present-day UK and US are brazenly nationalist states, and under George W Bush the crude oligarchal element that America was originally hoping to escape from in the 18th century seems to have re-emerged.

This is a great consternation to most Americans that I know. Thus when Salmond referred to the original spirit of American freedom it is very likely that his view struck a chord with an increasing majority of Americans who are completely disillusioned by the Bush oligachy and its insane adventure in Iraq.

52

Edward,

07/04/2008 17:52:15
#49 Highland Mighty
Another assumption that everyone who supports indpendence must be a card carrying nationalist
Well hate to bust that little bubble, but Im not a nationalist, never have been. Ive always supported Labour all my life, even worked on a couple of elections, doing door to door. But since Labour had its socialist knackers removed by Blair and co, Ive started to question what the current 'new labour' are all about. Ive also been very unhappy at the flawed rhetoric coming form the likes of Des Browne, John Reid and others, who try and be as negative as possible about the SNP and the Scottish Government, instead of stating what there own values are and draw on the conclusion that those Scottish New Labour MP's do not have any socialist values and do not have any interest in moving Scotland forward
53

 Ayrshire Scot™,

07/04/2008 17:56:43
50. Highland Mighty logs off, and Alfred Neuman logs in....
54

SNP hypocrisy,

07/04/2008 18:25:01
"US allows separate states to be different..."

Yes it does, and that is why Salmond is talking utter bull$hit. None of the 50 states of the US are nations in their own right. They are under the same flag the Stars and Stripes!

He is way off with his analogy. Of course the SNP like to tell us that Great Britain is not a nation and that British is not a nationality. Strange that they recognize the US Nationality but not the UK nationality. It's all bull from the masters of bull, Salmond, et al.

Next Salmond will be shouting that tiny Rhode Island should also be independent. Wake up Scotland and realise what utter garbage this man and his party are feeding us.
55

Angus Ogg,

07/04/2008 18:25:39
#48 No wonder they call you Highland Nighty !

What do you mean replying to me with the ignorant rejoinder... "and here we go again" ?

I knew it was a mistake to respond to any of your posts.

I'm off to reply to Edward. He has good manners and a decent intellect, which is not poisoned by dogma.

Though HM, you might like to think about this....

My view is that whilst the SNP are doing a good job at winning votes, that is only half the stroy. Just like the Tories in 1979, Labour are making a good attempt at squandering votes. Mine for example. Your rhetoric is doing nothing to persuade the alienates Labour voters that Labour has anything to say at the moment.

The momentum is with the SNP.
56

SNP hypocrisy,

07/04/2008 18:29:58
"Even the most independent-minded southern governor in the US salutes the Stars and Stripes, which is in sharp contrast to the SNP attitude to the Union flag."

Indeed and every State flies its flag lower than the flag of the nation!

The only people who might not do this would be a small number of narrow-minded rednecks, hicks, racists, and hill-billies - who oddly enough remind me too much of the SNP.
57

Reckless,

Corrupt EU, NAU and AU 07/04/2008 19:47:01
Alex Salmond is an utter fool. The United States of Amerika is not independent. It is run by a criminal elite, much like our own country. The US will soon be merged into the North American Union, with its own currency - the Amero. The NAU is modelled on the EU, but on a fast track. Look it up for yourself. While you're at it, take a look at the African Union's offical website. Bet you never knew. The mainstream news rarely mentions it!
58

Reckless,

Leave the EU 07/04/2008 19:52:40
Butcher's apron? Scots names are among some of the most common in the British West Indies. They were the biggest slave owners. Disgusting segment of history that the SNP won't acknowledge. The SNP will have the world believe that Scots have always been victims of English brutality. The east of England (Norfolk and Suffolk) were consistently against slavery. In fact, they produced some of the most vocal anti-slavery campaigners. Time to stop living in your Rob Roy fantasy land, Mr Salmond.
59

Fairfax,

07/04/2008 19:54:05
SNP hypocrisy (57): "Indeed and every State flies its flag lower than the flag of the nation!"

It's true that, if flown from the same pole, then the Stars and Stripes must be highest. However, if flown from separate poles, then I recall that the State's flag can be the same height as the Stars and Stripes, but that the US flag must be at the viewer's left, and must also be raised first and lowered last. I was unaware of the complexities before living in the States. There's more info here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Flag_Code
60

Calum Crubag,

07/04/2008 20:13:19
#49 - again where are your positive solutions? None. Typical Labour bitterness. Apathy regarding independence. Well it seems to stir more debate than most of Labour's politics. Though, it has to be admitted that Alastair Darling is inspirational... he has real socialist fire in his belly.
61

Calum Crubag,

07/04/2008 20:15:21
If indpendence is onto such a loser, why TF is Heelon Mig so bothered about it? And Wendy for that matter...?

Plus, HM, answer my questions on Labour's Tax on the poor. What about 'Dev Max'? And why?
62

dude,

wishaw 07/04/2008 21:37:32


latest poll for independance was 23% and now 32%, now that's a 30% increase in support.

63

dude,

wishaw 07/04/2008 22:20:47
Which is now very close to 1/3 of the population, so even with all the rubbish spouted by newlabour etc. it aint working, the people of Scotland have a mind of their own and will vote for independance at the first opportunity...ok maybe a bit on the hopeful side but there you go
64

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 08/04/2008 00:15:27
#31 Treating a devolved Govt the way Westminster is doing is so dangerous. They are already succeeding in bringing the three devolved parliaments together to fight a few common causes.
65

FrancesP,

08/04/2008 00:59:41
Highland Mighty - "The last poll had 23% in favour of independence".

