Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


The article has been unable to display.
 
1

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 00:06:01
AM2

What is totally unacceptable?
2

,

27/03/2008 00:07:13
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Senga Jean,

Scotland 27/03/2008 00:09:14
This a democratic choice forced on the SNP by the Unionists. The SNP wished a straight "yes" or "no" to independence but the Unionist opposition did not like the conversation so started their own discussion. The SNP were forced to include their concerns. The people will decide by voting. It is not a minority view if preferences of the people are being considered.
4

peteedinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 00:09:30
Yup Nice try but a bit obvious.

If 23% support independence and 77% some other option then give them 4 other options. Each one gets ~19% and, there you are, independence is the winner!

Hopefully even Scottish Politicians will spot this one

5

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 00:13:44
AM2

So is it acceptable for Independence ("major constitutional change") to come about through a majority vote?
6

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

27/03/2008 00:14:24
Seems very fair and democratic to provide an option for those not yet convinced by the arguments for full independence but not happy with the status quo. Baby steps. If unionists are against this it's because they know that the status quo option has no support.
7

,

27/03/2008 00:18:34
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

clochoderic,

27/03/2008 00:18:55
Before this thread degenerates into the usual uncouth and badly punctuated slagging match can I ask any supporters of Labour, Tory or Lib Dem to explain exactly what it is that they propose for the future of Scotland?
All three of their leaders were given several opportunities to make at least some suggestion last night on national television.
We know what Salmond is proposing - so what do they want?
9

TommyKaye,

UK 27/03/2008 00:19:37
Despite the majority of the people being against the Iraq invasion it happened

Despite the majority of the people being against the EEC Constitution and a promise to have a referendum by Prime Minister Brown it went ahead.

So I suppose we reap as we sow AM2

By the way here are a couple of nice links about Scotland hope you enjoy the rapturous support Scotland is getting in England.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2008/03/bye_bye_barnett.html

http://in-ger-land.blogspot.com/


10

Shellfishfarmer,

Inverness 27/03/2008 00:20:27
Surely the obvious thing to do in a constitutional vote is to use STV to find out what people's preferences are, then seek a straight vote on the two winning options. It is what the French do in Presidential elections.
11

,

27/03/2008 00:21:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
12

,

27/03/2008 00:25:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Jimmy the Pie,

27/03/2008 00:28:03
AM2,

Will you be staying on in an independent Scotland??
14

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 00:32:39
AM2

When can we have that majority vote then, because the other three parties don't want it at all?

And in their 'Review/Commission", they also wish to disregard the views of at least 23% of the electorate but as much as all of those who voted for the SNP last May, which was a damn sight more than 23%. That is even more divisive and contemptible than what the First Minister is proposing.
15

Mr Scotland,

Scotland 27/03/2008 00:33:34
1 AM2 - Are you so sad that you sit here night after night waiting to be the first to post. It astounds me that peoples lifes are so shallow and without meaning.

Now to the story.

Why can't the people of Scotland decide on their future? If the independence question is such a forgone conclusion to defeat then why are all the parties running scared from people actually registering their preference.

As Mr Priest says it was a bunch of Lords and landowners who soold our country out for spoils so why can't a majority decide it's future.

21- Hope not. Scotland has enough psycophants and hangers on.
16

Hen Mc Stoorie,

Port William 27/03/2008 00:34:17
21....I hope he does..then he will see first hand what Scotland Should be like.
17

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 00:35:17
24- please leave out your erronious and confabulated statistics for those of us who can actually count.
18

clochoderic,

Renfrewshire 27/03/2008 00:36:17
Tommy i read the Robinson blog too - a salient reminder of the inherent need for Scottish Labour to pander to metropolitan ignorance and arrogance once they are promoted to the Westminster trough.
19

subrosa,

27/03/2008 00:37:57
# 18 AM2 -The STV proposal

It was a suggestion, not a proposal. You try to be so clever with words.

20

,

27/03/2008 00:39:56
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 00:41:25
32 - BAM2 - the ones you were spouting last night about 74% against a referendum and independence by virtue of the votes at holyrood. you Tumshie.
22

walter,

27/03/2008 00:42:10
I have posted this on another thread but I will also post it here.

This multi choice question is not what I would say is the way to go.
There should be two voting slips or one slip split in two.
The main question should ask,
1. Should Scotland become an independent state.
2. Should Scotland remain with in the UK.
People can then tick the box next to whatever their choice is.
Then the secondly question should ask if Scotland is to remain in the UK framework in what form should that take, more power, less power, status quo or hand power back to Westminster.
That way those who wish to remain in the UK will have a say in what form devolution take and those who wish independence (if it goes against them) will still have a say in which form devolution takes.
23

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

27/03/2008 00:42:40
#18 How can anyone see it as undemocratic? A democracy gives everyone the right to be involved in the decision-making. A simple Yes and No vote could be seen as alienating people who are not convinced one way or the other - either forcing them to make a choice or to not take part. I see this as more democratic.

As for 23%. Let's say Independence got 23%, more powers got 60% and status got 17% - not too far fetched IMO - it's fair to say that a fair proportion - let's say a conservative 50% - could be quite keen on independence but just decided not to go for it. I think if Scotland did get independence with a minority of 23%, another 15% of voters could be quite happy with that, even if they didn't vote for it. Canada, for example, is being run by a government that took just 36.3% of the vote. I myself have not quite made my mind up, but would not be devastated if it happened.
24

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 00:44:19
God, that fat ****** is becoming a bore now.

Independence is dead. No-one cares.

Mind you, as it is precisely this arrogant grandstanding that is bringing about plummeting support for the SNP and for independence itself......you carry right on, Toady!
25

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 27/03/2008 00:45:14
Let's just go for the yes no option and see the 83% who voted for the Scottish Parliament return the same vote for INDEPENDENCE, and finally get rid of the unionist wingers once and for all.
26

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 00:45:27
27 AM2

I was really interested in your opinion now, not once the review is complete. I think by then I will have worked out what the outcome will be.

Also, you didn't respond to my second point, where I implied that the review excludes a large body of opinion in Scotland, and is therefore undemocratic. This will also give it less of a mandate to implement any outcomes/actions.



27

Robert,

Kirriemuir 27/03/2008 00:48:06
We cannot keep complaining like a bunch of Cinderellas/fellows about our lot without taking the 'bit between our teeth'. Whether others like it or not we are destined to get independence and that is inevitable so let us go along that road and hopefully become an equal partner in the EU rather than being treated like the full stop at the end of the sentence as we are in the Union.
28

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 00:52:09
AM2 - m post was refering to your staement "Erm, Universal suffrage came rather later. Please save your silly contrived arguments for someone who can't see through them. Thanks. :-) "

I was asking if you could leave out your statistical confabulations whuich are numerous and proved wrong.

I witnessed you being asked by a professional statistician some time ago asking you not to mis represent figures. To which you climbed down most ungraciously.
29

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 00:52:23
"The Scottish Government wants to hold a referendum in 2010, aware that if the opposition parties vote the plan out, the SNP will be able to go into the 2011 election accusing its opponents of denying the public its right to decide Scotland's future."

Yeah, that'll be an election-winner! Not the worsening public services as the SNP tries to plug the black hole caused by LIT (if it even gets introduced), not the frustration of having had to listen to four years of senseless banal complaints about the UK, not having to tolerate being the butt of jokes as 'those whinging Scots' by the rest of the world......no, it'll be not being allowed to have a referendum.
30

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 00:52:34
42 High and Mighty

I think "SNP support plummeting" and "Independence dead" prove that you are way out of touch. Your abusive remarks about AS demean your own character and mean nobody will ever take you seriously.

Out of touch and abusive: can't get much worse than that.
31

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 00:53:07
#46 - Your condicension is the only insult.
32

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 00:54:56
Where are these polls saying the majority of scots want a referendum?
33

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 00:55:07
46 -BAM2 - Of he goes crying like a girl into his Wendy Alexander comemorative pillow and duvet set.
34

,

27/03/2008 00:55:46
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
35

Navvy,

27/03/2008 00:55:58
Democracy - any decision on independence can be by a majority on a single simple question
36

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 00:57:57
May I remind AM2 and other’s who seem to have forgotten the 1979 Referendum on Independence, when the yes vote (for Independence) was 51.6%. It was government chicanery that set the vote aside.

In a straight Yes-No vote, the Unionists know that Independence will once again win the day and they would never get away with a repeat of the 40% rule or the chicanery that went with it. Fake electoral rolls would quickly be exposed and the European Council would be watching.

AS has the Unionists between a rock and a hard place. He has manoeuvred them into a position where to not agree to a referendum would hand the SNP a huge advantage in going into the Holyrood election. They may play around with the questions to their heart content, but they are hoist by their own petard with the AS offer of STV on a multiple question ballot paper. STV was considered good enough for Labour to introduce for local elections and is a primary policy of the LD’s. It really is consensus politics in action.

I think it is time to sort out the P45’s for the Westminster Politicians.
37

,

27/03/2008 00:58:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
38

,

27/03/2008 01:01:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
39

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:03:00
50. "SNP support plummeting"
SNP lead over Labour has dropped 4% in 4 months, quite possibly the shortest political honeymoon on record.

"Independence dead"
1. 99.5% of the population has not bothered to read the SNP's much-publicised White Paper.
2. 99.999% of the population has not bothered to post anything on the National Conversation.
3. The Scottish Convention's much-publicised and much emailed worldwide petition is CLAIMED to have 3400 signatures (even though the linked petition clearly has only 400 signatures). Even if every signatory was Scottish, that's still only 0.0006% of the population.
4. Support for independence has dropped to 23% and support for the UK has risen to 76% despite Salmond's constant efforts to get us to resent the UK.

See what I mean?

(I just love posting all that!)
40

CRAGman,

27/03/2008 01:03:27
The real question is which parts of Scotland might become independent. I guess that some parts would opt to remain within the UK. Like the referendum which established the Scottish Parliament we would surely see large differences in views across various regions of Scotland. Would Edinburgh and the south-east opt to stay in the UK while Glasgow would want to be independent, for instance? Inverness might also be an interesting situation.

The parallel with Kosovo and Macedonia is of some relevance here.

Finally, SNP claims on Berwick add further complexity to the whole question - I guess the referendum would have to be held there as well as within Scotland proper.
41

,

27/03/2008 01:03:44
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:04:40
59. That's actually a an intelligent post for you.

Now, where are these polls?
43

clochoderic,

27/03/2008 01:04:55
Am2 why do the opposition parties have to ask a doctor what they should do?
There isny a wee problem with their self-esteem or vision i hope. Maybe it is an inability to face up to past failures or even decide what they want now.
Anyway it is gratifying to see them take a sick line from nice Doctor Calman.
Shame they have to wait until November for his diagnosis.
44

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 01:05:31
52 Highland Mighty
The only time in recent years that a real poll has been held on Independence was the referendum in 1979 that was 51.6 in favour – 50% plus one vote is a majority. Since that time we thinking Scots have been made aware of the lying, cheating and conniving antics of both Labour and Tory governments. The McCrone Report and the fake figures of the GERS for starters!

Start doing some basic research into the pros and cons of the UNION!

45

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 01:07:20
AM2

What is it with you?

We were having a sane discussion and you rudely skulked off to bed without answering my question which was posed twice.

Are you still there?
46

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:09:51
66. So there are NO polls that show the majority want a referendum?
47

ruglenn,

A proud, and soon-to-be independent, nation! 27/03/2008 01:10:22
On page 1 of to-day's Scotsman website, the story "Minority vote could take Scotland out of the Union" is headlined FOUR times - presumably on the basis that the more it is repeated, the more your readers will be seduced by your amateurish tactics. Journalistic, attempted brainwashing at its crudest and most pathetic! You truly are exhibiting all the classic signs of panic!

This is for me the final straw. I hope many other of your readers follow my example and NEVER again read your biased, pompous, political scaremongering.

Bring on Independence and "Let Scotland Flourish"!



48

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:11:54
66. The 1979 referendum was on independence, was it?
49

Toots - Sheila,

27/03/2008 01:13:46
Does anyone else remember those "heady days" when the voting system was changed by the then Labour Party (Mr Callaghen) to it NOT being "first past the post" for a ONE-OFF vote on Scottish devolution?
Remember how if you didn't vote that was a NO vote which ultimately meant that on some voting registers even the dead voted for "unionism"!!!
Ultimately if Westminster keeps mucking around with the democratic system (as it did in the last round of elections) that will leave the Scots one option - fight them in the streets!! Well it worked in Kosovo and they had to "borrow" a flag and a constitution!!
Free Scotland NOW!
50

Hen Mc Stoorie,

Port William 27/03/2008 01:14:34
60 Mr SCOTLAND..Ithought AM2 WAS the editor of the Hootsmon.
51

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 01:14:44
62 CRAGman

Quote/ “Finally, SNP claims on Berwick add further complexity to the whole question - I guess the referendum would have to be held there as well as within Scotland proper.” \Unquote

Get your facts right! The SNP made no claims on Berwick – it was Berwick that held a mini poll and voted to try to join Scotland. The purpose of the huge publicity given to this story was to drag a red herring across the Independence argument.
52

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 01:15:06
H&M 61

Your arguments and stats are immature, misleading and unsubstatiated. I mean "support for the UK has risen to 76%?" Was that a real question? I don't think so. And what has support for full independence fallen from? And what was the share of the vote at the Holyrood election for Labour and SNP compared to what it is now?

