Former First Minister, Henry McLeish – a man who has grown in wisdom and stature once free of party politics, has produced a wonderfully lucid analysis of the failure of the opposition parties to give Alex Salmond and the independence debate a run for their money.
In a compelling interview in The Herald on 14th November 2011, McLeish pictures : ‘Alex Salmond moving down a constitutional one-way street with a huge bulldozer in front of him but he’s not bulldozing much because there’s not much in his path’.
The McLeish argument is that the unionist parties have failed to provide a picture of the alternative to independence for Scotland, never mind a picture of an attractive alternative.
He sees the definition of ‘devolution max’ as a triumph for Alex Salmond since, if Scots prefer that to independence, the First Minister and the SNP can (rightly) claim that it is their governance of Scotland that has led Scots to want more independence – if short of the break up of the union.
McLeish therefore sees it as futile that all the Holyrood opposition parties are doing is constantly challenging Salmond to define what he means by ‘devolution max’. Why should he? It is not his agenda – which is full independence.
Essentially, McLeish is saying that it is the unionist parties who should be defining ‘devolution max’, setting out an attractive alternative stall for Scots to browse in coming to a decision on what they want to do.
He sees that the Labour and LibDem parties in particular – the LabLib coalitions he was familiar with when he was himself a Holyrood Minister and First Minister – should work to become more nationalist, more obviously concerned about appropriate devolved powers, growth and development for Scotland; more generative of ideas and much more positive about Scotland’s future in this context – but still within the union.
The Sterling card not played
As we see it, the unionist parties are also missing a major card they could legitimately play in their own interests at the moment.
An independent Scotland would have a currency decision to make. Alex Salmond’s unvoiced but implicit earlier solution was to resolve this, if it could be managed, through full membership for Scotland of the European Union – which would have included adoption of the euro with membership of the eurozone.
But times have changed – and for good.
With the endemic structural weaknesses in the EU and the eurozone having led to the current crisis, the survival of the euro cannot be guaranteed. Moreover, if it does survive, it is likely to do so in circumstances which would require a substantial transfer of sovereignty – that a newly independent Scotland would be very unlikely to accept.
We all know that the reason why Gordon Brown perpetually obstructed UK membership of the eurozone was to spite Tony Blair. Regardless of the underlying pettiness of that position, he (and Blair, his agent provocateur) jointly did the UK a real favour. Should the eurozone fail and this is, at the moment, more probable than possible, some countries having to reinstate their original currencies will face certain devaluation. Since the UK has retained Sterling, while it cannot but be seriously affected by any collapse of the eurozone, the impact will at least be limited by the stable identity of its currency.
Unionist parties, were they to take up the McLeish template, should today be pointing to the fact that Sterling is Scotland’s best support in troubled times and that while an independent Scotland might align its currency to Sterling, a continuation of straightforward inclusion in the Sterling area would be a significant advantage of remaining in the union.
Too short sighted to see the nature of the game
The reason why the unionist opposition has not behaved as McLeish – with such patent strategic intelligence – advocates, is down to poverty of political nous and an obsession with the sort of parochial politics that is about scoring points in a game that doesn’t matter. In the meantime the real contest is won from under them, without their ever having taken part.
The unionist parties at Holyrood and Westminster are preoccupied with preventing Alex Salmond from taking credit for ‘concessions’ won for Scotland from Westminster.
This is a stupid game they cannot win and this was the reason why many people voted for the SNP in 2007.
It had become clear, with two successive and ineffectual Lab/Lib coalitions at Holyrood, that an SNP administration was the only one with the political leverage to benefit Scotland in negotiations with Westminster. And of course it was.
Whether it likes it or not, a UK Government, with an SNP administration in Holyrood, is always going to have to pay serious attention to Scotland.
The UK government has been in a total bind. It wants to give Salmond and the SNP administration nothing – because it doesn’t want to provide the evidence for that administration to claim achievements for Scotland. But where it refuses reasonable propositions, it gives the SNP propaganda bonanza after bonanza. They cannot lose. This was always going to be the pattern - and was why voting for them was irresistible for many in 2007, whether or not they supported independence.
By being seen to be ‘on Scotland’s side’, Salmond and the SNP created an overtly oppositional scenario. Beyond the football field, Scotland itself became a team game. Which Scot would not choose to be ‘on Scotland’s side’?
Then, because the SNP government, as a whole, has been unusually competent in post-devolution Scotland, giving modern Scotland its first understanding of what a Scottish Government actually means, by the time we got to the Scottish elections this year, there were additional reasons to vote SNP. And many did.
This still does not mean that Scots as a whole are hungry for independence. But they are enjoying being Scottish, being capable, being part of something with a sense of purpose and goals to aim for.
They have certainly no interest in the status quo – which is where the counter attraction of ‘devolution max’, as Henry McLeish knows and is saying, ought to be brought into play by the unionist parties.
Instead, they have left this territory too in the possession of the SNP, as an alternative which that party is offering. The irony is bizarre and the sway of Salmond’s political dominance is awesome.
Where the game is to save the union, it is irrelevant who gets the credit for it – however ironically and however maddeningly.
In Planet Holyrood. however, acuity is in short supply and Alex Salmond is the self-created tripwire for the unionist parties. They simply cannot see past him. They cannot stomach the credit he might take for matters they could and should be turning to their own strategic advantage.
And the roll call of negative bullying proves McLeish right
Further proof of McLeish’s analysis of the damaging negativity of the unionist campaign comes tumbling in these days, almost by the hour.
It involves endless scaremongering that does not bear scrutiny – like Citigroup and the UK Chancellor queuing to parrot the line that investors are being scared away from Scotland because of the uncertainty of its constitutional future.
It involves attempts at blackmail, with new Defence Secretary, Philip Hammond, reported today (15th November 2011) as warning that a UK government would not be placing orders for military ships with yards (well, yard) in an independent Scotland. A Scotland challenged in this way to make it on its own has to be capable of going out, speaking for itself and finding other markets for its shipbuilding skills.
Then, in the most surreal intervention, it was also reported today that the Electoral Reform Society is pressing for a revision of the way Scotland votes in its Holyrood elections. The reason for this is that: ‘democracy worked better with more parties represented’.
And this follows the fact that the system was designed to prevent any party getting a majority. Given the coalitions and minority governments of the three previous post-devolution administrations, the fact that the SNP managed to win an absolute majority in 2011 is less proof of an inadequate system than of the degree of trust placed in the competence of the previous minority administration. Does anyone believe that this call for revision would be being made if the Scottish Labour group, for example, had won such a majority?
All of these transparent manoeuvres are proof of the political stupidity McLeish has identified. The Scots character is not to roll over but to dig in.
Are some starting to get it?
Another move also surfaced today – suggesting that some Holyrood Labour players are listening to their former leader but that the Westminster brigade are cloth eared.
Lord (George) Foulkes, who has served as an elected Labour member at both Westminster and Holyrood and who is a former Scotland Office Minister, has admitted that he has been pressing Scottish Secretary, the LibDem’s Michael Moore, to bin the Calman-born Scotland Bill and start again.
His (McLeish’s) thinking is that the Bill does not offer Scotland nearly enough to persuade Scots voters in a referendum that it is ‘devolution max’, universally regarded as the strongest unionist card.
However, as further evidence of the blinkered mulishness of the opposition, Moore has flatly refused, persisting in describing the Bill as the greatest ever transfer of powers to Scotland.
