Scotland, oh Scotland.....

-

It was rather impossible to miss the the explosive debate that began just last week when David Cameron threw down the gauntlet to Alex Salmond and demanded a referendum on the Scots leaving the United Kingdom. I'd like to offer my thoughts.

It is well-known, and I noted myself in my blog post on St. George's Day 2008, that the debate about Scottish secession has been looming for quite some time. What nobody really expected was the extent of the Scottish National Party's (SNP) victory in the Scottish Parliamentary elections in May 2011. Since this occurred, it is now politically possible for the SNP to table a referendum to the Scottish people.

Cameron started the official "war" over secession last week when he demanded that a referendum be held sooner rather than later. Rather surprisingly, this prompted Alex Salmond to reveal hitherto unknown information about when exactly he was planning his referendum - late 2014 to coincide with Scotland's greatest military victory (were there many others?) over England 700 years ago.

Now that we know the SNP's plans, the Government demanded that it be sooner, and has now given a list of conditions that the SNP must meet for the referendum to be legal under UK (and inherently Scottish) law.

My aim here is to simply draw a clear picture. Certain elements of the story are wholly misrepresented and/or plainly misunderstood by a large number of people.

First of all, this is not actually an "independence" vote at all. The word "independence" has connotations that usually imply that one party/country has been dominated by another, usually through conquering or colonisation. This is simply not the case. This is about Scotland choosing to leave the United Kingdom; a union that it agreed to in the first place. It is not for me to judge the circumstances under which Scotland joined the Union, but it is perfectly free to choose to leave should it so wish. The language of the debate really needs to be accurate, for the Scots are deciding whether to leave a union that it joined as a sovereign nation, and the people are simply now voting for the return of full sovereignty to Edinburgh as supposed to London. The consequence of course is that the English will regain full sovereignty from the Scots too, a point not often mentioned.

Secondly, I have read a wide range of comments and articles from those who feel that England should have a say in this. The logic goes that as the UK will be affected, everyone in the UK should decide if Scotland leaves. My view is that this is incorrect. If everyone was to decide if Scotland should leave, how would we ever know the true wishes of the Scottish people? It doesn't seem democratic to me to not allow the Scots to choose to restore sovereignty by themselves. It is on the other hand perfectly reasonable that if the Scots want to leave, they have the right to make the choice. True, there are consequences for all of us in England, Wales and Northern Ireland, but should the tables be turned and one of us wanted to cede from the UK, we wouldn't want the Scots to decide for us either.

Those supporting the idea of the entire UK having a say is making an argument akin to all EU members having a vote on whether the UK should leave the European Union. The UK is still in many ways (but dwindling I acknowledge) a sovereign nation, but even if we were a part of a United States of Europe we would not allow 26 other countries to prevent us from doing what we wanted to do. We can expect no less from the Scottish people. The problem is though in our relationship with the EU is that we have agreed to the fixed procedure for leaving, as written in the Lisbon Treaty, and we would need to determine our position with regards to the treaty.

Thirdly, I concur with the clear legal view that under the Scotland Act of 1998, Alex Salmond has no legal mandate to conduct the referendum - it is for Westminster to determine constitutional issues, and for Westminster to give Alex Salmond the necessary legal powers for the referendum vote to be considered legal. It really is stupid that the SNP are denying that Westminster has this right when it is plainly written in law - and worse for them to use Westminster's conditions as proof to their followers that "the English want to interfere." There is a major alarm bell going off in my head here. The law is the law, Mr Salmond - the UK will respect the rule of law, and you shall challenge it at your peril!

Fourthly, I've noted the interesting attitude reflected in the opinion polls - that more Englishmen and women are keen for the Scots to leave the UK than the Scots themselves. This reflects years of Alex Salmond antagonising the English, and thus attempting to link Scottish secession with English desires. He is playing with fire and might just get his wish. But he shall be to blame for the consequences, not the rest of us.

Finally, I am not prepared to debate in full the financial side of Scottish secession, however I side with the view that the Scots will be worse off. Some believe that the Scots should shoulder a proportional amount of UK debt based on their population, but I disagree. Population was not the measure used when the debt was generated and nor should it be if the debt has to be shared. A substantially large amount of UK Government debt was spent stopping the collapse of Scottish banks, therefore those Government liabilities should in due course become the liabilities of a fully-functional Scottish Government.

To close, there is much more to say when you hold this debate up in the mirror and compare it with the ongoing debate of the UK's changing relationship with the EU. It is quite amazing and hypocritical to see the UK Government saying things in relation to Scottish secession that they would never say in relation to the UK leaving the EU. The hypocrisy stinks when Cameron says that "the Scottish people must have a vote sooner rather than later" and yet denies a vote on EU membership when there is a clear public demand to do so. These issues are for another post, as well as Scotland's and the UK's overall place in the EU given the outcome of a yes or no vote in Scotland.

-

As the Sun says goodbye - why I ditched Labour.

So the Sun has decided to ditch Labour for the Tories. A long overdue decision, and simply a reflection of the once-again changing political times. I agree with the decision, because it is clear to me that Brown simply cannot live up to what he says he can - he mentions "policies," but the time has passed to make any real difference - and we are left with many of the same challenges as twelve years ago.

To give Labour some credit though, of course it is in the Sun's interest to back who they percieve to be the "winner" and I am slightly cynical as to the ultimate motive - more sales. But putting this aside for a moment, I really do hope that the primary motive of the newspaper is to reflect the collective feelings of their readership, and to present political reality as it is.

Labour was needed in 1997. Hopes were high - achievements have been made. But over the past few years - and particularly since the 2005 election - what a failure. I have a list I made more than a year ago listing what I percieve to be failures - and my attention has been brought to more. To get to the crunch however, my biggest three problems with this government remains their stance towards the EU, their endless attack on civil liberties, and the divison that devolution has created - all policies that might be right in principle, but certainly not in practice.

I personally decided to forget Brown and Labour the day he arrived late to sign the Lisbon Treaty - trying to do it out of the limelight, in such an underhanded manner that HE KNEW how wrong his decision was. This is the moment that people will not forget Brown, for its effects will be felt for years to come. My decision is not just based on the classic argument of sovereignty, but on the idea that what Lisbon advocates is simply not what we want as a people from the process of European integration!

Now we just have to wait and see what Cameron does when he refers to "making a decision at the correct time" in relation to if Lisbon will be ratified before he enters office next year.

Scotland, Scotland.........

This article was written a year ago. I read it today with some interest, because of the title, which only intensified when I read the following part: "There needs to be consideration of when or if the nuclear option is deployed, a referendum on the Union to call Salmond's bluff. He wants to hold such a vote in 2010 as a plebiscite on what he presumes will then be Tory rule by Cameron. Instigated by Unionists much earlier than that, a year from now perhaps, it could shoot the wily Nationalist fox." The article was published on 6th May 2007, and here we are a year later, with the events of this week in Scotland with the Labour leader challenging the SNP to "bring it on." [A vote on a Scottish referendum of independence] Seems like an eerie prediction that came true on the part of this writer. But it still leaves me wondering how we got into this awful mess of devolution leading further and further towards the breakup of the UK.

Read the article here on suggestions to save the Union, written more or less exactly a year ago!