The news agenda today will be dominated by the budget so there will be little room for what would have been a front page story for most of the Scottish press - an Alex Salmond capitulation.
Despite the SNP threat to torpedo the Westminster government's Scotland Bill that would give more power to Holyrood, the Scottish government now appears to have completely backed down.
A written Ministerial Statement issued by Scottish Secretary Michael Moore this morning makes it clear that the UK government and Scottish government have reached agreement on the bill.
There's grumbling from the SNP, and concessions not to take minor powers back to Westminster, but both administrations have confirmed they will recommend MSPs and MPs support the bill when it comes before Holyrood and the Commons.
The SNP had vowed to frustrate the process of transferring powers by rallying their troops to vote against the measures in Holyrood, where the party has a comfortable majority.
But here's the bill, at the committee stage in the Lords today, with hardly any significant changes to what the Coalition was proposing in the first place.
Remember, when Salmond won a Holyrood majority he came south with a shopping list of demands he wanted added to the Scotland Bill.
In the glow of election victory the First Minister bid for control over corporation tax and Crown Estate revenues.
He made new demands over alcohol and cigarette excise duty, broadcasting powers and EU representation.
These will doubtless remain SNP demands but there is no sign of them being contained in the Scotland Bill.
What is contained is the biggest transfer of powers since devolution. I know Michael Moore says "since the creation of the UK" but that's too much hyperbole for me.
The measures include:
a new Scottish rate of income tax
the devolution of stamp duty land tax
the devolution of landfill tax
the power to create new taxes
new borrowing powers
There are also legislative odds and ends like power over air weapons in Scotland,
responsibility for drink driving and speed limits on Scotland's roads, and a role in appointments in broadcasting and the Crown Estate.
There's also going to be a new procedure for Scottish criminal cases that go to the UK Supreme Court.
Politically the SNP would have found it hard to vote against more powers anyway, but a few weeks ago the Scottish government was describing the new tax powers as harmful and the whole bill a "pig in a poke".
Now they seem perfectly happy to accept the measures and vote accordingly. As with so many issues for Alex Salmond, he huffed and he puffed, and...
UPDATE: The SNP's John Mason has popped up to call the Scotland Bill "a missed opportunity".
All that does is highlight Salmond's silence on the issue, presume this will be sorted by SNP Central soon.
Wednesday, 21 March 2012
Tuesday, 21 February 2012
Gove tells Tories to lay off the Scots
Michael Gove - that rare species, a Scottish Tory cabinet Minister - was our guest speaker at the Press Gallery lunch, just now.
Gove the Cove - a former Press and Journal staffer who was sacked during the infamous 1980s strike - laid out newslines quite liberally.
He made such a strong defence of the journalist freedoms currently being pilloried at the Leveson inquiry that I changed my mind on asking for my contributions to the P&J strike fund to be re-imbursed.
In his first intervention in the referendum debate (apart from helping write Cameron’s speech last week) he called for English Tories to lay off the Scots.
Gove, Education Secretary in England and part of the Cameron inner-circle, insisted The Prime Minister was an asset to the campaign to keep the UK together. But admitted some his colleagues had fallen into the trap of reciprocating nationalist victim culture with grudges of their own against Scotland.
Engaging in a grudge culture against devolution on issues like the Barnett funding formula of the West Lothian Question, the level of Scottish representation at Westminster, only work to open up the divide between the nations of the United Kingdom, he said.
There are always English MPs, Tory and other stripes, willing to trot out the line that England subsidises Scotand (not as much as it subsidises London, I say) and there is currently a parliamentary inquiry into the West Lothian question.
He's a good speaker so here's the unvarnished quotes of what he said on Scotland:
"One of the things I wanted to emphasis is that this is an argument that has to be won on several dimensions. Firstly we have to persuade Scotland that its future is stronger in the UK, than it would be if Scotland were to separate. We are stronger as a result of a our common endeavour over 300 years, we’ve achieved amazing things together, we pool risk more effectively, we safeguard the weak more effectively, we project our values because we stand together.”