The Foulkes move, though, is proof that some sense of strategic political reality is stirring. It is nevertheless hard to see the current opposition, even between them, having the will and the ability to run with the ball the former pro-footballer McLeish has put in play and passed to them.
“while an independent Scotland might align its currency to Sterling”
Align? What do you mean?
Currency is the massive elephant in the SNP’s room.
Option 1. Join euro….therin lies madness.
Option 2. Restore the Scottish pound….and be at the mercy of the forex traders, the ratings agencies and the bond markets.
Option 3. Use UK’s sterling and have no control over interest rates, money supply, fiscal policy all of which will not be controled by us but by London.
Option 4. Is there one?
A truly independent Scotland would have to have its own currency (option 2)and the SNP must inform the electorate of the implications of that.
A failure to tell us what independence really means by the SNP plays straight into the hands of the Unionists. We Scots will NOT take a leap into the unknown.
Embassies?
NATO?
Size, cost, composition and purpose of armed forces?
etc.
Hot debate. What do you think?
16 
8
As the date for Independence nears it’s to be hoped that many of your questions will be answered.
Any that you perceive lacking in the future debate,can be asked,can they not?
But don’t panic!! Lots of other countries have become Independent and are enjoying their new found voices.
Nobody said it’s going to be easy!
My advice….read lots!
Hot debate. What do you think?
9 
15
“As the date for Independence nears it’s to be hoped that many of your questions will be answered”
No.
These questions must be answered BEFORE we vote.
Hot debate. What do you think?
15 
4
No, they don’t.
The vote will be Independence Yes or No
Once that’s settled then we can get round to the rest eg joining the EU etc/
Like or Dislike:
2 
7
Barmore; you know full well that the vote will not be Independence? Yes/No.
Worse, you are totally disrespecting the intelligence of us Scots.
We will not vote on our emotions. We need to know what it means if we vote for negotiations leading to our leaving the UK (the question BTW).
What it means for:
Our currency
Our membership of NATO, EU etc
Our diplomatic representation overseas.
Our armed forces
Out taxation system
etc etc.
We’re not thick you know.
Like or Dislike:
7 
0
I am not convinced by the claim that Gordon Brown only rejected joining the Euro to spite Tony Blair. I know it is a claim raised in many media circles but I suspect this is often because it is an easy and slightly cheap bit of journalism which scores points with readers and avoids having to tackle the greater complexities of the story.
The collapse of the Exchange Rate Mechanism and the impact of Black Wednesday on Britain lived long in the minds of many politicians, especially those with a strong financial mind. John Major’s government was seen as utterly incompetent, at least from an economic management perspective, and although they clung on in power for another 5 years or so I think this played a pretty major part in their disintegration into political wilderness during the New Labour years.
Recollection of Black Wednesday would not inspire a subsequent chancellor to go head first into the Euro and Gordon Brown’s ‘Five Tests’ suggests that he was being appropriately prudent in his approach to recommending joining, or otherwise. It wasn’t just Brown and Blair that were in disagreement over the Euro, the Labour Party was massively divided on it.
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
I think we need to take into account the stubborn attitude of the British (and Scottish) population.
We don’t like change. We like the pound.
The British (and Scottish) public have never been excited about the Euro and I doubt ever will be.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Morag – For me personally, no matter how much I read, the answers that I want to help me decide to vote in favour of independence, aren’t there.
Upto 3 or 4 years ago there was a very strong case for independence. The SNP had made a pretty good job of running the country, world financial economics appeared to be strong, all was bright and rosie.
Yes, the SNP are still doing a good job but everything else has changed.
The SNP and supporters must find it incredibly frustrating, when everything else appears to be going their way along comes the financial collapse. And because of that I don’t think they will have the luxury of being able to keep the debate simply on independence.
Personally, from what I read, I see a very strong case for not going to full independence at present, as the current financial climate is too unstable.
And because of that, I think a vote on independence would be lost if taken in the near future. To me, the logical next move is to ‘devo max’ as quickly as possible. Then have a referendum on independence in about eight years time when hopefully things will have settled down a bit.
Like or Dislike:
4 
3
You say that Devo max is the next logical stage…But the questions are still in the “ether” in that no-one has come up with a package that makes sense.
You can bet your bottom dollar,that if “devo max2,light or otherwise is voted for,the uk government will NEVER let the Scots go any further.In fact,I believe that Scotland would end up with an even more appalling deal than they do now.Can you imagine that?
Like or Dislike:
2 
3
Oh,and by the way….
don’t believe all you read!
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Morag – should I believe this report.
http://www.strath.ac.uk/media/departments/economics/fairse/Latest-Fraser-of-Allander-Economic-Commentary.pdf
Like or Dislike:
3 
0
Robert..Many thanks for the link,very interesting.Particularly found the Cuthberts and Scottish Water piece illuminating. However,despite the doom and gloom,I still believe that independence is the only option. Whats happening with the economy is not going to affect how Scotland sits in the world.But at least we would be in control and not westminster. As for the EU,well thats a whole different ballgame,but one that would be decided by the Scottish people and no-one else!
Like or Dislike:
3 
6
Morag
If we stick with sterling we would NOT be in control. Westminster and The Bank of England would decide:
Our interest rates
Our money supply
Our fiscal controls.
That is NOT independence.
That is worse than the current status quo. A foreign nation will be in charge of our economy; at present we have a say. After independence Scotland will have no say in Westminster nor in the BoE yet they wuill have the levers of our economy.
Like or Dislike:
7 
1
Might I suggest that since your contributors are skilled In their use of the Internet they expand their knowledge of the Scandinavian states which will give them the answers they seek
I’ve always found that learning from example is better than speculation
Unless you have a political ace to grind why should Scotland not succeed like these countries?
Like or Dislike:
6 
3
For Graeme mccormick: Oh for a political ace to grind. A splendid notion.
We have neither said nor thought that Scotland cannot succeed.
The imperative is an honest prospectus on all options and the cessation of dishonest attempts to undermine confidence in Scotland,
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
http://www.realmofscotland.com
This may be of interest in this debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
2
1/ The Irish stayed with the pound for 50 years and only gave limited away to the Bo E.
2. Although I normally doubt conspiracy theories I now am forced to believe that the original idea of the Euro was to produce the full political and fiscal Union that some wanted all along. They did not lay down the tax, budget and economic controls necessary because they didnt believe that they could get agreement to those – so they sold on the advantages of removal of trading costs. Now, 10 years in, those who want to keep the euro will have to accept a state control of the 17 (?) which they would not have done when the idea was first suggested.
3. The Norwegians seem to survive (in EFTA) with their own Kroner – how possible – same size as Scotland – similar resources and problems -although they have built up a 300 billion sovereign fund since their oil was not used to solve Thatchers problems.
4. What I dont understand is why the Unionists insist on running down Scotland’s prospects – after all they have been telling us for years that we are subsidised and the oil will run out, and in any case we depend on the oil remaining high in price while it may (?) drop over the long term. Surely they will be better off in ROUK if we go – or are they being charitable and determined to save us from disaster?
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Gerry
“1/ The Irish stayed with the pound for 50 years and only gave limited away to the Bo E.”
I suggest you have a look at the history books.
While Eire used sterling ALL fiscal power was given to the U.K. treasury and Bank of England.
Eire’s economy flatlined because of this and only started to grow when it came out of Sterling.
Like or Dislike:
8 
0
EFTA & a Scots pound thank you.
Like or Dislike:
4 
4
For GF “after all they have been telling us for years that we are subsidised and the oil will run out, and in any case we depend on the oil remaining high in price while it may (?) drop over the long term. Surely they will be better off in ROUK if we go – or are they being charitable and determined to save us from disaster?”
