There is an old proverb, attributed to the semi-mythical Chinese strategist Sun-Tzu, which says: “Win the battle, then go out and fight it”. On the surface what Sun-Tzu was referring to was the importance of good planning and organisation if you are ever going to get anywhere. Yet this philosophy has a deeper level too. It refers not only to strategy and logistics, but to the art of controlling the course of the battle by dictating when and where it will be fought, what tactics your enemy will use and how you will counter them. The result is therefore decided before the battle is even fought.
Applying this approach to electoral politics is nothing new. Tyrants all over the world now seem to have mastered the skill of manufacturing consent at the ballot box by sewing a complex web of deceit using tools such as unfair laws, intimidation, vote fixing and puppet opponents. Such roguishness however is generally confined to the developing world, with most mature democracies such as the UK having developed systems to minimise electoral fraud backed up by tough punishments for anyone caught trying to break the rules. These systems however were designed to deal with the existing rules. When faced with an entirely new situation where the rules of engagement have not yet been decided, such as a vote on the break-up of the UK, a legal void soon develops.
Seeking to exploit this void is the separatist SNP party and its leader Alex Salmond. Having gained a significant majority in the Scottish Parliament Mr Salmond has declared that he alone may decide on the rules for such a referendum, regardless of the fact that the UK constitution indicates that only Westminster has the power to decide upon such matters. Therefore Mr Salmond, realising the potential for exploiting the void in the laws, has set about writing the rules to ensure they unfairly favour a vote for Scottish independence.
There are a number of ruses he has so far attempted to employ. The first of these was the idea of a second question asking whether the voter believed Scotland should get extra powers devolved to it if it does not become independent. This question, termed “devo-max”, was a clear attempt to split the Unionist vote and ensure that “yes” to independence got the most votes. Under such a rule 40% of people might vote for “yes”, 30% for “devo-max” and 30% “no”, giving the SNP the chance to declare independence even though 60% of people had not voted for separation. This plot seems to have been put on the back burner for now after David Cameron offered further devolution if Scotland remained in the union, but Alex Salmond has refused to rule out bringing it back in the future.
The next ploy involves the timing of the referendum. The longer the debate on independence goes on, the more damage it is doing to the Scottish economy. Multiple economists and investment experts have already warned that uncertainty over Scotland’s future will damage the country, whilst several companies have now publically stated that they are stalling their development plans in Scotland until a vote is taken. Therefore it is very much in the national interest to have a vote as soon as possible.
This is not however in Alex Salmond’s interests, as the polls still indicate that the Scottish people would vote against independence if asked tomorrow. The First Minister has therefore decided to have the vote in the autumn of 2014. This decision has not merely been made to buy the SNP time however – instead it has been made because it will coincide with the Glasgow Commonwealth Games and the 700th anniversary of the battle of Bannockburn. This will be a time when Scottish nationalism is likely to be especially high, therefore increasing the chances of a “yes” result.
Another ruse is hidden within the wording of the question to be put to the Scottish electorate. Alex Salmond has declared that the question will be: “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” This is neither fair nor neutral, since the word “independence”, when used in a political context, suggests freedom from either occupation or imperialism. Scotland suffers from neither of these things, although that won’t stop Salmond and the SNP using rhetoric and images to portray the Scots as having been oppressed or exploited by the English. Moreover the question is also misleading, especially if the SNP intend a separate Scotland to join the EU, since “independence” implies total sovereignty, something no EU member state has. A more neutral and accurate question would be “Should Scotland remain part of the UK?”
The most recent trick (though by no means the final – there have been other, smaller ploys and there will be more in the future) is the announcement by Alex Salmond that he wants to reduce the voting age for the referendum to 16. Salmond has hidden the true purpose of this plan behind rhetoric about “reconnecting with young people” and claims that since 16 year olds can join the army, pay taxes and (in Scotland) get married they should be able to vote as well. Presumably though the SNP will not be extending this logic to the purchasing of alcohol, since the SNP are so committed to dealing with underage drinking.
Look below the surface however and it is easy to see that it is the separatists who have most to gain from this. Young people are not interested in constitutional law, joint history, financial growth, investment or any other of the prudent and clever arguments of the Unionist side. They will easily fall for populist anti-English propaganda and will most likely vote en-masse for independence. I personally would not oppose a UK-wide debate on whether to lower the voting age, however for the SNP to unilaterally introduce this at such a critical time is a blatant attempt to fix the referendum results.
Alex Salmond must not be allowed to make up the rules to suit his own agenda. All of the Unionist parties should unite to oppose him on these ploys and on any others he may come up with. Sadly Labour’s rather pathetic refusal to be seen fighting alongside the coalition parties means that Salmond may soon be able to follow another maxim: “Divide and Conquer”.
The plain fact is that the outcome of the referendum will be decided by the people of Scotland. And this is what really irks the British nationalists who were determined to to ensure that the people of Scotland were never allowed this opportunity.