"There is a threat to that from Scottish separatism, but there is also a threat, under appreciated, from English separatism as well. I think there is a specific threat from my own political tradition.
"There are some people on the right who say the Scots want to leave - let them. That is entirely the wrong attitude. It seems to me to be saying: 'This used to be a warm house where we all used to live together but, frankly - you daft besom -if you want to leave on your own head be it’. These are not the words of someone who wants to keep a marriage together.
"That is why, when some of my colleagues say we need to re-visit the West Lothian Question, or we need to have a new settlement that is fairer to people in England, I say no. Remember the bigger picture.
"The country was Great Britain for a reason, because we stood together and stand together. if we turn inwards and against each other then I feel we will undermine something that is precious and our country will be a diminished presence in the future.”
Gove the Cove - a former Press and Journal staffer who was sacked during the infamous 1980s strike - laid out newslines quite liberally.
He made such a strong defence of the journalist freedoms currently being pilloried at the Leveson inquiry that I changed my mind on asking for my contributions to the P&J strike fund to be re-imbursed.
In his first intervention in the referendum debate (apart from helping write Cameron’s speech last week) he called for English Tories to lay off the Scots.
Gove, Education Secretary in England and part of the Cameron inner-circle, insisted The Prime Minister was an asset to the campaign to keep the UK together. But admitted some his colleagues had fallen into the trap of reciprocating nationalist victim culture with grudges of their own against Scotland.
Engaging in a grudge culture against devolution on issues like the Barnett funding formula of the West Lothian Question, the level of Scottish representation at Westminster, only work to open up the divide between the nations of the United Kingdom, he said.
There are always English MPs, Tory and other stripes, willing to trot out the line that England subsidises Scotand (not as much as it subsidises London, I say) and there is currently a parliamentary inquiry into the West Lothian question.
He's a good speaker so here's the unvarnished quotes of what he said on Scotland:
"One of the things I wanted to emphasis is that this is an argument that has to be won on several dimensions. Firstly we have to persuade Scotland that its future is stronger in the UK, than it would be if Scotland were to separate. We are stronger as a result of a our common endeavour over 300 years, we’ve achieved amazing things together, we pool risk more effectively, we safeguard the weak more effectively, we project our values because we stand together.”
"There is a threat to that from Scottish separatism, but there is also a threat, under appreciated, from English separatism as well. I think there is a specific threat from my own political tradition.
"There are some people on the right who say the Scots want to leave - let them. That is entirely the wrong attitude. It seems to me to be saying: 'This used to be a warm house where we all used to live together but, frankly - you daft besom -if you want to leave on your own head be it’. These are not the words of someone who wants to keep a marriage together.
"That is why, when some of my colleagues say we need to re-visit the West Lothian Question, or we need to have a new settlement that is fairer to people in England, I say no. Remember the bigger picture.
"The country was Great Britain for a reason, because we stood together and stand together. if we turn inwards and against each other then I feel we will undermine something that is precious and our country will be a diminished presence in the future.”
Thursday, 16 February 2012
Cameron salts his porridge for Salmond
This blog's been gone too long. It's been such a busy month of politics that there's hardly been time to write a line that doesn't go to print - but that's an old excuse.
Whitehall goes to Holyrood today, albeit an empty Scottish Parliament where not even the public are allowed to tour the building while the MSPs are on holiday.
David Cameron is in town at the same time as I am - taking that first twirl on the dancefloor with Alex Salmond in this long elimination waltz to a referendum.
The two are meeting about now, while we all digest the contents of a very coherent speech from a British Prime Minister in defence of the UK.
Cameron spoke for the UK "head, heart and soul", as we had been briefed, but he may have over-extended himself by promising more devolution - if only the Scottish people reject outright the prospect of independence.
He refused to elaborate on what powers he might offer Holyrood, if the Scots choose to stay in the Union. Short of even more tax powers - the Scotland Bill will give the parliament power to raise a third of the taxes it spends - we're at a loss to see what he might mean.