I go back to what I said earlier. Out of touch. (I'm waiting for the abuse.)
53

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:15:08
So there is no evidence that the majority of the population even want a referendum?
54

Feenon,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 01:15:10


From the article -

Scottish ministers believe they would be acting within the law – but this is merely the basis of their legal advice and this position has not been tested in the courts.

Yet again we see Hootsman journous using terms like 'believe' and 'merely' in relation to the SNP whilst all the other parties appear to be without a single blemish!!

The law-breaking SCOTLab Leader ought to be prodded in every quote; the Lib bypass diverter also has problems to be pointed out; and Annabel (bless her) is on a lost cause anyway....

Read 'The Poisonwood Bible' to find out what democracy really means, my friends - if we all have to decide on one course of action for all we will be caught out by no momentum at all. We cannot ever have a traditional more than 50% decision - Westminster made sure of this in the basis for our 'permission' to govern ourselves.

In the meantime, North Sea Oil is draining away...

Will Britain be quite so great when it has gone???

Where will the money from Westminster go then???

We have a few more years to use our natural resources for good, or for London.

I know where I would prefer that money to go to.

55

Mr Scotland,

27/03/2008 01:15:35
69- That is why the paper is an insult and complete oxymoron.

The people of Scotland should march on their offices to demand they grow up and stop trying by infantile means to scare and gerry mander. The job of the press is to report facts not whip up hysteria.

The Herald must laugh their socks of at this infantile journalism.
56

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:19:34
76. Greater devolution without independence - 45%
The status quo - 22%
Scrapping Holyrood completely - 9%
So 'staying with the UK' = 76%

Independence = 23%

Support for independence pre-election was 29%

Next!
57

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:20:39
WHERE ARE THE POLLS THAT SHOW THE MAJORITY WANT A REFERENDUM?

DO THEY EVEN EXIST?
58

ordinaryperson,

Greenock 27/03/2008 01:20:45
You say AM2 that a minority vote for independence is unacceptable. Yet you support a political system where the current goverment at Westminster gets a 67 seat majority on a total vote of less than 40%. Is that Democratic? No it is most definetely not and so before you lecture Nationalists on Democracy you should look at your beloved unionist way of democracy first before lecturing others. At least the SNP is willing to put their policy to the people but your Labour party is not. Don't say that there is majority of Scots against Independence by purely the amount of votes cast for the unionist parties at the last Scottish elections. Not every vote cast for them is necessarily a vote to preserve the union, just as every vote cast for the SNP in the same election is necessarily a vote for Independence
59

CRAGman,

27/03/2008 01:21:49
# Sanny - funny then that Christine Grahame played the Berwick card for all it was worth.
60

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:22:39
82. The 2003 SNP manifesto pledge re-regulation of the bus services.

This was renewed in the 2006 SNP Conference.

£600,000 later, there was no sign of it in the 2007 manifesto.
61

Edward,

27/03/2008 01:23:23
The Single Transferable Vote system was foisted on the last Scottish council elections by Labour (which was one of the reasons over the confusion as Labour instigated two different voting systems for the Holyrood and council elections which they had on the same day!)
Now apparently Labour and the other London managed parties see this as undemocratic!
The fact of the matter is that the STV system would actually favour the increased powers option over everything else. This paper and others in the media are a bit misleading when they state that it would let in Independence by 'the back door' either they think were stupid, or there very thick as to not be able to work out the permutations!
For example those that favour Independence, would have Independece as 1 and Increased powers as 2 ; those who favour increased powers but not independence, would place Increased powers at 1 and status quo 2 ; some may have increased poers at 1 and independence at 1; those who favour status quo will place status quo at 1 and increased powers at 2. As it is it is likely that the vote for status quo would drop out and the second (or transferable vote would go to increased powers.
The only way the country would vote for independence, would be if well over 50% placed independence as 1.
But the unionists keep telling us that only 23% (or there abouts) want independence. So why are unionists so afraid of a referendum, especially one under the STV system. To use an Americanism, 'the bases are loaded' in favour of increased powers!
62

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

27/03/2008 01:23:49
#81 And yet 47% voted for a party with the stated aim of independence for Scotland in last year's elections, with most people thinking they're doing a pretty decent job:

"Over the last 10 months the SNP has focused on trying to prove itself a party of government and has secured record approval ratings. Recent poll findings have shown a rise in SNP popularity as many of the concerns people had about a nationalist administration have subsided and been replaced by a renewed spirit of entrepreneurialism."
Guardian March 23rd, 2008
63

,

27/03/2008 01:24:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:24:45
Well, well, well!

These polls don't actually exist, do they!

LOL!
65

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

27/03/2008 01:25:56
#83 See #89. 47% voted for the party proposing a referendum and polls suggest they are more popular now.
66

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 01:25:59
68 Highland Mighty,

I think this comment is akin to the question “Have you stopped beating your wife”? Polls are never a particularly good way to judge the real depth of feeling, much depends on the way the question is put and any response is not a considered opinion. In addition it only gives the instantaneous opinion of a very small group of people. With a Referendum the Pros and Cons are argued through in the pub, the home, on TV and the newspapers. The electorate has the arguments and the time to come to a considered view. The result is the considered opinion of the entire Electorate.

If you can’t tell the difference then I can only think that you must be a sad Unionist hiding from the truth.
67

Edward,

27/03/2008 01:28:28
#81 Highland Mighty
Put your money where your mouth is and support a referendum based on the STV system. If your correct, the country will go for increased powers and independence will not get a look in. Then the arguement will be over for another 10 to 20 years!
So, what will it be? Are you brave enough to go for it, or are you just a sham?
My money is on you being a wimp! What have you to loose, support a referendum and lets move forward
68

subrosa,

27/03/2008 01:28:29
# 33 AM2

You don't confuse me, I'm too long in the tooth. You know full well what 'proposal' means in political terms. That is what you insinuated. Alex Salmond made a suggestion - ok.
69

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:29:08
47%???
70

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:30:38
94. There is clearly no support for a referendum, so why should anyone who is anti-independence support one?
71

GeorgeCowieOrWalterKidd?,

27/03/2008 01:32:07
#96 Sorry 31%, 47 seats. I'd put money on them getting a majority in an election tomorrow though, given that they've proved they can govern and Labour stock has fallen even further.
72

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 01:32:58
It's late and some of us have jobs.

Night all!

All this nat talk about the "majority wanting a referendum"! LOL!
73

,

27/03/2008 01:34:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
74

urban poacher,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 01:34:57
since very few read the Scotsman the article is going to have no effect. Independence is going to happen ad no one can stop it. like the EU it is a gradual process changing slowly.
75

,

27/03/2008 01:35:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
76

Edward,

27/03/2008 01:36:31
#97 Highland Chicken
C H I C K E N !!!!!
77

Andrew BOD,

Aberdeen/shire 27/03/2008 01:41:38
81. "Staying with the UK" wasn't a question then.

Share of vote for Labour and SNP at election: 32.3 v 32.9, compared to share of vote now?

It's not as clear as you make out - see below

Referendum - voting intention (with wording)

Yougov: (1) If the SNP leads the next Scottish government after May it intends to hold a referendum on Scottish independence. The wording of the referendum question will be very similar to this. “The Scottish parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state”. The responses would be “Yes I agree” or “No I disagree”. On balance how would you be likely to respond? Yes I agree/ No I disagree/ Don’t know
TNS System Three: (1) The SNP have recently outlined their plans for a possible refrendum on Scottish independence in future. If such a referendum were to be held tomorrow, how would you vote? I AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state/ I DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state/ Don’t know
ICM: (1) Do you agree or disagree with the following statement? “The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new settlement with the British government so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state”
Survey End Date Yes No Wouldn’t vote D/K Net
TNS System Three/Herald (1) 01/12/07 40 44 n/a 16 -4
TNS System Three/Herald (1) 23/08/07 35 50 n/a 15 -15
ICM/Scotsman (1) 30/04/07 35 55 n/a 10 -20
YouGov/Sunday Times (1) 20/04/07 33 50 n/a 17 -17

78

Charles Linskaill,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 01:57:14
Well unfotunatlly we all know AM2 speaks sense (at times)

Its a case of and only of,,

Bah, Bah a black sheep,
have you any wool?
Yes Alex, I have,
Three bags full.
One for my master,
One for my dame,
One for my little boy
That lives in the lane.



79

,

27/03/2008 02:01:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
80

clochoderic,

27/03/2008 02:05:40
This is desperate stuff from the Opoosition - what do they want and why are they afraid to say it?
81

Feenon,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 02:07:38
#104

You are right - obscure to put it mildly!!
82

,

27/03/2008 02:26:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
83

,

27/03/2008 02:53:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
84

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:15:33
Do we not vote in political parties UK wide with less than 50% of the vote. Lets face it, if you can vote in the Labour party with less than 50% of the vote but give them the majority of seats, you can vote for independence and get it.
85

Former Unionist,

27/03/2008 03:16:34
Anyone heard anything about the court case brought by Michael Martin to stop Gordon Brown's expenses being published or finding out why Tony Blairs expnses documents were destroyed?
86

CROSSED GEORGE,

England 27/03/2008 03:19:28
What a laugh, you couldn't even hold a "normal" election in your kangaroo parliament.

How much is this going to cost us to stage, we the taxpayers of England?

You become independent, you can have Brown back as he will not be able to be prime minister of UK as a non-national - the jokes on you then!

The only benefit for us in the UK (those of us who don't have a huge chip on each shoulder) is our tax money will be spent on us, and not a load of whinging, self-satisfying, self obsessed, bigoted, boring, dour, tight and tartan skirted xenaphobics.

Do us a favour, AND GET INDEPENDENCE!



87

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 03:43:04
The article reports:

"The First Minister said that, although his preference was for a clear two-option question on independence ..."

But somehow this becomes:

"REFERENDUMS are usually simply Yes or No affairs; voters are invited to approve or reject a proposal. But Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has long wanted something more complicated:"

Panic disorder?
88

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 03:52:53
37 - AM2, Glasgow,UK 27/03/2008 00:41:46 writes:

"It's the SNP which is now on the ropes. The Constitutional Commission is underway, and there's a good chance that the three unionist parties will forge consensus among themselves. In that scenario, the SNP would be marginalised."

Coupla things:

First sentence indicates AM2 believes the unionists are, or were, on the ropes.

Second sentence indicates AM2 believes the unionist parties will form an anti-independence coalition.

Third sentence indicates a break with reality. The socially broad pro-independence movement would be faced with a monolithic anti-independence movement. This would not lead to the marginalization of the SNP - but the polarization of politics in Scotland.
89

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 03:57:50
81 - Highland Mighty, 27/03/2008 01:19:34 writes:

"Greater devolution without independence - 45%
The status quo - 22%
Scrapping Holyrood completely - 9%
So 'staying with the UK' = 76%

Independence = 23%

Support for independence pre-election was 29%

Next!"

I think your reading that wrong.

What the numbers indicate is that 68% are in favour of, or leaning towards, independence, while 31% oppose independence.

Next!
90

An Beal Bacht,

27/03/2008 04:00:51
114 - CROSSED GEORGE, England 27/03/2008 03:19:28 writes:

"What a laugh, you couldn't even hold a "normal" election in your kangaroo parliament.

How much is this going to cost us to stage, we the taxpayers of England?

You become independent, you can have Brown back as he will not be able to be prime minister of UK as a non-national - the jokes on you then!

The only benefit for us in the UK (those of us who don't have a huge chip on each shoulder) is our tax money will be spent on us, and not a load of whinging, self-satisfying, self obsessed, bigoted, boring, dour, tight and tartan skirted xenaphobics.

Do us a favour, AND GET INDEPENDENCE!"

Thanks George.
91

chippie lover,

glesga 27/03/2008 04:53:06
With more and more power concentrated in Brussels. The time will come when Westminster has the same status as Holyrood.

I wonder if Middle England will stand for that...
92

Guga II,

Rockall 27/03/2008 05:12:20
#37 AM Squared.

"there's a good chance that the three unionist parties will forge consensus among themselves. In that scenario, the SNP would be marginalised".

In other words the people of Scotland, who voted in an SNP government, would be marginalised. Then again, that's what you Unionists want to see, isn't it; the Scottish people marginalised by Unionists and foreigners.

You'll note that Maggie Broon's so-called Constitutional Commission is just a clique of Unionists who want to decide Scotland's future, without even a reference to the Scottish people. There is no way the Unionists want any form of referendum as they are too scared of the results. That is why Maggie Broon lied to the back of his teeth about a referendum on the EC treaty.

In any event, in due course, your people in Northern Ireland will want a referendum, and I am sure that, as a good Unionist/Loyalist, you would be totally against that too. It would also be very difficult for you Unionists to knock back a referendum in Northern Ireland if you allowed one in Scotland. You might even get the Welsh demanding a referendum on idependence then too.