Now that the anti-independence parties have been forced to accept that, despite their best efforts to prevent it, there will be a referendum they are squealing like stuck pigs because they are not being allowed to rig the vote so as to produce the result the want.
All the whining about Alex Salmond is no more than a flimsy, threadbare veil deployed in a forlorn effort to conceal the true anti-democratic intentions of the Tory/Labour/LibDem coalition.
The people of Scotland were asked who they trusted in this matter. They chose Salmond and his team. The more Cameron and his allies in the other old parties meddle, the stronger the case for ending a union in which the people of Scotland are treated with such contempt by the corrupt British political establishment.
Posted by Peter A Bell | February 29, 2012, 4:24 pmSome of us are pragmatists, no-matter what the outcome of the referendum, Salmond and Scots will continue to be that distraction that few people south of Hadrian’s Wall are particularly interested in, and to that end some have been planning the farewell party for months.
Salmond needs the crisis, my advice to Westminster is “do not advance against the flow” and “let the water subside before crossing” (both attributed to Sun-tzu). There is little to be gained from playing his game, silence can be deafening.
Posted by John Tyler | February 29, 2012, 6:45 pm“Salmond needs the crisis…”
Crisis? What crisis? We are holding a referendum. It is interesting that you regard this ordinary part of the democratic process as a “crisis”.
Posted by Peter A Bell | February 29, 2012, 8:24 pmI’ve not heard so much ignorant biased tripe for a long time.
Peter is quite correct – the Scots will decide.
If your wife decides she wants to leave you, you can threaten her with your solicitor as much you like. The end result will be much the same, except she’ll dig her heels in more, and make sure she gets her rightful share of everything you have – and make you pay for it all.
Democracy trumps legal and constitutional issues every time. No Supreme Court judge would dare rule on the legality/illegality of a referendum which stemmed from a significant democratic mandate. Such issues have been touched on before, and the judges have shrunk away from them.
What the Scots are saying is, ‘We want out of your rotten, corrupt, unjust, unfair, undemocratic legal and constitutional system’.
That means it’s no use waving it at them. It just makes them more determined, as Cameron found out when he went to wag the finger at them recently from the porridge factory. Big mistake, support for independence rose, as did membership of the SNP.
This week we hear that there are splits in the unionist camp in Scotland, with some Tories, Labourites and LibDems coalescing around ‘devo plus’- Scotland to get all tax powers (except tax and national insurance) and oil revenues from Scottish territorial waters.
Face it, the UK is on the wane, and has been for a long time. Home rule movements for the Celtic nations began in the nineteenth century, were interrupted by the War years, and have re-emerged and continued to grow ever since. Most of Ireland opted out in 1922.
The rationale for the UK’s existence has largely disappeared. The whole thing is floundering, and the tensions within its various parts increasing.
It’s past its sell-by date. It just doesn’t work on so many levels. It’s a nation state in the gap between rich and poor is widening, for a start.
We are entering its terminal phase, thank goodness.
When it’s gone, we can all be the best of friends on this island, because we have a lot in common. We’ll all have the dignity of looking after our own affairs, which is what is natural in this world. We’ll have the freedom to choose how and when and to what extent we want to be interdependent.
We will have the potential to be able to create happier, more prosperous, democratic, just societies.
‘We’re better together’, says DC, ‘because we get to keep our seat on the Security Council, our membership of NATO, our nuclear deterrent’ etc.
He just doesn’t get it, the Scots don’t give a fig about any of those things – they don’t really want the toys of the ruling elite at Westminster. Neither do they want to pay for them. They don’t want Trident missiles and submarines on the Clyde.
(Btw, we don’t want them in Wales either)
I hope the Scots will vote Yes in 2014. Even if they don’t, the UK won’t survive the federal phase which will follow.
Posted by Dave | February 29, 2012, 9:11 pmMy mistake, “Salmond needs the crisis” should read “Salmond needs ‘a’ crisis”, its how he operates, the chattering classes north and south of the border place so much importance on his uttering it becomes nauseous.
Dave, 9.11, your …
“We want out of your rotten, corrupt, unjust, unfair, undemocratic legal and constitutional system”
I take it you mean “I want … etc..”
You might like to expand so that those who fail to see “rotten, corrupt, unjust, unfair, undemocratic legal and constitutional system” might gain from your insight.
The casual observer might say “it seems that the tripe was overcooked at 9.11, p.m.”.
Posted by John Tyler | February 29, 2012, 9:31 pm“My mistake, “Salmond needs the crisis” should read “Salmond needs ‘a’ crisis”, its how he operates…”
The question remains, what crisis? While the anti-independence parties are running around in a pant-wetting panic, Salmond and his team just calmly do the job they were elected to do.
A large part of your problem may be that you are simply unaccustomed to Scotland’s interests being represented. After all, it is only in the last few years that we have had a government that is prepared to do that.