Salmond has been quick to point out that this is an old Tory trick, promised by Sir Alex Douglas-Home a long time ago in the lead up to the 70s devolution referendum.
Without specifics it leaves Salmond facing an easy media goal this afternoon. But as the game is played out this "offer" of Cameron's may become more significant. Of course, it is not Cameron's offer at all, but that of George Osborne, the strategist who knows the Tories can't go into this referendum campaign simply saying No.
But back to the speech, which will be on the Downing Street website. It was far from the "threadbare" reasons for the UK that the SNP described it as.
Cameron began with humble pie, went on to condemn the Clearances (go tell 'em on Jura I whispered where his father-in-law has more deer than people on the island), and made the case for a fairer Britain.
There was a call to Labour arms - for Gordon Brown ,Alistair Darling, and John Reid to add their voices to the UK campaign - that didn't go unnoticed.
Strange to hear the case for social justice across the whole UK best articulated in Scotland by a Conservative Prime Minister. While the speech was good (hats off the former Guardian scribe turned Downing Street scriptwriter Julian Glover we're told) the human deliver mechanism - an Eton-educated, Conservative - might not be the best for Scottish ears.
Cameron acknowledged that in questioning, but his defence was that this, the Union, is what he believes in. With that vague vow on more powers Cameron may have slipped, or stepped on his partner's toe - the airwaves jury will decide. But, once again, Cameron shows he's not afraid to take the lead in this dance.
Whitehall goes to Holyrood today, albeit an empty Scottish Parliament where not even the public are allowed to tour the building while the MSPs are on holiday.
David Cameron is in town at the same time as I am - taking that first twirl on the dancefloor with Alex Salmond in this long elimination waltz to a referendum.
The two are meeting about now, while we all digest the contents of a very coherent speech from a British Prime Minister in defence of the UK.
Cameron spoke for the UK "head, heart and soul", as we had been briefed, but he may have over-extended himself by promising more devolution - if only the Scottish people reject outright the prospect of independence.
He refused to elaborate on what powers he might offer Holyrood, if the Scots choose to stay in the Union. Short of even more tax powers - the Scotland Bill will give the parliament power to raise a third of the taxes it spends - we're at a loss to see what he might mean.
Salmond has been quick to point out that this is an old Tory trick, promised by Sir Alex Douglas-Home a long time ago in the lead up to the 70s devolution referendum.
Without specifics it leaves Salmond facing an easy media goal this afternoon. But as the game is played out this "offer" of Cameron's may become more significant. Of course, it is not Cameron's offer at all, but that of George Osborne, the strategist who knows the Tories can't go into this referendum campaign simply saying No.
But back to the speech, which will be on the Downing Street website. It was far from the "threadbare" reasons for the UK that the SNP described it as.
Cameron began with humble pie, went on to condemn the Clearances (go tell 'em on Jura I whispered where his father-in-law has more deer than people on the island), and made the case for a fairer Britain.
There was a call to Labour arms - for Gordon Brown ,Alistair Darling, and John Reid to add their voices to the UK campaign - that didn't go unnoticed.
Strange to hear the case for social justice across the whole UK best articulated in Scotland by a Conservative Prime Minister. While the speech was good (hats off the former Guardian scribe turned Downing Street scriptwriter Julian Glover we're told) the human deliver mechanism - an Eton-educated, Conservative - might not be the best for Scottish ears.
Cameron acknowledged that in questioning, but his defence was that this, the Union, is what he believes in. With that vague vow on more powers Cameron may have slipped, or stepped on his partner's toe - the airwaves jury will decide. But, once again, Cameron shows he's not afraid to take the lead in this dance.
Monday, 23 January 2012
Parliamentary gags - it's all about timing
The Daylight Savings Bill was grinding on in the background last Friday, and suspecting that it would be talked out of time, I didn't really watch too closely.
