"The Nineteenth century saw a great Springtime of Nations as the revolutions of 1848 saw new countries created the length and breadth of Europe. In our world today we are now seeing our own Spring Awakening with people and cultures that have long been dormant and subdued asserting their right to exist, their right to dream." Adam Price MP
Then-Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond spoke during a news conference at the Edinburgh International Conference Center just days before voters went to the polls to decide whether Scotland should become an independent country and leave the United Kingdom. (Matt Cardy/Getty Images)
Alex Salmond was the leader of the Scottish National Party and first minister of Scotland when Scots voted on independence in 2014. He now represents Scotland in the British Parliament, and he remains a fierce advocate of a separate Scottish nation outside the United Kingdom.
On May 25, 2016, Salmond spoke with Washington Post London Bureau Chief Griff Witte about next month’s referendum on British membership in the European Union, and its possible impact on the cause of Scottish independence. An edited transcript of their conversation follows: Washington Post: If you look at opinion polls, there does seem to be a clear divide between attitudes in Scotland and attitudes in England. Can you tell me why you think that is? Alex Salmond: You're quite right. The Scottish polls are running at 2-to-1 for “Remain” and the English polls are running neck-and-neck, at best a narrow majority for Remain. I think it reflects the two different outlooks for the country. The cause of Europe has become interlinked with the cause of independence, and many people vote for Europe because they support Scottish independence within the European context.
Scotland has always been a European-facing nation. Our greatest national hero was Sir William Wallace, memorably played by Mel Gibson in the movie "Braveheart." Well, one thing that Braveheart didn't show was a few days after the battle of Stirling Bridge, which was Wallace's great victory over the English forces of Edward I, his first act as guardian of Scotland was to write to the Hanseatic League, which was the medieval forerunner of the European Union, to say “There has been a change in Scotland. We are back in charge. We are open again for business.” That was in 1296. But it does provide an interesting illustration of how the cause for Scottish independence and its European approach has always been heavily interlinked. WP: I noticed that in your explanation, you don't mention immigration, which is one that a lot of people cite. Obviously, immigration has been much heavier to certain parts of England than it has been to Scotland. AS: That's correct in the sense that the predominant problem Scotland has faced, over the last two centuries has not been immigration but emigration.
Scotland is not full up. It means that on balance, we are much more concerned with growing the country, growing the population, growing the vibrancy of the economy and allowing people with commitment and skills to settle in our country.
We're much more like America of 100 years ago, than the England of today. WP: You've been very critical of the way the Remain campaign has comported itself during this debate, saying it's been Project Fear all over again, the same as it was during the Independence debate. Do you think the Remain campaign is putting this contest in jeopardy? AS: I do — and that's why I have been cautioning the prime minister not to proceed in this way. You can scare the bejesus out of people, no question about that, and they are doing their best to do that. And you can cow people into submission. But I’ve never known a fear campaign to lure people into the polling station. If you base your ideas on Project Fear then you are begging for a low turnout of your supporters. And the danger for the Remain campaign across the U.K. is a low turnout of Remain supporters and a high turnout of Brexit supporters, and Project Fear does nothing to encourage turnout. WP: You and other SNP leaders have raised the prospect that if the U.K. should vote to leave, but Scotland votes to Remain, that it may be time for another independence referendum. You've also said, quite famously before the independence referendum, that it was "a once in a generation" choice. On what basis would you feel justified in going back on that vow? AS: On the mandate of the general election last year, where the SNP won 56 out of 59 Scottish seats, and then the mandate of the Scottish elections, where this was explicitly in the manifesto, and the SNP scored another extraordinary victory.
My view has always been that constitutional referendums tend to be once in a generation, as I said often enough. But you can always get change of material circumstance. And pulling Scotland out of the European Union against our will would be a change of material circumstances. So the justification is amply there to say all bets are off if it's Brexit for the U.K. but a Remain vote for Scotland. WP: All bets are off — does that mean in that scenario that another independence referendum is a certainty? AS: That's my view if that transpires. I'm campaigning for a Remain vote. I'm campaigning in every country on these islands, I'm campaigning in England, Scotland and Ireland and Wales, over the next four weeks for a Remain vote. But, if the circumstance came about that Scotland voted heavily Remain, and England voted Out, and therefore because it's 10 times the population size it carried Scotland out, or attempted to, against our will, then my view is a referendum on Scottish independence within the next two years and this time the result will be “Yes.” WP: You say you're campaigning across the UK. I was just up in Edinburgh, I had been there to cover the independence referendum, and during that campaign you had campaigners out on the streets all day long, all night, you had signs everywhere. That was a very enthusiastic, motivated campaign. There is not much evidence of a campaign underway now. Is the SNP really pulling out all the stops to make sure that Britain stays in the E.U.? AS: The SNP activist base has been campaigning for the last three months to get the SNP government re-elected in the Scottish Parliament, and you cannot ask people who have campaigned for three months to say, “Right, back on the streets again guys.” You have to give a bit of time for people to catch their breath before you go into the final few weeks of the campaign.