Posted by Peter A Bell | February 29, 2012, 11:19 pm“You might like to expand so that those who fail to see “rotten, corrupt, unjust, unfair, undemocratic legal and constitutional system” might gain from your insight.”
Yes, I would, but it would take too long.
Posted by Dave | March 1, 2012, 3:58 pm@Peter: The future of the country will be voted upon by the people of Scotland, myself included, but that does not mean Alex Salmond has the right to set the terms of the referendum to so strongly favour his own party. Especially when you consider that by not holding the referendum until 2014 he is doing substantial damage to the Scottish economy since many companies are currently unwilling to invest large sums in Scotland until the constitutional future is decided.
Scotland chose Alex Salmond on an anti-Labour backlash, not to give him a mandate to break up the union – Salmond actually kept pretty quiet on independence during the last election. None of the Unionist parties have ever said that Scotland shouldn’t have a referendum, we just believe it should be held on fair and even terms. It is Salmond who is being anti-democratic if anyone is, as by fixing the rules of the vote to so strongly favour one outcome he is damaging our democracy.
@John: I appreciate that many English aren’t that interested in Scotland’s future, but it would have a negative effect on everyone in the UK (Scotland included) if Scotland was to break away. You are correct to say that there is a risk involved in English politicians getting involved too much in the Scotland debate as they may be seen as intervening unfairly, but as I said before this decision would affect the UK as a whole and certainly in his capacity as PM of the UK and NI David Cameron has a duty to ensure any referendum is constitutionally sound (currently I believe it’s legality is dubious).
@Dave: Firstly I return the insult, and add that if you want to read some truely biased tripe, try an SNP blog. Secondly I take it by what I can decipher from your rant that you are a Welsh nationalist? Would this be the same Welsh people who continue to elect largely Unionist politicians and have a weak nationalist party currently lagging in third place? Your own country still seems dead set on the Union Dave, because it continues to benefit Wales just as it continues to benefit Scotland. I wouldn’t spurn the submarines either – along with the navy contracts and other UK military bases in Scotland they bring substantial employment to poor areas. Wales could well benefit from inheriting them if Scotland decides to go it alone.
@All:If Alex Salmond truely respected the people of Scotland, he would allow them to vote sooner so as to not do damage to the economy, and would ensure the referendum was held on a level playing field so as to remove any doubt about the validity of its result. Salmond is continuing to drag his heels and try to employ underhand tricks to fix the result however because he knows that if Scotland had a fair vote tomorrow it would choose the Union. He is more self-interested as any of the Unionist parties and many time more devious.
Posted by Jonathan Tanner | March 1, 2012, 1:11 pm“The future of the country will be voted upon by the people of Scotland, myself included, but that does not mean Alex Salmond has the right to set the terms of the referendum to so strongly favour his own party.”
It is not a party political issue. The “terms” are still under consideration. Evidently you haven’t heard of the consultation that is in progress. So, as well as being mere unsupported assertion on your part, the claim that the terms favour one position or another is ridiculously premature.
And Alex Salmond – or, more precisely, the Scottish government – most certainly does have the right to set the terms. They have the democratic mandate to do so. But apparently unionists only like democracy when it gives them the answers they want.
“Especially when you consider that by not holding the referendum until 2014 he is doing substantial damage to the Scottish economy…”
Another unsupported assertion. There is absolutely no evidence of the referendum doing any damage to the economy. In fact, Scotland seems to be doing rather well under difficult circumstances. Circumstances that were brought about by the UK government. It seems to be a matter of great distress to anti-independence campaigners that the people of Scotland aren’t suffering more.
Do you have anything to offer other than parroted British nationalist propaganda?
Posted by Peter A Bell | March 1, 2012, 1:52 pmI have of course heard of the consultation and understand that nothing is yet finalised, I am only commenting on what has so far been considered and revealed by the SNP.
The SNP do not have the right to set the terms if the terms they set are so blatently biased towards the result they want. That is not democracy, in fact it is blatently undermining it. Unionists are quite prepared to accept whatever outcome the Scottish people may vote for, what we are not prepared to accept is that vote being taken on a completely unlevel playing field.
My assertations over the economy are far from being unsupported. In fact it has been widely reported that companies are holding back investment in Scotland under the future of the country is decided. Evidently you don’t do very much informed reading, you just swallow the line given to you by the SNP spin masters. Here are some articles that back up my assertion, although this list is far from exhaustive:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/9104876/SSE-says-independence-referendum-is-creating-economic-uncertainty.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/feb/29/scottish-independence-weir-group?newsfeed=true
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-17220280
Like all Scottish nationalists when it comes to debate you are only interested in insulting or ridiculing your opponent, because when it comes to an argument on policy you know you don’t have a leg to stand on.
Posted by Jonathan Tanner | March 1, 2012, 3:11 pm*until, not under.
Posted by Jonathan Tanner | March 1, 2012, 3:13 pm“That is not democracy, in fact it is blatently (sic) undermining it.”