But The Hansard makes for good reading, particularly this exchange between these flashing blades, Angus MacNeil of the SNP and Labour's Tom Harris.
MacNeil, Na H-Eileanan an Iar, was arguing at length against a change in the clocks while Harris was arguing the toss.
Angus MacNeil : "On the data provided by the Lighter Later campaign, which argues that an extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day would be a panacea for the UK’s problems. It claims that people would go outside more, consume less electricity, watch less television, eat better, sleep better, run and swim more, commit fewer crimes, be less afraid to go outside, spend countless billions on tourism and be involved in fewer car accidents. Those projections do not stand up to scrutiny at all, although the change is presented as the greatest thing since sliced bread—
Mr Harris: It sounds like independence.
Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman gives me a great opportunity to say that independence will be better than sliced bread."
Touche.
But The Hansard makes for good reading, particularly this exchange between these flashing blades, Angus MacNeil of the SNP and Labour's Tom Harris.
MacNeil, Na H-Eileanan an Iar, was arguing at length against a change in the clocks while Harris was arguing the toss.
Angus MacNeil : "On the data provided by the Lighter Later campaign, which argues that an extra hour of sunlight at the end of the day would be a panacea for the UK’s problems. It claims that people would go outside more, consume less electricity, watch less television, eat better, sleep better, run and swim more, commit fewer crimes, be less afraid to go outside, spend countless billions on tourism and be involved in fewer car accidents. Those projections do not stand up to scrutiny at all, although the change is presented as the greatest thing since sliced bread—
Mr Harris: It sounds like independence.
Mr MacNeil: The hon. Gentleman gives me a great opportunity to say that independence will be better than sliced bread."
Touche.
Thursday, 12 January 2012
Votes for 16-year-olds not Salmond's real agenda
One ear, my only ear, on the Holyrood debate on the referendum. Patrick Harvie, the Green MSP has just made a thoughtful speech, and Sarah Boyack is showing some passion.
It seems to be a good, and good-natured debate, although people tell me I missed a cracking contribution by Scottish Labour's Kezia Dugdale, the Shadow Youth Employment Minister.
I've always thought that the votes for for 16 and 17 year olds is as much of a red herring as the Bannockburn anniversary. It smacks too much of rigging the vote to be a red line issue for the SNP.
The point is not to actually enfranchise teenagers for the referendum, though that would probably assist the SNP cause to some degree.
The reason the party bangs on about the issue is to engage young people now so that when the referendum comes, and they are over 18, they will be more inclined to cast their first vote for the SNP.
It's the kind of inch by inch leverage of the independence vote that the SNP is engaged in every day, and there's no reason to think that work would cease on the wrong side of an independence vote in 20-whenever.
Salmond, I assume, will concede the teenage voting issue, as he always intended, to appear as if he his compromising in the wrestle with London. As one contrary wag put it to me the logic of arguing that teenagers ought to get a vote on their future extends to denying the over 80s the franchise because they have no future.
As his old friend Jim Sillars put it on Sunday, Alex Salmond is on very strong political ground but his legal standing is weak. There is going to have to be a great deal of compromise.
It seems to be a good, and good-natured debate, although people tell me I missed a cracking contribution by Scottish Labour's Kezia Dugdale, the Shadow Youth Employment Minister.
I've always thought that the votes for for 16 and 17 year olds is as much of a red herring as the Bannockburn anniversary. It smacks too much of rigging the vote to be a red line issue for the SNP.
The point is not to actually enfranchise teenagers for the referendum, though that would probably assist the SNP cause to some degree.
The reason the party bangs on about the issue is to engage young people now so that when the referendum comes, and they are over 18, they will be more inclined to cast their first vote for the SNP.
It's the kind of inch by inch leverage of the independence vote that the SNP is engaged in every day, and there's no reason to think that work would cease on the wrong side of an independence vote in 20-whenever.
Salmond, I assume, will concede the teenage voting issue, as he always intended, to appear as if he his compromising in the wrestle with London. As one contrary wag put it to me the logic of arguing that teenagers ought to get a vote on their future extends to denying the over 80s the franchise because they have no future.