WorldViews newsletter
Important stories from around the world.
But once the SNP machine swings into action, it's the biggest machine in Scottish politics. It will deliver the Remain vote in Scotland. WP: The prime minister, by calling both of these referendums — the Scottish referendum and the E.U. referendum — was trying to put these great existential questions to rest. Has that strategy backfired? Are these issues basically never going to be put to rest until Britain is out of the E.U. and Scotland is independent? AS: I think independence is inevitable. We are just debating timescale now. The prime minister didn't call the Scottish referendum. The Scottish people called the referendum by electing a majority SNP government, on a manifesto to call a referendum. The prime minister had no choice in the matter, nor will any future prime minister.
If the Scottish Parliament votes for a referendum, then there shall be a referendum. Any U.K. prime minister will just have to concede. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. Karla Adam contributed to this report from London
SNP leader Nicola Sturgeon
has ruled out coalition talks after falling two seats short of an
overall majority in the 2016 Holyrood election.
She said the SNP's haul of 63 seats gave "a clear and unequivocal mandate" to govern as a minority administration.
The Conservatives came second with 31 seats. Leader Ruth Davidson said the SNP had no case for another referendum.
Labour slumped to third place with 24 seats followed by the Scottish Greens on six and Liberal Democrats on five.
Speaking
in Edinburgh following the SNP's victory, Ms Sturgeon said "the SNP
made history" by becoming "the first party to win a third consecutive
Scottish Parliament election".
Image copyrightGetty ImagesImage caption
Nicola Sturgeon said the SNP would govern alone and seek consensus with other parties
She said: "We won the highest share of the
constituency vote and the largest number of constituency seats ever
achieved in a Scottish Parliament election.
"And we are the first party in the era of devolution to poll more than one million votes in constituencies across the country.
"The result of the election was emphatic...we won a clear and unequivocal mandate."
Some of the main headlines from the night:
Ms Sturgeon said she had secured a
"personal mandate" and would seek formal re-election as First Minister
when the parliament reconvenes.
She added: "It will then be my intention to form and to lead an SNP government.
"With such a large number of MSPs elected I do not intend to seek any formal arrangement with any other party."
The
SNP leader said she would lead an "inclusive" government and "reach out
and seek to work with others across the parliament to find common
ground and build consensus".
With the Conservatives now the largest opposition party at Holyrood, Ms Davidson used her post-election address to call on the SNP to rule out another referendum on independence.
Speaking
in Edinburgh, she said: "As I said during the election campaign, the
SNP manifesto does not give Nicola Sturgeon a mandate for a second
independence referendum.
"Now that she has failed to win a
majority, whatever claims the SNP were pursuing with regard to
constitutional brinkmanship over the next five years have now been
utterly shredded.
"No mandate, no majority, no cause - the SNP must now let Scotland move on." Ms Davidson said she was "very, very proud" that the
Conservatives had recorded their best-ever Holyrood result by securing
31 MSPs to overtake Labour.Their previous best result was 18 MSPs, a total the party achieved in both 1999 and 2003.
Liberal
Democrat leader Willie Rennie also said the SNP must ditch the prospect
of another independence referendum if they hoped to attract support
from his party. Speaking after the Lib Dems secured five seats -
unchanged from 2011 - he said: "They have got to make a clear and
unambiguous statement that another referendum must be off the table for
the next five years in order to respect the referendum result."That's
what they need to go just to get over the starting line and I think
it's going to be pretty hard for them, but that's what they'll need to
do in order to make sure that we can work in partnership."
'Heartbreaking result'
Meanwhile,
Scottish Labour leader Kezia Dugdale has written to party members
saying they "must continue to fight for what we believe in" despite a
"heartbreaking" result in the Holyrood election.
Labour finished third with 24 seats - down 13 from 2011 - its worst-ever result in the Scottish Parliament vote.
In
an email, Ms Dugdale said the need for a party arguing for "using the
power of government to invest in people" was more important than ever.
She wrote: "We could have fought an election that
was about the arguments of two years ago but we chose to stand up for
what we believe in.
"We will keep standing for our belief that we
can choose to be better than this. Despite the disappointment of the
final results, hundreds of thousands of our fellow citizens stood with
us.
"I'll keep fighting for our values." Scottish Greens co-convener Patrick Harvie hailed
his party's success after it trebled the number of MSPs from two to six
and beat the Liberal Democrats into fifth place."It's clear with
the continued decline of Labour and the lack of an overall SNP majority
that we have an opportunity to increase our influence in the next
parliament," he said.
"Greens have already proved ourselves to be a
constructive yet challenging opposition group, delivering results on
housing, fracking, fuel poverty and fan ownership of football clubs
among many other issues."
Analysis by Sarah Smith, Scotland editor
For
Scottish Labour, arguments over their manifesto or personalities are to
miss the point. This election was clearly about the constitution.