I presume you’re a Tory, if not, you really sound like one.
The Tories have one out of fifty-nine Scottish MPs.
The SNP gained an outright majority in their Parliament – an institution designed by Labour to prevent such a thing ever happening – and that gives the SNP the democratic mandate to hold the referendum when they said they’d hold it, and to have a consultation on the matter.
The question has been proposed. If it is deemed satisfactory by the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland, then that is the question that will be put.
As you’re obviously not living in Wales, then you might be unaware that the case for sovereign independence has never been put to the people of Wales by any party, at any time – not even by Plaid Cymru, which itself has been ambivalent on the issue since its inception in 1926.
In the next couple of years that case will be examined and put before the Welsh people for the first time.
Events in Scotland are bringing the UK’s constitution (or lack of) into sharp focus. It’s far too early to predict the outcome of the referendum, as the consultation is still taking place, and the views of the other parties, including DC’s, haven’t yet crystallised.
Whatever the outcome, the UK will not be the same post-2014. The status quo is not an option for the Scots – they simply won’t accept it. Cameron has implicitly accepted it too by promising them jam tomorrow. That won’t be acceptable to them either after the Tory broken promises post 1979.
Constitutional change will have implications for Wales. I predict that if the Scots leave, then overnight there will be a couple of million more nationalists in Wales, when they wake up to the fact that the likes of Tory toff millionaires like Cameron et al will be governing them indefinitely.
Even the extremely cautious Carwyn Jones, Wales’ FM, has already woken up to the dangers of that.
“Unionists are quite prepared to accept whatever outcome the Scottish people may vote for..”
You might be prepared to accept it, but the political elite at Westminster most definitely is not. Salmond and his party have to watch their backs, because every dirty trick in the book will be used to subvert the democratic will of the Scots.
Btw, it’s no use citing the unionist media and press – the BBC especially. It has ceased to allow comments on Brian Taylor’s blog (BBC Scotland’s political correspondent) because of the preponderance of pro-independence comments on it.
Conversely, Betsan Powys’ blog (BBC Wales) still accepts comments, very largely anti-Welsh, and anti-devolution.
Many of us in Wales and Scotland refer to it as the EBC. We know everything about what goes on in England from its news bulletins and news channel, and virtually nothing of the political landscape in Wales. You’d have to live here to believe it. Most people in Wales have no idea what the Welsh government is doing in health and education – btw generally running them badly – it’s been Labour dominated since 1999.
Posted by Dave | March 1, 2012, 4:29 pmI’m sorry, what sources would be appropriate for me to cite? Some nonsense rag under the control of the SNP’s propaganda machine? The BBC has strict rules about neutrality and regularly grills politicians from all the major parties. The Guardian and The Telegraph, whilst admittedly left and right leaning respectively, are both well established newspapers with a good history of quality journalism.
Besides none of those articles are speculative – they are reporting statements expressing concern on the referendum by some of the top companies in Scotland, companies which Alex Salmond will depend on heavily if his dream of Scotland surviving as an independent state is ever to become a reality.
As I have said before the SNP have the right to hold a consultation on the referendum, but they do not have the right to set the rules so to be so strongly fixed in their favour.
I have never studied Welsh politics in depth, but from what I can see there is little will in Wales to have a debate on independence. Otherwise why would the Welsh nationalists be such a distant third in the Welsh Assembly? I also don’t see any reason why that should change overnight if Scotland seperated from the UK, especially since Wales doesn’t have oil revenues to prop up it’s independent economy.
And yes, I am a member of the Scottish Conservatives, which is hardly a surprise given that Toast is a right-leaning blog.
Posted by Jonathan Tanner | March 2, 2012, 12:11 pmRuth Davidson has been allowed to wallow up the creek without a paddle by her boss, DC.
She drew ‘the line in the sand’ of the status quo, not an inch more, then Cameron pops up to tempt the Scots with more powers if they vote No.
Clueless.
Plaid Cymru is not a distant third, either in the number of Assembly seats or in the number of votes it got at the last election. The Tories have 14, as against Plaid’s 11.
One AM defected to the Tories during the last Assembly ostensibly because Plaid wouldn’t allow him to employ his daughter. Enough said.
One of the reasons for Plaid’s relatively poor showing was its decision to be a minority partner in a coalition with Labour – a bad move electorally. At least Wales got legislative powers as a result – voted in by a large majority right across Wales.
The figure of 10% or so in favour of independence has been consistent as far as opinion polls are concerned for many years. Plaid has never campaigned or made the case for it. It has therefore never been debated.
But it will be.
However, very recent polls have shown a large majority in favour of the devolution of tax raising powers to the Assembly, some 65%. 33% want full fiscal powers.
If the Scots vote Yes.. not to ‘separation’ but for independence – the right to take decisions for themselves on matters which concern them, and not have them taken by others, will definitely impact on Wales.