No, they just think we’ve forgotten all the lies they’ve been telling for years & are now gettin’ feart of loosing all the revenue we’ve been subsidising them with ‘cos when we go they’re in sh*t and George Osborne knows it…
Like or Dislike:
5 
4
History tells that the Irish did not give all fiscal power to the BofE – indeed de Valera fought an economic war with the UK for much of the thirties – and still managed to set up the punt before joining the Euro. And with our resources we could do much better – after all the only reason the UK has not had any Balance of Payments crisis for the last 25 years is because the dollar value of the oil – in total -has been on the positive side of our Balance, and will move to Scotland’s on Independence!
Just so long as we dont let the bankers play bets with our money.
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
If oil is found in the Thames will it be English oil or British oil?
Who bailed out the Scottish Banks? could it have been the Bank of England.Never mind the chief architect of the shambles Fred the Shred got a nice pension.Just as well he was’nt English.
Like or Dislike:
2 
4
eh?
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Thames…oil…english..DUH
If you mean RBS and BoS,then I guess that nobody did.They are not Scottish anymore…haven’t been for a long time. And don’t kid yourself that the BoE did either.
As for the architect of the shambles…look no further than good old westminster gov.!!
Like or Dislike:
3 
5
I think personal greed by immoral investment banks was more to blame than the Westminster Govt however it is true that shockingly deficient financial regulations created the opportunity for the employees of investment banks to indulge in the creation of phenominal conflicts of interest in order to line their own pockets.
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
de Valera , he’s the one who sent commiserations to Germany on the death of Adolf Hitler
Like or Dislike:
3 
9
Some of the comments on here are becoming a little unhealthy.
Perhaps a little light reading?
http://www.moridura.blogspot.com
http://www.newsnetscotland.com
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
“Some of the comments on here are becoming a little unhealthy.”
Yes.
Unhealthy for those who seem to think that we Scots cannot think beyond the simple, emotional Yes/No.
Unhealthy for those who are afraid to answer the questions upon which the vast majority of us will base our decision to vote either Yes or No.
Currency?
Diplomatic representation?
NATO?
EU?
Taxation?
Like or Dislike:
6 
0
I don’t understand why you’re so afraid of asking for information?
It’s all out there for the finding.
I don’t pretend to have all the answers,but I sure as hell try to find them.
Perhaps you are not asking the questions of the right people!
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
I think you are missing the point: once we have independence we can decide on these issues and the decisions we, the people, not the politicians make will shape the future of our country. It is up to us not the SNP, to decide on these issues. But without independence then we have no voice on these issues at all.
As for the SNP’s position, it seems to be that the position immediately post-independence will be the same as before and then we can decide how we want to play these issues as a free people.
Like or Dislike:
4 
6
“once we have independence we can decide on these issues”
You clearly don’t understand do you. You appear to want the Scottish people blindfolded as we enter the voting booths.
If our Independence objectives are not made clear before the vote, discussed, agreed and negotiated we will wake up on I+1 to find all the importantant decisions imposed on us by default.
ALL treaties are between U.K. and the other parties.
So, just take NATO for example.
If we haven’t negotiated entry for SCOTLAND (if that’s what the SNP / the people want) then on day one we will find that we are not members. U.K. will be, obviously, but not us. The NATO agreement covers the legal entity called the UK, not a separate Scotland.
The same for ALL other treaties. They are UK treaties. The UK will continue to exist (albeit aboout 8% smaller).
I say again….all such important issues as currency, EU etc etc must be put to us before the vote and then, where necessary, negotiated before Day One.
Those who think it will be “fun” to address this AFTER we have left the UK are, sorry to say; either clearly bonkers or have been watching Braveheart too often.
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
WS: I would say that it is you who does not get it.
What you are perhaps wilfully ignoring is that Scotland does not become independent the day after a successful “Yes” vote on independence. This requires a treaty between the rest of the UK and Scotland to form the two new states (or rather the reformation of one very old state and a new state)
As far as the British Isles and Northern Ireland is concerned, there will be undoubtedly protracted negotiations between the Scottish Government and the UK rump Government over the disentanglement issues. Best example of how to do this in recent times seems to have been between the Czech and Slovak Republics. As in any business negotiation we would expect our Government to bargain hard in the Scottish interest. There have already been indications of the likely outcome on the major issues, notably the national debt where the SNP has indicated that Scotland would shoulder its proportional share. The other bits and bobs would be divvied up in some appropriate manner (or indeed shared between the two states).
While this is going on there will be plenty of time for the Scots to debate issues such as NATO membership (a burning issue I’m sure!) and other international relationships. As the UK exists until the moment agreement is reached and a new treaty signed, the fact that we Scots have voted for independence makes no difference to our NATO membership.
So, my viewpoint would seem to be intact: it is not necessary to know the absolute cross Ts and dotted Is of the new Scotland before we vote as we can decide on that post vote but pre-independence. I agree that these issues need to be decided pre-independence but that does not stop us voting for independence and indeed it is necessary for us to vote before we can seriously engage with these issues as a nation.
Just as a technical point, the UK ceases to exist the moment Scotland becomes independent as the UK is a state formed by the Treaty of Union and once that has been revoked then the UK no longer exists. The probability is that most international organisations will simply transfer the rights and obligations of the former UK state onto the new states rather than seek to renegotiate membership. Again there will be some negotiation to be had over details (number of MEPs as an example) but I cannot imagine anyone wanting to completely re-negotiate the position with two new members.
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
de Valera was a rogue who split the Irish nation and caused the Civil War using the pretext of the oath, which he later took to gain power – but he did fight an economic war with the Treasury. He is useful as an example of what can be done – and of what not to do as well
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
For Gerry Fisher: Agreed on De Valera. Michael Collins’ speeches, in the collection known as ‘The Path to Freedom’, are very interesting – not as a template for anything but for the light they cast on an attitude of mind.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
“Rogue” would not be the adjective used by most impartial commentators . de Valera was an IRA volunteer and a nazi sympathiser and is a disgusting example of a nationalist leader .
Like or Dislike:
3 
3
Lets get back on track…..now who wants to discuss the failing unionists !!
Like or Dislike:
3 
4
To be honest, I don’t think the early years of the Republic have many lessons for us in Scotland other than perhaps as an example of not how to obtain independence (sorry Newsroom). When I studied in Belfast I often had (Irish) Nationalist friends deride me for still being under the English boot. I simply asked them how many Irishmen (and women) had died in the name of nationalism in the past 100 years and then how many Scots had died in the name of nationalism. That tended to quieten them.
We Scots have always had the power to carve out our own destinies, it just required our collective will. If we are honest, Scotland did well out of the Union in the days of Empire and the Treaty of Union had preserved our national institutes in a way that never applied in unhappy Ireland. This meant we never had to resort to vi et armis to preserve what we held dear (and I pray we never will).
But now we live in a different world. It is not, I think, that we have grown up enough in self-confidence and stature to once again follow our own destiny (the Victorian Scots have never seemed to me to be people lacking vision and confidence!); rather, we have outgrown the Union.
Lest anyone missed the nub of my previous point: the answer to questions of currency, NATO membership, the Monarchy; taxes; the EU and the myriad of other issues that Unionist spoilers will throw up is that we can be whatever we want to be once we have independence. You can ask Mr Salmond for his opinion all you like but the questions will be answered by the Scots post independence and by the Government we elect then. I for one don’t share Mr Salmond’s desire to retain the monarchy! There will be the need for transitional arrangements but these are details: the meat will be decided post independence. I could see the Rump states being quite pleased to have Scotland remain in the Pound to give it stability (my own preference would be for a new national currency – if Norway can manage it so can we).