Scottish
politics are still totally dominated by the independence question which
was certainly not settled on 18 September 2014 and still seems to take
precedence in voters' minds over any other issue.
And it's an issue on which Labour cannot win.
So where does that leave Labour?
If the SNP are the party of independence and the Tories the party of the union, what is the point of the Labour Party?
They
will continue to argue that they care most about social justice and
poverty. But as long as voters remain split over the constitution that
may not win back many voters. Read more from Sarah
Scotland's
Additional Member System sees 73 constituency MSPs elected through
first-past-the-post and 56 regional MSPs elected, from eight electoral
regions, through a form of proportional representation.
The SNP dominated the constituency vote taking 59 of the 73 seats - an increase of six on the 2011 election.
The
Conservatives won seven, four up on last time, and the Liberal
Democrats took four, an increase of two. The big loser was Labour which
won three seats - down 12.
The SNP's dominance was not reflected in the proportional regional system.
The
SNP has four regional MSPs - down 12; the Conservatives have 24, up 12;
Labour was down one, to 21; the Scottish Greens have six, up four; and
the Liberal Democrats won one regional seat, down two on their previous
result.
The constituency seats which changed hands
Aberdeenshire West: Conservative (was SNP)
Coatbridge & Chryston: SNP (was Labour)
Cowdenbeath: SNP (was Labour)
Dumfriesshire: Conservative (was Labour)
Eastwood: Conservative (was Labour)
Edinburgh Central: Conservative (was SNP)
Edinburgh Northern & Leith: SNP (was Labour)
Edinburgh Southern: Labour (was SNP)
Edinburgh Western: Liberal Democrat (was SNP)
Fife North East: Liberal Democrat (was SNP)
Glasgow Maryhill & Springburn: SNP (was Labour)
Glasgow Pollok: SNP (was Labour)
Glasgow Provan: SNP (was Labour)
Greenock & Inverclyde: SNP (was Labour)
Motherwell & Wishaw: SNP (was Labour)
Renfrewshire South: SNP (was Labour)
Rutherglen: SNP (was Labour)
Uddingston & Bellshill: SNP (was Labour)
The gains and losses
The SNP won 11 - all from Labour. It lost five seats - two each to the Conservatives and Liberal Democrats and one to Labour
The Conservatives won four - two each from Labour and the SNP
Labour won one seat from the SNP and lost 13 - 11 to the SNP and two to the Conservatives
New Ashcroft poll shows SNP would be third biggest party in England
Wednesday, 01 April 2015 11:13 | | |
By Avril Folle, our Westminster Correspondent A new poll by Lord Ashcroft has suggested that the Scottish Nationalist Party would become the third biggest party in England if they were to contest English constituencies.
The poll asked over one thousand voters in England how they would vote if each of the parties contesting the general election were standing in their own constituency, and included Sinn Fein, the Ulster Unionists and the SNP.
The Nationalists came third on 24%, after Labour on 28% and the Conservatives on 32%. UKIP were fourth on 9% and the Liberal Democrats trailed in sixth place on 3% behind the Greens on 4%.
Pulling the results through Electoral Calculus suggests that the SNP would pick up 57 seats if they stood candidates in England, making then the third largest party in that country. If polls in Scotland are correct, this could net the SNP over 100 seats in total, ensuring that they held the balance of power in the Westminster parliament.
A spokesperson for First Minister Nicola Sturgeon said: "While this is very flattering and shows the appetite for our progressive policies in England, we have no plans to contest English seats. We prefer to build a progressive alliance with like-minded parties and individuals from across the United Kingdom."
Despite losing its overall majority north of the border, the SNP remains very much at the centre of Scottish politicsRussell Cheyne/Reuters
Shock
news: Voting system that was reputedly designed to prevent the SNP
winning an overall majority in the Scottish Parliament has successfully
prevented the SNP from winning an overall majority in the Scottish
Parliament.
OK, that clearly shouldn't be regarded as any
sort of shock at all, but perhaps on this occasion people can be
forgiven for a degree of surprise or dismay. For months now, siren
voices on the left have urged SNP voters to regard a majority as a
foregone conclusion, and to seize the opportunity to cast a 'luxury'
vote for a smaller pro-independence party like the Greens on the party
list ballot – the second of two votes in the Scottish voting system. The
success of that propaganda campaign may partly explain why the SNP vote increased on the constituency ballot, but slipped back on the all-important list ballot.
As
a result, Scotland's so-called 'Yes family' has unintentionally swapped
a pro-independence majority, dependent only on the SNP, with a
pro-independence majority dependent on two parties.
From a
presentational point of view, that was clearly a very unwise thing to
do, and the anti-independence parties will enjoy having a little
something to gloat about over the coming days. But when the dust
settles, the reality of a continuing pro-independence majority will
begin to sink in, and it will come to be understood that the prospects
for a second referendum at some point in the future have not
significantly diminished.