No, as you very well know, the last poll (conducted within the last week) has support for independence at 34%. Of course, anyone can make a mistake, but the rather large problem for you here is that you actually acknowledged the existence of the newer poll on the other thread.

What does this tell us?

That only 0.00001% of Highland Mighty's posts today have been anything other than disingenuous.

That's DRAMATICALLY DOWN on the already ABYSMALLY LOW figure of 0.000957% recorded last Wednesday.

Statistically speaking, it's not looking good for Highland Mighty.
66

SNP hypocrisy,

08/04/2008 13:48:02
The SNP likes to crow about ANY polls which make their flagship bull$hit policy of independence look at all popluar - even if it's only a pitiful 1/3rd of the people polled.

Opinion Polls are subjective and meaningless, but even then 2/3rd clearly don't want Independence.

I don't suppose what the democratic majority thinks plays much in the SNP reasoning though. No doubt the next poll will tell us something quite different, but we already know that the bottom line is: THE MAJORITY OF SCOTS CONTINUE TO SAY NO TO INDEPENDENCE!
67

FrancesP,

08/04/2008 15:33:48
#67. "Opinion Polls are subjective and meaningless, but even then 2/3rd clearly don't want Independence."

Oh dear. Do any Nat-bashers actually bother to check their facts before shooting their mouths off? The YouGov poll showed 34% in favour of independence, 50% opposed, and the remainder didn't know. Arithmetic was never my strong point, but even I can see that 50% is rather short of "two thirds". In fact, it's not even quite a majority, so if you were being scrictly accurate, the final line of your post should actually have read - "THE MAJORITY OF SCOTS NO LONGER SAY NO TO INDEPENDENCE!"
68

Highland Mighty,

08/04/2008 18:28:19
66. The 23% was from a multi-option poll.

The 34% is from a two-option poll. Here are the latest examples (cue copy/paste from another thread):

Do you support Scotland becoming a country independent of the rest of the United Kingdom?

ICM 23/11/06 Yes-52% No-35%
YouGov 08/01/07 Yes-40% No-44%
YouGov 04/04/08 Yes-34% No-51%
69

Highland Mighty,

08/04/2008 18:33:29
66. As you are obviously very confused by these polls (as are all the other nats, it seems....think it's quite simple myself but there you go!), HERE is the MRUK's multi-option poll from the other week mentioning the "23%":

Independence 23%
More powers for devolved Holyrood 45%
Status quo 22%
Fewer powers for Holyrood 3%
Abolish the Scottish Parliament 6%

Please could the first nat to grasp this concept of TWO DIFFERENT QUESTIONS please explain it to the others. Thanks very much indeed.
70

Highland Mighty,

08/04/2008 18:36:44
In summary, Agent Salmond is doing a superb job for the UK.

Truly outstanding. Surely worthy of a gong or a title.

What makes it better is that the nats STILL worship the very sunbeams eminating from his posterior! How gullible is that? LOL
71

democracy,

Galashiels 08/04/2008 23:45:56
ALL Scottish Unionist MPs' and MSPs' are spineless spongers, they are the ones totally denying the people of Scotland any say in the future of their own country. They are self-serving, and want to keep control of the people of Scotland by lying about percentages of those who prefer the Union,it is all, only about the people who are gaining most from the Union, the politicians and the businesses who are frightened they lose a penny, and the worsed of them all are those that are stupid enough to believe all that crap and follow them to the polls and vote for their nation to continue being governed by a foreign country without any gain to themselves, the stupidest of the stupid allowing themselves to be lead by the nose to do exactly what the real benefactors want them to. Its always been this way, but things are changing rapidly in this country and now the Unionists find an SNP party in power, how could that have happened? the Unionists wonder and the sad thing is they still have not worked it out...............watch this space, dummies!!
72

FrancesP,

09/04/2008 00:28:39
#69/70. Nope, still not good enough. My post #66 was a direct response to your comment in #48 that "the last poll had 23% in favour of independence (the lowest poll for a long time) compared to 76% in favour of the UK in various forms." This statement, as I correctly pointed out, is factually inaccurate, and you knew that perfectly well. If you had instead said "the last multi-option poll showed 23% support for independence", you would have been correct. But you deliberately chose not to say that, and were therefore misleading.

Which is becoming a bit of a naughty habit, isn't it? Because I'm also sure you know perfectly well that in your list of "two-option" polls in post #70, you conveniently missed out the YouGov poll in January 2008 that showed support for independence at 27%, and opposition at 57%. Thus, in this week's poll, support for independence has gone UP 7%, and opposition to independence has gone DOWN 7%. When Highland Mighty has finally worked out how to tell the difference between UP and DOWN, could he please let us know, and I'll be the first to salute this first tentative sign of some intellectual development. Thanks very much indeed.
73

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 16/04/2008 23:34:35
30 AndrewS, Edinburgh 07/04/2008 14:04:44

Scotland will continue to have Government problems until England gets its own Government.

No,

Scotland will have problems until the devolution settlement is sacked and a fully independent government is in place.

South Britain? we'll help the cymru take that back over.
74

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 16/04/2008 23:38:53
Here is a parallel example of the native areas, disenfranchised by the english parasitic imperial cause under the guise of civilization.

http://bellacaledonia.wordpress.com/2008/04/03/the-case-for-cornwall/
75

John PM,

Edinburgh 26/04/2008 10:54:07
This story shows the complete lack of ambition of the Evening News. Scotland is a country, not a region of another country, and needs the normal powers of other independent countries.

Would the Evening News like the UK to be a state of the US? I thought not! Yet why would they accept a subordinate position for Scotland then?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.