It will be a fun time sorting out all of these issues in the fresh, clear dawn of an independent Scotland. Sad that some of our friends haven’t lived quite long enough to see it.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
For Dr Douglas Mackenzie: Oh – agree absolutely on the lessons not to be learned from the Irish route to independence.
The notion that we have outgrown the union is an interesting one – and the more one chews the thought, the more sound it is. (We may be starting to outgrow political parties too, but we’re not there yet.)
Theoretically, what you say about having serious fun sorting out what we collectively want to do – afterwards – is far from unattractive but to go for that would require one tough condition:
- a trust in politicians to consult – and we have not yet witnessed a single consultation (on lesser matters) that one could dignify with the name. No reassurance there. An answer to this would be a form of contract with the people – should they vote for independence.
We don’t yet have a system where we can, with any certainty, put our trust in people rather than in ‘princes’ . The ‘princes’ tend to have ways of disappointing the expectations of the people at the people’s expense. Look at Ireland and its vote on the last major EU negotiations. It said No. That vote was ‘not acceptable’ and it was sent back to vote again, with certain consequences to consider. Who had imagined – who can imagine – a democratic vote where the result is ‘unacceptable’? (Although the Electoral Reform Society appear to be trying to something of the kind at the moment.)
The success of a brand new currency from a brand new country would depend upon the wider economic circumstances of the time. This, for instance, wouldn’t be a good time.
It’s hard not to think that the best decision would come from a vote between – not the bidding war of manifestos no one expects to mean much – but between two binding prospectuses on the framework within which Scotland’s government would take place.
And, as you say, it’s sad to think that those we have lost in the past year – Donald MacDonald, Dave Petrie and, now, Skye McIntosh – won’t have the fun of being part of the debate.
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
To turn this on its head somewhat, I think the SNP’s policy of keeping as much as possible the same post independence as pre-independence is sound as it allows us to focus on whether we want to be independent or not, unfettered by the other questions (that we can sort out later).
This boils down to a different question: do you alone (the Scots) want the ability to decide on all of these matters or not? If you do, then independence is the way to go.
On the question of trust in our leaders, it is up to all of us to hold our politicians (and apparatchiks) to account. Modern Ireland puzzles me as much as the early days: I was recently at an EU meeting in Limerick and there was much criticism of the snouts in the trough behaviour of, apparently, all Irish politicians. Why not do something about it I mused.
In Scotland our sense of the sovereignty of the people (as opposed to the rulers) is enshrined in the Declaration of Abroath. In this we have much in common with the Icelanders and nothing in common with the English (subjects all). Of course, Scotland is a country with “no gods and damn few heroes” but we get the leadership we deserve (and vote for).
I suspect that post independence it will be a foolish politician that tries to thwart the will of the Scots.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
“It will be a fun time sorting out all of these issues in the fresh, clear dawn of an independent Scotland. Sad that some of our friends haven’t lived quite long enough to see it.”
Those who’ve gone before remain as a part of the foundations of a better nation. When we stand on that high point it will be on the back of their efforts.
I truly do believe it will be a fun time. I think the Scots are an amazing and multi-talented people with a huge range of histories and cultures informing them. Once independence is here, they can debate, argue hotly and campaign for their preferences and in doing so will be carving a completely new future, uninterrupted and uninfluenced by others with a different circumstance and agenda. It won’t be all plain sailing no doubt, but it will in the end be what we collectively want it to be.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
Douglas – You want to paint a picture of this Utopia where the people of our nation will finally be free of the tyranny we have lived under for so long. And when we are free, we the people will make the decisions as one.
Nonsense, it won’t be anything like that. For an awful lot of people independence will simply mean ‘same sh#t, different day’.
Also the SNP know if the vote for independence is ‘yes’, it’s highly probable they will be the party in power, in the new government, for at least the first 8 to 10 years.
You say that we should take the party’s current position on each issue to be representative of what it’s stance will be if it was the governing party in an independent Scotland.
I’m guessing that you possibly cast a furtive glance over the report published by Stirling Uni on the economy. I’m also guessing that if you had seen any positive aspects in the report, you would of posted them.
It’s pretty grim reading. Where would an independent Scotland position itself if the reports predictions became reality.
The SNP’s current position is further integration with Europe, is that still it’s position in light of current developments?
You said yourself ‘lets learn to walk first’. When we move to independence, do you not feel we should be doing it at a time when global economics are at least semi stable, and it’s far from that just now!
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Lots of issues there Robert and it is quite late at night but let’s try and answer some of them:
First, I completely agree about “same shift, different day”. Changes of power often mean very little to most folk. Usually it just means a change in who you send your taxes to. Ironically it is the Unionists not the Nationalists who claim that things will change dramatically (for the worse). The same claims were made pre-devolution. has the sky fallen since?
Your next point relates to the SNP being the party of power for the best part of a decade post independence. History does not suggest that this is inevitable. Churchill was the great war leader that lead the UK to victory in WW2 then was unceremoniously turfed out of office at the next general election. I don’t know what will happen in Scotland post independence but I imagine we will see a re-alignment of the political parties. Newsroom has the inkling of a point: Scotland is a small country with few obvious internal divisions (Celtic and Rangers apart). We may see a period of lengthy national government (as Japan did)as the course for the country is obvious and the question being really who is best to lead on that path rather than having to choose between different paths. Or it may go the Irish path of 30 shades of Green (though I think not).
I haven’t read the report from Stirling but I would comment that no-ones predictions look good at present. The question is whether or not we would be better staying in the Union or not. That is where the debate should be but so far I have not seen a sensible argument from the unionist side that suggests we would be worse off leaving the Union: most analyses suggest we are either better off or much the same.
What further integration with Europe do you think the SNP are advocating?
Lastly, your comment about independence maybe but not until the global position is more certain or stable: there is never a best time to get married or have babies, If you wait for the best time then you find your life slipping by without the joy of either. So it is with independence. There is never a perfect time, there is only the now. The question is not of timing but of desire: do we want to be independent or do we not?
Like or Dislike:
4 
1
I’m not convinced Churchill is an example to use to prove your point Doc. Great war leader but atrocious politician!
Like or Dislike:
0 
1
While I accept that independence won’t radically alter every life in Scotland, I’d argue that even devolution has brought about a more participatory democracy and that’s likely to increase with independence.
We already have a petitions system that’s fairly accessible and a great many consultations that ask ordinary people what their view is. The parliament already has a range of stakeholders feeding into its every enquiry and that interface with the people has increased since 1999. It’s not perfect but it’s a great foundation to build on.
Re newsrooms observations about consultation at local government level, there is certainly work to be done on that! The parliament is light years ahead in terms of consultation, transparency and accountability. I don’t think, however, that bringing councils out of the ethical dark ages will be affected by whether we’re independent or not. It’s most likely to be affected by the public understanding what’s wrong and voting the dinosaurs out.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
This link gives some pause for thought on the Euro/Pound relationship for the future. Due to ongoing uncertainty about the markets, we decided to base our end of week reports on currency moves.
http://www.myprophecy.co.uk/tw3.html
and for light relief
http://www.myprophecy.co.uk/crisis.html
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
I find it fascinating that the general assumption is that Independence is inevitable – how things have changed in the last few years!For fifty years we have been told that we were too poor and too wee to even consider the possibility. For fourty years we have been told that the oil was about to run out and that, in any case, the price of oil was liable to decrease rather than stay the same or increase.