Why not just admit it, like your political masters, you have Stalinist, totalitarian, control freak tendencies. You Unionists can't really help it, can you?
93

Ideas of Civilisation,

Scotland 27/03/2008 05:41:11
Loathe as I am to agree with Annabel Goldie, you can't change the entire constitution of the country based on the least worst option. Now I know the argument for this is that it's similar to the system which exists to elect local councillors in Scotland and that if it's good enough for one election it should be for them all. This just isn't the case though, for the reason outlined below.

Until such time as someone comes up with an alternative system then the democratic method of choosing local elected representatives (at whatever level) is the best and only option we have. Unlike Brewster's Millions we can't vote for none of the above or else there's a danger we'd have no-one in councils or governments. I know some people might say 'good' but again, until there's an alternative, there's no choice but to vote for someone.

However this is not the case for changes to the constitution. Unlike choosing elected representatives there is actually no need whatsoever for people to vote for this or back any of the reform ideas. Something as serious as this, particularly if it involved ending a 300 years+ union, must be a positive choice by people - it can't just be what's left. And that goes for all other options on offer.

http://ideasofcivilisation.blogspot.com/
94

Ideas of Civilisation,

Scotland 27/03/2008 05:41:41
There's also the question of what happens if no option ever gets more than 50% support (a very real possibility I think). Would this mean that the status quo remains or that the most popular 'losing' answer be selected? I think that this is an enormous minefield and could even lead to legal challenges. Surely we have had enough of elections in this country not being run properly without doing something like this that could end up in the courts?

http://ideasofcivilisation.blogspot.com/
95

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 27/03/2008 05:59:36
Is this idea:

a) A good idea?
b) A fairly good idea?
c) A bad idea?

(Please tick three boxes)
96

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 27/03/2008 06:11:20
un-freakin- believable - if such a minority vote qualifies as a vote FOR independence - then the Tories are a minority and they cast their vote AGAINST independence, the Liberals are a minority and they cast their vote AGAINST independence, Labour are a minority and they cast their vote AGAINST independence.

And by the way - together the those parties represent the overwhelming majority of Scots and that means a majority AGAINST independence.

How fitting that Tubby appears with his cheap magician's stage set - he is a snake oil salesman trying to swindle with smoke and mirrors!

No thanks Tubby
97

Richardinho,

27/03/2008 06:21:31
At least Alex Salmond is willing to put his proposals to the vote. Compare with the unionist parties who want to decide it all in a smoke filled room down in Westminster.

98

Stephen fae Scotland,

San Francisco (& Edinburgh) 27/03/2008 06:22:04
The Ferst Meenister is a:

a) chancer
b) eejit
c) bleather
99

langtonian,

scotus 27/03/2008 06:23:25
Never did give much credence to the expression,

"Those whom the God's wish to destroy they first drive MAD."
First Minister Alex Salmond, of seperatist SNP executive has, in his own inimitable way pressed a self inflicted destruct button.

Of interest is the question, how much,if any consultation was there with either Government colleauges/SNP voters prior to his launch,in such cavalier fashion,a series of dictaorial,unbalanced proposals.

As time passes, his flight's of fancy become more eseoteric,never can I recall a Scottish politician who seems Hell bent in bringing down his own country to a level that squares with his insanities.

Time for SNP to get to grips with his damaging arbitary flight's of fancy.


100

chippie lover,

glesga 27/03/2008 06:30:08
#129

Labour tried that in the last election for the scottish parliament
101

eric,

27/03/2008 06:33:56
clever man
102

,

27/03/2008 06:41:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
103

eric,

27/03/2008 07:02:06
You cant get me Im out of the Union!Till the day i die !
104

John S,

27/03/2008 07:06:01
Unless it is mandatory the voter could just vote for one option under STV and if one option reaches 50.01% on the first round there will be no need to transfer any votes. It would be upto say the SNP or the Unionists to canvass there supporters to vote for the same option.
105

yockel,

27/03/2008 07:08:36
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Nanny-State-cannot-keep-us.3918110.jp#2641550
106

Cheryl here,

Scotland 27/03/2008 07:26:49
If they would just give us all a straight forward yes/no referendum as Alex wished to do it would be easier, but the other parties are afraid.

As for this article..it's typical non-SNP nonsense that I always expect from the Scotsman. I bet in the next couple of days there will be some clarification on this via a news interview and questions with Alex from another news agency.
107

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 07:31:32
AM2 plays a unionist blinder of hypocrisy and confusiom:

The SNP propose a single question yes/no referendum on independence. After the SNP win, the Unionists in reaction form a "constitutional commission/ review/ McChattering session/ working party (delete as appropriate according to Brown/ Cairn's latest downgrading)" and want their "output" on a referendum, while still officially opposing the independence referendum.

And the SNP is now being "undemocratic" by even considering accommodating the Unionists? Even though no proposal has been made. Well, if the unionists want their "working McChatter" output included, let them tell us how they propose this should be done.

This all contrasts to previous Labour/ Unionist referendums, where even a straight majority on a single yes/no question was not accepted.

These unionists get odder and odder.
108

mr angry,

ayrshire 27/03/2008 07:32:59
#127 That other thicko Highland Mighty disapperas after being ignored, and up pops another equally stupid idiot that has nothing to add to the debate. I should ignore you cretin, however please GTF.
109

Rev. S. Campbell,

Bath 27/03/2008 07:38:48
Shame on you, Scotsman - "But Alex Salmond, the First Minister, has long wanted something more complicated" is a BLATANT LIE far beyond your normal pro-Unionist spin. Salmond has always wanted a yes/no vote - it's openly stated in the manifesto that the SNP won the election on. However, as a minority government he has to compromise with opposition who want increased powers within the UK.

AM2, you're even more hilariously morally bankrupt than usual. No change on a minority vote? What, a minority vote like the one EVERY GOVERNMENT IN WESTMINSTER has come to power on for the last 50+ years, often implementing massive fundamental changes to our society once they got in?

Also, as far as I know there's no compulsion to vote for a second option in an STV election - you don't have to enter 1, 2, 3, you can just choose a 1 if you want and leave it at that. I don't imagine many people would vote for independence as a second choice to a less drastic option, so STV would make independence much less likely. Yet even with all the odds stacked in their favour, the Unionists are TERRIFIED of hearing the voice of the Scottish people.
110

eric,

27/03/2008 07:42:45
Unionists are less & less,Its like watching a Dying animal.Bless.
111

walter,

27/03/2008 07:45:50
#141
the Unionists are TERRIFIED of hearing the voice of the Scottish people.

What is the voice of the Scottish people.
112

oddoneout,

27/03/2008 07:47:10
Just as an aside, due to the turnout I'm sure that a damn sight less than 23% of the population voted for the SNP, otherwise they would now be a majority party, not minority. Also if you are insisting it is voted on in the way the union was formed, I'm sure we can find the relatives of the people involved and get them to sort it. In the meantimelets have a vote on either yes or no, none of the politicians want it because they might actually get a result. Parliament up here is becoming as bad as down south, a good idea goes in, then by the time it's been kicked around, ammended and gone to committe a few times, when comes out as policy, it's not worth the paper it's written on. For once why can the Scottish parliament (SNP,Labour, LDP,Green and Margot) not just listen to the electorate and give us a choice. Yes or No
113

lachlan,

27/03/2008 07:47:46
a minority vote took us into the union so....
114

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:47:48
Mr Salmond you are as slippery as a salmon. Could you please do what you were brought into do - Govern and deliver on all the promises that you made rather than hold conversations with yourself. This stinks of back door independence. Did we not just have a failed election where thousands of the electorate returned spoilt ballot papers because they did not understand what they were supposed to be voting for? Helped of course by Salmond's - Salmond for First Minister entry on the ballot paper. See Mr Salmond you have a track record here. Make it simple Mr Salmond. Ask the question - 'Do you want Scotland to be an independent country' Yes or No. It's that simple. Do you know something Mr Salmond you will lose. Devolved parliament. Fine. Devolved parliament with more powers. Fine. Improved stature of politicians within said parliament. A must. Back door independence. NO!!!
115

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:48:04
The only way to sort this out is to have a civil war and the blood will find its own level in the streets
then the winner who has the most left alive gets their way
116

rancid brown,

Corrupt EU 27/03/2008 07:48:19
Problem is that we'll be left isolated in the EU. We need to demand a referendum on EU membership. Stop bickering about England. England has been good for Scotland, likewise Scotland has been good for England. The real issue now is the emerging dictatorship on the Continent. My grandfather didn't risk his life fighting the Nazis for nothing.
117

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:50:08
Walter 141. You should be concentrating on beating Celtic on Saturday!!!!
118

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:50:55
Apologies - that should of course be Walter 143!!!!
119

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 07:50:57
Langtonian 129
I class myself as an average voter and I am not confused. Neither are you from the condescending tone of your post so why should anyone else be?

What is confusing for voters is that whilst Alex Salmond is proposing to give the voters a choice in a referendum the unionist parties - perhaps hoping that the voters are confused - decide that they are the ones who make the decision. I have yet to see a posting by unionists giving a valid reason for refusing a referendum and the voters will reach their own conclusions on that.
120

Gdgy,

27/03/2008 07:51:07
Pathetic - they haven't the guts to go for a referendum but they suggest to shoehorn STV into a commission's (which they won't join) proposals....
Typical salmond spin - change the agenda, raise "issues" and DO nothing.......
121

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 07:54:54
154. Gdgy - The SNP have proposed a referendum in 2010, with a yes/ no question on independence.

The Unionists oppose a referendum.

Weird the way this gets translated by your online English to New Labour speak spin translator as the SNP lacking the guts for a referendum.

Labour promised a referendum in 1997 on voting reform - did I miss it?
Labour promised a referendum in 1997 on the Euro - has it been?
Labour promised a referendum in 2005 on the EU constitutional treaty - did they just vote against one?
Now Labour and the Unionists still oppose a free vote by Scots on our future.
So much Unionist guts, so few referenda...
122

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:55:45
148/150. All of course spoken in your Gaelic native tongue? And that will of course be the Easter uprising which was put down by same Westminster Government? And which of course led to Michael Connelly one of the instigators then being shot by his own side. No.....don't think we need that.
123

DonaldK,

Brussels 27/03/2008 07:55:56
"Instead, people would be asked to rank a series of options in order of preference – independence, the status quo or more powers for the parliament."

To be a true reflection of Scottish opinion, there needs to be another option added for "Abolish the Scottish parliament and return to pre-1997 arrangements".

I expect that 99% of people would make it their last choice, but at least it would have been included in the referendum and then the full spectrum of opinions would be properly reflected.
124

Draco Was a Wimp,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 07:56:02
#145 Lachlan

Hopefully we've got a wee bit better than the obvious gerrymandering and corruption of 1707. On second thoughts......
125

Conway,

27/03/2008 07:58:32
Unless Independence is included in any referendum then any vote is nill and void.
What I don`t understand ,unionist politians treat independence supporters like some form of disease rather than fellow countrymen and women with a different viewpoint.People who support independence are from all sorts of backgrounds and political persuasions,and that the desire for Scottish Independence will never EVER EVER EVER EVER EVER be quashed.And if or when Independence does come these people who presently support the SNP will then vote for whatever there political leanings are.
And even the SNP.
126

paulr,

edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:01:44
Alex Salmond's proposal is no more ludicrous than the current electoral system, you do not need to win a constituency seat to become and MSP, you can slide in through the back door or 2nd choice maybe.
127

John S,

27/03/2008 08:04:15
Minority vote could take Scotland out of the Union but the minority vote took us into Iraq and kept us in that country. The Labour Party received 43.2% (1997),40.7%(2001) and 35.2% (2005) of the popular vote in the UK elections.
128

Iain fae Elgin,

27/03/2008 08:04:36
"SCOTLAND could become independent with less than 50 per cent of people backing that as their first choice for the country, under plans unveiled by Alex Salmond yesterday."

So, the same circumstances under which most MPs are elected. And most UK govenments formed.

Par for the course then.
129

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 08:04:48
'Minority vote could take Scotland out of the Union.'

Likewise a minority vote could keep us in the union.
130

henrymanchester,

UK 27/03/2008 08:05:43
GO FOR IT!

LET FREEDOM RING!
131

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 08:07:29
128 Langtonian asks.."Of interest is the question, how much,if any consultation was there with either Government colleauges/SNP voters prior to his launch,in such cavalier fashion,a series of dictaorial,unbalanced proposals."

Given that this idea was discussed at the launch of the second phase of a consultation exercise, how much consultation does Langtonian want before things are put up for consultation? I feel Langtonian may not fully understand the issues here.
132

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 08:07:49
157 DonaldK
Why not put down as an option a return to the system of Lords of the Manor and their serfs? I suspect that only George Foulkes and donors to New Labour would vote for it but that way the full spectrum of public opinion would be properly represented.
133

Alan Reid,

NZ 27/03/2008 08:08:01
This is good work by the SNP and Mr Salmond, however we must not be complacent. We must keep up the message that Scotland can and should be a better place, if it handled its own affairs.
Come on Scotland “The best smallest ( if it handled it’s own defense, fishing, economy, energy, immigration, tax rates etc etc) country in the world” !!!
134

walter,

27/03/2008 08:08:04
#151/152
I do not have a clue why you suggest I would be in the least bit interested in the score line from the ugly sisters, do tell.