It's true that the Greens are suspected
by many SNP supporters of being lukewarm towards a second referendum,
and perhaps even towards independence itself. But the reality is that
the Green party was changed as fundamentally by the referendum
experience as Scotland itself was. The bulk of current party members
joined in September 2014 or afterwards – and they wouldn't have done so
unless they felt they were signing up to a committed 'Yes' party.
Whatever
the private feelings of Patrick Harvie and other Green leaders, it
seems inconceivable that the rank and file would allow any firm SNP
proposal for a second referendum – in the event of Brexit, for example –
to be thwarted.
When the
dust settles, the reality of a continuing pro-independence majority will
begin to sink in, and it will come to be understood that the prospects
for a second referendum at some point in the future have not
significantly diminished
There's
also another counterintuitive reason why, in the long run, this election
may have made independence more rather than less likely. The
astonishing success of Ruth Davidson's Conservatives in supplanting
Labour as the second force in Scottish politics was actually founded
upon an extraordinary weakness. Nicola Sturgeon: Labour support collapse has been staggeringIBTimes UKDavidson
campaigned for a mandate to be a fiercely anti-independence leader of
the opposition, and that's all she can ever be. The ceiling on Tory
support in Scotland may be higher than we supposed, but it's still
there, and there is absolutely no alternative path into power via a
coalition. If Scottish politics has suddenly realigned itself into a
straight fight between centre-left nationalism and centre-right
unionism, the outcome is in no doubt whatever.
Ruth
Davidson campaigned for a mandate to be a fiercely anti-independence
leader of the opposition, and that's all she can ever be
Unless
Labour can get back into the game, the medium-to-long-term battle for
the union is lost. It may not even be possible for them to do so, but if
there is any chance at all it surely depends on them softening their
fundamentalist unionism. One of the most extraordinary spectacles, as
the results came in, was the procession of Labour commentators insisting
that the party had taken a pounding because it hadn't been unionist
enough. It's murderously hard to see what more their leader Kezia
Dugdale could have done in that respect – she repeatedly said that she
would vote against a referendum in all circumstances, and against
independence in all circumstances. If you can't win a battle to
out-unionist the Tories, why even try?
It's possible that the penny may yet drop, and that Labour will emerge
as a thoughtful party of the constitutional centre ground – perhaps
embracing federalism or devo-max. But if they don't, their inevitable
descent into irrelevance will leave their hold-out voters in search of a
new home – and if that home is the SNP, those people may also start to
see independence as part and parcel of the alternative centre-left
project they have signed up to. The new independence coalition forged by
this election result could be unstoppable.
Narrowly losing her
overall majority hasn't changed Nicola Sturgeon's ultimate
destination... but it's certainly made her route a whole lot more
interesting than she ever expected. James Kelly is author
of the Scottish pro-independence blog, SCOT goes POP! Voted one of the
UK's top political bloggers, you can hear more from James on Twitter: @JamesKelly
Independence Day:
The National asked former First Minister to imagine the referendum
result was Yes. This might have been his address to the nation
tonight...
MY
FELLOW SCOTS. It is with great pride that I make this Ministerial
address on the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation and commercial channels
as the first First Minister of an independent Scotland.
Today
at noon Royal Assent was granted to the Scottish Independence Act and
tomorrow the credentials of Scotland will be presented to the General
Assembly of the United Nations. I am pleased to say that all of our
international engagements have been negotiated without any great
difficulty over these last 18 months and that we have found a warm and
enthusiastic welcome for our new democracy in the councils of Europe and
the world. To date we have received messages of congratulation from
some 200 countries and territories representing virtually all of
humanity. Deputy First Minister and Foreign Secretary Nicola Sturgeon
has responded to all of these representations of goodwill.
In
particular, we wish our friends across these islands well, particularly
in their upcoming European referendum; however, it is important to note
that our position in Europe will be unaffected by their decision. There
are some who have argued that the doubling of international investment
proposals in recent months shows that it is to our advantage for the
rest of the UK to opt out of the Europe Union but I believe that this
welcome trend is much more the result of Scotland’s much higher profile
amid the community of nations. I hope that our close neighbours choose
to remain within the European community of nations and that Prime
Minister May is successful in her campaign.
Whatever the rUK
choice they will forever find in Scotland a firm friend and constant
ally. Similarly I hope that the upcoming vote in Westminster on Trident
shows a willingness to accept the reality that building a new nuclear
base in addition to the £170 billion lifetime cost is not a sensible,
credible or moral option. I can confirm that whatever the vote it is now
accepted that a new generation of weapons of mass destruction will not
be located on the River Clyde.
Similarly from January 1 next year
we will disengage the administration of the two electricity networks in
Scotland and the rUK as we cannot justify paying a share of the
extraordinary bill of the new nuclear power stations planned for Hinkley
Point. In preparation the Scottish Government has secured the position
of Longannet power station which we plan to convert to combined cycle
gas generation in the near future. The carbon capture plant at Peterhead
will now proceed, supported on a demonstrator basis, by the reinstated
renewable obligations certificates, as if it were an onshore wind farm.
