Thursday, 31 May 2012 20:19
113 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter 
The Scottish Parliament has officially endorsed the idea of Scottish Independence for the first time in its recent history.
The historic vote, the first since the dissolution of the old Parliament in 1707, saw MSPs back the idea of a Sovereign Scotland by 69 votes to 52.
The debate on Scotland's future witnessed First Minister Alex Salmond set out his vision for a future independent nation.
Mr Salmond said: "The Scottish Parliament has achieved a great deal in its short lifespan - the smoking ban, the world-leading Climate Change Act, the new legislation to help tackle Scotland's relationship with alcohol - these are just a few of the many, many advances," and added:
"But this parliament is not yet able to make many of the key decisions which affect the lives of our fellow countrymen and women."
Mr Salmond added that the Scottish Parliament would remain much as it was now, but insisted that the High Court in Edinburgh would take over as Scotland’s Supreme Court from the current London based court.
The First Minister also said that Scotland would continue as a member of the EU with the Queen as head of State and the pound sterling as currency.
Unionist opposition leaders challenged the First Minister’s vision with all three using a variation of the ‘separation’ term in order to describe independence.
Scottish Labour leader Johann Lamont caused a stir when she appeared to claim that Scots had been in favour of the original act of Union in 1707. Scots in fact rioted on hearing the announcement of the loss of independence.
"We as a nation were never conquered, the United Kingdom has not been imposed upon us, it is the choice of Scots to share power with our neighbours on these small islands - and we are stronger together.” said the Scottish Labour leader.
Ms Lamont also controversially claimed that Scotland, had we been independent at this moment, would be seeking to hand over sovereignty and control of our resources to London.
She added: "Had Scotland been a separate country right now, I believe we would be seriously looking at creating the type of union we currently enjoy, the type of social economic and political union that has brought us 300 years of peace and stability, the type of union that allows us to weather the worst economic crisis of our lifetime when the banking sector collapsed."
Scottish Conservative leader Ruth Davidson claimed that independence would be a one way street and there would be “no going back”. Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie claimed to have always wanted more powers for Scotland, but added “that doesn't mean I want to be separate."
Commenting after the debate, SNP MSP Humza Yousaf said:
"This is a genuinely historic moment for the Scottish Parliament. With this vote it shows that, thirteen years after it was reconvened, it is ready, willing and able to take on the full responsibilities of any normal legislature.
"The United Nations comprised just 51 countries when it was formed in 1945 – that number has now grown to more than 190 member states of the UN, many of whom have become independent in the last 70 years. Scotland is now ready to take the next step and join the ranks of independent countries.
"In contrast to the relentless negative scaremongering from the Labour-Tory anti-independence alliance, the simple truth is that it is better for the decisions affecting Scotland to be taken by the people who care about Scotland most, that is, the people of Scotland.
"Parliament has spoken and backed independence, and soon it will be the turn of the people of Scotland. The autumn 2014 referendum is the biggest opportunity for Scotland in 300 years and the campaign has now begun in earnest."
Comments
#
2012-06-02 13:38
For a full list follow this link - scottish.parliament.uk/.../... - to Decision Time then search down for motion S4M-03113, in the name of Alex Salmond, on Scotland’s future, be agreed to.
Margo and the Greens all voted for the motion:
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
Surprising that text wasn't included in this article.
Unsurprising that all Con, Lab & L-D MSPs present voted against.
Margo and the Greens all voted for the motion:
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
Surprising that text wasn't included in this article.
Unsurprising that all Con, Lab & L-D MSPs present voted against.
#
2012-05-31 20:52
This is a wonderful result.The Scottish Parliament has been reconvened (after it was discontinued in 1707), and at last it has a majority of members in favour of Scotland becoming an independent(nor mal) nation.The next step must be independence and Scotland joining the rest of the world.
#
2012-05-31 20:59
69 yes votes though. Where is the Greens and Margo (I'm assuming they account for the missing numbers)?
So much for getting rid of the it's only the SNP who want independence stereotype.
Should have been 72
So much for getting rid of the it's only the SNP who want independence stereotype.
Should have been 72
#
2012-06-01 12:15
You are forgetting that the Presiding Officer is no longer SNP and does not normally vote. It should have been 71 votes for.
#
2012-05-31 21:12
'Had Scotland been a separate country right now, I believe we would be seriously looking at creating the type of union we currently enjoy'
Oh yeah, are the Irish looking to join too ?
Oh yeah, are the Irish looking to join too ?
#
2012-05-31 23:15
Is there any independent country in the world, however cash-strapped, looking to lose its identity by merging with a bigger neighbour? I believe the answer is no, but I invite Lament to correct me if I am wrong.
#
2012-06-01 17:53
Aye and I have not heard Canada, New Zealand, Australia, or any other country applying to join the UK Union.
The together we are stronger and weaker apart platitude is not believed by those that parrot it when it comes to the E.U, the logical conclusion of the platitude would be strengthening the EU parliment by handing more powers over [if not all] to Brussels from Westminster in an onward march towards a European superstate. That idea rightly horrifies the Britnats yet they argue that Scotland should accept this scenario within the context of the UK and Scotlands relationship.
The hypocracy of those that promote this meaningless platitude should be exposed for all tae see and also the slogan itself should be exposed for what it is and that is a MEANINGLESS PLATITUDE
The together we are stronger and weaker apart platitude is not believed by those that parrot it when it comes to the E.U, the logical conclusion of the platitude would be strengthening the EU parliment by handing more powers over [if not all] to Brussels from Westminster in an onward march towards a European superstate. That idea rightly horrifies the Britnats yet they argue that Scotland should accept this scenario within the context of the UK and Scotlands relationship.
The hypocracy of those that promote this meaningless platitude should be exposed for all tae see and also the slogan itself should be exposed for what it is and that is a MEANINGLESS PLATITUDE
#
2012-05-31 21:14
Which MSPs did not vote? The number of votes falls short of the number of voters.
#
2012-05-31 21:44
There were no abstentions. Patrick Harvie and Margo both voted for it.
It clearly shows that Labour ALL voted against it, as did the Libdems and Tories.
From the debate, a wee gem from Mr.Salmond in response to a silly question from Ruth Davidson, in relation to the YES campaign website;
"Ruth Davidson: Does the First Minister count among his number my deputy, all the political editors of Scotland and everyone else whose Twitter picture was harvested and used so egregiously against their wishes in support of that campaign?
The First Minister: No. We have managed to extract them all from the website. We have taken oot Donald Duck, Osama bin Laden and Johann Lamont. They have all been taken oot of the website."
Source; scottish.parliament.uk/.../.... Page 9660
It clearly shows that Labour ALL voted against it, as did the Libdems and Tories.
From the debate, a wee gem from Mr.Salmond in response to a silly question from Ruth Davidson, in relation to the YES campaign website;
"Ruth Davidson: Does the First Minister count among his number my deputy, all the political editors of Scotland and everyone else whose Twitter picture was harvested and used so egregiously against their wishes in support of that campaign?
The First Minister: No. We have managed to extract them all from the website. We have taken oot Donald Duck, Osama bin Laden and Johann Lamont. They have all been taken oot of the website."
Source; scottish.parliament.uk/.../.... Page 9660
#
2012-06-01 06:32
Hi RL
There was some eejit on the Herald comments from Westmidlands the other day boasting of signing up 10 times to prove how easily sabotaged the site was. Good to know that somebody is sifting through the dross to keep it clean.
There was some eejit on the Herald comments from Westmidlands the other day boasting of signing up 10 times to prove how easily sabotaged the site was. Good to know that somebody is sifting through the dross to keep it clean.
#
2012-06-01 12:19
Jings! It took me four days to be able to sign up once. There seems to be a problem with sending out the confirmation e-mail.
The whole site seems to be gears towards the Twitterati, and I don't tweet.
The whole site seems to be gears towards the Twitterati, and I don't tweet.
#
2012-06-01 13:13
I'm still trying to get my head round emailing and attachments. :o
Nah, don't understand facebook or twitter and not just from a technical standpoint. I think a more effective site could have been built around YES news, views, podcasts with the main movers and rolling interviews, interactive pages based on the independence movement and explaining again on a feature basis what independence means to how government would work. A way to allay fears.
Nah, don't understand facebook or twitter and not just from a technical standpoint. I think a more effective site could have been built around YES news, views, podcasts with the main movers and rolling interviews, interactive pages based on the independence movement and explaining again on a feature basis what independence means to how government would work. A way to allay fears.
#
2012-05-31 21:19
116 MSP's voted to maintain the monarchy, I would suggest that this vote is more significant. One more SNP shibboleth abandoned in the clamour for votes.
Alex Salmond imitating Tony Blair's consignment of Clause 4 to the historical dustbin.
Alex Salmond imitating Tony Blair's consignment of Clause 4 to the historical dustbin.
#
2012-05-31 21:37
As if,voting for a bit of showbiz equates to Blairs shenanigans,you `re getting desperate for muck.
#
2012-05-31 21:55
Given that the people are sovereign in Scotland, I expect we would have a referendum after independence to decide who will be our head of state. I like the Irish model of an elected ceremonial president far better than the corrupt and outdated monarchis system. The royals signify all that is wrong with the UK, so we should be able to signal a clear move away by having the right to choose which system we want.
#
2012-05-31 22:23
If a 116 MSPs voted to keep Queenie then it sounds like just about everybody was for keeping her in an independent Scotland. Does that mean the other parties are keen to shape what an independent Scotland looks like? Perhaps you are right and the vote is significant :)
#
2012-06-01 12:22
Could you please cite one piece of verifiable evidence that republicanism has ever been an SNP shibboleth? (By that, I presume you mean it was official party policy.)