Until there is a political realignment in the rUK, we will be almost certainly governed by the Tory party. That will be unacceptable to the majority of the people of Wales, for whom the Tories are toxic. The relationship between Wales and the rUK will need to change.
As I mentioned above, Labour’s Carwyn Jones, Wales’ FM, an unionist, has already called for a commission to examine the issue, in the eventuality of Scottish independence. It seems he wants a federal solution.
It would mean the creation of a federal rUK – that is, home rule, self-determination for Wales, which the majority of Welsh people would prefer rather than be governed by Tories.
Since Nick Bourne (their former leader) lost his seat in the Assembly, ironically because the Tories won some constituency seats, the party in Wales has moved to the right under Andrew R T Davies. From here on, I predict that they will do less well. Bourne was likeable and respected across the political spectrum, including the nationalists. That is changing.
Lastly, Wales’ resources. There is no doubt that Wales is dependent on what it receives from the UK treasury. That dependency is the result of being in the UK. For Wales it is a Catch 22 situation. Your argument is the one that has been put to the Scots and the Welsh by unionists from time immemorial – you’re too small, too weak, too poor (and by implication, too stupid) to govern yourselves.
More than half of the 193 sovereign members of the UN are the size of Scotland or Wales, or smaller. A number of eastern European states (former Soviet bloc) have overtaken Wales in terms of GDP and GVA, and have prospered. Wales has continued to decline.
Only three countries in Europe lack any electrified railways – Albania, Moldova – and Wales. It has been exploited and neglected by successive Westminster governments from time immemorial, and it continues. The 2006 Government of Wales Act specifically excluded the Welsh Government from having any control over Wales’ water resources. We’re not a fit and proper people to have ownership of what belongs to us.
It was only in 2010 that Westminster, the parliament which legislated to destroy the Welsh language (and which very nearly did destroy it) very begrudgingly, and with ill-feeling, devolved the power to legislate to protect it, to Cardiff.
Children in the schools of Wales weren’t taught its history, and don’t know the half of what’s been going on. Much the same happened in Scotland, no doubt.
Posted by Dave | March 2, 2012, 4:03 pm“Ruth Davidson has been allowed to wallow up the creek without a paddle by her boss, DC.
She drew ‘the line in the sand’ of the status quo, not an inch more, then Cameron pops up to tempt the Scots with more powers if they vote No.”
Looks like Lamont is in a similar position. She has pretty much echoed the sentiments of the Scottish Tories’ new ex-leader-in-waiting ruling out both “devo-max” and “devo-plus”. Meanwhile, her bosses in London are singing from a rather different hymn=sheet.
The anti-independence Tory/Labour/LibDem coalition is a shambles.
Posted by Peter A Bell | March 2, 2012, 5:13 pmBy the very logic that there is still a consultation process at hand then surely the assumption should be made that any date for a referendum will be decided after this period? Salmond already stated through his new BFF, Rupert Murdoch, that the referendum will be held on the 18th October 2014. If that date is indeed accurate then its one colossal freudian slip on behalf of the SNP and News International without credence to common democratic principles. Westminster has every right under the UK constitution which Scotland exists under to challenge any referendum composition the SNP puts forward. To not do so and allow the SNP to play god is totalitarian in the extreme and a complete subversion of constitutional law. A referendum held without the agreement of Westminster will be thrown out in court. Nobody is arguing the mandate but don’t be fooled into thinking that Salmond can do whatever he likes. Indeed the SNP would fully expect to be part of any consultation process should there ever be a referendum on EU membership. It seems that what is good for the goose is not necessarily good for the gander. I digress though as clearly that would be a mute point. Nationalists are failing to understand constitutional politics or even the law. That to me is deeply worrying. The Nationalists should understand one thing however. The referendum is not about them. Its about Alex Salmond. The referendum exists because Salmond is a nationalist. He is not giving away anything, he’s merely offering something he wants for himself. Now that he has the chance, he is snaking his way through every conceivable rat hole to manufacture the result HE wants.
Posted by Matt T | March 1, 2012, 5:18 pmMatt
The Supreme Court has already refused to interfere in democratic decisions. It won’t involve itself in political issues which are best decided elsewhere. Democracy trumps the law.
Cameron has accepted that the Scots have a mandate to hold the referendum. Should Westminster decide to frustrate the process by holding one at an earlier date, with a different question, the SNP will ask their supporters to boycott it, and the result will be meaningless.
They will hold the plebiscite in the autumn of 2014 under the auspices of the electoral commission. If they gain a democratic majority no court on this planet would dare question the outcome.
Like it or not, the people will have spoken.
Short of sending in the British army, the UK government could do nothing about it.
As for the SNP and Salmond, the Scottish electorate voted them into power on two consecutive occasions. That’s democracy – but I suppose you don’t like it when people you don’t agree with get elected. Tough.