Furthermore the early go-ahead for both the giant pump storage hydro
electric plants at Cruachan and Balmacaan means that electricity supply
in Scotland is secure, green and cost effective, with a healthy spare
capacity to export through the interconnectors to England, Wales and
Northern Ireland.
In looking to the future let us consider what it
is about Scotland that will not change, what will change and what will
be determined by the people in the coming election campaign.
On
the first, as we move through this holiday weekend of celebration,
Monday morning will demonstrate that some things will be as they are
this week or any week. People will go to work, public services will
continue, Her Majesty the Queen will continue as head of state and the
pound sterling continues as our currency. Our Scottish Central Bank
under the leadership of Professor John Kay has set out the options for
the future but whether we continue to use sterling or develop our own
currency at parity with sterling, asset values will remain protected.
THE
refusal of former Chancellor George Osborne to agree to our offer of a
shared currency was a factor in the turmoil which has recently engulfed
the English Conservative Party. However this and other negotiations on
the distribution of UK assets and liabilities carried the not
insubstantial benefit of relieving our new state of close on £150
billion of accumulated UK debt and the interest payments thereon. With
the cancellation of our commitments to Trident renewal, Hinkley Point
and HS2, Scotland is placed in a sustainable fiscal position despite the
decline in the price of oil. We believe that the exploration taxation
credits announced last week by Scots Chancellor John Swinney will
generate jobs, secure the future of the basin and provide major future
discoveries and revenues as the oil market recovers. And as we look
forward to another 50 years of oil production let us determine that this
time round when prices do recover we shall save some of the proceeds
for future generations. The wisdom of such an approach has been amply
demonstrated by our neighbours across the North Sea.
It was John
Swinney who also set the tone for what shall change in his Budget last
week. Despite the savings made by ditching our contribution to the UK’s
white elephant nuclear projects, fiscal circumstances are still
constrained. Therefore it is all the more important to ensure that
no-one can dispute the fairness and balance of what we have done. Hence
our decision to protect working benefits for the disabled and the
revolution in nursery education. There are encouraging signs in record
employment, a surge in productivity and a sharp rise in inward
investment.
Of these the rise in productivity is the most
encouraging. As has been wisely said in the long run for successful
economies while productivity isn’t everything it is almost everything.
However, all of us know that we now need to reap our own harvest and
ring our own tills. And this nation shall prosper because we shall be a
just nation.
Our newly independent parliament has proposed to
enshrine our values in a written constitution. We have given notice of
our refusal to participate in unjustified conflict but signalled our
determination to act collectively to keep the peace and security of the
Continent. We have willingly shared the burden of the refugee crisis
confronting Europe and enshrined our commitment to international aid in
our new constitution, which is currently subject to vigorous popular
debate and consultation. It is a matter of great pride for us all that
the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe declared our draft
constitution as a model for the 21st century in terms of its protection
of human rights and dignity.
Finally we come to the choices that
each of us will make in the forthcoming election campaign. It is right
and proper that 16 and 17-year-olds are part of the process which
chooses the first elected independent Government of our new state. They
will not be short of choice.
There are no less than eight
political parties registered for election intending to contest every
first past the post constituency. However, whichever party or
combination of parties emerges victorious from the election they will
have both a great task and great opportunity.
Whatever policies
are pursued they shall be our choice, whatever mistakes are made they
shall be ours with our own lessons to learn for the future. Whatever
success is earned then it shall be by our own efforts and our own
national will. That is the dividend of independence.
With the
referendum of 2014 something was born in Scottish society. In 2016 the
challenge has been now met and the triumph is there to be won.
Scotland’s future is now in Scotland’s hands.
Goodnight and Alba gu brath.
FM Nicola Sturgeon: making a renewed push for independence
Last week Nicola Sturgeon announced that from the summer the SNP will
start to campaign to build support for independence. Many media outlets
and Unionist politicians expressed surprise. Hold the front page
“political party refuses to drop the policy that guarantees majority
government”. On June 24 we will know if Scotland is once again on an
independence referendum footing but we will still have to wait for the
trigger of a sustained 60 per cent support for independence to start the
ball rolling.
One of the problems the 2014 Yes campaign had was that it was
relentlessly positive and missed the opportunity to highlight the
dangers of continued Union. I am not saying Yes should have run a “Fear
the Union Project” but a realistic analysis of how Westminster’s
distant, disinterested and dysfunctional attitude to Scotland holds our
nation back would have helped. Fortunately that is easier to do now as
the No Campaign provided us with a long list of false claims and broken
promises: 1. Renewables subsidies – Ed Davey, the then UK
energy secretary, said: “Scotland could lose billions in renewable
energy subsidies with a Yes vote and would put our green energy
revolution at risk”. Davey claimed that 33 per cent of UK subsidies for
wind, wave and tidal projects (£530m a year) came to Scotland and so
independence would ‘slam the brakes on wind farm projects’. Now drastic
cuts to the public funding of onshore wind-farms have been announced
which Renewables Scotland claim could reduce Scotland’s economy by £3
billion. 2. Carbon capture – Davey also claimed the vital
climate change project at Peterhead would be endangered as he signed a
deal with Shell and Scottish and Southern Energy. However, after the
referendum, Westminster pulled its promised £1bn of support and the
project failed.