#
2012-06-03 02:41
No - you are correct - the SNP has never, in its ruling National Council or Conference, voted for the Republican position for Head of State. But it has, and this has never been overtaken by any subsequent policy motion, stated that the question of Monarchy or President should be decided by the Scottish people after Independence, that being the first time the people will be able to so decide. The same position was taken on membership of the EU, but it is argued that that decision was overtaken by the Party's decision to join the EU, indeed its insistence that it would automatically be a member of the EU after Independence. The fact that the decision to have a referendum on EU membership was taken after the decision to join the EU does not seem to have been noticed by some.
#
2012-06-01 16:42
Quoting ituna semea:
Any comment on Lamont's assertion that if Scotland were independent, we would be the only independent country in the entire world to wish for a return to subservience to our former masters?
116 MSP's voted to maintain the monarchy, I would suggest that this vote is more significant. One more SNP shibboleth abandoned in the clamour for votes.
Alex Salmond imitating Tony Blair's consignment of Clause 4 to the historical dustbin.
Any comment on Lamont's assertion that if Scotland were independent, we would be the only independent country in the entire world to wish for a return to subservience to our former masters?
#
2012-05-31 21:28
31st May 2012 is quite an historic day. Glad I'm around to witness it.
And to a slight spelling change from witness to witless- Lamont at FM Question Time, truly dreadfully hopeless.
I suppose however the funniest was Rennie and his bulldozer.
And to a slight spelling change from witness to witless- Lamont at FM Question Time, truly dreadfully hopeless.
I suppose however the funniest was Rennie and his bulldozer.
#
2012-05-31 21:33
A step closer to normality , wish I had been in the parliament today to witness some of the days proceedings.
Johann by the sound of it playing the comic again, what`s she like eh?
The end of London rule cannot come too soon. Lets slim down Government by dropping the one we don`t need.
Why doesn`t someone do a poll asking if Scotland was to have one government would you prefer the parliament to be in Edinburgh or London?
Maybe the BBC would like to ask the question though they may change it slightly to something like . . If Scotland was to have one government would it be one based in Edinburgh who would be totally incapable of using all the tools at its disposal or one in London who has your best interests always at heart and will look after the purse so you don`t have to bother.
Johann by the sound of it playing the comic again, what`s she like eh?
The end of London rule cannot come too soon. Lets slim down Government by dropping the one we don`t need.
Why doesn`t someone do a poll asking if Scotland was to have one government would you prefer the parliament to be in Edinburgh or London?
Maybe the BBC would like to ask the question though they may change it slightly to something like . . If Scotland was to have one government would it be one based in Edinburgh who would be totally incapable of using all the tools at its disposal or one in London who has your best interests always at heart and will look after the purse so you don`t have to bother.
#
2012-06-01 02:46
Think of the savings cj....
An entire layer of useless govt removed for eternity in one fell swoop...
Was it on here that I read that there are 80 civil servants, and an office costing in total over £8million, just to administer MP's expenses....
Not for much longer....
An entire layer of useless govt removed for eternity in one fell swoop...
Was it on here that I read that there are 80 civil servants, and an office costing in total over £8million, just to administer MP's expenses....
Not for much longer....
#
2012-06-01 16:54
Aye Gaavster, and don't forget the £7 million deducted from our block grant to pay for the redundant Scottish Office, now an institution rendered completely superfluous by the creation of our Holyrood Parliament.
#
2012-05-31 21:34
Polecaughtituna - yawn, snore, mummph ...
According to the UK Supreme Court the Parliament of Scotland represents the (sovereign) will of the people of Scotland.
According to Sir Micheal Forsyth if the Scottish Parliament brought forward a bill for independence and it passed on a simple majority then Scotland would be independent.
The reality is there is nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament from bringing forward such a bill (something the pro-dependence parties would have done like a shot if the boot was on the other foot) but Salmond wants every Scot to have the opportunity to have their say - hence the referendum.
You will have the same opportunity to vote 'no' as I will to vote 'yes' and the result will be binding on the Scottish Parliament.
I would spend your bile trying to get the numpties at Westminster to bring forward a bill to create what Scots really want - a new confederal union (aka Devomax). I am with Tom Farmer and others that as this is not going to be an option I will vote 'yes' to independence and an end to this pretence of colonial dependence on Westminster.
The reality of current Westminster puppet statements is they are what psychologists would call 'projection' that is blaming others for their own failings.
According to the UK Supreme Court the Parliament of Scotland represents the (sovereign) will of the people of Scotland.
According to Sir Micheal Forsyth if the Scottish Parliament brought forward a bill for independence and it passed on a simple majority then Scotland would be independent.
The reality is there is nothing to stop the Scottish Parliament from bringing forward such a bill (something the pro-dependence parties would have done like a shot if the boot was on the other foot) but Salmond wants every Scot to have the opportunity to have their say - hence the referendum.
You will have the same opportunity to vote 'no' as I will to vote 'yes' and the result will be binding on the Scottish Parliament.
I would spend your bile trying to get the numpties at Westminster to bring forward a bill to create what Scots really want - a new confederal union (aka Devomax). I am with Tom Farmer and others that as this is not going to be an option I will vote 'yes' to independence and an end to this pretence of colonial dependence on Westminster.
The reality of current Westminster puppet statements is they are what psychologists would call 'projection' that is blaming others for their own failings.
#
2012-05-31 21:58
I listened to FMQ's and just watched it on iplayer, I thought Alex sounded subdued but when you actually watch it you get an entirely different perspective.
Lamont once more was dreadful and this woman was once a teacher? I had a couple of poor teachers in my school life but never someone as woeful as Lamont.
[Edited - Please stop using derogatory names to describe political leaders. It is gratuitous and many people may be confused as to who is being referred to.]
Lamont once more was dreadful and this woman was once a teacher? I had a couple of poor teachers in my school life but never someone as woeful as Lamont.
[Edited - Please stop using derogatory names to describe political leaders. It is gratuitous and many people may be confused as to who is being referred to.]
#
2012-05-31 23:07
I did the same.
I heard it on BBC Radio Scotland at noon, and watched it later on the Democracy Live website.
It was very noticeable (on radio) that within 2 seconds of Ms Lamont ‘beginning’ her question, her MSPs were already guffawing in the background. It continued that way throughout her questioning. It was Nursery School behaviour, which can only reflect badly on Scottish Labour MSPs. It is worth highlighting on this site as I don’t think I’ve heard such a ‘mindless’ rabble at FMQs.
However, I also felt very embarrassed for our Scottish Parliament as Mary Robinson was in the gallery witnessing it. The Labour Party in Scotland certainly has no shame.
I heard it on BBC Radio Scotland at noon, and watched it later on the Democracy Live website.
It was very noticeable (on radio) that within 2 seconds of Ms Lamont ‘beginning’ her question, her MSPs were already guffawing in the background. It continued that way throughout her questioning. It was Nursery School behaviour, which can only reflect badly on Scottish Labour MSPs. It is worth highlighting on this site as I don’t think I’ve heard such a ‘mindless’ rabble at FMQs.
However, I also felt very embarrassed for our Scottish Parliament as Mary Robinson was in the gallery witnessing it. The Labour Party in Scotland certainly has no shame.
#
2012-05-31 22:18
The notion of a majority SNP Government carrying an independence vote seemed like an almost unattainable dream 30 years ago. This is a significant moment in our political history. I had thought that as the vote was a formality given the majority that this would be an anti-climax but I have to say it has given me a wee spring in the step.
#
2012-05-31 22:27
""the type of social economic and political union that has brought us 300 years of peace and stability"" J. Lamont
There are many young Scotsmen lying in foreign fields because of this 'peaceful Union' and many more still, who have been deprived of a normal life.
There are many young Scotsmen lying in foreign fields because of this 'peaceful Union' and many more still, who have been deprived of a normal life.
#
2012-05-31 22:39
I'm actually waiting for the FM to refuse to respond to Lamont if she keeps her sneering, riduculing tactics.
[Edited - Please stop using derogatory names to describe political leaders. It is gratuitous and many people may be confused as to who is being referred to.]
[Edited - Please stop using derogatory names to describe political leaders. It is gratuitous and many people may be confused as to who is being referred to.]
#
2012-05-31 22:46
The Labour tactics seem to be identical to when Iain was in charge. I would have thought that they might have reconsidered their tactics by now. It is actually excruciatingly embarrassing to watch (so I tend to read the transcript later). God only knows what any foreign journalists watching think.
#
2012-05-31 22:52
From what I saw of the debate/FMQ it looks as if Ms Lamont is going to keep on about the currency/BOE question.
The position of the SNP, memebership of the BoE's MPC, seems to be similar to that set out in a paper by Professor White which set out the options for an Independent Scotland with regards to the currency it can adopt. The relevant section said:
Quote:
Lawrence H White, "What monetary arrangements for an independent Scotland"
policyforumscotland.com/.../...
The paper is worth a read and is not too technical and has some useful points to make about the various options.
Iain McWhirter's column in today's Herald is also worth a read. It deals with the economic situation in Ireland and Catalonia and the implications, if any, for independence.
heraldscotland.com/.../...
The position of the SNP, memebership of the BoE's MPC, seems to be similar to that set out in a paper by Professor White which set out the options for an Independent Scotland with regards to the currency it can adopt. The relevant section said:
Quote:
""The possible arrangement of an independent Scotland with the Bank of England is less cut-and-dried. Because an independent Scotland could credibly threaten to leave sterling, it might be able to negotiate for a seat on the Bank of England’s Monetary Policy Committee. Scotland could be officially represented on the MPC, much as the Federal Reserve Bank of New York has a permanent seat on the Federal Open Market Committee of the United States’ Federal Reserve System. It is true that none of the seats on the MPC is currently regional, but that could be changed. The Bank of England has an incentive to agree to give Scotland a seat: it retains more seigniorage and more importance if Scotland remains on sterling. Should the Bank of England refuse Scotland a seat, that snub would not bode well for a sterling victory over the euro in a Scottish popular referendum.