135

Dissector,

Stirling 27/03/2008 08:09:04
The reality that the question of independence or not is so important that it must never be based on a multiple guess / choice approach with the infamous single transferable vote system being used.

If, and it is a big "if", it ever happens, the ballot paper must ask one question only - should Scotland be independent ?
136

Gregor Addison,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 08:09:48
Any referendum should ask whether people want the status quo, devolution plus, or independence. It seems sensible to me that this is done in such a way that a breakdown of each can be accurately assessed, so that we can see how much support there is for each point of view. I would have thought that was democratic. Interesting that many of those who are saying it is undemocratic want no vote at all; they would rather leave things in the hands of unionist politicians and worthies. As far as I'm concerned, neither the unionist politicians, business, or the churches speak for me. I want my vote!
137

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 08:10:08
It is however great to see so many Unionists on here commenting in response to the National Conversation consultation yesterday. This is exactly what the national conversation was all about.
138

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:11:24
It certainly would be ironic if, at some future date, the Scots Electorate took part in a referendum using STV in which the outcome was a minority victory for the Nationalists in their campaign to secede from this unitary state?

Salmond is a street politician and, instead of a straight Yes/No, the single transferable voting system has put the Nationalist cat among the Unionist pigeons!

The cries of "it's no' fair Mr Salmond" from the Unionist parties has a ring of hypocrisy about it considering the pre-democratic 1707 Act of Union, and
Labour's 40 percent rule for the first Scotland Referendum?

The indigenous Tories also forget that when Thatcher
won the 1978 General Election she did so with the lowest percentage majority in British political history!
139

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:12:38
169.....Wattie my daer boy - now stop pretending this is not THE Walter Smith on here trying to defend the Union - even your post 169 gives you away!!!!
140

Donald Norway,

Norway 27/03/2008 08:14:38
Correct me if I am wrong but was it not a minority of 'rogues' that took us into the Union against the will of the population.
141

Paul Macdonald,

Gelsenkirchen Germany 27/03/2008 08:16:07
I think the three option choice is a great idea.
Well done Alex.
Politics is about choices and this is what we will get.
142

Blues Brother,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:16:08
Think you will find it was a parcel. Not sure if that actually equates to a minority.
143

walter,

27/03/2008 08:20:36
There has been many polls asking what way people would vote if a referendum was held.
There has been no polls held asking whether there should be a referendum or not.
The closest thing we have to go on was pre elections.
The SNP stated they would hold a referendum, the Labour, Conservatives and Lib/Dems stated they would not.
Since the elections are the closest thing we have to what the voice of Scotland is reference a referendum then at this moment the voice of Scotland is no to a referendum.
144

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 08:22:45
178. Walter, I think there have been polls showing support c 70-80% for a refendum on independence.
145

John S,

27/03/2008 08:27:46
Come on you unionists call the Scottish Governments bluff and adopt the STV proposals for a referendum and urge your supporters to vote for only one option and if they support you more than 50.01% you will have no problem. This is called democracy.
146

jdships,

27/03/2008 08:28:01
19 Jackie Priest,

You forget that it was a minority vote that took Scotland INTO the union (an extreme minority).

As you forget it was a minority vote , 23% , that put SNP in power.

Grin !!

147

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 08:32:36
#1

AM2 finally admits that the minority of voters 'winning' the 1979 referendum was 'totally unacceptable'.

If even AM2 can reach out to democracy there is hope yet!
148

walter,

27/03/2008 08:32:39
#174
Ah I get it now, you are one of those people who for some obscure reason known only to yourselves who believe that in the whole of Scotland there is only one person named Walter.
Believe it or not it is more popular than you think, in my own family I have an uncle and a son both with the same name as myself.
Unbelievable isn't it, there was you thinking there is only one person called Walter in the whole country and you have just been informed there is three in the same family.
149

loughjohn,

scotland 27/03/2008 08:37:49
#114, thanks for the support.
please put that on a ballot paper : >

all sounds good but:

"If Mr Salmond does not get a majority in parliament, he will not be able to hold a referendum."

am i missing something ?.
150

HughB,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 08:42:08
Lets all have a reality check here, especially AM2!!!

Scotland never got a vote when we were dragged into the union by westminster, so let westminster do the decent, democratic thing, and have a vote on the union now.

It's long overdue, don't you think, considering that this union is supposed to be a democratic one!!!
151

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 27/03/2008 08:48:13

So much cods wallop. The three unionist parties have no legitimate right to represent Scottish affairs until such time as they break all ties with their puppet masters in London and become truly Scottish. Meantime AS has a field day as, love him or loathe him, he is the only party leader capable of truly representing the best interests of the people of Scotland.
152

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/03/2008 08:48:32
#32 AM2

Well, for a start you quote the 23% in favour of independence as a hard fact when it is nothing of the sort. The only way to properly to test the proportion in favour is to have a referendum.

Incidently AM2, I have noticed a much more provocative tone in your posts than before. Do you think it is right for you to be the first to comment on an article and to include in that comment negative comments about posters who have yet to comment. I see you do this frequently and I have to say it makes you look like you are more interested in an argument than true debate.
153

Zillionaire,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 08:49:16
This is pay back time for Labour who have treated (and still do) the electorate with sheer and utter contempt.
154

Alastair the First,

27/03/2008 08:50:27
Why doesn't the headline read "Minority vote could trap Scotland in Union"? It works both ways....

I see nothing wrong with an STV set-up if you have three or more options to choose from. If it was on a FPTP, you could win with only 33.34% support if the vote was split three ways nearly evenly. In fact I don't see Labour moaning about that when it works in their favour...
155

scottish person,

paisley 27/03/2008 08:51:23
Rules but not rulers. Go to bed. You are kidding when you talk about piggy snouts in a trough. What about your leader bendy wendy and all the other labour members who were caught with their snouts in the trough.
156

Tom R,

27/03/2008 08:51:26
#1 AM2

There is one certain way for the SNP to get a referendum-winning a majority of the seats in the next Westminster General Election. I used to think that was impossible, but now I think it is merely difficult -probably as difficult as Alex Salmond winning Gordon at the last Holyrood election :-)

It has always been the unionist position that if Scots wanted independence this could be shown by the SNP winning a majority of Scottish seats at a General Election for Westminster.

I am well aware that, under the perversion of democracy that holds sway in Westminster elections, with identical popular votes (as suggested by a recent opinion poll), the Labour Party would win many more seats than the SNP but at around 40%? of the vote, the SNP would win a majority of seats.

Strangely enough, at that point the unionists would cynically reverse their position, and claim that a referendum must still be held.

People have commented in the past that the SNP do not do as well in Westminster elections as in Holyrood ones. That is trueup until now, but I find it easy to envision a future in which the Scots become clear that only the SNP can protect them from a Westminster Tory government-far fewer people will think in the future that Labour can do that job than used to, given recent experiences.

157

Astarte,

Giffnock 27/03/2008 08:55:56
Alex Salmond is a silly wee man who is at his best when he thinks he is being taken seriously! You know, I know and he knows that there is no one in Scotland capable of leading a move towards Independence and more-over Scotland could not handle Independence. We are a fluttering race and will only turn out to vote if we are sure that Hibs and Hearts, and Rangers and Celtic have no fixtures that day and if we can be sure that there is nothing worth watching on the Telly. There is more talk, ALL Talk, of Independence in these comments than there is in Universities where it should be happening. Independence is an Intellectual Movement and we are a long way from having one. Let wee eck have his fun..it's the only fun he gets apart from a Friday night Fish and Chip Supper.
158

scottish person,

paisley 27/03/2008 08:56:00
Judging by the comments in the papers this week I dont think the English would mind severing ties with the Scots. Its only the Scottish MP's who are worried about their jobs who are making the fuss, and of course the three stooges bendy nick and dyke
159

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 08:57:08
197. Unionist regard for Scotland knows no bounds...
160

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/03/2008 08:58:58
#179 AS

Yes, I recall a similar percentage in favour of a referendum. Although I am wary of polls, it is interesting how the likes of Nicol Stephen is quite willing to ignore such a (seemingly) overwhelming majority in favour of a referendum. Some democrat!
161

Bob M,

Paisley 27/03/2008 08:59:34
I was at the Scotland game last night and Alex Salmond came on the pitch at half time to present some awards. He was booed by a large section of the support.

If that's the Tartan Army's opinion of him he's got his work cut out!
162

,

27/03/2008 09:00:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
163

JimC,

Kilmarnock 27/03/2008 09:02:50
So by the logic expressed by some on these forums STV is undemocratic. But its good enough to elect MSP's and councillors up and down the country!
164

Stu,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:03:40
I dont see the problem with using the STV system.



AM2 - You say major constitutional change cant be achieved with a minority vote but thats exactly what Labour in westminster have and they want to take us into the "European constitution". Thishas been achieved with a minority vote so personally I dont se ethe problem with it
165

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/03/2008 09:03:46
#181 jdships

I suspect your 23% figure is wrong.

Grin!
166

walter,

27/03/2008 09:04:35
#179
I stand corrected if there has been.

The only way to get what the people want is not to go along with the politicians idea's on how to manipulate the question in their favour, which is what all of them will try.
There are 2 questions required asking, one whether Scotland becomes independent or stays with in the UK.
The second in what way devolution is to work including devolving parliament and handing powers back to Westminster as I suggest in #38.
Non of these shams the politicians are trying to pull to manipulate the results.
167

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/03/2008 09:05:52
#186 Based on the SNP's performance in Government, I can easily see a role for them post-independence.
168

Dublin Don,

27/03/2008 09:07:08
Even if a 26% vote could effect independence it still would be considerably more democratic than the process that led to the Union in the first place.
169

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:09:25
191# You are right in pinning it down to one man. Before droopy chops returned to Scotland from Colombey-les-Deux-Eglises the SNP were languishing in the polls - marginally above the Tories. That was only 3 years ago.

Were he ever to return I suspect they would return there.
170

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 27/03/2008 09:12:56
#210 Morag

Why the need for personal insults? Is it because you are insecure in making your point?
171

scottishcoffindodgerno1,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:14:09
AM2# are you maggie broon in diguise,or even bendy wendy.All you seem to spout is nulabspeak
172

Yr Awel,

Here & There 27/03/2008 09:19:12
Please HELP!!
Could someone explain...

1 - Why compare the Westminster system of election (which, no doubt, could be more democratic!) with the one-off that a referendum on independence would be (no 'democratic pendulum' here indeed!)?
Or am I right in thinking that in an independent Scotland, we will be allowed to have referenda every five or ten years on whether or not we are happy with independence?

2 - Why the obsession with the past? Are we going to have a referendum on the EU as well? After all, it would only be fair (as some posts above seem to suggest): didn't the Germans kill many Scots a long time ago?, which surely is reason enough not to share power with them...

What a mess...
173

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 09:21:24
"Minority vote could take Scotland out of the Union"

Alternative headline:

Minority vote could keep Scotland in the Union.
174

Morbo,

27/03/2008 09:21:37
If you have a vote with three options and you only back one of them, the STV system forces you to give votes to options that you don't want. It is a loaded question, similar to: How often do you beat your wife? a) every day or b) only at the weekend. This choice would be easier for Sean Connery of course.
175

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:21:37
#212

Mori opinion poll April 2005-

Labour 47%
Tory 18%
LibDems 15%
SNP15%

How do you know I don't get turned on by men with droopy chops?
176

Alan B,

27/03/2008 09:21:49
The scotsman have really sunk to a new low with their headline.

Look at what has actaully happened here. The snp suggest a referendum with 2 questions. The unionist parties join up to refuse the right of the people to choose in a referendum.

The lib dems floated the idea of a 3 question referendum with their option of substantially more powers for the sp as an option. The view here was that scots would vote for the middle way. their own leadershop rejected the idea. We now know probably that had to do with the deal with Brown and Campbell taken over the heads of the holyrood leaderships.

The snp have called the unionist bluff with this option as it is probably harder to win a 3 question referendum than a 2 question one.

It is also not a minority option. By being a transferable vote mechanism it is the majority view rather than a first past the post system.

At the end of the day Samond is just running rings round the unionists. However many unionist posters keep claiming it is the snp that do not want a referendum. Even the most ardent but fair minded unionist would agree this should be resolved and laid to rest by giving the people the choice.

We saw on newsnight the other night it was clear that the 3 unionist leaders did not want a referendum even on their own option that comes from their review. Quite simply they are running scared of the people.

I think part of the problem the unionist would have with a 3 way referendum is that their option of more powers for the scotland would have to be real and not a damp squib. Only the lib dems seemed signed up to a powerful scottish parliament. Even then they would be left saying that the current situation is not good but their solution would fix it.