Scotland’s EU membership not looking so secure with a No vote to independence now
3. EU membership not secure! – David Cameron claimed
that the only way to protect Scotland’s EU membership was to reject
independence. No campaign spokespeople parroted the phrase “EU
membership only guaranteed with a No vote”. Now we have polls in England
showing that the EU referendum is too close to call while 60 per cent
of Scots plan to vote Stay. Right-wing, separatist, British nationalist
and often racist, anti-European sentiment will now decide Scotland’s
membership of the EU as Scottish votes will not be enough to influence
the result unless England’s vote is within one per cent. 4. Labour’s majority promise – Labour who led the No
Campaign claimed that not only would independence “consign the rest of
the UK to permanent Tory rule” but that a Labour Government would sort
out Scotland’s problems. Labour lost by a mile and the Tories won a
majority just as I had predicted in this column in 2014. Once the EU
referendum is over, Ukip will disappear and their votes will mostly go
back to the Tories and England, it seems, will continue to quite happily
consign themselves and Scotland to permanent Tory rule. 5. Scotland should lead, not leave the UK – An
almost perfect piece of political spin from both Gordon Brown and Johann
Lamont but no one seemed to tell David Cameron. The day after the
referendum Cameron announced English Votes for English Laws (Evel),
effectively meaning no MP from a Scottish constituency can ever be prime
minster of the UK and ipso facto can’t lead the UK. 6. Pensions not safer in UK – Gordon Brown warned
that independence came with a pensions time-bomb. The UK Government
backed that claim and now we see pension age increases for women meaning
some will lose out up to £30,000. UK Government policy since the
referendum means that middle to high earners will be better off through
their pensions but that low earners will bear the cost of pension
reforms. A Scot earning around £15,000 with a working life of 30 years,
could see their pension drop £1,800 per annum. 7. It was Scotland’s pound – We were told that
Scotland could not continue to use the pound after independence. Denying
claims that it was a political manoeuvre, the No Camp claimed that a
currency union was unworkable. However last week on STV’s Scotland
Tonight Sir Mervyn King who ran the Bank of England for a decade said
“it would have been totally feasible, there was no need for an
independent currency.”
Scotland is still waiting for the watered down Smith Commission powers…
8. Slower meaningless devolution – David Cameron
claimed that “A No vote would lead to faster, fairer, safer and better
change and that draft legislation for new powers for Scotland would be
in place by January, 2015”. John Swinney tells us that almost every
concession for more powers in the watered down Smith Commission document
had at least one Unionist party trying to block it. We now also know
that the Westminster negotiators tried to use the Scotland Bill fiscal
agreement talks to cut Scotland’s budget by £7bn over ten years. 9. Uncertainty was a myth – David Cameron claimed
inward investors had told him they wouldn’t invest in Scotland until
after the referendum due to uncertainty but 2014/15 turned out to be a
record year for Scottish inward investment, the number of projects
increased by 17% to 91 between April 2014 and March 2015. 10. Job losses – Some strangely specific claims were
made by the No camp on protecting jobs. They claimed that the Scottish
HMRC tax offices would close and many jobs would be lost as they also
collect taxes for England. Since the referendum it has been announced
that 2,500 HMRC jobs in Scotland are to go. Again Better Together teamed
up with steel workers’ union Community to claim that a No vote would
protect steel jobs, but now 270 steel jobs have gone in Scotland.
Miliband
and the Foreign Office warned of manned border controls between
Scotland and England in the event of Scottish independence
11. What, no border controls? – Former Scottish
Secretary Alistair Carmichael launched a UK government report entitled
Borders and Citizenship claiming that Scotland would have to have a
manned border with England after independence. This was backed up by Ed
Miliband claiming new members of the EU must accept free travel.
Ireland has a pre existing free travel agreement with the UK which as
well as being an EU member also has an opt out of Shengen. If the UK
leaves the EU Ireland would no longer have an automatic opt-out, but
last week Boris Johnson claimed that a Brexit would mean no change to
the current open borders agreement with Ireland.
I could also point also out that the MoD announced 13 Type 26
frigates with Defence Secretary Michael Fallon making it clear that the
investment was conditional on Scots rejecting independence. In the end
the order looks like being just 8 ships as the money is needed to pay
for new nuclear weapons. Or that the No camp claimed Scottish tourism
was being damaged by the referendum and specifically that UK interest in
travel to Scotland was down by 29%. Strange then that the figures for
2014/15 show Scotland had a record tourism year with a 9% increase in
holiday trips and 41% increase in business trips.
We were also told that you can’t have a sovereign oil fund as
it wouldn’t be viable whilst running a deficit but then Westminster
announced that the North East of England could have a Fracking Fund to
make sure the local communities benefit from their oil wealth.