It is true that there is no obvious precedent for giving an independent Scotland a seat on the MPC. Panama, after all, has been on the US dollar standard for more than a century without a seat at the table of the US Federal Open Market Committee. But Scotland is a much larger share of the sterling area, GDP-wise, than Panama is of the dollar area. And Scotland has historically been part of the UK, whereas Panama has never been part of the US. ""
Lawrence H White, "What monetary arrangements for an independent Scotland"
policyforumscotland.com/.../...
The paper is worth a read and is not too technical and has some useful points to make about the various options.
Iain McWhirter's column in today's Herald is also worth a read. It deals with the economic situation in Ireland and Catalonia and the implications, if any, for independence.
heraldscotland.com/.../...
#
2012-05-31 23:57
Please people be warned: McWhirter does not understand Catalonia's finances, or if he does, has had a serious lapse:
"Both Ireland and the autonomous Spanish region of Catalonia, the two most admired constitutional role models for a post-union Scotland, are sinking under the weight of their debts."
and
"It's a bitter reversal of fortune for once-prosperous Catalonia, which always claimed to be subsidising the rest of Spain through a kind of Barnett formula in reverse. "
Catalona doesn't CLAIM to have a reverse-Barnett formula, it HAS such a formula. Consequently it is sinking under the debts of the rest of Spain.
Pure and simple - an unfair tax system that takes so much from the rich (8 1/2 of Catalonia's GNP when the richest German länder pay a maximum of around 4% as they recognise that anything more is destructive to the economy) that they end up poorer than the poor regions they are subsidising. Catalan TV had a marathon day for poverty last Sunday. In a country as rich as, I think, Denmark.
Catalonia has the same GNP as, I think Holland, it is a rich country brought to penury by a vulture, virulently centralist and unionist Spanish state.
They've banned me from the Herald or I'd write a comment myself, although to be fair the main point, that Catalonia is no model for Scotland, is certainly true.
"Both Ireland and the autonomous Spanish region of Catalonia, the two most admired constitutional role models for a post-union Scotland, are sinking under the weight of their debts."
and
"It's a bitter reversal of fortune for once-prosperous Catalonia, which always claimed to be subsidising the rest of Spain through a kind of Barnett formula in reverse. "
Catalona doesn't CLAIM to have a reverse-Barnett formula, it HAS such a formula. Consequently it is sinking under the debts of the rest of Spain.
Pure and simple - an unfair tax system that takes so much from the rich (8 1/2 of Catalonia's GNP when the richest German länder pay a maximum of around 4% as they recognise that anything more is destructive to the economy) that they end up poorer than the poor regions they are subsidising. Catalan TV had a marathon day for poverty last Sunday. In a country as rich as, I think, Denmark.
Catalonia has the same GNP as, I think Holland, it is a rich country brought to penury by a vulture, virulently centralist and unionist Spanish state.
They've banned me from the Herald or I'd write a comment myself, although to be fair the main point, that Catalonia is no model for Scotland, is certainly true.
#
2012-05-31 23:31
A Historic Day indeed and yes Mark, Nicola's summing up speech was excellent. Full marks.
I thought Kenny Gibson was very good too and I for one was delighted when he took the gloves off and gave the unionists a round of the guns without losing it himself.
Without question we need a bit more of that. Linda Fabiani was excellent and Mark MacDonald was VG+ and what i heard of Margo she was taking the gloves off too and make a Very Good contribution (Phone went during her speech and missed much of it).
On the other side Drew Smith made an excellent contribution as did the lady at the front right of the Labour benches.
All in all it's looking good and with unstinting hard work by all of us in the YES Camp the YES Vote will win.
VOTE YES in 2014
I thought Kenny Gibson was very good too and I for one was delighted when he took the gloves off and gave the unionists a round of the guns without losing it himself.
Without question we need a bit more of that. Linda Fabiani was excellent and Mark MacDonald was VG+ and what i heard of Margo she was taking the gloves off too and make a Very Good contribution (Phone went during her speech and missed much of it).
On the other side Drew Smith made an excellent contribution as did the lady at the front right of the Labour benches.
All in all it's looking good and with unstinting hard work by all of us in the YES Camp the YES Vote will win.
VOTE YES in 2014
#
2012-05-31 23:46
Aye, and passed with a majority (~51%) of the popular vote behind it. Let us hope what is happening makes that popular vote even more popular, with the scots electorate embracing the opportunity for democracy that has been laid before them.
#
2012-06-01 00:29
I would like to know what currency Labour Party will have for us in an independent Scotland, do they have any policy for an independent Scotland just in case they get elected to be our first government in 2015?
#
2012-06-01 00:47
The next Scottish Election is in 2016 but this is a very pertinent question and I believe that the MSM and SNP should be asking many questions of the unionist parties. The flow of information should not just be in one direction. We need to know from the three unionist parties their views on the Economy, Defence, Foreign Affairs and everything else both in an Independent Scotland and a Scotland still in the union.
#
2012-06-01 00:55
Mark, there will be a fully documented appraisal of currencies, their stability, now and for futures, with projection trends and all else that goes into the melting pot - when and at the optimum time we need to make these decisions.
Does any sensible person think for a minute that all of these factors are not being scrutinised to date?
The euro is struggling and many other currencies are being caught up in that dynamic. Are you seriously saying we need to nail our colours to a mast at this time?
Does any sensible person think for a minute that all of these factors are not being scrutinised to date?
The euro is struggling and many other currencies are being caught up in that dynamic. Are you seriously saying we need to nail our colours to a mast at this time?
#
2012-06-01 04:01
What a great day for our nation.
Shame on Lamont for trying to suggest that this was not a parliament continuing on from our historic parliament that was closed after the acts of union. But well done to Margo and every high school modern studies pupil in the country that could explain to Lamont that all legislatures in the world, including Westminster and the Scots Parliament, have evolved over time.
More evidence if it was needed that the Scottish Labour party needs independence as much as anyone else. For too long the Scottish Labour party has had its talent pulled down to London. Scotland has suffered as we are now left with an opposition led by a person that is a few feathers short of a whole duck.
Shame on Lamont for trying to suggest that this was not a parliament continuing on from our historic parliament that was closed after the acts of union. But well done to Margo and every high school modern studies pupil in the country that could explain to Lamont that all legislatures in the world, including Westminster and the Scots Parliament, have evolved over time.
More evidence if it was needed that the Scottish Labour party needs independence as much as anyone else. For too long the Scottish Labour party has had its talent pulled down to London. Scotland has suffered as we are now left with an opposition led by a person that is a few feathers short of a whole duck.
#
2012-06-01 08:35
Mrs Lamont seems to forget that 74% said yes to a Scottish parliament in 1997. Her comments were nothing more than a massive own goal. The fact that she seems unaware that this would be the case adds further support to my belief that those advocating the union are completely failing to comprehend the political situation in Scotland. Their love for the union is blinding them to reality.
#
2012-06-01 06:19
With independence,Sc otland will be in a position to make a decision about EU membership.At the moment,the most important goal is to persuade people to vote yes for the right to self-determination,t hat was so foolishly given away by the Scottish Parliament in 1707.We can have all sorts of views on issues but if you have no power,you can change nothing,only talk about things.
It is not possible to make every decision in advance of independence.We do not know what government will be in power and as some people have pointed out,certain political parties have probably not given any consideration to policy for an independent Scotland.Instead they are concentrating on smear and fear campaigns in order to persuade people to vote no.That is probably counter productive since it provides the Yes Campaign with plenty of time to develop a strategy for dealing with the unionist attackes.It would have been more smart if they had kept their powder dry until the later stages.In my view it is not smart to let your opponents see your tactics in advance.
It is not possible to make every decision in advance of independence.We do not know what government will be in power and as some people have pointed out,certain political parties have probably not given any consideration to policy for an independent Scotland.Instead they are concentrating on smear and fear campaigns in order to persuade people to vote no.That is probably counter productive since it provides the Yes Campaign with plenty of time to develop a strategy for dealing with the unionist attackes.It would have been more smart if they had kept their powder dry until the later stages.In my view it is not smart to let your opponents see your tactics in advance.
#
2012-06-01 06:37
I noticed that change of tone from the new labour benches at FMQs yesterday as well.It seemed deliberate that no matter what the FM said they were going to giggle and laugh.
To us its pathetic but what on earth must visitors to our Parliament think when they see this behaviour.
A bit of empassioned debate even a wee heckle now and again is OK but this is just childish and obviously planned.
To us its pathetic but what on earth must visitors to our Parliament think when they see this behaviour.
A bit of empassioned debate even a wee heckle now and again is OK but this is just childish and obviously planned.
#
2012-06-01 08:32
I don't know if it is just my imagination but it seems as if our wonderful allegedly unbiased BBC has introduced another underhand trick. It would appear that some appartatchik in the Control Room with access to the Volume Slider is ramping up the volume every time the cackling desk slappers on the Labour benches start their juvenile barracking.
#
2012-06-01 09:48
gus1940; is it also my fetid imagination at work, but did I see in the BBC Scotland clip of the Independence vote, the Union Jack flying higher (superior) than the Saltire at Holyrood - question is, was it actually at the Scottish Parliament, or was it spliced in as another shock-the-jocks attempt by our beloved BBC?