And the people who said these things havent even had the grace to admit to their error – let alone explain why they said them. Is it just possible that the collective national consciousness (excluding Kintyre!) has realised that we were being lied to, even conned, for all this time. That could explain the staggering change in our thinking on the matter of the continued existence of Scotland, under a new, or renewed, constitutional arrangement.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
To Grant: I would find the stories funny if they were not so true (particularly the bail out of the bankers)
To Gerry: many of us have always known we were being lied to but something else has changed. It’s not Europe. It might be devolution which has made many people realise that Westminster is frankly an irrelevance to their daily lives. It might be the SNP Government demonstrating that they can govern competently.
Personally I blame the internet.
Like or Dislike:
5 
1
I am impressed! I can actually see people being passionate about the Independence question.Whether you are for or agin,it’s good to be able to talk about such an inportant issue.If only the regular media had the same unbiased passion.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
DrD
Both tales have a ‘duh’ quality about them. As in, you couldn’t make this up!
One wee thing I was reading today was quite pointed in regard to Scotland and Independence. Essentially, those countries who’ve broken away from London dominance have successfully done so in times when Westminster has been concerned with greater matters.
Given the financial abyss which “the centre of the world markets – London” is currently trying to avoid, one might conclude this is probably the best opportunity for Scotland to regain her independence.
Unless, of course, Kintyre1 has a magical fix for the shambles which has become the stock and currency markets.
Thankfully, it seems political types are resorting to spiteful hyperbole and historical fallacies in the absence of adding anything useful to the debate.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I have really enjoyed the debate on independence raised by your article. It has been interesting, in some cases enlightening, yet has managed to avoid descending into cyber warrior, attack dog mode which is so typical of the debate in the National press blogs.
I agree with Henry Mcleish that the response from the Tories, Labour and the Lib Dems has failed to come up with an iconic vision of Scotland as a part of the United Kingdom.
My own view, for what it’s worth, is that the weakness of the so-called “Unionist” parties results from their being a tad distracted by the issues surrounding the 3 year old financial crisis. At National level they are trying to react to the day to day and strategic problems caused by the greed of the markets, the failure of worldwide financial controls and the inevitable slowness of democratic governments in reacting effectively to the crisis/es.
At local level Unionist (and Nationalist) activists and politicians are(or should be)working hard to save their communities from the worst of the effects of the financial crisis. The questions of devolution max, independence and stronger union tend to take a very poor second place in people’s priorities when their jobs are under threat, their benefits cut, their school’s future uncertain, their support removed, their health service degraded and they see the prospect their young adult offspring becoming part of yet another lost generation.
The financial crisis is certainly the most serious setback to our democratic society in my lifetime. The power of the banks and markets is unbelievable. In Greece we have seen an unelected banker replace a democratically elected Prime minister whose only sin was to threaten to ask his people for their approval of a strategy which would have profound, unpleasant and long reaching effects on their lives. Similarly, in Italy, we have seen the elected PM (albeit one well past his sell by date) ousted in favour of an unelected EU technocrat. I find these actions truly frightening and fear for our democracy. I would hope that all committed democrats will be fully committed to seeing off these threats and protecting our communities from their effects.
So, I am really not surprised that the “Unionist” parties haven’t, so far, done a particularly good job of putting the case for Scotland’s future in the United Kingdom.
Like or Dislike:
1 
0
Just a clarification. I realise in responding to WS I may have seemed to contradict some of my earlier posts where I argued that we can sort out many of the details post independence. I meant post independence vote. When we vote for independence we have asserted our right to self determination and thus become independent as a people and a nation but the Scottish State does not become independent until we have negotiated our exit from the UK (which allows us time to also negotiate our position with other international bodies).
I hope that clarifies things.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Bob, the desperately sad fact is that the vulnerable in our society should have been much better off than they are and we all should be much better able to absorb the financial crisis than we are.
BBC Alba’s Diomhair explained it earlier in the week and the programme is now on YouTube – complete with subtitles for those of us who don’t speak Gaelic. I think if you watch this and follow up on the evidence you’ll see why independence is still the best option for us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=saqQnj0LKlQ
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Dr McKenzie:
“Just as a technical point, the UK ceases to exist the moment Scotland becomes independent as the UK is a state formed by the Treaty of Union and once that has been revoked then the UK no longer exists.”
An accurate technical point: The UK exists through the Acts of Union of 1801 (ie the pairing of the Dublin and Westminster acts of 1800).
The Dublin act has beein subsequently repealed but the Westminster Act has not. The UK exists after the exit of Eire and on the same basis will exist on the exit of Scotland.
All treaties gone into by the UK will remain with the UK.
We, as no longer part of the UK, will have to spend the time leading to Day One negotiating our own treaties and our own entry into international organisations.
The UK will continue as before. Because a tiny minority of its population has decided to leave the UK most certainly does not mean that the UK ceases to exist !
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
WS: As we lack a written constitution in the UK it is of course possible for both of us to be correct simultaneously!
However, I do not think your interpretation is correct. The Kingdom of Great Britain was formed by the 1707 Act. The Act in 1801 created the UK of Great Britain and Ireland. With each new act a new state was formed. When Ireland became independent, the UK shrunk back to being the UK of GB and Northern Ireland: so effectively a new state was born – just as it would be when Scotland becomes independent. This new state was the successor state to the “old” UK so nothing much changed. Of course the Irish situation was quite complex (and not just because of the partition). Scotland dissolving the 1707 Union would be much more simple and clear cut (unless Shetland were to declare for the UK!). By the way, my understanding is that the two Union with Ireland Acts were repealed in 1962 and 1983 so the 1801 Union is not in force.
I suppose there is nothing to stop the rump calling itself the UK of England, Wales and Northern Ireland but it is again a new state.
The concept that a state formed from a union of two parties can continue to exist after one of the founding partners leaves would seem to be the same as saying that a marriage still exists after one of the partners has divorced the other. The concept that the size of the partners matters is equally absurd: have a look at this
http://www.betternation.org/2011/10/england-wales-and-northern-ireland-do-not-have-to-join-the-euro-eithe/
If you are still not convinced by this consider this little scenario: in 2013, after continuing upheavals in the EU, the Westminster Government flatly refuses to provide further bailouts for the EU, leading to the Lib Dems withdrawing their support for the Coalition. Cameron calls a general election and the Tories UKIP and the BNP all campaign on withdrawing the UK from the EU. In the election, the Tories win by a landslide in England (the Lib Dems are wiped out and Labour’s support shrinks further). The Tories form a rainbow alliance of the Right (though they pick up no seats in any of the other three nations). Cameron calls a snap referendum on withdrawal from the EU. The devolved Governments call similar referendums in their fiefdoms. The referenda are clear: the English by a substantial majority vote to leave the EU. Scotland, Wales and NI vote to remain within it but of course form the minority within Westminster. The Westminster Government then calls a second referendum in England only with the question: “Do you wish England to be independent”. The English again vote decisively for Independence. The next day Cameron declares UDI and invites the other nations to enter into separation negotiations.
A fanciful scenario (though perhaps less so than it would have been a couple of years ago). However, under this scenario does the UK still exist? And why?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
Dr McKenzie:
“By the way, my understanding is that the two Union with Ireland Acts were repealed in 1962 and 1983 so the 1801 Union is not in force.”
Yes, in 1963 and 1983 both acts were repealed but by Dublin only. They remain in force in the UK.