As his old friend Jim Sillars put it on Sunday, Alex Salmond is on very strong political ground but his legal standing is weak. There is going to have to be a great deal of compromise.
Wednesday, 11 January 2012
Who runs Scotland - Salmond or the Supreme Court?
Like a good soldier I've staked the ground before the battle. After a television piece outside Westminster this morning, I walked across Parliament Square to survey the site for what will be a historic clash.
Really, I don't know why all these tv cameras were sent to Bannockburn yesterday - the real battle over the referendum is to be fought here, in the UK Supreme Court, across the road from Westminster. It's a fine building, and looking back across towards Big Ben I see that Room 2, the Scottish Room of the press gallery, has a view from the high ground.
David Cameron and Alex Salmond are set to meet over the next few weeks, but barring a renewal of respect vows, the fight for the future of Scotland will be slugged out by lawyers in the highest court in the land.
At least now we know why Salmond and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill went so overboard in their attacks on the Supreme Court last June.
Salmond got his demonising of the Supreme Court in early over the Cadder case, whether an accused person should have access to legal advice where they are detained by the police for questioning.
Salmond knew then what we know now, that his plans for referendum will be challenged in the Supreme Court within 28 days of the bill being passed by majority in the Holyrood Parliament. If the Advocate General. Lib Dem Jim Wallace, doesn't do it then the Attorney General, Tory Dominic Grieve, will. That's is some proto-unionist or legal academic doesn't do so first.
To avoid the courts Westminster and the Scotttish Government, which are both issuing consultation papers on a referendum, have to agree on everything that they can't agree on on now.
You can see the scene in the bleak midwinter of 2015, when the cameras have taken up their entrenched positions to snipe at lawyers coming and going from the constitutional battlefield in the Supreme Court.
George Osborne, Salmond's real nemesis if you read this week's events closely, might be the incumbent in Downing Street, a Tory liked even less in Scotland than the current Prime Minister.
Salmond will be on Sky News, he doesn't do the British Broadcasting Company first, bemoaning how he would have had a referendum by now, if it hadn't been for that Union Jack court in London.
By then, he'll say, it's too late to have the two question referendum that London (whenever he says that he means "the English") deny him because the next Holyrood election is due in May 2016.
His slogan for the 2016 campaign is already written: "Who runs Scotland? - Alex Salmond or the Supreme Court".
Really, I don't know why all these tv cameras were sent to Bannockburn yesterday - the real battle over the referendum is to be fought here, in the UK Supreme Court, across the road from Westminster. It's a fine building, and looking back across towards Big Ben I see that Room 2, the Scottish Room of the press gallery, has a view from the high ground.
David Cameron and Alex Salmond are set to meet over the next few weeks, but barring a renewal of respect vows, the fight for the future of Scotland will be slugged out by lawyers in the highest court in the land.
At least now we know why Salmond and Scottish Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill went so overboard in their attacks on the Supreme Court last June.
Salmond got his demonising of the Supreme Court in early over the Cadder case, whether an accused person should have access to legal advice where they are detained by the police for questioning.
Salmond knew then what we know now, that his plans for referendum will be challenged in the Supreme Court within 28 days of the bill being passed by majority in the Holyrood Parliament. If the Advocate General. Lib Dem Jim Wallace, doesn't do it then the Attorney General, Tory Dominic Grieve, will. That's is some proto-unionist or legal academic doesn't do so first.
To avoid the courts Westminster and the Scotttish Government, which are both issuing consultation papers on a referendum, have to agree on everything that they can't agree on on now.
You can see the scene in the bleak midwinter of 2015, when the cameras have taken up their entrenched positions to snipe at lawyers coming and going from the constitutional battlefield in the Supreme Court.
George Osborne, Salmond's real nemesis if you read this week's events closely, might be the incumbent in Downing Street, a Tory liked even less in Scotland than the current Prime Minister.