So it's up the volume with the puerile desk bangers of Labour and show the Union flag in a higher position - what does it all add up to?
Of course, I could be getting a tad more senile!
So it's up the volume with the puerile desk bangers of Labour and show the Union flag in a higher position - what does it all add up to?
Of course, I could be getting a tad more senile!
#
2012-06-01 06:52
I checked the results of the 2011 Scottish election.The figures are:
SNP 69
Labour 37
Conservatives 15
Lib/Dems 5
Greens 2
Independent 1
Toral MSP'=129
If we remove the presiding officer (Tricia Marwick MSP) we have a total of 128 MSP's eligible to vote.Since the result was 69-52 (a total of 121,we can see that 7 MSP's did not vote in the debate.I wonder who they were? Since some on this site claims that Margo and the two Green MSP's voted in favour of independence,th is must mean that at least one SNP,MSP missed the vote.It might have been two if former SNP,MSP (now an independent nationalist) voted yes.Minus Tricia Marwick and Bill Walker the SNP now have 67 MSPs.
67 SNP + Bill Walker+ Margo+ 2 Green MSP's reaches a total of 71 in favour of indepence.Who are the two MSP's who missed the vote on the Yes side>
SNP 69
Labour 37
Conservatives 15
Lib/Dems 5
Greens 2
Independent 1
Toral MSP'=129
If we remove the presiding officer (Tricia Marwick MSP) we have a total of 128 MSP's eligible to vote.Since the result was 69-52 (a total of 121,we can see that 7 MSP's did not vote in the debate.I wonder who they were? Since some on this site claims that Margo and the two Green MSP's voted in favour of independence,th is must mean that at least one SNP,MSP missed the vote.It might have been two if former SNP,MSP (now an independent nationalist) voted yes.Minus Tricia Marwick and Bill Walker the SNP now have 67 MSPs.
67 SNP + Bill Walker+ Margo+ 2 Green MSP's reaches a total of 71 in favour of indepence.Who are the two MSP's who missed the vote on the Yes side>
#
2012-06-01 06:57
Johann Lamont rewriting the history books no less. Her take on how this union of parliaments was acheived, is nothing short of laughable. No blood spilt, no riots, no intrigue and no civil war just a friendly mutally beneficial alliance with a good, good bud. Its not as if the signatories had to hide in a cellar or anything did they? It must also have come about in her mind by the will of the populace, I mean if you're going to rewrite history at least make it full fat, right out there fantasy. The fact that the lords and business entities who brought about this union of parliaments are being defended by the Labour leader of north Britain is not ironic at all is it?
Then going on to look at historical and economic permutations over a three hundred plus year time span to conclude that we'd still have been in the same economic crapper in 2008 and just begging for a union with anyone to save our asses, well the woman's a mad genius ah tell ye.
Then going on to look at historical and economic permutations over a three hundred plus year time span to conclude that we'd still have been in the same economic crapper in 2008 and just begging for a union with anyone to save our asses, well the woman's a mad genius ah tell ye.
#
2012-06-01 07:29
Congratulations on the endorsment for Scottish Independence, a historical moment for Scotland.
I have just been reading "Brian Taylor's report on FM question time on the BBC site, so I must ask is their two FM Question times ?? because the one I have just read does not match the one I watched on Thursday. The big orange guy actually thinks Lamont and Davidson did well, and the numpty laughing from their supporters was justified.
Please help, I am now very confused is their two question times or not ?
I have just been reading "Brian Taylor's report on FM question time on the BBC site, so I must ask is their two FM Question times ?? because the one I have just read does not match the one I watched on Thursday. The big orange guy actually thinks Lamont and Davidson did well, and the numpty laughing from their supporters was justified.
Please help, I am now very confused is their two question times or not ?
#
2012-06-01 08:35
The Scotsman also has their own separate parallel universe when it comes to FMQ's.
#
2012-06-01 07:41
Maintenance of the Queen as the titular head of state makes sense on a whole bunch of levels, none more so for things like stamps, banknotes and coins and similar items. Scotland indpendent would no doubt join the Commonwealth with the Queen as its head.
This position is advocated by the SDA. On matters such as currency, central bank, interest rates and monetary policy the SNP have got it all wrond and each one of these is an Achilles heel that can come back to bite the SNP big time.
Fiscally and in a monetary sense the SNP have never been strong in this area and it was precisely this weakness that caused me to resign from the SNP in 2001.
Thank goodness there is another independence minded body out there who have much more pragmatic and well thought out financial policies.
This position is advocated by the SDA. On matters such as currency, central bank, interest rates and monetary policy the SNP have got it all wrond and each one of these is an Achilles heel that can come back to bite the SNP big time.
Fiscally and in a monetary sense the SNP have never been strong in this area and it was precisely this weakness that caused me to resign from the SNP in 2001.
Thank goodness there is another independence minded body out there who have much more pragmatic and well thought out financial policies.
#
2012-06-01 08:00
Quoting UpSpake:
And your other "independence minded body" has how many MSP's, MP's and counciliors ?
Maintenance of the Queen as the titular head of state makes sense on a whole bunch of levels, none more so for things like stamps, banknotes and coins and similar items. Scotland indpendent would no doubt join the Commonwealth with the Queen as its head.
This position is advocated by the SDA. On matters such as currency, central bank, interest rates and monetary policy the SNP have got it all wrond and each one of these is an Achilles heel that can come back to bite the SNP big time.
Fiscally and in a monetary sense the SNP have never been strong in this area and it was precisely this weakness that caused me to resign from the SNP in 2001.
Thank goodness there is another independence minded body out there who have much more pragmatic and well thought out financial policies.
And your other "independence minded body" has how many MSP's, MP's and counciliors ?
#
2012-06-01 07:44
The immature behaviour by labour backbench MSP's at yesterdays Firt Ministers Questions was embarrassing.Do they realise that their behaviour can be observed abroad?
#
2012-06-01 08:15
I wonder if Keir Hardie, John Smith or Jimmy Reid would have hooted and howled like a slevering buffoon when discussing independence or even FFA. Mr Reid was right, he didn't leave the Labour party they left him. I think its more pertinent to say that the Labour party have left the building period. Their display was nothing short of a disgrace and a slap in the face to every member of the electorate who voted to bring that parliament about.
#
2012-06-01 07:50
Isn't it remarkable how just a few short years ago, we were reliably informed by Unionists that this act is all that would be required for independence? That we 'did not need a referendum, because there was a referendum on independence every election. If the people wanted it they need only vote SNP.'
Who would have predicted their change of tune? Oh that's right, everybody.
Who would have predicted their change of tune? Oh that's right, everybody.
#
2012-06-01 12:07
They would argue that it needs to be a majority of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament for the SNP.
If that happens then they would argue that it needs to be a majority of ALL MPs in the Westminster Parliament. :)
I think it is a very good idea to have this officially recorded as a decision made by this parliament. It is one piece of the evidence, should any international arbitration be needed, that Scotland and its people want to exercise their right to self-determination as guaranteed by various international treaties and, dare I say it, international law.
The people voted a majority government that is pro-independence (in a system specifically designed to prevent majorities).
That elected parliament voted through a motion that Scotland should be independent.
The people are being offered a referendum on that specific issue (which didn't seem to be needed with various other dissolutions of unions around the world). When that vote is a yes for independence then the case is MORE than complete.
If that happens then they would argue that it needs to be a majority of ALL MPs in the Westminster Parliament. :)
I think it is a very good idea to have this officially recorded as a decision made by this parliament. It is one piece of the evidence, should any international arbitration be needed, that Scotland and its people want to exercise their right to self-determination as guaranteed by various international treaties and, dare I say it, international law.
The people voted a majority government that is pro-independence (in a system specifically designed to prevent majorities).
That elected parliament voted through a motion that Scotland should be independent.
The people are being offered a referendum on that specific issue (which didn't seem to be needed with various other dissolutions of unions around the world). When that vote is a yes for independence then the case is MORE than complete.
#
2012-06-01 15:36
It also makes it extremely difficult for Cameron and co to pull the plug on the referendum now. ;)
#
2012-06-01 07:54
Lamont has no shame, and speaks nonsense. Labour in Scotland have chosen a mindless battle axe for a leader.
The BBC and other media managed to un-spin this event.
The BBC and other media managed to un-spin this event.
#
2012-06-01 08:02
The democratically elected Scottish parliament has voted in favour of independence.
I like the sound of that...!
I like the sound of that...!
#
2012-06-01 08:50
Chicmac - A good point, but the change was inevitable given the massive constitutional developments at global level. Scotland will not be an independent state until it has universal international diplomatic recognition. In the light of experience, that will not be forthcoming if the impression is given that it is a decision by one political party. There have been far too many dangerous examples of such takeovers by unrepresentativ e factions. Only a decisive referendum result will satisfy the international authorities and national governments.
The same applies to Alex Salmond's heady rhetoric that Scotland WILL be an EU member, will retain the Monarchy and the Pound Sterling, etc. I am not saying he is wrong, just pointing out that it is not the SNP that will be making any such decisions. Its function is to bring about independence, not necessarily to run Scotland thereafter - and certainly not to dictate such fundamental policies that will affect the lives of Scots for generations or even centuries to come.
Another point that should be stressed is that the status of independent Scotland and the rest UK will not be decided in Brussels, but at the United Nations. All the available precedents (e.g. the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation) indicate the certainty that the UK will continue with its present international status, but minus Scotland, which will have to build up its own network of international relations.