This is the historical precedent for us. Your example of Czechoslovakia is spurious….that was a country which voluntarily disolved itself totally.
When the southern Irish left the UK the UK continued as before retaining all the treaty obligations etc. pertaining to the UK. It was the Irish who had to start anew.
When we leave the UK it is us who will have to start anew that is why I have been saying throughout this thread that before we are asked to vote the SNP MUST tell us what we will be aiming for eg EU? NATO? etc.
We need to realise that once Independent our voice will not be heard at the most important global institutions anymore eg we won’t gualify for membership of G20, let alone G7 whereas the UK will continue to be heard.
Regarding your fanciful scenario (good lunch?) Yes. If England leaves the UK the UK still exists….its members being NI, Wales and Scotland.
I fear, Dr, that your asking that question betrays that you share a malaise common to many of the Braveheart type Nationalists which is to wrongly think that UK=England.
Like or Dislike:
5 
2
I may be wrong,but I think Scotland is in a different position than Ireland…We are a sovereign state and would in effect still remain in the EU and would then ,if desired,opt out.
Like or Dislike:
1 
4
The EU membership issue is an interesting discussion point and I am not sure if there is a clear ‘yes’ or ‘no’ answer (or if there is I haven’t seen it anywhere).
Largely speaking it is a question that you would expect could be fairly easily answered by international law however you can never discount the power and influence of international politics. By this I mean IF Scotland were not automatically a member then it could well be that the other EU states would want Scotland to be a member and would easily be able to ensure it.
Equally it COULD be the case that the other EU members wouldn’t welcome Scotland – something Robin Cook hinted at a number of years ago although one suspects he had an ulterior motivation when he suggested that possibility. My gut feeling is that the other EU member states would welcome Scotland and it would be more a case of Scotland deciding whether or not it ‘wants in.’
In terms of international law there is the question of whether Scottish independence would be a case of Scotland withdrawing from the UK or whether the UK itself has been dissolved (as discussed above by WS and Dougie). There are multiple schools of thought regarding this. If we go down the route of the 1707 union between England & Wales and Scotland then it is true that the withdrawal of one of the union members does dissolve the entire state meaning the UK no longer exists (and it is the UK that joined the EU). This could mean that either England & Wales and Scotland have equal rights to succeeding membership.
An alternative view is that Scotland are withdrawing from the UK under the umbrella of the Claim of Right which is a fundamental part of Scottish constitutional law. This meaning that only Scots would be voting and this is the reason it would be seen as a Scottish withdrawal. This then throws up the question of whether withdrawing from the UK also means withdrawing from the EU.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I assure you I don’t equate UK with England (more you I suggest with your suggestion that what matters is the size of the partners – Wales of course was never a partner).
The fact that Westminster hasn’t formally rescinded the Irish Union is irrelevant: the Irish as the other signatory have so the treaty is no longer valid. (To suggest otherwise would be a bit arrogant of Westminster would you not agree?).
Actually Ireland did not abrogate its responsibilities viz a viz the UK in 1922. As I said it was a very complex process and you could argue that what they actually achieved was more akin to devo max than proper independence. Ireland was given Dominion status rather than full independence so it is not perhaps the best example. However, I think we can agree that the state formed in 1801 really no longer exists.
My scenario was for fun but had the objective of making it clear that calling the rump states the UK if England left would be ridiculous but you are obviously not willing to concede that as it would invalidate your argument. Fact is that Wales has never been a separate state (nation yes, state no) while Northern Ireland has equally never been a state so what would result would again be a new state (and England would recover its original statehood).
Anyway, we could argue the toss on this for a long time to the boredom of everyone else. While constitutional wrangles are fun for political anoraks, I have noticed that politicians tend to hark on about constitutions when it suits them but glibly ignore them when it doesn’t.
So let’s turn to what I think is your more important point: that we need to make decisions on the national positioning of Scotland post a vote on independence prior to actually having the vote. It’s too big an argument for this short post but I query just how much influence we would be giving up and whether that really negates the increased influence we would have by being our own representative on international bodies. It would be different influence but would it be less and would the man in the street notice any difference? I am reminded of the man who when asked to name the most important inventor or scientist chose Thomas Crapper. When asked why he had not chosen a great scientist like Einstein he replied that the average man made very little use of relativity on a daily basis.
NATO is a grand example of this. If Scotland were not part of NATO would we notice any difference. As the organisation generally just does what the US wants anyway I would say our relative influence would not change much whether or not we are in it.
As I have said already, we do not need to debate the minutia of every position that an independent Scotland would take prior to deciding we want to be independent: it should suffice for us to know that we will be able to decide on these after we make the big leap.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Thomas Crapper – a man made famous by an invention he didn’t invent!
Going slightly back to the main theme of the article. When independence is put to a referendum what should the question be and also who should vote and should it be held before or after negotiations on independence have taken place and decisions reached.
The referendum could either be held before negotiations for independence begin (i.e. a referendum to basically approve the commencement of negotiations) or after they have been concluded (so a referendum to either accept or reject the conclusions of negotiations). A further option of course being to hold a referendum at both stages but I can’t see that happening. If I recall (and those much better informed than I am regarding the SNP) the SNP’s previous stance was that getting a majority Scottish Government was in itself a mandate for independence negotiations to take place however I’m not sure if that is still the thinking.
A vote of ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ to kick off the process and enter into negotiations would ensure the result paints a pretty clear picture of the desire, or otherwise, of the Scottish public’s view on independence as a general principle but it wouldn’t actually be a referendum where people are voting on a comprehensive proposal. So there is a clear argument that a referendum should be held once the negotiations are held and there is a formal constitution on the table. That way people would be voting on independence with a proper picture of what they are voting for – after all there will be people who want independence on some terms but not on others.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
There is a chicken and egg problem here. If the Scottish Government tried to negotiate the terms of independence with the UK Government before the outcome of a referendum then the UK government would simply say that the SNP have no mandate to do that (rightly).
The SNP’s position is that when a vote for independence is won then this is a mandate to enter into negotiations for the dissolution of the Union (which is correct) but then they claim that this is the only democratic vote needed to seal the process. I know why they say this and this is perhaps a good bargaining chip with Westminster but I would be happier if there was also a referendum at the end of the negotiations.
But what cannot happen is any negotiations with anyone before we have given the Scottish Government a mandate to negotiate independence. All they have at the moment is a mandate to hold a referendum.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
I can’t argue with any of that Dougie and I personally favour two referendums as well. I was pretty sure that back in the late 90s the SNP thought differently (as per what I said in the post above) and I would be very opposed to that as a course of action and doubt, as you state, that it would hold much weight due to the lack of mandate.
Like or Dislike:
1 
1
Last post on this tonight (I promise!). In response to Integrity’s points: you allude to the same point I was making, politicians for pragmatic reasons tend to do what they damn well please regardless of constitutional matters (and get away with it!). It is interesting that the EU itself has been very quiet on this question. You would think that if there was a clear answer on whether Scotland would remain part of the EU on independence or would have to re-apply to join then the Commission would give us a definitive view but not a peep. I suggest this is because of two reasons: firstly not wanting to influence politics within a member state and secondly because they want to keep their options open. (Third possibility is that they think it is a silly question).
I think the notion that the EU states would not want an independent Scotland as a member is absurd: the only EU nation with significant reserves of oil, an important chunk of the EU fish stock; a large part of the EUs renewable energy potential? I don’t know if they might want to change Scotland’s terms of membership over what the UK currently has but we would be in a good position in regard to any negotiations (including on joining the Euro).