Posted by Dave | March 1, 2012, 6:33 pmYou make the assumption that an early referendum would be boycotted. Its up to the nationalists to boycott such a referendum. Unionists will continue to vote all the same with what would likely be a victory. And that would also be democracy in action and the people will also have spoken based on your logic. I would like to see the courts throw that one out. Much like the fact that the Tory coalition was as a result of a democratic vote i would assume you also don’t agree with who got elected. But as you said, that’s democracy and that also is tough. But of course you conveniently forget that Scotland is still part of the UK, whether you like it or not
Posted by Matt T | March 1, 2012, 7:54 pmOf course, Westminster wouldn’t be foolish enough to foist a referendum on the Scots. That would be suicide for the unionist cause. Nothing would please the nationalists more.
There really isn’t much the unionists can do about it. They can huff and puff, but not much else.
I can’t prove it to you, but that’s how it will play out. (That is, events notwithstanding, no one can predict the unpredictable).
It doesn’t mean that there’ll be a Yes vote. As I said, it’s much to early to say. In all probability it will be close.
Cameron’s made his case – Security Council seat, nuclear deterrence – we’re stronger together etc – the Scots have already decided that they’re not impressed with those things.
It’ll come down to gut feeling in the end – to jump or not to jump – the risk etc. National sentiment will also play a part as well as the prospect of a new beginning.
I’m not a Scot, and can’t get into their psyche, but I am Welsh, which might give me some insight into how minorities feel within the UK.
It will be a big decision, with huge repercussions for us all.
Posted by Dave | March 1, 2012, 8:26 pm“Salmond already stated through his new BFF, Rupert Murdoch, that the referendum will be held on the 18th October 2014.”
No, he didn’t. But there seems to be no shortage of credulous simpletons prepared to believe that he did.
Posted by Peter A Bell | March 1, 2012, 8:34 pmAlex Salmond is representing the SNP and all Scots who voted for the party unlike the present westminster government who really don’t care about ‘the norf’ as history shows. Not to recognise this is simply foolish. It is nationalism (British) that we should all be worrying about, old fashioned, out of date and out of touch with the rest of these isles. It is time to move forward.
Posted by Bill Brodie | March 1, 2012, 6:48 pmSo Bill, you’re saying that Alex Salmond does not represent the interests of any Scot who didn’t vote for the SNP? You should remember that the Nationalists are still the minority regardless of the election results. It was disenfranchised Labor voters who put the SNP there; it was merely tactical and not an advocation of SNP support. And yet these people have a vital say in Scottish independence along with the English and EU ‘settlers’. You may appease your own but on the flip side the SNP will continue to marginalize the very people who hold the key to their power. After all, the SNP do not have an unequivocal right to independence.
Posted by Matt T | March 1, 2012, 8:06 pmI think Tanner has somewhat missed the point about politics: its about winning. Losers don’t have power ergo Salmond doesn’t want to lose. Everything else is subordinate to the calculus of gaining and maintaining power or at the very least limiting or neutralising any actual or potential opposition to power. In this context Salmond’s approach is not only understandable it is entirely predictable.
Equally understandable and predictable are opponents cries of “foul”. They do not offer much by way of adding to the debate about the issue or even finding a more imaginative and mutually beneficial solution to the alternatives on offer.
I believe that the constitution of the UK is under strain in a variety of areas with Scottish independence perhaps being the issue that forces a thorough going reappraisal. For those who do well from the existing arrangements, particularly if they think they will do less well out of any changes to the status quo, it is to be expected that they will object. Furthermore, I believe that it would be a mistake to only consider economics in this context. For the Scottish Nationalists, it is not simply about the money and I dare say it is the same for the Welsh too.
The Unionists (Westminster centric)position appears to be that everything will be alright once this economic turbulence has blown over. It is precisely this elitist arrogance that fuels dissatisfaction with the current arrangements. As another correspondent has noted, if your wife has filed for divorce, your solicitor is unlikely to save the marriage.
Posted by Derek Campbell | March 1, 2012, 8:20 pmMatt, what nationalists are you referring to? You should be aware that the Scottish nationalist are a majority government unlike the ‘British’ nationalist government! Independence for Scotland is so much bigger than Alex Salmond and the SNP, he/they are a mere stepping stone in progressive Scottish government. I have noticed that there is such a strong dislike for Salmond in the British nationalist camp they seem to have lost sight of the ball, all good for the winning team.
Posted by Bill Brodie | March 2, 2012, 12:56 amHaha fair point Derek, yes you are right there is no point in calling foul but remaining passive and allowing the SNP to dictate the tempo, all we’ll be left with is a fait accompli.
Unfortunatly the only party capable of attracting widespread popular support against the SNP is Scottish Labour and they are currently wringing their hair, worried about being seen campaigning alongside the coalition parties. They need to wake up and realise that Scottish Independence would inflict far more damage on them than any association with the Tories or Liberals might do.
I agree that it is not all about the money, but as I have mentioned in another blog before various polls on why people might vote for independence have always put money way above any other reason, identity included.