I do however think it is a risky strategy for Salmond as it would be more difficult to win a 3 way referendum than a 2 way one.
177

GrahamH,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:21:50
#192. Re AM2, He can be engaged in some debates, certainly not though Wendys "best small illegal cash dealing debacle in the world" as he scurried for cover not to be heard of on the subject.
178

Banana Heid,

Ayrshire 27/03/2008 09:21:51
Why don't the SNP run an unofficial referendum? voting for a referendum!
179

Nikostratos,

27/03/2008 09:22:45
Well at least Alex admist this is a one time only for him and then the nats can try again in another 25 years.

seems fair to me..........

Although the snp manifesto commitment doesnt mention a multi option ballot......
180

Nikostratos,

27/03/2008 09:22:46
Well at least Alex admist this is a one time only for him and then the nats can try again in another 25 years.

seems fair to me..........

Although the snp manifesto commitment doesnt mention a multi option ballot......
181

seillean a mhirdenibha,

Williamsburg 27/03/2008 09:22:48

Gentlemen and ladies,

Is there a Scottish newspaper on-line that offers a fair and balanced view on independence for Scotland? I have no stake in the question of independence and no opinion, since the English overlords saw to it that my ancestors were transported from Scotland and Ireland some 300 years ago, but I'm curious anyway.
182

Nikostratos,

27/03/2008 09:22:48
Well at least Alex admist this is a one time only for him and then the nats can try again in another 25 years.

seems fair to me..........

Although the snp manifesto commitment doesnt mention a multi option ballot......
183

Nikostratos,

27/03/2008 09:23:43
i only posted that once........curious
184

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 09:24:32
Any referendum question that is more than yes/no is absurd. If AS wants to get answers to more than one question, he should ask more than one question. (Remember we did have a referendum with two questions before.) Two questions would do the trick:
Question 1. Do you think that Scotland should become an independent state outside the UK? Yes/No
Question 2. Do you think that the Scottish Parliament within the UK should have more powers? Yes/No

Mind you, a question with more than one possible answer might be fun. You could ask whether Scotland should become presidential republic, a parliamentary republic, a monarchy, part of of a UK federation, part of a British repubublican federationm, should have more powers, fewer powers etc. And ask the voeters to put their answers in order of preference!

It really is time all the politicans gave up on this absurd. It'll take at least a generation to see whether the present arrangements are working. The parties hould a gree a truce to shut up about constitutional issues until say 2027.
185

langtonian,

27/03/2008 09:26:42
#153 brownlie

Ah-So! The Referendum ? Why?

All parties set out their stall at General Elections.

Voters select at that time, nothing could be simpler,it's called Democracy.

Why complicate matters by trying to make a "silk purse out of a sow's ear"-just a pointless exercise,Referendum is strictly for the birds.

General election is the time for all pleb's to get their voices heard.
186

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 09:28:21
So, has ANYONE yet found ANY evidence that a majority of Scots want a referendum as the nats keep on claiming?
187

Alan B,

27/03/2008 09:29:13
#216 "the STV system forces you to give votes to options that you don't want. It is a loaded question"

2 things.

1)The snp did propose a 2 choice referendum. The 3 way referendum first came from sources within the lib dems as way of loading it against independence as it way thought that people would choose the middle way.

2)The problem with a 2 way referndum is it does not give people the choice of more powers for the sp. As such u are forced to choose an option u do not want at all. If say i want more powers and that is not a question do i abstain because i do not like the other options. When the sp was created with their was no option of independence and therefore independence supports had to 2 choose between 2 options they did not want.

My own preference would be to go to more powers quickly. That seems to be the vast majority view of the people. And then have a referendum afterwards (couple of yrs early next parliament if snp are biggest partly again).
188

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 09:30:15
'tripe, ridiculous, delusional, absurd, take the place apart, wholesale destruction' the usual reasoned comments of the unionist parties - why not criticise the plan on rational grounds?
189

Norman,

27/03/2008 09:30:35
Ha ha, got to laugh at the Scotsman decrying something as "minority", considering its paltry circulation figures.

More people spoilt their election papers at the last election by dribbling on them than buy the Hootsmon!
190

ExpatBackinScotland,

Dundee 27/03/2008 09:32:13
I could of course say that NO VOTE and the the bribery of a minority got scotland into the union in the first place!...but Ill take that aside for the moment....

The majority of people in scotland want at least extra powers for the parliament so this has to be included, as does status quo and indepenence. How they do it I dont really care but I do care on getting to have a say in the matter. What is it that the unionists are scared of? HAVE A REFERENDUM. The structure is illrelevant and if the parties of union are so sure scots wont vote for independence let them put it to the people. Let US DECIDE if independence is an issue for us DEMOCRATICALLY in a referendum. Id take it tomorrow if I could
191

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 09:32:53
If the unionists are so sure there is little support for independence and their policy has majority support, why are they so afraid of the multi-option referendum suggested by Mr. Salmond?
192

Double oose,

27/03/2008 09:34:31
* AM2,Glasgow,UK 27/03/2008 00:33:22

"Erm, Universal suffrage came rather later. Please save your silly contrived arguments for someone who can't see through them. Thanks. :-"

Aye but basic Arithmetic was around before universal suffrage.
193

MacAbroad,

27/03/2008 09:34:36
Regardless of the rights or wrongs of Mr Salmon's proposed 3 option referendum, how are us Scots abroad (England) going to be given a choice in the matter?
194

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 09:36:21
I think the only way to resolve the issue is to have a two-stage referendum - similar to that used for French Presidential elections. It would mean voting on two seperate days but for an issue this important I'm sure that woulkd be acceptable to many.

Stage one would involve a vote on all the possible options available - independence, abolish the Scottish Parliament, the status quo and Devolution Max (to be clearly defined beforehand).

Stage two would see the top two options at stage one fight it out against each other.

That would at least produce a majority for one option.

One of the winners at stage one would almost ceratinly be independence. This would mean that the second choice by default would be the preferred unionist position.

195

Alan B,

27/03/2008 09:37:42
#226 Publius

I do not think 2 questions would be a good way of settling the issue. First of all which question take precendence. There will be 2 majority votes. An example of this is some tories eg wanted no scottish parliament but then had preferred independence to the mess that they preceived the devolution to be.
196

MrTrick,

27/03/2008 09:38:04
What a disgusting show of disregard for democracy by the SNP. By all means put this to a vote, but it must be a majority who want independance.
197

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 09:40:20
#56 sanny - I may have missed something - but when in 1979 was there a vote on independence?
198

Alan B,

27/03/2008 09:44:03
#240

U seem to have misunderstood the situation. The snp wanted a 2 question referendum the unionist have refused. A unionist party flooted the idea of a multi question referendum as a way make it more difficult for the snp to win. He has called their bluff.

The unionist parties do not even want to put their own agreement for more powers from the commision to the people in a referendum.

If it is not STV for a 3 quesion referendum what way would u run a 3 question referendum.

It is actually a majority anyway. It would be first past the post that would not.


199

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 09:45:27
There seems to be some misunderstanding (misrepresentation?) about what needs to happen for independence to become the majority preference. Although there would be three options, voters don't have to prioritise all three. You can vote for one option only or two options. Because of this, only people who support independence would vote for it as either a first or second option. You can only get a majority for independence if a majority actually vote for independence.
200

Filosofo,

Kirkcaldy 27/03/2008 09:47:46
Great.
Let's have the referendum and call Wendy's bluff.
I'm not convinved that less than 50% want independence.
I reckon if we hold the referendum, these complicated questions won't even arise. There will be a clear mandate for independence, despite all the threats and intimidation from "Scottish" Labour and their cronies
201

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 09:53:51
#244 I don't quite understand why the unionist parties don't go for a referendum now - because they would win. Even the most fervent nationalists here know that - even if they would not admit it.

The crazy thing is that the longer the SNP run the Scottish Goverenment the easier it is for them to win a referendum - assuming of course that they are still viewed in a positive light.
202

oddoneout,

27/03/2008 09:54:34
referendum
can we please just get it over with. Stop the political machinations and petty point scoring. Do it now do it yesterday, do it 3 days ago. I for one do not want to see the next 2-3 years taken up purely on one subject. It will take away from the real reason for the Scottish Parliament, which was to look after Scotland. Please get on with what you were voted in for, not spending millions of pounds on pure semantics and hot air
203

Iain MS,

Newcastle 27/03/2008 09:55:47
To quote the article, 'Labour said it was "the back of an envelope approach to Scotland's future"....'. are they just miffed because they feel that Wee Alex is stealing their favourite back of the fag packet approach to Scotland? At least he's prepared to use his own fag packet and not one provided by London.

I don't seriously think the peoposal would be what finally happens, but good for Alex to stir the porridge a wee bit and watch the collective Unionist bottoms twitch. Lovely to see Lab, Cons and Libs in bed together again.
204

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 09:57:34
So let me get this straight one more time about this independence campaign:

1. 99.5% of the population has not bothered to read the SNP's much-publicised White Paper.

2. 99.999% of the population has not bothered to post anything on the very heavily publicised National Conversation.

3. The Scottish Convention's much-publicised and much emailed worldwide petition CLAIMS to have 3400 signatures (even though the linked petition clearly has only 400 signatures). Even if every signatory was Scottish (which they aren't), that's still only 0.0006% of the population.

4. With the two pro-independence referendums on the No.10 website, they have only scraped together 37 signatures between them.

5. Support for independence has dropped to 23% and support for the UK in various forms has risen to 76% despite Salmond's constant efforts to get us to resent the UK.

6. Support for the SNP itself is plummeting with its lead over Labour going from 11% in Nov, down to 9% in Jan and now down to 7% this month. At this rate, Labour will be back in front by Christmas. One of the shortest political honeymoons on record. Labour's lead of the Tories lasted for several years!

7. In a recent poll, 70% of SNP voters say the SNP only won because of the unpopularity of Labour and NOT because of increased support for the SNP.

8. The 2007 election's protest vote asides, the SNP's share of the vote in ALL elections (local, Scottish, UK and Euro) in the last 20+ years was declining.

9. And now it seems that there is no support for any referendum either (unless anyone can provide a poll).

Can someone, somewhere, please explain how any of this can be confused by the nats as increasing support for independence which is now inevitable??
205

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 09:58:47
#239 Alan B

Perhaps you are right, but I don't think there is an issue at all - merely an arcane squabble between politicians, fantasists and people like us who send posts to the Scotsman.
If there was an overwhelming desire for independence that transcended all other issues, the SNP would win a clear parliamentary majority, hold a single-question referendum on independence and overwhelm its opponents.
But this doesn't seem likely in the near future.
-
206

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 09:58:59
#233 This story is headlined on every broadsheet I saw in my newsagents this morning. See Melanie Reid in the Times for the best take on the debate today.
207

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 09:59:23
sorry, to be as anal as the nats, that should of course read:

Can someone, somewhere, please explain how any of this can be confused by the nats as "increasing support for independence" which is now "inevitable"??
208

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 10:01:03
#2456 Oddmanout. Right on. Squabbling about constitutional matters is preventing Scottish policians from thinking about matters that really matter to people.
209

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 10:01:06
#2456 Oddmanout. Right on. Squabbling about constitutional matters is preventing Scottish policians from thinking about matters that really matter to people.
210

Publius,

London 27/03/2008 10:01:11
#2456 Oddmanout. Right on. Squabbling about constitutional matters is preventing Scottish policians from thinking about matters that really matter to people.
211

Allan Murray,

27/03/2008 10:05:21
Typical the SNP NO THEY CANT WIN A YES OR NO VOTE SO THEY come up with this nonsense.
Nationalist are pathetic well good bye Scotland, sorry to see you go but atleast you wont be able to blame England for all your problems and we can then scrap the barnet formula.
212

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 10:07:31
#245
I don't think it's a foregone conclusion that the unionists would win a referendum, that's why they are against a straightforward independence referendum - they are quite happy with referendums that only allow you to choose between the staus quo and what they are prepared to go along with.
Opinion polls with a straight yes/no question to independence sometimes get a majoority of expressed preferences for independence and sometimes against. Opnion polls with multiple options usually get a majority in favour of further devolution. That's why the reluctance of the unionists to support Mr. Salmond's proposal is a failure of nerve.
The irony is, the longer a referendum is delayed the more likely is a vote in favour of independence.
213

Mr Pink,

27/03/2008 10:08:07
Modern day gerrymandering by a party that would dispense with a democratic mandate to secure its own ends.

The SNP are becoming increasingly desperate and sinister.
214

Morbo,

27/03/2008 10:10:53
#230. Two of these options are actually very similar. I am guessing the Lib-Dems thought by adding this they would devide the independence vote, however with the STV system this does not happen since in many cases the first vote is ignored. I do not think there is this hunger for independence that the SNP seem to think there is and the middle option of voting to be taxed higher to pay for schemes we do not need is stupid.
215

ochone,

Sauchie, clack's 27/03/2008 10:13:54
Makes you think of all those times when a government was elected to Westminster and they didn't have the majority of votes cast.