There is nothing regrettable about this situation. It is rather a glorious opportunity to get things right from the very beginning. This is a field in which the SNP is not well qualified to judge, let alone decide, as witness the unjustifiably inflated weight it gives to EU membership, to the detriment of that of much more important international institutions at European and global level. The SDA has incomparably more international diplomatic know-how at its back, and for good reason is totally against membership of the chaotic and oppressive European Union in its present form.
I suggest referring to Scotland in the World, and Scotland in Europe, in the Independence section of the SDA website for a more comprehensive, balanced and sober assessment of Scotland's future international relations. A third policy statement, on independent Scotland's future relations with the other nations of the so-called British isles, is currently in preparation: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org
The same applies to Alex Salmond's heady rhetoric that Scotland WILL be an EU member, will retain the Monarchy and the Pound Sterling, etc. I am not saying he is wrong, just pointing out that it is not the SNP that will be making any such decisions. Its function is to bring about independence, not necessarily to run Scotland thereafter - and certainly not to dictate such fundamental policies that will affect the lives of Scots for generations or even centuries to come.
Another point that should be stressed is that the status of independent Scotland and the rest UK will not be decided in Brussels, but at the United Nations. All the available precedents (e.g. the Soviet Union and the Russian Federation) indicate the certainty that the UK will continue with its present international status, but minus Scotland, which will have to build up its own network of international relations.
There is nothing regrettable about this situation. It is rather a glorious opportunity to get things right from the very beginning. This is a field in which the SNP is not well qualified to judge, let alone decide, as witness the unjustifiably inflated weight it gives to EU membership, to the detriment of that of much more important international institutions at European and global level. The SDA has incomparably more international diplomatic know-how at its back, and for good reason is totally against membership of the chaotic and oppressive European Union in its present form.
I suggest referring to Scotland in the World, and Scotland in Europe, in the Independence section of the SDA website for a more comprehensive, balanced and sober assessment of Scotland's future international relations. A third policy statement, on independent Scotland's future relations with the other nations of the so-called British isles, is currently in preparation: www.scottishdemocraticalliance.org
#
2012-06-01 10:10
Once again we have this absurd description of a United Kingdom (UK) when it is left, with Scotland removed as, rest of United Kingdom (rUK).
The United Kingdom is of two crowns, Scotland and England, how can it be perpetuated?
The United Kingdom is of two crowns, Scotland and England, how can it be perpetuated?
#
2012-06-01 11:20
This has been one of my bug bears (is that a correct phrase?)since I entered the debating pit on independence.
The use of and retention of 'united kingdom' as an entity that would still remain after the dissolution of the act of union.
Even the use of independence tends to act like an ill fitting suit.
Don’t get me wrong I'm 100% in favour of ending the union. But to use the word 'independence' gives unionists a angle to twist arguments such as, 'why would you keep the monarchy, if you’re independent?' and 'Scotland would separate from the United Kingdom on independence'
The fact that in reality it’s the dissolution of the Act of Union 1707. the Act that created a political union, that is on the table and the one that’s heading fro the history shredder, is conveniently and succinctly ignored by unionists as it doesn’t conform to their argument, which is based on a United Kingdom some how remaining!
The reality is after the dissolution of the act of union, there will be NO United Kingdom, sump or otherwise.
Those in the pro independence camp really should start seeing it in that light and stop using the term rump United Kingdom as it falls into the trap of mitigating what the unionist state that the entity known as 'the united kingdom' will somehow carry on.
Lets call a spade a spade, after dissolution, what will be left is the Kingdom of Scotland, an entirely independent and sovereign state and the Kingdom of England and equally independent and sovereign state, which was the status of each before 1707.
Now unionists may argue, what about Northern Ireland and Wales, frankly and with respect to our celtic cousins, its not our problem. Northern Ireland’s status is that of a province or adjunct to the entity United Kingdom. It’s not a state or nation in its own right. Theoretically it will need to decide fairly smartish what exactly it wants to do and be, if Scotland decides to end the union with England. It has already been muted by Martin McGuinness that Northern Ireland hold a referendum in 2016, to decide just that. As for Wales, technically its an integral part of England, it’s a principality of England and not a Kingdom in its own right. So theoretically it could remain unchanged as any ending of the union will not actually affect Wales, as Wales was already an integral part of England. For the Welsh would have a larger hill to climb, if they wanted true independence for themselves.
The use of and retention of 'united kingdom' as an entity that would still remain after the dissolution of the act of union.
Even the use of independence tends to act like an ill fitting suit.
Don’t get me wrong I'm 100% in favour of ending the union. But to use the word 'independence' gives unionists a angle to twist arguments such as, 'why would you keep the monarchy, if you’re independent?' and 'Scotland would separate from the United Kingdom on independence'
The fact that in reality it’s the dissolution of the Act of Union 1707. the Act that created a political union, that is on the table and the one that’s heading fro the history shredder, is conveniently and succinctly ignored by unionists as it doesn’t conform to their argument, which is based on a United Kingdom some how remaining!
The reality is after the dissolution of the act of union, there will be NO United Kingdom, sump or otherwise.
Those in the pro independence camp really should start seeing it in that light and stop using the term rump United Kingdom as it falls into the trap of mitigating what the unionist state that the entity known as 'the united kingdom' will somehow carry on.
Lets call a spade a spade, after dissolution, what will be left is the Kingdom of Scotland, an entirely independent and sovereign state and the Kingdom of England and equally independent and sovereign state, which was the status of each before 1707.
Now unionists may argue, what about Northern Ireland and Wales, frankly and with respect to our celtic cousins, its not our problem. Northern Ireland’s status is that of a province or adjunct to the entity United Kingdom. It’s not a state or nation in its own right. Theoretically it will need to decide fairly smartish what exactly it wants to do and be, if Scotland decides to end the union with England. It has already been muted by Martin McGuinness that Northern Ireland hold a referendum in 2016, to decide just that. As for Wales, technically its an integral part of England, it’s a principality of England and not a Kingdom in its own right. So theoretically it could remain unchanged as any ending of the union will not actually affect Wales, as Wales was already an integral part of England. For the Welsh would have a larger hill to climb, if they wanted true independence for themselves.
#
2012-06-01 13:49
Note that I stated my opinion on the basis of "all the available precedents", and I adhere to that. The rest-UK could be renamed "The United Kingdom of England, Wales and Northern Ireland". It could end up as "The Kingdom of England", and the result would be the same. England would take over the status and powers of the present UK, together with its two seats in the United Nations (General Assembly and Security Council).
That has been the de facto international system for generations, last demonstrated when the Russian Federation took over the status of the dissolved Soviet Union, leaving the smaller successor states to construct their own international relations networks.
And please note that, while the European Union like all other autonomous organisations can, theoretically, make up its own rules on membership, in practice it cannot fly in the face of a status recognised by the United Nations.
That has been the de facto international system for generations, last demonstrated when the Russian Federation took over the status of the dissolved Soviet Union, leaving the smaller successor states to construct their own international relations networks.
And please note that, while the European Union like all other autonomous organisations can, theoretically, make up its own rules on membership, in practice it cannot fly in the face of a status recognised by the United Nations.
#
2012-06-01 15:29
James. I am not advocating UDI without a specific plebiscite and preferably not UDI at all.
I merely pointed to the inconsistent and disingenuous verbiage used by the U-pack in the past.
Having said that I would take issue with you on a couple of points.
First there is more than 1 pro-independence party with elected MSPs.
Second, the SNP have come down on the 'support for the EU' side, however, one does rather have to choose doesn't one? I mean they could not possibly get away with a "We're no sayin'" clause under EU in their manifesto could they?
Similarly for the Monarchy and the currency.
This does not by any means indicate ingrained ideologue on the part of the SNP, far from it, all three positions of the above have undergone very significant shifts in party policy, the most recent being their position on the Euro, followed by EU membership and the monarchy.
The SNP manifesto, at best, represents only a snapshot of the party position at this point in time.
As the majority party, it also, de facto represents the position of any transitional government should independence be forthcoming in 2016. But only for that transitional period.
It is not a diktat for all time at all. I find it well understood that an independent Scotland will not be a one party state. Over time parties of all hue will come to power, just as in every other Western Democracy.
Party leaders will change and party policy will continue to change also.
Part of Alex Salmond's job as leader is to sound confident and supportive of any current manifesto position, that is just part and parcel of a leader's job. You know that.
On the specific question of EU membership, the SNP could hardly offer less public support than they do, given their manifesto position. That it is continually in the media eye is entirely down to the machinations of the U-pack and their loyal meeja as they incessantly suggest that upon independence Scotland would have to re-apply to join the EU.
In every instance of this the SNP confines its statements to an opinion on the legal position regarding Scotland's status.
There is no direct precedent but both Algeria and Greenland, both regions of member states, had to have special dispensation agreed in order for them to leave the EC/EU, even though neither is in Europe geographically.
There was not even a mechanism whereby a member state could leave the EU until the Lisbon Treaty, at which point I believe the position came into play that if a member state wants to leave they can do so unilaterally one year after giving notice, whether a negotiated exit agreement exists or not.
If Scotland becomes an independent state then both it and the RUK would need to renegotiate terms with the EU but that is not the same as leaving. However, I presume on failure of such renegotiations either side could invoke the member state exit procedure. But that is a different procedure alltogether.
I merely pointed to the inconsistent and disingenuous verbiage used by the U-pack in the past.
Having said that I would take issue with you on a couple of points.
First there is more than 1 pro-independence party with elected MSPs.
Second, the SNP have come down on the 'support for the EU' side, however, one does rather have to choose doesn't one? I mean they could not possibly get away with a "We're no sayin'" clause under EU in their manifesto could they?
Similarly for the Monarchy and the currency.