Besides the current situation of many small independent European countries demands attention. A few years ago Salmond was telling everyone how Scotland would prosper under independence, just like Iceland and Ireland.
Fast forward to now and Ireland and Iceland are both completely broke but Scotland was able to successfully bail out its central bank (RBS) thanks to UK treasury funds. An independent Scotland would not have been able to do that. The EU might have bailed us out, but we would have been faced with extremely strict austerity rules, far worse than the mild austerity we are currently enduring.
The question is – do we really want to seperate from the UK if we have to be significantly poorer and more economically vulnerable as a result? A few nationalist fanatics might be willing to endure it, but the majority of Scots are, like me, financial pragmatists.
The divorce comparison is an absurd one, as Scotland is not just one person with one will, we are 5 million people often with very different opinions. Moreover Scotland hasn’t filed for divorce yet, we are merely considering it, so we are not yet at the stage of dividing our finances, assets and debts.
Posted by Jonathan Tanner | March 2, 2012, 12:38 pmRBS wasn’t and isn’t Scotland’s ‘central’ Bank. It’s a UK bank. Its head office is in Scotland. It was regulated by the FSA.
It was the UK’s failure to regulate the banks adequately which led to the crisis. The core of the entire problem lay in the US and the UK. The toxic assets originated in the US, and UK financial organisations in London facilitated their spread world-wide.
The casino banking environment is alive and kicking and unreformed in London. It will collapse again. Making money out of money cannot continue indefinitely – it will end in tears.
You talk of Iceland and Ireland as if the UK has no problems. The UK economy is languishing. Osborne is having to borrow an EXTRA £154 billion over the next four years because of the failure of his policies. If there isn’t an upturn soon, then he’ll have to borrow even more.
On top of that since 2008 Labour and the ConDems have authorised the BoE to create £275bn out of thin air with which to buy bonds – UK government debt – a procedure euphemistically called ‘quantitative easing’. That hasn’t worked either. It’s had the effect of devaluing our wages, pensions and savings by importing inflation. Legalised theft by sleight of hand.
On top of inflation, which of course hurts the poorest in society the most (wealthy Tory toffs and the rest of the UK’s elite in London and the south east aren’t much affected) there is austerity – and it isn’t mild!
Unemployment is rising. Overall there will be cuts of 25% upwards in public spending. Pensions are not being raised by RPI any longer, but prices are rising faster for pensioners, whose savings incomes have been obliterated by low interest rates, which benefit the propertied and business classes.
The gap between rich and poor is widening rapidly. It is unsustainable.
As for divorce – the SNP are suing for independence – they couldn’t have put it more plainly.
It might be wiser to consider why so many Scots voted for the party that put independence into their manifesto, and shouted it from the rooftops before the election. There has to be something badly wrong with things in the UK for that to happen. Reflect on it.
In the period leading up to Ireland’s exit in 1922, much the same thing happened. Unionists, led by Lloyd George (a Welsh-speaking Welshman, born in Manchester) made the same mistake, coming up with more considered solutions far too late, which might have saved the Union – and all the bloodshed and misery which has happened since then.
Some people, it appears, never learn the lessons of history.
Posted by Dave | March 2, 2012, 4:50 pmI think you have picked up on the main thrust of my post in some regards: what are the issues that drive the nationalist argument, what is the unionist response and/or counter-argument and can there be a deal that both sides would find satisfactory? However, you then display a remarkably short term response to a long standing issue. I don’t suppose that Ireland is going to announce that it has had second thoughts about independence and would like to rejoin the United Kingdom. Are you seriously suggesting that the judgement of the success or otherwise of Scottish independence, were it to happen, would be made within a couple a years? Is that the unionist yardstick? I don’t suppose for a moment that the nationalists will take such a short term view. I’m trying to avoid being impolite, but if that is how the unionist response is going to be framed I fear the argument is lost.
Are you saying that an independent Scotland would fail to have the calibre of politician capable of running the economy successfully and so Scots would be better off relying on the skill and expertise of politicians in Westminster? I guess you are not saying that at all but I can read that into your comment. Maybe Scottish politicians would have been more risk averse and taken steps to prevent their central bank needing bailout funds in the first place. The economy needs to be well run, not large to be successful. In fact without too much research I would suggest that well run economies, irrespective of size have avoided needing bailouts, whilst poorly run economies, irrespective of size, have required bailouts. The problem arises when a large poorly run economy needs more support than can be provided.
The divorce comparison is interesting and your response, I feel, indicates the unionist position of denial that there might even be an issue. Imagine a man in bar saying to his friend “I know my wife (Scottish Government under SNP)has asked for a divorce.” “oh yes” says his friend. The first man continues: “yes, but she hasn’t filed for divorce yet, we are merely considering it, so we are not yet at the stage of dividing our finances, assets and debts.”
Sounds like the everything is fine in that marriage!
Posted by Derek Campbell | March 2, 2012, 7:43 pmAll this talk about filing for divorce… where do Scottish Nationalists get this idea from?