Corporation Tax cuts were labelled unhealthy and a “race to the bottom”
and we were told it couldn’t be devolved to Scotland, but was then
devolved to Northern Ireland and in this weeks budget the Chancellor
George Osborne has announced Corporation Tax cuts. We were also told
that the big financial institutions would leave Scotland with a Yes Vote
– it turned out they would just reregister but keep all the jobs here
and that would have destroyed the bank bail out myth, but now Scottish
Widows has relocated anyway and ironically HSBC are threatening to leave
and move their European HQ to Paris if there is a Brexit.
I have also previously detailed how the “broad shoulders of the
Union” have let down Aberdeen. Thats around 20 and the list goes on and
on and on there are actually far too many to mention them all here. So
why, when so much is obviously wrong with the case for the Union, is
support for independence not soaring? There are two reasons; firstly as
Nicola Sturgeon has astutely realised the case for independence needs to
be made loudly and then people will be made to consider such evidence
as listed above – it needs to be taken to the voters – they won’t search
for it themselves. Secondly we need to create and promote a clear
economic argument, a detailed roadmap to prosperity through the powers
of an independent Scotland (the raison d’être of Business for Scotland)
this would send independence support soaring. That roadmap can be built
without the need to reply on oil but the oil price coming back to
profitable levels by 2020, as 97 per cent of senior oil executives
expect it to, would also open the floodgates.
Did someone say Game On?
MP for Gordon Alex Salmond reckons the Tory party are in trouble and the resignation of Iain Duncan Smith is a sure sign.
The former First Minister says that a full scale civil war is well and truly underway.
Mr Salmond wrote in his column:
“All political lives end in failure.
“If Enoch Powell’s dictum holds true then Iain Duncan Smith’s
resignation letter spells double barreled trouble for David Cameron.
“The self styled “quiet man” turned up the volume spectacularly on
Friday night with an Exocet missile aimed right at the mid ships of the
Tory government.
“And IDS scored a direct hit. When a prime minister is reduced to
saying that he is “puzzled” and “disappointed” by a resignation then you
know that he is in deep doodoo. When he then organises a junior
minister to get torn into her former boss, then you know that the wounds
are cutting deep. Then when he launches a private “four letter word
tirade” at the recalcitrant minister for insisting on resignation then
you know that full scale civil war is well and truly underway.
“However, the real Duncan Smith target was not the prime minister, but the chancellor – not the sheriff, but the deputy.
“The background is clear enough. A few weeks ago in that backroom
coven where the Tory wizards cook up their pernicious policies, they
decided that the pain of Osborne’s missed economic targets had to be
targeted on someone. And so they decided to cast their dastardly spell
in the direction of disabled people by making thousands of pounds of
their benefit money under the new personal independent payments simply
disappear.
“IDS “went along” with this unpleasant madness, just as he has
swallowed everything else that the chancellor has forced down his throat
over the last six years. His social security brief has taken by far the
biggest hits from austerity. The policy was duly announced but then
disability groups started to build up a head of outraged steam,
mobilising the opposition and targeting some fretting Tory backbenchers.
“Then Duncan Smith turned up at the pre-Budget cabinet last Wednesday
morning to find out that a big tax cut was to be handed out to the top
15% of taxpayers and juxtaposed with the disability payments cuts. This
meant that it would be extraordinarily difficult to maintain the
argument that there was no alternative to further disability cuts in a
budget which included rich people getting a hefty tax cut.
“As the Budget went down badly the Downing Street neighbours, prime
minister and chancellor, started to panic and rumours spread of a
climbdown in the offing. Duncan Smith, the leading Eurosceptic in the
cabinet, was being lined up to take the rap and look like the pantomime
villain into the bargain. Making the rich richer while the disabled are
more disadvantaged is not a legacy any minister would want to have
hanging around his neck.
“Quite incredibly and totally ineptly, Labour at Westminster lined up
to back the top pay tax cut, taking the political pressure momentarily
off the chancellor. However, Duncan Smith saw the political trap being
set for him and had had more than enough. His departure means that the
prime minister has lost the high moral ground on welfare cuts to Duncan
Smith, the high priest of the bedroom tax, and that is intensely
damaging.
“The IDS resignation letter is a masterpiece, flinging back in the
face of the prime minister the chancellor’s favourite incantation that
“we are all in this together.”
“Some political resignations get quickly lost in the fog of politics
and are soon forgotten. Others like those of Geoffrey Howe and Michael
Heseltine of bygone Tory generations have a big impact because they come
at a time of a political changing of the guard.
“I’m betting that the departure of IDS is one of the latter. The
poison pen in the letter from Duncan Smith is the issue of Europe. Out
of the cabinet he is now free to campaign full square against the prime
minister in the upcoming EU poll.
“Furthermore Tory backbenchers, who up until now have been held in
line by the seeming inevitability of Osborne’s succession into the top
job, are looking at a political landscape where the chancellor’s stock
is falling faster than the Chinese stock market. He has gone from cock
of the walk to “unfit for office” with no intervening period whatsoever.