This does not by any means indicate ingrained ideologue on the part of the SNP, far from it, all three positions of the above have undergone very significant shifts in party policy, the most recent being their position on the Euro, followed by EU membership and the monarchy.
The SNP manifesto, at best, represents only a snapshot of the party position at this point in time.
As the majority party, it also, de facto represents the position of any transitional government should independence be forthcoming in 2016. But only for that transitional period.
It is not a diktat for all time at all. I find it well understood that an independent Scotland will not be a one party state. Over time parties of all hue will come to power, just as in every other Western Democracy.
Party leaders will change and party policy will continue to change also.
Part of Alex Salmond's job as leader is to sound confident and supportive of any current manifesto position, that is just part and parcel of a leader's job. You know that.
On the specific question of EU membership, the SNP could hardly offer less public support than they do, given their manifesto position. That it is continually in the media eye is entirely down to the machinations of the U-pack and their loyal meeja as they incessantly suggest that upon independence Scotland would have to re-apply to join the EU.
In every instance of this the SNP confines its statements to an opinion on the legal position regarding Scotland's status.
There is no direct precedent but both Algeria and Greenland, both regions of member states, had to have special dispensation agreed in order for them to leave the EC/EU, even though neither is in Europe geographically.
There was not even a mechanism whereby a member state could leave the EU until the Lisbon Treaty, at which point I believe the position came into play that if a member state wants to leave they can do so unilaterally one year after giving notice, whether a negotiated exit agreement exists or not.
If Scotland becomes an independent state then both it and the RUK would need to renegotiate terms with the EU but that is not the same as leaving. However, I presume on failure of such renegotiations either side could invoke the member state exit procedure. But that is a different procedure alltogether.
#
2012-06-01 22:58
This eternal harping on the EU, as if it held a special place among the hundreds of international organisations, is a fair indication of the level of ignorance of the international political scene that is prevalent in Scotland. Nowadays there are more international organisations than sovereign states, and the EU comes far down the list of priorities for Scotland.
Is the independence discussion going to cover every single one of the major organisations of which the UK is a member in a like manner - e.g. Scotland will be booted out of the OSCE, the OECD, the Council of Europe, the UNECE and dozens of others if it dares to vote for independence?
After working for decades in diplomacy and international affaIrs I have seen this situation arise on a number of occasions. Take my word for it - the rest of the UK without Scotland - under whatever title is adopted for it - will assume the status and rights of the UK, and will be confirmed in it by the international community. In such cases of considerable population disparity that is how it has always happened, and there is no reason to think that it will be any different this time.
Is the independence discussion going to cover every single one of the major organisations of which the UK is a member in a like manner - e.g. Scotland will be booted out of the OSCE, the OECD, the Council of Europe, the UNECE and dozens of others if it dares to vote for independence?
After working for decades in diplomacy and international affaIrs I have seen this situation arise on a number of occasions. Take my word for it - the rest of the UK without Scotland - under whatever title is adopted for it - will assume the status and rights of the UK, and will be confirmed in it by the international community. In such cases of considerable population disparity that is how it has always happened, and there is no reason to think that it will be any different this time.
#
2012-06-01 09:50
The vote details are here;
scottish.parliament.uk/.../...
Starting bottom right page 9708.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
SNP, Greens and independent (Margo) agreed.
Labour disagreed with the motion
Libdems disagreed with the motion
Tories disagreed with the motion.
Now, of course we have seen the measure of ALL the unionist arguments against Scotland running its own affairs. A very cunning move by the SNP.
scottish.parliament.uk/.../...
Starting bottom right page 9708.
Motion agreed to,
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
SNP, Greens and independent (Margo) agreed.
Labour disagreed with the motion
Libdems disagreed with the motion
Tories disagreed with the motion.
Now, of course we have seen the measure of ALL the unionist arguments against Scotland running its own affairs. A very cunning move by the SNP.
#
2012-06-01 10:19
What sensible Scot with any logic applied would argue with the motion:-
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
As Robert Louis writes above; "...Now, of course we have seen the measure of ALL the unionist arguments against Scotland running its own affairs." It really is quite, quite pathetic!
That the Parliament agrees that Scotland should be an independent country; sees it as the responsibility of this generation to hand over a better country to the next generation than the one inherited, and believes that it is vital for the people of Scotland to take full responsibility for the decisions about the future of Scotland.
As Robert Louis writes above; "...Now, of course we have seen the measure of ALL the unionist arguments against Scotland running its own affairs." It really is quite, quite pathetic!
#
2012-06-01 10:34
The SNP should introduce a motion in favour of devo-max (as an option to be supported) and see the unionist parties reaction.
#
2012-06-01 15:17
The SNP does not support Devo Max. Such a motion would be hypocritical and contrary to the one being discussed here. The Parliament should not be a place for party political point scoring, regardless of what Labour seem to think.
#
2012-06-01 10:26
Vote result: People who want to stand on their own feet and be responsible for governing their own country for the benefit of all the people of Scotland = 69. People who are frightened or incapable of standing on their own feet and want someone else to govern their country regardless if it benefits the people of Scotland = 52. That's the bottom line for me. Roll on 2014.
#
2012-06-01 10:27
Suomi 2012-05-31 20:52
“This is a wonderful result.The Scottish Parliament has been reconvened (after it was discontinued in 1707), and at last it has a majority of members in favour of Scotland becoming an independent(nor mal) nation.The next step must be independence and Scotland joining the rest of the world.”
Getting ahead of the game Suomi?
Secession is not a decision for parliament it is for a settled majority of the Scots to take.
“This is a wonderful result.The Scottish Parliament has been reconvened (after it was discontinued in 1707), and at last it has a majority of members in favour of Scotland becoming an independent(nor mal) nation.The next step must be independence and Scotland joining the rest of the world.”
Getting ahead of the game Suomi?
Secession is not a decision for parliament it is for a settled majority of the Scots to take.
#
2012-06-01 11:49
Really? It was the Scots Parliament that agreed the Union in the first place. Legally there's nothing to stop it ending the Union on a simple majority vote, as Michael Forsyth recently observed. It could be that would backfire politically, which is probably why the Government is going to hold the referendum.
By the way, I used to take exception to all this stuff about 'secession'. But I'm beginning to warm to the term. It actually has a positive vibe: to secede from the Union. Yes please.
By the way, I used to take exception to all this stuff about 'secession'. But I'm beginning to warm to the term. It actually has a positive vibe: to secede from the Union. Yes please.
#
2012-06-01 10:48
Theres a name given to those who,in 1707,voted for London rule.How will the 52 be described by future generations of Scots ?
#
2012-06-01 11:31
The Labour Party keep questioning the SNP government over their policy regarding the currency in an independent Scotland. I would very much like to know what the Labour Party's plans are regarding our currency post independence.
Labour Party keeps criticizing the SNP government's policy regarding the currency, it is very easy to attack someone elses policy, the difficult and honest task is to provide a good and workable alternative.
Why are the Labour Party not being questioned over their alternative policy for an independent Scotland?
I watched First Minister's question time yesterday, Ms Lamont said she always tells her children just wishing for something to happen is not grown up, so she can't just tell us she hopes we will vote "No", can she? However, she and her party seem to be covering their ears and shouting, "We can't hear you".
If she and other members of her Party keep criticizing any policy SNP puts forward for the future of an independent Scotland then, surely they need to put forward an alternative policy of their own or risk becoming irrelevant.
Labour Party keeps criticizing the SNP government's policy regarding the currency, it is very easy to attack someone elses policy, the difficult and honest task is to provide a good and workable alternative.
Why are the Labour Party not being questioned over their alternative policy for an independent Scotland?
I watched First Minister's question time yesterday, Ms Lamont said she always tells her children just wishing for something to happen is not grown up, so she can't just tell us she hopes we will vote "No", can she? However, she and her party seem to be covering their ears and shouting, "We can't hear you".
If she and other members of her Party keep criticizing any policy SNP puts forward for the future of an independent Scotland then, surely they need to put forward an alternative policy of their own or risk becoming irrelevant.
#
2012-06-01 12:24
I have been thinking for some time that all this "Tell us what ..." is balloney. For a start who knows what the first election results after Independence will throw up?
Every time the SNP are asked to give specifics, they should respond by saying, "So the assumption is that the SNP will form the next government? It will be FOR THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE, to vote in a government with a manifesto that has most support. The decisions of that SCOTTISH government will be made in Scotland, not in London. So will Labour form a new SCOTTISH party, and prepare a manifesto for Scotland? Or will you immediately try to turn an Independent Scotland into a fief of Westminster?"
Every time the SNP are asked to give specifics, they should respond by saying, "So the assumption is that the SNP will form the next government? It will be FOR THE SCOTTISH PEOPLE, to vote in a government with a manifesto that has most support. The decisions of that SCOTTISH government will be made in Scotland, not in London. So will Labour form a new SCOTTISH party, and prepare a manifesto for Scotland? Or will you immediately try to turn an Independent Scotland into a fief of Westminster?"
#
2012-06-01 14:36
Spot on, Aplinal. Attempting to answer these questions within the frame of reference given by Labour is simply pandering to their games.
#
2012-06-03 03:12
EXILE:
Unfortunately for your point of view, it is a simple political fact that these questions will be raised by the Unionists as part of their tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The mass of voters will be affected by the answers, and certainly if there are no answers. I accept your logic, but think that we are in a minority of those who will be asked to vote in the referendum.So there either has to be a general policy of not answering hypothetical questions, or leaving all these questions to the first Scottish independent government.I am far from certain that the latter answer will be acceptable to uncertain voters, who are being fed with the FUD.