Look at it another way: how often do people you know complain about their wife/husband? How many even profess to want to kill them on a regular basis? Now, how many times have they actually done it?
I imagine your answer is the same as mine – not many.
Grumbling is one thing, but I don’t know a single person outside of the SNP mailing list that actually thinks separation is a good idea. Unfortunately, though, the SNP’s placing of strategy before the national interest – one of may traits they share with other politicians (I don’t know why separatists think things would be any different in an independent Scotland!) – means we’ll have to wait years to find out.
Posted by Matt C | March 2, 2012, 4:11 pmThe article is based on the proposition that Alex Salmond is trying to duck and dive and construct a referendum that is partial to the nationalist cause. The one thing i am really struggling to get my head around is why they keep harping on about Westminster being bullies when they are in fact offering a date for a referendum; something the SNP has demanded since their conception. Now they have the opportunity to have one they are running away from it. Why will he not accept another referendum date unless it is to endear the fallacy of independence to those he wants to target? The nationalist agenda is overtly deferential to their followers and of course they will use everything at their disposal to spin the argument in their favor. The SNP are using the oldest trick in the book; divide and conquer. They don’t have the ability to fool the Unionists which is why they have to attack Westminster; anything other than sabre rattling from the nationalists will derail their cause. Unionists such as myself have to prove nothing to those seeking independence; I am perfectly happy living in a stable democracy. Its about time that Salmond stops fudging the numbers and tells us how he can convert ‘policy’ into reality. To date , he has done of that and frankly i question whether he is capable of that. It nice to have the Union to fall back on to make you look good without the the responsibility of having to manage a portion of your finances.
Posted by Matt T | March 2, 2012, 9:03 pm“Now they have the opportunity to have one they are running away from it.”
Utter rubbish! The Scottish government announced its timetable for the referendum long before Cameron started trying to interfere. And it is sheer hypocrisy to now pretend that Westminster is offering a referendum when they have spent years trying to prevent the people of Scotland having a say in their constitutional future.
We are having this referendum DESPITE the British government, not because of it. And it is the Scottish government that has the democratic mandate to organise that referendum. The British government has none.
Posted by Peter A Bell | March 2, 2012, 9:12 pmSurely the attitude “unionists have nothing to prove” is the infuriating attitude that nationalists despise. Its smug conceit suggests a superiority that does not have to even bother with the debate. Why can’t unionists get off their bottoms and win the argument? Is it, in fact, that they cannot? The majority of comments that I have seen do not attempt to construct a cogent argument for the union. Unless and until this happens the nationalists will continue to make the running.
It is all well and good pointing out the negatives in Salmond’s tactics but where are the positives from the unionists about retaining the union? If it is so self evident, tell everyone. I’m even prepared to start the sentence: It is good for Scotland to have Westminster retain sovereignty over Scottish affairs because…
Posted by Derek Campbell | March 2, 2012, 11:46 pm“Why can’t unionists get off their bottoms and win the argument?”
I thought that would be blatantly obvious. Nationalists do not care what Unionists have to say. There is absolute futility in trying to convert any form of nationalism so that is the very reason why we don’t bother. It is up to the nationalists to explain to the rest of the UK why they want independence. We aren’t the ones trying to destroy the Union after all. You said yourself that nationalists despise the Unionist attitude. Don’t be upset therefore if we don’t dance to the tune of the SNP. I dare say the feeling is mutual. You explain to me why the Westminster government are so terrible. After all they can’t please everyone, not least the nationalists. However, that is democracy for you and i have no problem with that whatsoever. I lived for 13 years under a government i never voted for but i accept the will of the people. The nationalists accept NOTHING unless its on their terms.
Posted by Matt T | March 3, 2012, 3:33 amI don’t think I ever suggested that unionists need to persuade nationalists of anything, it is to the broader electorate that the nationalists have made their appeals. My point remains that unionists have failed to develop an argument.
The Westminster government is terrible because it is undemocratic, unrepresentative, inefficient, bureaucratic, expensive, out of touch, contradictory, self serving, bloated, corrupt, archaic, and coercive. I think you will find that you accepted the will of government, not the will of the people. Nobody I know voted to save the banks and pay for it by raising taxation, but you tell me that was the will of the people. According to your view the people will presumably have a chance to vote on welfare reform and reforms to the health service – I don’t think so. When was the last time the people were given a vote over any european issue? Nope, I think again that it was government that decided.
The Scots have said via the SNP “enough, we want to have a bit more of a say” and you don’t need to be unionist or nationalist to see that there is saliency in that statement. I am neither particularly unionist nor nationalist. I do not think that Scottish independence would be a panacea for the Scots. I do not believe that that the SNP can secure a victory on the matter. What I can see is an opportunity for constitutional reform with more power moving away from Westminster, and that I wholeheartedly support.
Posted by Derek Campbell | March 3, 2012, 9:18 am