Salmond will be on Sky News, he doesn't do the British Broadcasting Company first, bemoaning how he would have had a referendum by now, if it hadn't been for that Union Jack court in London.
By then, he'll say, it's too late to have the two question referendum that London (whenever he says that he means "the English") deny him because the next Holyrood election is due in May 2016.
His slogan for the 2016 campaign is already written: "Who runs Scotland? - Alex Salmond or the Supreme Court".
Monday, 9 January 2012
Cameron's gamble on a Wheneverendum
They say fortune favours the brave, and Cameron has certainly taken a bold gamble on the future of the UK by trying to wrest the independence referendum back from Alex Salmond.
The plan to offer the Scottish government the power to stage a binding legal referendum was discussed at cabinet this morning. The catch, of course, is that this would be a limited, once only offer, lasting 12 or 18 months after which the Prime Minister would be forced to consider staging his own, simpler Yes or No referendum.
Because the cabinet was was held in the Olympic Park the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, who was in Downing Street with us, wasn't able to give a read out of the discussion.
We learned only that the proposal was put to cabinet by Chancellor George Osborne, who chairs the ministerial group on Scotland. (I admit, I didn't know he did but it indicates how seriously the UK government takes the issue).
Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander also spoke on the proposal - a read out of what was said later, we hope.
Meanwhile any questions on the implications of Westminster limiting the timing of a referendum were batted away, pending a parliamentary statement on the matter, probably this week.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was "meddling" in Scottish democracy, as SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon has it, the Prime Minister's spokesman reminded us: "In the Scotland Act 1988 it is clear that the constitution is a reserved matter."
There's the iron fist inside the consultative glove which Cameron has promised. Fully aware that Salmond will reject his offer Cameron must then be prepared to move to the next stage, and organise a Yes-No referendum from Westminster. That's when the game get's risky.
I imagine Alex Salmond must be quite relaxed about the latest twist in the game.
A fractious argument with Westminster about the mechanics of a referendum, instead of the substance of independence, plays right into the territory he has been fighting on for the last three decades.
Endless, niggling arguments about Westminster "disrespecting" Scotland will dominate the next year, which makes for a wearisome time for all, instead of a proper debate about whether Scotland would be better in or out of the UK.
(That's to say nothing of the normal political debate in Scotland about health, education, the environment and the economy - all of which is being played out through the prism of the indy referendum)
SNP members are already tweeting that the choice is between an SNP referendum and a Tory one. Given a choice between a referendum rigged by Cameron and one rigged by the Salmond, people would be expected to side with Salmond.
That said, I do recall that one of the questions in a recent poll asking people if they would boycott a Westminster-organised referendum - only two per cent said they would. (I can't reference that at the moment but I'm sure Angus Robertson, who does far more reading of tea leaves on that question than I do, will clarify. Now found the poll, added at bottom of this piece).
Anyway, talk of a boycott, respect, rights and questions are far better news for Salmond than talk of Scotland leaving the UK.
The last thing that Salmond wants is a definitive referendum on independence before the next Scottish election. He knows he would lose, and that that loss would make it more likely he would lose the election itself as well.
Either a legal challenge against his own referendum, or an extended row with the Coalition over their referendum (are you still with me?) is just the way he wants to go into the 2016 election for a third term.
Which brings us neatly, if we put the Lib Dems to one side, to the losers. Scottish Labour could be minced in this wrangling on a referendum.
Johann Lamont is-calling for a referendum as soon as possible but refusing, correctly, to back Cameron's bid to force one. We need to hear from Miliband on this one, and pretty soon, it's the future of the UK we're talking about after all. We also need to hear politicians making the case for Scotland in Britain.
Scotsman poll showing just two per cent of Scots would boycott Westminster referendum.
From The Scotsman - Tuesday 22 November 2011
"More than half of Scots are opposed to Scotland becoming independent, according to a new opinion poll.
A total of 53 per cent of those questioned by Progressive Scottish Opinion were against such a change, while 28 per cent were in favour of it and 17 per cent were unsure how they would vote in a referendum.