Unfortunately for your point of view, it is a simple political fact that these questions will be raised by the Unionists as part of their tactic of Fear, Uncertainty and Doubt. The mass of voters will be affected by the answers, and certainly if there are no answers. I accept your logic, but think that we are in a minority of those who will be asked to vote in the referendum.So there either has to be a general policy of not answering hypothetical questions, or leaving all these questions to the first Scottish independent government.I am far from certain that the latter answer will be acceptable to uncertain voters, who are being fed with the FUD.
#
2012-06-01 11:33
'Lamont caused a stir when she appeared to claim that Scots had been in favour of the original act of Union in 1707'
So effectively Lamont is lining herself up with the Scottish Lords and Nobilty who were corrupt and who pushed through act in 1707 that ended Scotland's independence. She seems to ignore the fact that the Country party in the pre 1707 Scottish Parliamnet, that included leading anti-unionists, such as the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke against the union. That those members were told not to attend the crucial vote and the Court and Squadrone Volante led by the Marquess of Montrose and the Duke of Roxburghe pushed the vote through. The common man in the shap of the citizens of Edinburgh , Glasgow and other parts of Scotland rioted against the union. Most if not all the nobilty fled to england to take up seats in the London parliament and to collect their gold and land. Its the nobilty that Lamont allign's herself with, which is disgusting
So effectively Lamont is lining herself up with the Scottish Lords and Nobilty who were corrupt and who pushed through act in 1707 that ended Scotland's independence. She seems to ignore the fact that the Country party in the pre 1707 Scottish Parliamnet, that included leading anti-unionists, such as the Duke of Hamilton, Lord Belhaven and Andrew Fletcher of Saltoun, who spoke against the union. That those members were told not to attend the crucial vote and the Court and Squadrone Volante led by the Marquess of Montrose and the Duke of Roxburghe pushed the vote through. The common man in the shap of the citizens of Edinburgh , Glasgow and other parts of Scotland rioted against the union. Most if not all the nobilty fled to england to take up seats in the London parliament and to collect their gold and land. Its the nobilty that Lamont allign's herself with, which is disgusting
#
2012-06-01 13:40
Yep, posted on that same point above. The irony of the Scottish Labour leader coming out in historic support of lords and vested business interests.
Priceless
Priceless
#
2012-06-01 11:50
Please remember this is not Lamont talking personally this instructions from"London Calling" Do not give any credence to this place-person and that she has a personal or original thought or principle, this diatribe is dictated to her by her masters in London. Pathetic I know but BBC Scotland are of the same ilk.
#
2012-06-01 12:29
SPOT ON balgayboy! The UK Establishment isn't going to leave the Union in the hands of Lamont.
I doubt if she's in the loop----the loop that really is currently the source of power in UK.
Bring her in on a "need to know basis only."
I doubt if she's in the loop----the loop that really is currently the source of power in UK.
Bring her in on a "need to know basis only."
#
2012-06-01 12:13
No Excel,I'm not ahead of the game.I'm well aware that the decision lies with the Scottish people in a referendum.I was only commenting on how much pleasure I got from seeing a Scottish parliament where there was a majority for independence (unlike 1707).I am also pleased that this Scots parliament are actually prepared to listen to the people and give them an opportunity to express their will (unlike 1707).
#
2012-06-01 12:17
o/t I was very intrested to see a visitor to our parliament yesterday, Mary Robinson,who has had a very intresting background in relation to our present situation,and some very intresting friends,maybe coincidence or not,if not well done to our 52 and the way they have shown how much they are puppets to the westminster machine.
#
2012-06-01 12:19
newsnetscotland YouTube link(from top of page)on this momentous day.
www.youtube.com/.../
I'm putting it on my YouTube channel and sending newsnetscotland YouTube link to various e-mail contacts/friends/newspaper comments----anywhere---well just about anywhere!
Wouldn't go down well at Dover Hoose Whitehall.
www.youtube.com/.../
I'm putting it on my YouTube channel and sending newsnetscotland YouTube link to various e-mail contacts/friends/newspaper comments----anywhere---well just about anywhere!
Wouldn't go down well at Dover Hoose Whitehall.
#
2012-06-01 12:47
"Parliament has spoken and backed independence, and soon it will be the turn of the people of Scotland. The autumn 2014 referendum is the biggest opportunity for Scotland in 300 years and the campaign has now begun in earnest."
I think we should go back 693 years, not 300. There seems to a pattern emerging in the constitutional position of the Scottish people.
The Declaration of Arbroath is a declaration of Scottish independence, made in 1320. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, intended to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and defending Scotland's right to use military action when unjustly attacked. Generally believed to have been written in the Arbroath Abbey by Bernard of Kilwinning, then Chancellor of Scotland and Abbot of Arbroath, and sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots, Robert I, and a letter from four Scottish bishops which all presumably made similar points.The people of Scotland did not have much say in that constitution.
Then we come to 1707 when the “parcel o’ rogues” sold our sovereignty. Descendents of the barons do you think? Representing the settled will of the Scottish people?
One thing is certain the 2012 batch of politicians, who claim to represent a majority of Scots, will need to get their act together and realise that 69 YES votes will not swing it.
I think we should go back 693 years, not 300. There seems to a pattern emerging in the constitutional position of the Scottish people.
The Declaration of Arbroath is a declaration of Scottish independence, made in 1320. It is in the form of a letter submitted to Pope John XXII, dated 6 April 1320, intended to confirm Scotland's status as an independent, sovereign state and defending Scotland's right to use military action when unjustly attacked. Generally believed to have been written in the Arbroath Abbey by Bernard of Kilwinning, then Chancellor of Scotland and Abbot of Arbroath, and sealed by fifty-one magnates and nobles, the letter is the sole survivor of three created at the time. The others were a letter from the King of Scots, Robert I, and a letter from four Scottish bishops which all presumably made similar points.The people of Scotland did not have much say in that constitution.
Then we come to 1707 when the “parcel o’ rogues” sold our sovereignty. Descendents of the barons do you think? Representing the settled will of the Scottish people?
One thing is certain the 2012 batch of politicians, who claim to represent a majority of Scots, will need to get their act together and realise that 69 YES votes will not swing it.
#
2012-06-01 13:07
Yup, there is nothing certain in this world, but instead of looking back into history, let us look forward to 2014 and the real possibility that the 69 are able to convince the people of Scotland that their future is more secure and prosperous than the status quo with the added bonus that the people of Scotland will be able to decide their own choice of government to decide their desires and future. Surely that will "swing it" Roll on 2014
#
2012-06-03 03:24
Exel:
You omit what was the most immediately important part of the Declaration = and its unique statement for the first time in the then civilised World - that of the sovereignty of the people as distinct from the Sovereign. The Declaration said that, if Robert did not act for the people "he would be put away" (not beheaded as the English had to do on Charles Ist). Nothing like that had been said anywhere and that not repeated till the first Haakon in 1905 insisted on a vote of his people before he would accept the newly independent Throne of Norway when it was offered to him by the politicians.
The Declaration first affirmed the "sovereignty of the people". Westminster has always insisted on the sovereignty of Parliament - very much different.
You omit what was the most immediately important part of the Declaration = and its unique statement for the first time in the then civilised World - that of the sovereignty of the people as distinct from the Sovereign. The Declaration said that, if Robert did not act for the people "he would be put away" (not beheaded as the English had to do on Charles Ist). Nothing like that had been said anywhere and that not repeated till the first Haakon in 1905 insisted on a vote of his people before he would accept the newly independent Throne of Norway when it was offered to him by the politicians.
The Declaration first affirmed the "sovereignty of the people". Westminster has always insisted on the sovereignty of Parliament - very much different.
#
2012-06-03 08:58
You're absolutely correct exel 69 votes does not an independent nation make. One thing in the positive column though, those 69 votes ensure that the electorate will get their say in a referendum. The 52 nay sayers would not have given the electorate any say whatsoever.
#
2012-06-01 14:19
Today is Independence Day in Samoa 50years for a country with a population of under 200,000 and no mention of them wishing to rejoin the mother country
Obviously not too wee ect to make a go of it
Obviously not too wee ect to make a go of it
#
2012-06-01 14:40
Yep. After 50 years they still want Samoa ('some more' in Essex-speak) of the same.
#
2012-06-01 17:27
Obviously the proud an independent Samoans don't have a Lamont, Davidson or Rennie in their parliament.
#
2012-06-01 15:51
X_Sticks
Not at all that word separation can only be used in conjunction with Scotland
We are so different from all other nations that we have a special word, only for our own use, at least that is the inference I have drawn
Not at all that word separation can only be used in conjunction with Scotland
We are so different from all other nations that we have a special word, only for our own use, at least that is the inference I have drawn
#
2012-06-01 16:44
Ah, yes, Mato21. I forgot we're not a "real" country like Samoa.
We're just a subserviant region of westminster.
We're just a subserviant region of westminster.
#
2012-06-01 18:58
Labour's rewriting of history is appalling, the Scottish people were never asked if they wanted to join this union. I might be ignorent but I can't think of any 2 countries in the past 100 years that have joined successfully to make one state.
#
2012-06-01 20:23
I have to shake my head at some of the comments like those by Johann Lamont. I believe that with time, unionists will come across as absurd as the anti-suffrage movement of 100 years ago, led by Mary Humphrey Ward, who argued: "the emancipating process has now reached the limits fixed by the physical constitution of women". (Male anti-suffragers were far more strident).
#
2012-06-01 22:26
"Had Scotland been a separate country right now, I believe we would be seriously looking at creating the type of union we currently enjoy."