Only way to find out is to vote for independence otherwise it is all just sound and thunder signifying nothing.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
Oops – take back the point abour returning to the theme of the article – I was thinking of the other one about what the referendum should ask.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Like Dr D, I’m not too concerned about the minutiae of membership of this or that defence or trade club, but WS is right that the currency question is fundamental, and also that the Scots, having had their daily economics lesson on this issue from the Eurozone debt crisis in recent times, are unlikely to vote for independence unless a full debate on it happens first.
Recent events in the Eurozone have opened all our eyes to the fact that being part of a currency union only works in the long term if you are prepared to align your fiscal policy to that of the major partners. Since fiscal control is the greater part of the point of being an independent nation state, the concept of independence is itself closely tied up with currency. There doesn’t seem to me much point in leaving one currency union (Sterling) only to join another (Euro) when it would largely transfer sovereignty over Scotland from our immediate neighbours to those further away, rather than back to ourselves.
On the other hand, remaining part of Sterling means that our long-term fiscal policy will still be strongly tied to the rest of the UK, which means that the difference between ‘independence’ and ‘devo max’ would be minimal in real effect.
To say that these are interesting times in which to be considering what it really means to be independent would be an understatement. I wonder how independent the Greek & Italian people feel just now, with their EU & market-approved technocratic governments? In due course, maybe one or more of the ‘periphery’ nations will tire of trying to dance Latin moves to a Bavarian tune, and revert to their own national currency. If so, it will be interesting to watch, not least because we will be able to see what might happen if we go down the only path which would lead to true independence: adoption of a Scottish Pound.
Like or Dislike:
2 
1
A worthwhile discussion now.
I am agreeing with the Dr and with Integrity now in that we need TWO referenda.
1. grants Edinburgh the mandate to enter negotiations with a view to leaving the UK.
2. grants Edinburgh the electorate’s approval of the outcome of the negotiations and gives the mandate for leaving.
Integrity:
I disagree with you on this:
“By this I mean IF Scotland were not automatically a member then it could well be that the other EU states would want Scotland to be a member and would easily be able to ensure it.”
Whatever the legal position it is clear that, in reality, there are member states who may well veto our application; in particular France and almost definitely Spain. Possibly Italy.
Each of these three have separatist movements of their own. To them, in simple terms, we too are a separatist movement. To allow Scotland into the EU is seen by these three countries as encouraging separatism. They most definitely don’t want to give that message to the Basques, the Catalans or the north Italians hence we would, probably, be vetoed.
One of the planks of Salmond’s posturing is that by leaving the UK at last Scotland’s voice will be heard in the world.
In the second referandum it must be made clear that, in fact, the opposite will be true. I take as one example, again, the most powerful and influential economic organisation: G7…we would not only NOT be members of that, nor even of G20 !!
That’s why we must know before the final referendum what organisations we will be joining because that will give an indication of our future position in the world.
Like or Dislike:
5 
0
The default setting is that Scotland is in the EU and would not require to apply to join. It would have to apply to get out. This was confirmed in writing to Neil McCormack by Aragon Morales years ago.
Like or Dislike:
1 
5
The downside of the second referendum is that it might encourage the Westminster Government to negotiate in bad faith so as to produce a settlement so bad that the Scots might reject it. I’m sure this possibility has occurred to the SNP Government. However, this is not insurmountable and it does address your issues over the details of independence.
To your second point: just how much influence do the Scots have in the G8 as part of the UK at present? Very little I would suggest (and it should be remembered that the G8 doesn’t include economies such as China so we would be in good company if we were not members). For the G20, Scotland would be represented by the EU member (presuming we stay in the EU). After independence we would be eligible for individual membership of the UN (and all the UN bodies) the EU (or EFTA) etc. As we are likely to work with EWNI on issues of common interest this leads us to contemplate whether we wield more influence as two states (Scotland and EWNI) than we do as the UK. Of course, in cases where the EWNI want to pursue agenda that do not align with Scotland’s interests then we are much better with our own seat on international bodies. I have never heard of a small nation suggesting surrendering its independence to a larger one so as to give it more influence (unless you consider the EU project itself in this light). No-one else seems much exercised by this question other than unionists.
Your other is point about various EU countries trying to veto Scotland’s membership: let for the sake of argument put aside the body of thought that says that Scotland will automatically be a member of the EU as one of the two inheritors of the rights and obligations of the now defunct UK State. Your argument is that France and Spain would veto Scotland’s membership as a warning to their nationalist movements (why not add Belgium in there as well). There are a number of problems with this: firstly the breathtaking hypocrisy of welcoming in former components of Yugoslavia and Czechoslovakia but trying to deny Scotland membership. I can imagine outrage from the EU’s citizens at such a blatant attempt to thwart the right to self determination within the EU. Next, would the other EU states really be prepared to allow France or Spain to cut the EU’s nose to spite its face and deny membership to the only EU nation with significant reserves of oil? Has there ever been noises coming from Spain or France that they would seriously consider blocking Scotland’s membership? (and why allow Ireland in as it is another example of a breakaway state?). So this argument is pretty tenuous depending as it does on an unfounded premise (that Scotland would have to re-apply for EU membership) then on a threat that I have never heard uttered by anyone other than UK unionists.
In my experience of the EU, the prospect of Scotland’s independence raises not much more than mild interest. Indeed, many people are surprised to find that Scotland is not already independent.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
Dr;
The question of Spain etc vetoeing our EU application was first aired in a Guardian oped on 21/11/98.
There is nothing here in our discussion which has not been raised before and discussed extensively.
http://www.ucl.ac.uk/spp/publications/unit-publications/51.pdf
This discussion document raises the “Greenland Question” in relation to historic precedence for EU application after part of a member state leaves that member state.
You imply that the EU wants us in for our oil and fisheries. Seems like out of the frying pan to me if that’s why they want us (if they do). I think its just as likely that EU would want us in so we can contribute to ClubMed bailouts (but that’s the cynic in me).
Like or Dislike:
4 
0
WS: I haven’t the Guardian article to hand but wasn’t this spectre of other EU states vetoing Scotland’s membership raised by Robin Cookj and not by any person actually external to the UK? And wasn’t this denied by the Commission itself?
I am also not sure what your point was in raising the “Greenland Question” as the circumstances around Greenland leaving the EU support the interpretation that Scotland would remain a member of the EU on independence. The Greenland Question is merely whether in fact it is relevant to the question of Scotland’s position. As the appendix to the report you helpfully gave the link to makes clear, EU politicians act pragmatically and are not to fussed by the actual constitutional position (a point I made earlier).
So where is the actual evidence to support your contention that other nations would veto Scotland’s membership (if that question ever arose)?
My comments about why the EU would want to retain Scotland as a member state relates to the pragmatic. I would hope they would also value Scotland’s long and usually friendly history as a trading and cultural partner in the development of European identity. moral thought and society.
And I know they like our whisky.
Thinking about this issue it struck me how unionists are on one hand demanding an immediate referendum (bring it on!) but at the same time demanding the SNP produce all the answers to statehood without giving them the time to work through the issues.
Rome wasn’t built in a day and neither will the new Scotland.
Like or Dislike:
4 
2
“it struck me how unionists are on one hand demanding an immediate referendum (bring it on!) ”
Yes Dr.
I’m prepared to place money on Westminster announcing a referendum in the Spring on the premise that uncertainty is affecting investor confidence in Scotland.