“All of which spells big problems for the prime minister. The
European referendum campaign is not going at all well. Even Jeremy
Corbyn’s Labour has managed to draw level in the English polls, while
Boris Johnson is swimming around the body politic like a giant shark
waiting for the blood to be spilled in the water.
“If the Euro referendum is won, which is still the most likely
outcome, Cameron will hand over a deeply divided and fractious party
which will probably elect a Euro sceptic as his successor. If it is lost
then he will be packing up his bags by the autumn.
“There are no glad confident mornings left for Cameron and for the Tories the party is almost over.”
COMRADES, it’s high time we started to question BBC
Question Time. For years, the best thing about it – by far – has been
Dimbleby’s wonderful collection of ridiculous ties. Beyond this point of
fashion, the show is anything but enjoyable, impartial or logical. In
fact, I’d go so far to say that its sole purpose for existing now is to
descend every platform of social media into a weekly commentary track of
resentment and misery. I have personally given up on the show in recent
years, viewing it as the perfect excuse to stay in the pub until
closing time on a Thursday. However, last week’s edition was purporting
to be broadcast from Dundee – and thus featuring real, live Dundonians.
With this being the case, I decided to dust off my television remote and
listen into what one of Scotland’s great “YES!” cities had to say.
However,
what I was presented with was anything but the Dundee I know and love.
The programme’s audience was nothing more than a gathering of yoons,
goons and people from other toons! It’s one thing for the producers of
Question Time to intentionally mislead the public, but quite another to
misrepresent the good people of Dundee. The panel wasn’t up to much
either, with John Swinney finding himself on the receiving end of an
incessant Unionist cross-examination. Labour’s Jenny Marra and Tory Ruth
Davidson came across more like a bickering married couple than
political opponents. Meanwhile, Willie Rennie did his best to cling to
political relevancy as the show gave excessive speaking time to some
loser journalist with more than a passing resemblance to Arnold Rimmer
from Red Dwarf.
Given this nightmarish set-up, it was comforting
to see one pro-independence member of the panel successfully navigate
the Question Time minefield. Patrick Harvie was the undisputed MVP of
the night, with his answers as pleasing as they were miraculously
uninterrupted. To most nationalists, the SNP is still the sexiest party
in politics but anyone with a soul must have a soft spot for the Greens.
Certainly, Patrick’s uncompromising approach to independence – a
methodology that does not feature the monarchy or an unwanted reliance
on oil – is far closer to my own. In my mind, Patrick Harvie wanting
freedom with a separate currency over full fiscal autonomy is a very
valid and sexy opinion!
Of course, that’s not a call for anyone to
jump ship based on my view. I support folk researching and voting for
whichever parties best represent them – whether that be SNP, Green, Rise
etc. There’s no need for infighting. Even I’ve come to regard the
Greens as the Ewoks who help us take down the Empire. Moreover, they
have some pretty damn sexy merchandise on the go at the moment! They
even have their own beer!
Without doubt, Harvie brought a
different and welcome pro-independence stance to Question Time. However,
one would also have hoped that the presence of the Green Party would’ve
meant that we wouldn’t have had any plants in the audience. Yet
disgraced Labourite Kathy Wiles, who once compared young Yes voters to
Nazis, appeared along with fellow Labour staffer Braden Davy, who tried
and failed to fool the world by sporting some unconvincing Clark Kent
spectacles. In typical Labour style, their performances lacked subtlety,
direction or class. These rotten tactics may have worked in the years
prior to the internet, but in a time when a quick Google search can
expose such wrongdoings, it appears that Labour are as hell-bent on
their self-destructive ways as ever. In my opinion, last week’s
questionable Question Time epitomises all that is wrong with the BBC,
but it also illustrates the contempt that the organisation has for
Scotland. As much as I’m not of the opinion that there is some great
conspiracy against the SNP, I do believe that there are lots of scheming
fudricks in the media. After all, we can hardly expect the British
Broadcasting Corporation to not take the side of Britain! Then again,
clowning Ukip followers frequently criticise the organisation as well.
Clearly, the BBC is incapable of pleasing anyone on the political
spectrum of their impartiality – with nationalists and pro-Brexit
politicians equally as critical of the company as each other. Which
makes one wonder how an organisation could be biased towards the left
and the right at the same time? Yet this is the very crime the
BBC is regularly charged with.
Personally, I would be completely
in favour of seeing the BBC licence fee scrapped, with the organisation
monetising their iPlayer in a similar manner to that of Netflix. Failing
this, I certainly think a major overhaul of Question Time is necessary
if it is to remain on television. In my estimation, the contestants have
it far too easy. Back in the 1990s, audiences on a variety of shows
were able to gunge participants they didn’t like. I would see this
option as a constructive addition to Question Time. Hell, perhaps I
should start my own version of the programme called “Everyone Loves
Angry”? I’d certainly make good use of the post-watershed timeslot!