So why the outcry now?
216

nabodican,

Rural Scotland 27/03/2008 10:13:57
Are we talking about a "minority" vote or "less than 50% of the population" as the article goes on to say ?
I seem to remember that less than 50% of the population voted for devolution so why should we expect anything different this time.?
The politicians will juggle the numbers to suit their aims regardless.
217

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 10:14:22
258. That's the conclusion I draw from all the stats I listed in post 248.

With all the huff and bluster coming from the nats, there seems to be little support for even a referendum, let alone independence.
218

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 10:15:00
#257 I wouldn't call it gerrymandering but a deliberate attempt to muddy the waters on the unionist side of the debate.

But then the unionist parties can hardly complain as they have done the same in the past.

#246 Agree about getting it out of the way now - I'd rather the constitutional debate were settled for some time to come instead of it dragging on and on. That being said - I really do want to see a result that is firmly in favour of one option or another. What I don't want to see is a series of Quebec-style neverendums.
219

Allan(handofgod137),

27/03/2008 10:15:16
Salmond's clutching at straws, and why no scrap follyrood option?
220

Hamish Scott,

27/03/2008 10:16:11
#252
"Squabbling about constitutional matters is preventing Scottish policians from thinking about matters that really matter to people."

Publius - And what really matters to people? The war in Iraq, the existence of Trident and its replacement, economic policy that is right for Scotland rather than the City of London, an energy policy of nuclear power and wind farms stretched across our countryside?
The only way we'll get the right policies for Scotland on the above examples is if the Scottish Parliament has the power to do so. We don't at the moment, that is what is driving constitutional change - far from being irrelevant it is absolutely necessary.
221

ochone,

Sauchie, Clack's 27/03/2008 10:16:37
Of course as has been said, there is nothing to stop Westminster holding a referendum or for the opposition partys at Edinburgh to push one through, yet they won't

Could it be they are not so sure of the outcome as some unionists on here make out.

Why don't they do it?
222

WL,

livingston 27/03/2008 10:17:55
It was a minority vote that took Scotland into the Union.
223

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 10:18:22
252. Has it escaped your notice that Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems have set up a Constitutional Commission/ Review group?

224

Alan B,

27/03/2008 10:18:31
#252 Publius
"Squabbling about constitutional matters is preventing Scottish policians from thinking about matters that really matter to people."

Alternatively the lack of powers of the parliament is stopping it address the issues that matter.

1)economy - while the uk has been doing well scotlands growth has been poor for a long while. this has resulted in scotland having a lower gdp per capti than many other small european nations.

U do not need independence necessarily to address this but do need something like fiscal autonomy. As this is major economic level and allows u to niche the economy.

2)We have not had a real discussion in scotland about whether the euro would be beneficial to scotland. McConnell the previous labour first minster wanted this and it is labour, lib dem and snp support it i believe. The unionist parties (not tory) seem to say yes to the euro but only if england does.

Again it is possible along if fiscal autonomy is introduced for scotland to adopt the euro while within the uk, i think ni might do this in time.

Currently it is not in the sp remit.

3)trains - sp can fund but not control the structure of trains in scotland. that is simply stupid. u are simply thowing money at a structure adopted by ur oppostion pary.

4)energy - what a mess. sp controls renewables to some degree but westminster control nuclear but doesn't because of planning. electicity policy in scotlnad has alway been difference from rest of uk, (privatisation, neta, percentage of nuclear etc and now percentages of renewables). It should be cleanly devolved. Regulation of electricy tranporation matters when u have an enegy policy and has cause friction when westminster adopts a policy at odds with sp.

5)firearms - this matters but sp could not do anything despite wanted to after the death of a baby from an air refle shooting.

There are some other issues like
a)when the super casino issue as about. scottish cities had to compete with english cite
225

Alan B,

27/03/2008 10:19:06
cont..
a)when the super casino issue as about. scottish cities had to compete with english cites for the privilege. why? if the sp supports it scotland should just have done it.
b)the snp guy in charge of scottish police apparently wanted to have traffic police work singly not in pairs. but had to ask the labour westminster home office mininster for transport who then refused. Not sure i agree with the policy but barmy that they have not power to run their own dept.

226

Adam Birnie,

Cambridge 27/03/2008 10:23:56
Don't worry, your Scots minority would have the support of vastly more than 50% of the English
227

Patrick O'Shaunnessy,

27/03/2008 10:25:08
There is something in the Scottish psyche which gravitates towards conformity, singing from the same song-sheet, all jock thomson's bairns...all that cr*p.

I've never been inside a wee free prsbyterian church, but the atmosphere inside the scottish parliament come close to how I imagine it to be...grey, colourless, about as sexy as a bucket of steaming sh*t really.

I like the cut and thrust of Westminster politics, the intriguing, the back-stabbing and the glorious rhetoric. I marvel at its ancient traditions and the full-on adversarial nature of its debates when the heat is on.

For me, that is the best kind of democratic process, the envy of the world.

Are we to withdraw from this august body altogether and retreat to a souless, unsmiling, poker-faced,self-righteous pit of of bland reckoning ?

I hope not.
228

Mr Pink,

27/03/2008 10:25:39
#263 This is a SNP suggestion. How can it be a unionist attempt to muddy the waters?

Also, when has this be done in the past? A constitutional referendum with multiple options and the possibility of a minority first choice vote succeding?
229

oddoneout,

27/03/2008 10:28:30
@Hamish the Scott
until you can get your finger out and get a referendum sorted please stop whining about things that you have no control over. One step at a time. Vote for Independance and it can be sorted, vote against it and it can't. Wondering what if and I want a say in that gets you nowhere and just continues the process of getting absolutely nothing done. I can only assume that you support the independance vote, yet you insist on dragging it out as long as possible, which plays straight into the hands of your sworn enemy (which is apparently people who can't be called scottish because they support the union). counting chickens an all that
230

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 10:30:08
273. Who gives their kid such a name? That's just cruel!
231

Mcsnagpile,

27/03/2008 10:31:22
The Scottish Nationalists already voted 52% in favour in 1979. Why bother about another vote.

Norway's parliament dissolved the union between Sweden and Norway on June 7, 1905. After some months of tension and fear of war between the two neighboring nations, negotiations between the two governments led to Norway's recognition by Sweden as an independent constitutional monarchy on October 26, 1905. On that date, King Oscar II renounced his claim to the Norwegian throne under the personal union of the united kingdoms of Sweden and Norway. This event was quickly followed by Prince Carl of Denmark's ascension to the Norwegian throne on November 18 the same year, taking the name Haakon VII.

Many documents related to the specific events of 1905 were destroyed during and following those years. Some historians speculate that foreign interests played a stronger role than what had previously been assumed; in particular, that Great Britain influenced the dissolution in order to reduce German influence over Atlantic ports. Although Sweden's close relationship with Germany did not last long, Norway's independence immediately put it inside the British sphere of influence.

Hey wait a minute Norway had no oil in 1905.
232

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 10:31:23
#277 You need to read my post again!!

I did say it was an attempt by the SNP to muddy the waters but that the unionists parties could harly complain as they have done the same in the past. Or have you forgotten the infamous 40% rule in the '79 referndum?
233

Alan B,

27/03/2008 10:32:04
#277 Mr Pink "This is a SNP suggestion"

The 3 way referendum actually came from within the lib dems. The snp as the article reported would rather have 2 question referendum but know the unionist parties will not agree.

They have jumped in this lib dem suggestion as they think it will be very hard for the unionist to change the powers of the sp without referendum giving the people the choice. ie they are calling their bluff.
234

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 10:32:15
The Tories/Nu Tories/Unionists on here will never support Independence but two years will be long enough to persuade those without closed minds of the benefits
and opportunities that Independence will bring.
235

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 27/03/2008 10:34:33
I think the Unionist Cabal must be absolutley terrified. Their worm infested deal that they are cooking up in the basement of Whitehall will be put to the Scottish People to decide. The idea that the people should decide and not their masters makes poor old Browns blood run cold.

We will have to see what bucket of dog excrement they decide to serve.
236

frank mcbride,

lusitania 27/03/2008 10:34:35
There is no arguement here. There is no confusion.

The SNP TRUSTS the people of Scotland: the Unionist Alliance DOES NOT!!!

Just keep saying it,

The SNP TRUSTS the people of Scotland: the Unionist Alliance DOES NOT!!!

Just keep saying it,

The SNP TRUSTS the people of Scotland: the Unionist Alliance DOES NOT!!!

This is not a mantra; simply the truth.
237

Aqwes,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 10:35:32
STV for a referendum is a bit unorthodox, but it is the one-day equivalent to having a two-leg run-off vote with the two most popular choices.
238

 Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 10:36:22
285. Poodle, I would imagine.
239

Alan B,

27/03/2008 10:40:45
In the next few yrs.

Brown will lose the next general election. This will result in his grip on the party north of the border disapearing. From Wendy, McConnell and McLeish all wanted more powers for sp.

Cameron winning the elction will mean that scotland will have policy from a party it will have roundly rejected at the ballot. what 1 mp?

The tories will stop scottish mp voting on english matters. As evidence to their commision has shown this will be hard without fiscal autonomy (or fiscal federalism). senior members like david davis already support fiscal autonomy.

even the unionist review will probably end the barnett formula anyway.

if labour take a hammering at the next gneral election and the snp continue to be seen to do well and with a wendy already fatally damaged the snp will win with a larger amount.

it is really all up in the air.

240

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 27/03/2008 10:41:04
You know that the SNP are doing something right from the howls of protest coming from the other parties.

You would think that Salmond has just tried to snatch the crown jewels.

If so many oppose Independence what have the unionists got to fear? They know they cannot rationally explain their opposition to the plebs having their say, so they attack Salmond on the details.

It keeps on going back to who is taking the more democratic stance. A referendum is democracy in action/at the coal face. If you oppose it you oppose the people expressing their views, you are less democratic, it can be argued no other way.

The SNP - defenders of Scotland, defenders of democracy.
241

ExpatBackinScotland,

Dundee 27/03/2008 10:45:03
Highland Mighty; Lies, damned lies and statistics...

If you are so SURE that Scots wont vote for Independence WHY NOT LET US HAVE A VOTE ON IT? Seems a democratic way to do things, and settle the score for the next 20 years...oh but the Unionists dont want to trust the will of the people!

I would have thought a referendum ending with a defeat for the SNP would be a vote winner i.e "We told them the people didnt need it, but they spent the money and did it anyway, shame on the SNP". If the unionists are so sure, its win win to have a vote. My guess is, they are far from sure and cant risk the scottish people might want to.....GULP.....run themselves like every other nation on the planet.

LET THE PEOPLE DECIDE, REFERENDUM NOW!!!!!
242

Alex, Young Laird d' Drumchapel,

Madrid 27/03/2008 10:46:09
Interesting to see AM2 keeking iz breeks.

Scots want an end to the union. That has been shown in opinion poll after opinion poll. The only debate is whether they want it now or in the near future. This is why STV is a good idea. Most people who want more powers want independence after that and would be willing to vote for it now if it was a clear Yes or No referendum.

More powers is the favourite option now so it would be sensible for the unionists to go for it. If they don't and they increase the powers of the parliament without a referendum then there will still be a nationalist argument for a referendum after that. The difference will be that a third choice of 'more powers' will not make it on to the ballot paper.

This is the unionists last chance and it was given to them by the nats. Their gut refusal to think about this shows their desperation and the fact that it's still the SNP who are in command of the subject!

Referendum:
1 No bread at all
2 Half a loaf
3 A whole loaf
243

WelshScotDoc,

Uddingston 27/03/2008 10:46:12
~38 and ~206 Walter
The most sensible suggestion posted. There has to be only a straight choice for the main question Independence or Union. If the answer is maintain the Union, then the second question is 'How do we do it?" The options must also include 'returning to Westminster control' I wonder why Salmond didn't suggest this as one of his options? Not that I personally favour this.

As a Welshman living 36 of my 70 years in Scotland, I favour devolution with more powers. However, In relation to independence, I've never seen any comment by any political party on the status of the 900,000 or so non-Scots living here. As a Welsh Brit living in Scotland, I want to keep that status.
244

Transparent?,

Scotland 27/03/2008 10:48:41
In proposing a preference vote instead of a simple selection vote with a 'X', the results become unnecessarily complicated.

All three preferences would need to be 'extracted' from each ballot paper to be processed and that's a recipe for 'fiddle' - given the 2007 election debacle.

Salmond is clutching at straws because he knows his popularity is weakening and he wants to strike before his iron gets too cold.
245

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 10:53:29
229 Langtonian

The election procedures in the General Election might be called democracy but it is not democratic. Democracy as the name suggests should be based on what the majority of people feel it right. If the UK was truly democratic the will of the vast majority of the people would have prevailed in the run-up to the Iraq invasion and the murder and maiming of innocent Iraqis would have been prevented. Instead we have a system where a few hundred people voted, not in the interests of the Iraqi, out of party loyalty and out of self-interest.

You have, in this country, a Government which the majority of the people did not vote for, with a mandate which allows them to cynically break election pledges.