UK debt official government figures as £2.5 trillion (173% of GDP). In fact the national debt more accurately estimated by including pension liabilities, and a reasonable estimate of the likely liabilities to be incurred by the government in respect of the banking sector is actually £5.5 trillion (392% of GDP) (1 trillion = 1000 billion), over six times the size of the declared national debt. iea.org.uk/.../....
In the calender year 2011 the UK recorded government net borrowing or a deficit of £124.6 billion, which was equivalent to 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
In the calendar year 2010 the UK recorded general government net borrowing or a deficit of £148.9 billion, which was equivalent to 10.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
In the calendar year 2009 the UK recorded general government net borrowing or a deficit of £157 billion, which was equivalent to 11.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
During 2010-2011 Scotland’s deficit including a per capita share of North Sea revenue has a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included. www.scotland.gov.uk/.../9525.
During 2009-10 Scotland’s deficit including a per capita share of North Sea revenue has a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included. www.scotland.gov.uk/.../9.
The simple truth is they have created the huge crippling debts while running at a huge deficit. Scotland has had a minimal deficit during this period. In the last 3 calender years alone the UK has added £430.5 billion to the national debt almost half a trillion just through deficit. Scotland has added just over an estimated £30 billion. That means if Scotland had been independent for the last 3 years we would be £400 billion better off. They are bleeding us dry.
The statement “The UK is the seventh wealthiest economy in the world” is untrue. Hassan is taking the figure the UK has the seventh largest economy and misrepresenting it. A large economy doesn’t mean a good economy the UK has been in defecit for the last 9 years leading to a crippling debt dependent on Scotland’s resources. If you look at the richest countries in the world the UK is 13th behind Ireland and Iceland.
She is claiming an affluent well off country with next to no deficit would be seeking to take on half a trillion of debt in the last 3 years alone in an economic union?
UK debt official government figures as £2.5 trillion (173% of GDP). In fact the national debt more accurately estimated by including pension liabilities, and a reasonable estimate of the likely liabilities to be incurred by the government in respect of the banking sector is actually £5.5 trillion (392% of GDP) (1 trillion = 1000 billion), over six times the size of the declared national debt. iea.org.uk/.../....
In the calender year 2011 the UK recorded government net borrowing or a deficit of £124.6 billion, which was equivalent to 8.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
In the calendar year 2010 the UK recorded general government net borrowing or a deficit of £148.9 billion, which was equivalent to 10.2 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
In the calendar year 2009 the UK recorded general government net borrowing or a deficit of £157 billion, which was equivalent to 11.3 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP). ons.gov.uk/.../....
During 2010-2011 Scotland’s deficit including a per capita share of North Sea revenue has a deficit of £10.7 billion (7.4 per cent of GDP) when a geographical share of North Sea revenue is included. www.scotland.gov.uk/.../9525.
During 2009-10 Scotland’s deficit including a per capita share of North Sea revenue has a deficit of £14.0 billion (10.6 per cent of GDP) when an illustrative geographical share of North Sea revenue is included. www.scotland.gov.uk/.../9.
The simple truth is they have created the huge crippling debts while running at a huge deficit. Scotland has had a minimal deficit during this period. In the last 3 calender years alone the UK has added £430.5 billion to the national debt almost half a trillion just through deficit. Scotland has added just over an estimated £30 billion. That means if Scotland had been independent for the last 3 years we would be £400 billion better off. They are bleeding us dry.
The statement “The UK is the seventh wealthiest economy in the world” is untrue. Hassan is taking the figure the UK has the seventh largest economy and misrepresenting it. A large economy doesn’t mean a good economy the UK has been in defecit for the last 9 years leading to a crippling debt dependent on Scotland’s resources. If you look at the richest countries in the world the UK is 13th behind Ireland and Iceland.
She is claiming an affluent well off country with next to no deficit would be seeking to take on half a trillion of debt in the last 3 years alone in an economic union?
#
2012-06-02 00:45
Is it just me, or does anyone else think that during Thursdays independence debate in parliament, when the SNP were so admirably laying out their vision for the future of our nation, that there must have been many MSP's from other parties silently sitting there thinking "We're on the wrong side here, we're on the wrong side here..."?
I really cant believe that party loyalty could over-run personal beliefs.. and equally cant believe that even a majority (never mind all) of the so-called "unionist" parties MSP's really favour the Union? I think that in general, they have dug themselves into a huge hole here. Obviously there have been the notable honourable exceptions already.. who were brave enough to stand up for their beliefs and declare allegiance to the independence cause. I expect there will be many more to follow - first a trickle, then a flood. SURELY, common sense will have to prevail, in the end?
I really cant believe that party loyalty could over-run personal beliefs.. and equally cant believe that even a majority (never mind all) of the so-called "unionist" parties MSP's really favour the Union? I think that in general, they have dug themselves into a huge hole here. Obviously there have been the notable honourable exceptions already.. who were brave enough to stand up for their beliefs and declare allegiance to the independence cause. I expect there will be many more to follow - first a trickle, then a flood. SURELY, common sense will have to prevail, in the end?
#
2012-06-02 01:01
I have thought exactly that myself.
Can you imagine the other scenario where you have all these people committed to 'SEPARATION' but are just so afraid to voice their opinion ...
Can you imagine the other scenario where you have all these people committed to 'SEPARATION' but are just so afraid to voice their opinion ...
#
2012-06-02 06:20
Agent P it's almost a dead certainty that a number of those MSPs have more than a casual sympathy for independence, but they are party minded first and foremost. Some may come round during the next two years and openly declare, the majority will not. It's more likely that the majority have more of an affinity for FFA and sadly a minority (their leadership) are fully paid up members of the Westminster London Labour club.
#
2012-06-02 10:45
Excellent news.
"Mr Salmond added that the Scottish Parliament would remain much as it was now, but insisted that the High Court in Edinburgh would take over as Scotland’s Supreme Court from the current London based court."
Excellent.
75% support the idea of independence, if the MSP votes figure is 100% accurate, that is a fantastic indicator of represented intention that must be broadcast.
"Mr Salmond added that the Scottish Parliament would remain much as it was now, but insisted that the High Court in Edinburgh would take over as Scotland’s Supreme Court from the current London based court."
Excellent.
75% support the idea of independence, if the MSP votes figure is 100% accurate, that is a fantastic indicator of represented intention that must be broadcast.
#
2012-06-02 13:22
The point made by Mark above could not be more timely. Why are we not asking ALL the unionists what their post independence policies will be? Why is it that only the SNP are being asked to spell out policies four years ahead of an independent Scotland?
I would suggest that anyone who gets to attend the next BBC discussion programme on independence, asks the following question of ALL the participants:
“Given that Scotland is as likely as not to vote Yes in the 2014 referendum, what will be your party’s policy on which currency to adopt, should your party win the 2016 Scottish General election”?
I would suggest that anyone who gets to attend the next BBC discussion programme on independence, asks the following question of ALL the participants:
“Given that Scotland is as likely as not to vote Yes in the 2014 referendum, what will be your party’s policy on which currency to adopt, should your party win the 2016 Scottish General election”?
#
2012-06-02 19:17
Alex Salmond was on the button when during FMQ,s he reprimanded hapless Lomont by reminding her she had no right to speak on behalf of the Scottish people.
Lamont is getting way above her station.
Personally I think she is a bigger asset to the SNP than Gray.
Lamont is getting way above her station.
Personally I think she is a bigger asset to the SNP than Gray.
#
2012-06-02 23:13
I think I heard Ms Lamont saying to the First Minister that she always told her kids that
'It's not grown up just to Cross your fingers and hope for the best'
Does she not realise that that is exactly what she and the rest of the unionists are doing by not having a prepared plan for Scotland in the event of Independence.
'It's not grown up just to Cross your fingers and hope for the best'
Does she not realise that that is exactly what she and the rest of the unionists are doing by not having a prepared plan for Scotland in the event of Independence.
#
2012-06-03 19:19
This unionist lot keep going on about seperation sorry did I miss something as I thoaught we were voting for INDEPENDANCE, im pretty sure these are two different things unless as it has always been the case that they just dont listen, jafurn has hit the nail on the head quote Does she not realise that that is exactly what she and the rest of the unionists are doing by not having a prepared plan for Scotland in the event of Independence instead of apposing everything that makes Scotland better and fairer they should be putting thier heads together and coming up with what Scotland needs and wants, and that is to be fairer, and better, and we want to have the referendum for the people of Scotland to decide what is best for Scotland the people have spoken and now so has Parliment when are they going to take head and start listening, they are here to serve us not us serve them they should remember this, also I think we should make it against the Law of the electorate that when you make a promise that you keep that promise
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- STV independence debate a comf...
Anybody have thoughts on Bitcoin for Pla... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
Does anyone have access to the Sunday Ti... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
Any guesses as to what will feature in t... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
One small comment regarding Max Crema -... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
This is just a turn of the screw. Unioni... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
EU citizens living in the UK have the ri... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
I find it shocking and disturbing that t... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
The Farage farago was a nothing incident... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
Another leader of the anti Falange prote... - Farage and the Farrago of lies
An important point continually missed in... - STV independence debate a comf...
mountain man, nautilus The only weakness... - Nine candidates to contest Abe...
At least Mark McDonald has given up his ... - Europe's first electricity gri...
Its low key things like this that tend t... - STV independence debate a comf...
I would think that they already have a P... - STV independence debate a comf...
Plan B would be to adopt another strong ... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
Ah so you won't know that Ron Northcott ... - Nigel Farage has 'lost the plo...
Well said Gogsy. Like most people on thi... - STV independence debate a comf...
Looks like he's angling for a Westminst... - STV independence debate a comf...
I liked the way Nic invited Moore onto t... - STV independence debate a comf...
Alex Salmond had a piece in the Mail on ...