A total of 1,233 adults were questioned on the issue last week, with only 2 per cent stating they would not vote in an independence referendum if it was organised by Westminster rather than Holyrood."
The plan to offer the Scottish government the power to stage a binding legal referendum was discussed at cabinet this morning. The catch, of course, is that this would be a limited, once only offer, lasting 12 or 18 months after which the Prime Minister would be forced to consider staging his own, simpler Yes or No referendum.
Because the cabinet was was held in the Olympic Park the Prime Minister's Official Spokesman, who was in Downing Street with us, wasn't able to give a read out of the discussion.
We learned only that the proposal was put to cabinet by Chancellor George Osborne, who chairs the ministerial group on Scotland. (I admit, I didn't know he did but it indicates how seriously the UK government takes the issue).
Scottish Secretary Michael Moore and Treasury Secretary Danny Alexander also spoke on the proposal - a read out of what was said later, we hope.
Meanwhile any questions on the implications of Westminster limiting the timing of a referendum were batted away, pending a parliamentary statement on the matter, probably this week.
Asked whether the Prime Minister was "meddling" in Scottish democracy, as SNP deputy leader Nicola Sturgeon has it, the Prime Minister's spokesman reminded us: "In the Scotland Act 1988 it is clear that the constitution is a reserved matter."
There's the iron fist inside the consultative glove which Cameron has promised. Fully aware that Salmond will reject his offer Cameron must then be prepared to move to the next stage, and organise a Yes-No referendum from Westminster. That's when the game get's risky.
I imagine Alex Salmond must be quite relaxed about the latest twist in the game.
A fractious argument with Westminster about the mechanics of a referendum, instead of the substance of independence, plays right into the territory he has been fighting on for the last three decades.
Endless, niggling arguments about Westminster "disrespecting" Scotland will dominate the next year, which makes for a wearisome time for all, instead of a proper debate about whether Scotland would be better in or out of the UK.
(That's to say nothing of the normal political debate in Scotland about health, education, the environment and the economy - all of which is being played out through the prism of the indy referendum)
SNP members are already tweeting that the choice is between an SNP referendum and a Tory one. Given a choice between a referendum rigged by Cameron and one rigged by the Salmond, people would be expected to side with Salmond.
That said, I do recall that one of the questions in a recent poll asking people if they would boycott a Westminster-organised referendum - only two per cent said they would. (I can't reference that at the moment but I'm sure Angus Robertson, who does far more reading of tea leaves on that question than I do, will clarify. Now found the poll, added at bottom of this piece).
Anyway, talk of a boycott, respect, rights and questions are far better news for Salmond than talk of Scotland leaving the UK.
The last thing that Salmond wants is a definitive referendum on independence before the next Scottish election. He knows he would lose, and that that loss would make it more likely he would lose the election itself as well.
Either a legal challenge against his own referendum, or an extended row with the Coalition over their referendum (are you still with me?) is just the way he wants to go into the 2016 election for a third term.
Which brings us neatly, if we put the Lib Dems to one side, to the losers. Scottish Labour could be minced in this wrangling on a referendum.
Johann Lamont is-calling for a referendum as soon as possible but refusing, correctly, to back Cameron's bid to force one. We need to hear from Miliband on this one, and pretty soon, it's the future of the UK we're talking about after all. We also need to hear politicians making the case for Scotland in Britain.
Scotsman poll showing just two per cent of Scots would boycott Westminster referendum.
From The Scotsman - Tuesday 22 November 2011
"More than half of Scots are opposed to Scotland becoming independent, according to a new opinion poll.
A total of 53 per cent of those questioned by Progressive Scottish Opinion were against such a change, while 28 per cent were in favour of it and 17 per cent were unsure how they would vote in a referendum.
A total of 1,233 adults were questioned on the issue last week, with only 2 per cent stating they would not vote in an independence referendum if it was organised by Westminster rather than Holyrood."
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