The groundwork is being lain currently with Robertson’s comments on Scotland not being in NATO, the navy chief’s comments that Clyde shipbuilding will not get Royal Navy contracts, Citibanks advice to clients not to invest in Scotland etc etc.
Of course it is Westminster’s right to call such a referendum.
I predict that an early Westminster independence referendum will get a Yes vote (whereas an Edinburgh one would get a No vote).
I’ll speculate further. The Tories secretly want Scotland to leave the UK. Thatway Westminster loses scores of Labour MPs and the Tories are guaranteed a majority in Westminster for a century or more.
There you go. Two more conspiracy theories for you.
Like or Dislike:
3 
1
Let me start by saying that I have no evidence to prove this either way so it is total speculation and guess work on my part.
I wouldn’t be at all surprised if uncertainty is having an impact on investment in Scotland and, if this is the case, then there is a balance to be found between getting a referendum and negotiations (if the referendum enables it) underway as soon as possible and ensuring that appropriate and accurate information is made available to the public to facilitate a vote based on sound reasoning.
If a referendum shows that a separation of the union seems likely then it will be important for all parties to get the negotiation process done quickly. Uncertainty is never good for a country (and I am referring to all parties affected not just Scotland).
I know there has been talk of businesses not being willing to invest in an independent Scotland but that, for me, is nothing more than lazy scaremongering. Businesses will invest in Scotland if it is in their best interest to do so and independence will have no bearing on that business focused decision. The onus will of course be on Scotland to ensure it is attractive to external investment.
Like or Dislike:
6 
1
Interesting times indeed.
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Not much hope of that under the SNP going by recent evidence eg Tesco Tax on successful supermarkets
Like or Dislike:
2 
5
Kintyre1: You forgot to mention the SNP’s intention to lower corporation taxes which would, I think, be a major pull for inward investment (as well as a stimulus for indigenous businesses). And what about the ConDems proposal to sharply reduce solar FITS that is predicted to decimate the fledgling renewables installation sector?
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/analysis/fears-for-scots-solar-sector-as-incentives-cut-1.1135841
Get some balance Kintyre1
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Give me a straight answer to 1 question Dr McKenzie-
Do you support the introduction of the so called Tesco Tax ?
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
Personally I am far from convinced that the supermarket tax is a good idea. At a time when Scotland needs to be looking to make itself as attractive an investment opportunity as possible it does seem a bit perverse to create a tax burden which makes it less competitive than its neighbours.
Not only might it put businesses currently investing in Scotland from investing further it may make potential future investors think twice if they suspect that a similar scheme may materialise once they are embedded in the country.
I don’t actually have an overall objection to the idea of a sliding scale of taxation, whether that is taxation on business or personal tax. However increasing tax on businesses does run the obvious risk that the burden will simply be passed on to the consumer and this would be happening at a time when the average shopping basket is already frightening the average family budget.
The fact that the SNP have not carried out the Business and Regulatory Impact Assessment into the potential impact of its implementation (albeit that the reasons for not doing so actually make financial sense) also weakens their position as it breaches their own policy. It is also worth commenting that this was never part of the SNP’s manifesto and the SNP haven’t been shy about criticising the Westminster Government for implementing taxation that wasn’t part of their manifesto (this is really a minor point though as I doubt you will ever find a government that isn’t guilty of that!)
Like or Dislike:
2 
0
Kintyre1
I think the more concise question is why do you support destroying communities with your advancement of supermarkets?
One might even suspect your political party is being paid to advance the destruction of town centres…
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
KIntyre1: straight answer – yes I do.
I have no problems with large (and very profitable) businesses paying a bit more on their rates than small businesses. Somebody correct me if I am wrong but will this move not still leave large retailers in Scotland with lower business rates than in England? How is that anti-competitive?
Kintyre1: straight yes or no: do you support the levy on the banks?
Like or Dislike:
1 
2
That is an interesting question Doc and I must admit I don’t know the answer. Might do a little digging as it would destroy my main argument!
Like or Dislike:
0 
0
Oh and as an aside it is pretty hard to have much sympathy for Tesco when they moan about imposition of tax – the extra they would have to pay is a pittance compared to the amount they save through the various tax avoidance schemes they operate by the establishment of multiple ‘artificial’ companies.
However I acknowledge this is not atually just a Tesco tax.
Like or Dislike:
2 
2
And in case anyone thinks I’m becoming a SNP poodle let me just say that I agree with Integrity that the Government should have undertaken the regulatory impact study.
It is also interesting to note that all three of the unionist parties in Scotland (who also oppose the “Tesco” tax)all received cash donations from supermarkets.
Like or Dislike:
1 
3
One of the great things about the discussion here is that it encourages us (or at least some of us!) to do some research.
I have noticed that Kintyre1′s modus operandi appears to be to pick on a specific action of the Scottish Government to criticise without looking at the overall picture. Thus the “Tesco” tax (which is neither a tax nor just applies to Tesco) is used as evidence that the SNP Government is anti-business.
So what is the truth. Well, the business rates poundage is exactly the same in England as it is in Scotland. For most businesses it is 42.6p and larger businesses (in properties with a rateable value above £35K) pay an additional 0.7p in the pound. In both England and Scotland there are relief systems for small businesses (and these are funded out of the extra 0.7p in the pound levied on large businesses)
However, the Scottish Government has a much more generous relief system for small businesses than is the case in England:
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/local-government/17999/11199/brief-guide
http://www.walthamforest.gov.uk/brates2011-12.pdf
So the Scottish Government has engineered a rates system that is more supportive of small businesses than is present in England. Not much anti-business sentiment there.
But what about big business? The poundage is the same north and south of the border but the “Tesco Tax” would add an additional levy on businesses that occupy premises with a rateable value of £300K and who sell alcohol and cigarettes (hence why it is a supermarket tax as there are few other types of business that fits this picture). I cannot seem to find the proposed rate but the measure is estimated to raise an additional £110M over three years. So are these businesses paying more in Scotland then elsewhere?
Things become a bit more complex when this question is asked but let’s take the easy things first. In London, large businesses have an additional levy of 2p in the pound on top of their rates. This is being used to help pay for the cross-rail project. Have we seen a mass exodus of supermarkets from London or threats to pull investment? If we have then I have missed it.
So supermarkets in London pay more in rates than is proposed for those in Scotland (as do other businesses). The other factor is the actual ratings system. Difficult to be sure here but it looks as if the revaluation in Scottish rates produced a better outcome for businesses north of the border than it did for those in England.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/Government/local-government/17999/11199
Interestingly the Stormont Government is proposing a more wide ranging levy for NI (and having the same flak from Tesco as the SG). So, London, Scotland and NI – soon Tescos will have nowhere to put new stores!
Also interestingly, the Federation of Small Business (FSB) in Scotland welcomed the “Tesco Tax” as a way of helping redress the unfair advantage that out of town supermarkets have over high street shops (CF the thread on Waitrose in Helensburgh).
And even more interestingly, the Tesco spokesperson, while pouring scorn and threats of death to the first born in NI for their Tesco Tax proposals, said that the proposal to reduce corporation tax in NI was very encouraging. Reducing corporation tax is of course a fundamental plank of the SNP’s taxation policy and if pursued in an independent Scotland would be a far greater stimulus to inward investment than marginal variations in poundage rates.
The SNP are anti-business? Aye right.
Like or Dislike:
3 
2
George Osborne and Citygroup are obviously right about businesses being put off investing in Scotland because of the independence referendum (not!):
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/home-news/moray-firth-windfarm-may-supply-one-million-homes-1.1136087
Like or Dislike:
2 
1