The SNP Proposal on the other hand is exactly what democracy should be about. They wanted a independency or status quo vote but to address unionist concerns they offered a multiple choice.

The unionists who clearly and blatantly wish to deprive the voters of ANY choice set up a cosy little coterie in defence of the status quo without even knowing whether any proposals they put forward will be allowed by the UK government.
246

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 10:55:06
295. "Scots want an end to the union. That has been shown in opinion poll after opinion poll."

No. No, they don't. Not one opinion poll. Nothing, zilch, zero. Where on earth did you get that from?

Support for independence is at 23% and dropping.

See post 248 for more details. No purchase necessary.
247

antifa,

27/03/2008 10:57:47
#290 - I think that's a reasonable prediction. And if that does happen, there is every chance of an amicable split between Scotland and the rest of the UK that will set a good example for the rest of the world.

But this outcome rests on Salmond being a responsible advocate for independence.

That means: i. Don't rig the election in favour of independence - it has to be clear and unequivocal, and seen to be so; and ii. Please don't make a land-grab for bits of England.

By opting for the simplistic electoral solution outlined in the article, he is creating a likelihood of post-election uncertainty and squabbles - that way, madness lies.

The suggestion of the French system, in which we'd have three options, and then two, is a good one. Whatever happens the result must be unequivocal.

And, yes, I know Salmond didn't start the Berwick narrative but he certainly jumped on it - he should have ignored it, bit of tabloid nonsense that it was.

Trying to get hold of bits of England (that have been part of England for hundreds of years) is not sensible and would create problems for Scotland's international reputation.

248

,

27/03/2008 11:04:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
249

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 11:06:50
#299
So how come a TNS System Three Poll in December, found that support for Independence had risen to 40% or is that one you chose to ignore?
250

Findlay Thompson,

27/03/2008 11:07:32
1

AM2...are you masquerading as HAMISH MACDONELL??
251

The Strategist,

27/03/2008 11:08:25
#271 AlanB

You will need considerably more than simple fiscal autonomy to dramatically improve the performance of the Scottish economy. We need a range of new financial institutions including banks and VCs as well as an entirely different regulatory regime if we are to break free of the existing low risk, short termist, unadventerous culture that prevails today.

Nothing less than independence from the Treasury and the City would allow us to do that.
252

Geoff H,

Fife 27/03/2008 11:09:12
And so it goes...

British Unionists - 'opinion polls say...', 'only 23%', 'minority want independence' - reiterating doesn't mean debating.
Scottish Patriots - 'if no support let's have a referendum', '52% in 1979 = no win' etc - there never seems a straight answer to these points...

A Unionist was even asked for a straight 'yes or no' answer yesterday by Jackie Priest (asked 2 or 3 times) and never got an answer, bar some petty comment.
Interesting...
253

Truely English,

27/03/2008 11:11:59
It is important we all stick together like we did during the Two World Wars and during the Empire Days.
The English have always admired the Scots in the various ways they do business and keep on the path no matter what lies ahead.
We are much stronger together than apart, and we share the same values and culture.
254

Dick Lynas,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 11:19:26
Was there ever so amusing a sight as the gaggle of pigmy unionist party leaders getting together to agree the need for more powers to Holyrood - and then panicking when Alex said good idea, why dont we include that option in the referendum questions?
I can hardly remember a time when there was such a concerted squeal of protest. Is it not a sad comment on the quality of opposition that Alex finds it so easy to rattle them?
My own view is that with Gordon Brown and co signing away ever more national rights to Europe then independence (of Westminster) hardly matters now anyway as Scotland would be no more independent of Eurtope than it is just now. Just watch the price of mince and you will see what I mean!
On balance I want to stay within the UK (UK party leaders are slightly bigger pygmies than the Scottsih version)so I would vote:

1. More powers to Holyrood
2. Status quo
3. Independence

There now - was that not very clever of me to figure out the implications of my vote?
255

Mystic Swordsman,

On the job 27/03/2008 11:27:25
Mr Salmond then explained how a three-question referendum would be decided.

He said: "People managed to get their heads around voting one-two-three in STV (single transferable vote) in the local government elections last year, so I think we want one-two-three in a three-option referendum. I'm pretty confident people in Scotland can manage three choices on a ballot paper."

Don't under-estimate the ignorance of the average voter when confronted with a single transferable vote!!! What percentage of those that would bother to vote would understand the real impact of their three choices???
256

frank mcbride,

lusitania 27/03/2008 11:27:28
#292, Rules....

I know your scrabbling but, at least try being coherent. Your post accuses the SNP of causing confusion and delay over an Independence Referendum. Where is your evidence?

Is ANY substantial change to the Scotland Act not worthy of a plebiscite? Independence (SNP & others), the Steele proposal (LibDem), more fiscal autonomy (Tory), RETURN powers to Westminster (NuLab)

The Unionist Alliance's refusal of a plebiscite, given the above, is a blatant slight on democracy.

The SNP TRUST the people of Scotland: the Unionist Alliance DOES NOT.

Simply a statement of fact.
257

MoragfraeEdinburgh,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 11:34:31
314# Aye just like deValera did.
258

The Master,

27/03/2008 11:37:08
If a referendum is ever held, it’s blindingly obvious that the only viable option would be to have a straight yes or no vote for independence. The option of giving the parliament more powers is not particularly controversial and all too obviously can go ahead without any kind of referendum, if there is agreement amongst the mainstream parties involved in the constitutional commission. I’m sorry, but I really am beginning to wonder about Alex’s fitness for high office following this latest suggestion: is any politician who is so determined to achieve separation that he’s set up a system which will split the anti independence vote and quite possibly give a meaningless result on a major constitutional issue really fit for office? I’m sorry, but this is the final straw: the bloated demagogue with the popular touch has finally lost all touch with reality and it really is time for him to make way for John Swinney!
259

Geoff H,

Fife 27/03/2008 11:38:21
315 - Good point, well made
260

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 11:43:11
So, just to get this straight in my head as the nats have got very carried away again.

Salmond's only weapon to get this referendum bill through is that he would then blame the other parties of blocking the referendum during the buildup to the 2011 election. Is that right?

And what if the SNP has faltering in the polls (as we all know, their honeymoon is over and their lead is already on its way down) and there is no apparent support in any poll for a referendum (which there isn't today), isn't that threat a little on the hollow side?

This whole 'event' and this entire page is a non-event. No-one cares, no-one wants a referendum (no-one wants a change so why vote?!) and I just can't see the referendum being passed. And there won't be a thing Salmond will be able to do about it!

There you go, there's a contrary prediction to all the bombastic nat claims being repeatedly posted today.

The only matter worth debating is what do we responsibilities we should entrust to Holyrood, be it SNP now or whoever next?
261

The Strategist,

27/03/2008 11:49:15
Personally I think Scotland should quit the union and go for an alliance with France.

It would be really good news for our youth to be allied with a country that takes pride in having a car industry, is heavily involved in the space business, has a substantial electronics/IT sector, a very progressive aerospace industry and a fairly large and high tech shipbuilding sector.

262

kimba,

27/03/2008 11:50:21
Typical Salmond stance "if I cannae win fairly who cares I'll just move the goalposts",what a cheating little t-rd he is.
263

A Scot in America,

New York USA 27/03/2008 11:51:08
Why wouldn't an independent Scotland, as a full fledged member of the EU, be just as economically viable as many of the other smaller members especially with Scotland's share of North Sea oil?
264

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 11:53:54
# 322
Support for independence up to 40% in past months





« Previous « PreviousNext » Next »
View GalleryBy HAMISH MACDONELL
SUPPORT for Scottish independence has risen to 40 per cent, according to the findings of a new poll.

The latest snapshot, which is based on the exact referendum question Alex Salmond, the First Minister, wishes to put to the Scottish people in 2010, revealed a 5 per cent surge in support for independence over the past three months.

Nicola Sturgeon, the Deputy First Minister, said the poll reflected the "impressive ratings" of the Scottish National Party in government.

The poll, conducted by TNS System Three, asked whether Mr Salmond's administration should "negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state".

The suggestion was backed by 40 per cent of those questioned in the poll, which was carried out in late November and early December.

It showed that 44 per cent said they did not want Scotland to pull out of the UK – 6 per cent down from August.

The full article contains 165 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.Last Updated: 16 December 2007 9:29 PM
265

Alternative (High Octane) Fuel Head,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 11:54:14
The way that the SNP are copying all labour's stupid schemes, nazi-state mentality and nanny state legislation, I would personally be VERY, VERY worried about splitting from Westminster and a likely Tory government in a few years time.

Before I would consider supporting the SNP in a move to make Scotland independant, I would want to see the an obvious move away from the oppression and criminal mismanagement of the labour years. I would want to see pledges to return freedom of choice to people and to allow them to take responsibility for their own actions.

I would also like to see a proper constitution that enshrined our basic rights. So far, none of this has happened.
266

The Strategist,

27/03/2008 11:57:58
#325 A Scot in America

It would be economically viable with one of the biggest advantages being that independence would get us out from under the stifling influence of the City and the UK Treasury..

267

Edward,

27/03/2008 11:58:30
#322 Highland Chicken
C H I C K E N!!!
Why dont you just support a referendum if your so sure only 23% want independence. The worts that can happen is that the country wants more powers
or are you just C H I C K E N!!!
268

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:03:39
326. And there you go with the one solitary stat that the SNP can be happy about - Salmond's personal rating.

Shame about the falling support for the party and for independence, the absolute flops that are the National Conversation, the White Paper and every attempt at a petition....

332. 'Edward', aren't you also 'Richard'? You really should stick to one name.

269

Edward,

27/03/2008 12:04:32
#324 Kimba
You really are quite THICK!!
Its Alex Salmond that wants to put three questions in a referendum to the Scottish people, thats called democracy, let the people decide. He has always wanted this, so no moving goalposts or what ever
Where as the three London based opposition parties DONT WANT to consult the people and DONT want the people to decide, that not democratic and for Labour and the Libdems its also twoi faced. Case in point for Labour Jim Murphy MP for East renfrewshire states that a referendum should only be used in constitutional matters such as having devolution for Scotland and Wales, or if the UK considered the Euro. The Libdems want a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty but not for Scotland deciding its future
Now do you get it? or do you want pictures drawn?
270

A Scott,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 12:05:31
#324...kimba. But he is going to win fairly .What goal posts is he moving the Unionistas dont even want to give the people of Scotland a choice.
And please tell what or who is he cheating ????
Call me Mr Silly but methinks you are letting your hatred of the man blind you argument.
PS Yir real names no Wendy is it ?????
271

A Scott,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 12:05:44
#324...kimba. But he is going to win fairly .What goal posts is he moving the Unionistas dont even want to give the people of Scotland a choice.
And please tell what or who is he cheating ????
Call me Mr Silly but methinks you are letting your hatred of the man blind you argument.
PS Yir real names no Wendy is it ?????
272

A Scott,

Glasgow 27/03/2008 12:06:39
#324...kimba. But he is going to win fairly .What goal posts is he moving the Unionistas dont even want to give the people of Scotland a choice.
And please tell what or who is he cheating ????
Call me Mr Silly but methinks you are letting your hatred of the man blind you argument.
PS Yir real names no Wendy is it ?????
273

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 12:14:18
#319 Typical generalisations that don't stand up to analysis.

This attempt by some to somehow manufacture a cultural apartheid does not wash.

The reality is that I have more in common with working-class people that the middle-classes in Morningside.

274

,

27/03/2008 12:15:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
275

,

27/03/2008 12:16:31
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
276

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 12:18:45
#339 Apologies - that should have said:

"I have more in common with working-class people in England than the middle-classes in Morningside"

In my opinion nationalism has always been a tool of the middle-classes to divide and rule the working classes. Oh and that includes all types of nationalism - including British Nationalism.
277

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:19:04
328. That trusted nat steed, the Dec 07 TNS poll.

Once again, I shall point out how that is considered a 'freak poll'.

The exact same question in other polls:

TNS Aug 07 - Yes: 35% No: 50%
ICM Apr 07 - Yes: 35% No: 55%
YouGovs Apr 07 - Yes: 33% No: 50%

Like I say, a freak poll only taken as gospel by the nats.
278

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 12:21:06
Highland Mighty

I note that you have not replied to repeated questions as to why you do not support a reference which you contend would confirm the statistics you bore people with. Here are two more.

Would you rather a Review into which you are forbidden to have any input or a Conversation where you can freely and democratically make your feelings known?

Are you happy with Wendy's personal rating?
279

,

27/03/2008 12:24:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
280

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:26:45
#344
The polls you show (Apr. and Aug 070 and the December 07 poll show rising support for Independence, so where do you get 23% and falling ?
281

Geoff H,

Fife 27/03/2008 12:27:18
Surely as we bleat on about polls (usually the Unionists) we are forgetting something - they are opinions given at a particular time. Oh and each poll doesn't ask the same people, so doh, they are going to be different. Only 23%? so 1 in 5 of the population expressing directly a desire for Independence. What is so wrong about having a referendum?
The SNP wanted a Yes/No - oh, but that was wrong.
So they now expand it, taking into consideration the opinions of others - and that's wrong!
It seems that if Independence is such a non-starter then what is the issue with asking the people?
282

The Master,

27/03/2008 12:28:22
#335 A Scott: STV is in no way suitable for deciding a major constitutional question, and anyone with a smattering of education would be well aware of this. Major constitutional change, such as Scottish separation, would require a resounding vote in favour on three separate occasions if it were to have any sort of legitimacy and such legitimacy can never be achieved by a system which redistributes preference votes and does not allow a straight contest between independence and non independence. The option of giving more powers to the parliament is a complete red herring which is not of sufficient import to merit inclusion in a referendum. :Like I said before, this is dependent on the constitutional commission and it’s readily apparent that the people of Scotland are content for the elected MSPs who make up the constitutional commission to agree on this on their behalf.

#346 AM2: this has shades of gerrymandering among followers of an increasingly marginalised political cult.
283

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:28:36
345. Sigh.

I have answered about the referendum a few times. There's is no demand for it, no evidence of any demand and as the vast majority don't want independence, why would there be? Who campaigns for the status quo?!

"What do we want?!"
"The Status Quo!"
"When do we want it?!"
"We already have it!"

Where are the massed marches for independence?
Where are the massed marches for a referendum?
Where are the massed petitions for independence?
Where are the massed petitions for a referendum?

And would this be the same Conversation in which less than 0.0001% of the population have participated? Seems less a 'conversation' and more a 'lonely nationalist monologue' to me.
284

kimba,

27/03/2008 12:31:00
349. SO WHAT'S SALMOND WAITING FOR!!
285

Ayrshire Scot™,

27/03/2008 12:32:52
#347 kimba: since when was there a town called Lugano in Ayrshire? Try googling it, dearest!
286

Calum Crubag,

27/03/2008 12:32:54
I don't see the problem. This is a damn sight more democratic than the 'vote' that took us into the union.

Break the UK!
287

Lock,

27/03/2008 12:33:51
I haven't had time to check previous posts so if this has been covered I apologise, but is it not disgraceful that there is no choice to remove the Scottish Government and return power to the Scottish Office? I for one would happily vote to cut back on the size of the current trough in Edinburgh.
288

Calum Crubag,

27/03/2008 12:34:31
Highland Mighty #351 - does it make you proud that the only mass marches FOR the union are by Orange Order and BNP bigots? That's your bedfellows boyo.

Time to look forward to a new Scotland and leave the Brit Nats and their empire behind.
289

,

27/03/2008 12:37:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
290

Sedov,

Scotland 27/03/2008 12:37:20
It matters nought how Salmond poses the question of independence ( which is a total myth in any case) The Scottish people are far too sensible to ever let him and his incompetents into power.
291

Generalissimo Hernandez,

27/03/2008 12:37:41
Sinister? Of course it's sinister!

Why do you think poll cards have serial numbers which are noted when you go to vote?

It is, of course, obvious, that anyone who votes the wrong way in a referendum will be rounded up and put in camps!

At least I think that's what that level-headed AM2 is driving at.
292

Lock,

27/03/2008 12:38:21
#356,

BNP marches happen all the time where? Another dilusional Nat. I bet you support Celtic too.
293

kimba,

27/03/2008 12:38:38
353,WHAT ARE YOU ON! did you dream of independence then woke up to reality!
294

Alan B,

27/03/2008 12:39:29
AM2 u seem to be getting a tad desperate and losing any resemblence of logical thought.

1) The snp favour a single question but are being denied that by the unionist parties.

no one is asking unionist parties to back independence just the right of the people to choose.

2) i see u have not critised the unionist parties for so far rejecting a referendum on their review.

3)the 3 questions was actually floated by unionists within the lib dems. the snp have just called their bluff.

Without being silly what do u actually have against a 3 question referendum. The option with least support drops out with their votes transferring to their next popular option.

I personally do not support it. But cannot see it as somehow sinister. I think while it is great politics for the snp as it shows the unionists as scared and undemocratic it also makes it harder for him to win such a referendum.

I would prefered to move quickly to more powers and then have a 2 question referendum if the snp win a second term.

The problem for u is u wish the issue would just go away and really do not want to allow the people to choose.
295

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:39:53
348. Happy to:

Poll – independence – greater devolution – status quo – scrap Holyrood
MRUK Mar 08 – 23% - 45% - 22% - 9%
YouGov Aug 07 – 23% - 39% - 20% - 9%
YouGov Apr 07 – 26% - 37% - 17% - 12%
SSAS 2007 – 23% - 55% - 8% – 10%
SSAS 2005 – 34% - 37% - 7% - 14%
296

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:40:33
#358
Eh ?
297

,

27/03/2008 12:41:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
298

George Mackay,

Dundee 27/03/2008 12:43:11
This board has got tedious. What about something interesting - like trams? Bring back the trams!
299

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 12:43:28
346 AM2,Glasgow.

You have certainly changed your tune. As I asked earlier, I expect you to come out and say that Scotland clearly voted for Home Rule in 1979 and the decision to ignore it was as you said "Totally unacceptable"

Or are you going to ignore this inconvienant little question?
300

Border Scot,

27/03/2008 12:43:52
#319 - How do you explain the fact that if English is so much more right wing than Scotland, the English have given the majority of their votes to left of centre parties in every general election since 1955?

To say Scotland has more in common with France than it does with England is quite clearly ridiculous. I rarely hop in my car and drive 40 minutes down the road to France, but I do do that when I pop down to Hexham. And the countryside loos pretty similar on either side of the border. Where I come from they have not spoken gaelic for 1,500 years and kilts were never worn until we had that supposed symbol of Scottishness imposed upon us on the 19th century. Oh, and they play the pipes in Nothumberland as well - it's just that they do not blow into them.
301

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:44:06
And the Scottish nationalists are still trying to link unionists with the British nationalists!

The irony that one minority group of angry nationalists don't think they have anything in common with another minority group of angry nationalists is a very amusing!

The only difference I see is that at least the BNP can muster up a small protest march!
302

Alan B,

27/03/2008 12:44:22
a unionist view "Major constitutional change, such as Scottish separation, would require a resounding vote in favour on three separate occasions if it were to have any sort of legitimacy and such legitimacy can never be achieved by a system which redistributes preference votes and does not allow a straight contest between independence and non independence. "

So u do not just have to win a referendum the unionist parties will not allow. U have to win with a large majority. ie the majority opinion does not matter on if it is a resounding majority then it is ok. And even then it has to be done 3 times.

u have to laugh at the fear and desperation.
303

,

27/03/2008 12:45:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
304

Miss H,

27/03/2008 12:45:41
What a lot of hot air.

Perhaps people can outline how else they think you could run a 3 question referendum?

305

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 12:46:06
355 lock

Yes, you're right - there's a much bigger trough in London and the pigs are getting fat on it. Before you ask - I suppose Salmond and Hibs - an unbeatable combination.
306

Miss H,

27/03/2008 12:46:45
371 Unionists by defintion are British nationalists.
307

Edward,

27/03/2008 12:46:59
#371 Highland Chicken
Come on, what are you scared off, give referendum support, what have you to loose, you never now, you may be vindicated. But as you dont have faith in the figures you keep trotting out and no faith in the Scottish people, can only conclude your C H I C K E N!
308

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:48:45
321. Brilliant!

Random post of the day, ladies and germs!
309

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 12:48:56
#364 Totally agree - it is this type of sterotyping cultural apartheid that some of teh madder elements of the SNP promote that does my head in.

The irony is that they don't even know our own history where large swathes of Scotland NEVER spoke Gaelic or what could be classed as Scots.

In fact lasrge swathes of the country would - to paraphrase Jackie Priest's own words - "speak a myriad variety of Scottish dialects"
310

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 12:50:27
#374 - see my post #238
311

Miss H,

27/03/2008 12:50:29
376 That is correct. But it was you AM2 that was criricising the SNP for wanting to limit choices earlier on this week because the SNP initially proposed a straight yes-no referendum on independence.

You can't have it both ways.

There are 3 options that you unionists want to put to the people - 4 if you include those who want to scrap devolution and return powers to the Scotland Office.

How else can they be put?

Or don't you want them put at all?
312

kimba,

27/03/2008 12:51:23
378. Oh do shut up,you are getting very tiresome,if you and yours want a referendum do something about it!
313

Busymale,

27/03/2008 12:52:46
Hey AM2, how do you manage to get first postings on here everyday? Declare yourself and don't hide behind a daft abbreviation! Do you work for the Scotsman or Labour Party?

When it comes to independence your starting to s**t yourself as you realise its becoming a reality and your library of "mis" quotes are having no effect.

God I can smell you from here!
314

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 12:53:29
377. By definition, you clearly don't know what you are talking about.

Unionism is (by definition) about preferring collectivism.

The BNP, on the other hand, are ignorant racists against anything foreign influencing 'their' traditions, culture and constitution.

And Scottish nationalists are different from them, how?
315

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 12:55:15
#363
Not the same questions. Where is "scrap Holyrood" in the Dec 07 poll. The latest poll you quote also shows
voting intentions as SNP 39 (+6)
LAB 31 (-1)
CON 15 (-2)
Independence is on the way whether you like it or not.
316

Alan B,

27/03/2008 12:56:03
AM2 #369

"1) A single question would also be undemocratic."

U say a 3 way referendum is undemocratic and so is a 2 way one. That really does not make sense. Is any referendum going to be democratic in ur view?

"..., as it wouldn't permit the preferred options of three of the four main parties to be put to the test"

This contradicts what u said below in pt2 as u do not want the unionist parties to put their option to a referendum.

"2) That's because I consider the unionist parties to be right to rule out a referendum at this time."

What u said in pt2 above also contradicts what u posted here .

"#376 Major constitutional change would have to be backed by a clear majority to command sufficient public acceptance"


Do not mean to be cheeky but i have found ur post to be well researched when u post factual info and links but when u stray to putting a logical argument together u flounder somewhat.
317

Alastair the First,

27/03/2008 12:59:24
AM2, your lot claim that this is independence by some sort of con trick. Surely the same applies to remaining in the union: it could also emerge as the winner by exactly the same procedure. Why pick on independence as the one option that should have to jump through more hoops than the others to be allowed to succeed?

Double standards methinks, from you and from the Scotsman. No surprise there then....
318

Graeme2,

Aberdeen 27/03/2008 13:01:22
#194 "Minority vote could trap Scotland in Union"?

Read Scotsman Headlines, 1707, "Minority vote could trap Scotland in Union for 300 years!"

Anyone know where the names of the dozens of Scots slaughtered in the streets of Edinburgh and Glasgow for daring to protest against the "Union" ?

Treaty is build on sand and the Unionists know it!
319

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 13:04:11
Sweet baby Jebus. Three more years of Unionists trying to convince us that the Scottish people are either to stupid or don't care enough to even consider Independence.

Let me ask you this. Can you truly, really, really, really see the WENDY as First Minister in 2010?
320

John M. Slusser II,

Nantwich 27/03/2008 13:05:21
This entire debate is useless and criminal. If all the politicians on every side of the issue would stop posturing (which is merely smoke-and-mirrors tactics to buy them time to make sure they can line their pockets from the new change) and just allow a very simple vote we could have done with this. Instead of dragging it out for decades, at the taxpayers expense as per usual, just take a bloody vote from the people, and have done with it. It is clear that no one wants to do this for they are spineless and desperately afraid of change. I detest inaction at great expense, and the independence of Scotland issue must be the king of all inaction to date.
321

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 13:06:12
376 AM2, Glasgow,UK

Please just answser the question.

The vote of the majority in 1979 referendum was ignored.
You therefore must find the 1979 result "Totally unacceptable." in your own words....?

True or false.
322

Alastair the First,

27/03/2008 13:06:32
AM2 Quote: I've explained my objection to the proposed STV system elsewhere. If, in a ranking of constitutional options, independence wasn't listed No.1 by a majority of people, then it simply shouldn't occur." Unquote.

AM2: Should the same test not be applied equally to the other options in a multi option referendum? In particular, to being in the Union? If that is not the first choice of 50%+ of the voters, then it should not occur. Your rules!!
323

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 13:06:42
387. Jeez, how many times?!

That SNP 39 (+6) is comparing to LAST MAY. They were 11% ahead of Labour at one point but have dropped right back since.

If you look at the latest polls:
SNP lead over Labour
Nov 07 - 11%
Jan 08 - 9%
Mar 08 - 7%

That 11% was the height of their political honeymoon, which is now quite clearly over.

Over the past four months, SNP's support has been dropping at 1% a month!
324

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 13:07:45
AM2:
Please try to remember that more than a few of us reading these posts have more than a modicum of intelligence. Most of your posts would be shredded in any third form debate.

You play around with numbers that seem to have been grabbed out of thin air and try to present them as fact. Then you use weasel words to try to present a very thin and dodgy hypothesis relating to the use of STV. In a face to face debate it would be fairly simple to deconstruct your arguments and show their errors.

Let us be abundantly clear! The SNP and other Nationalists would prefer a straightforward question on Independence or Status Quo. It is Unionists who are seeking to muddy the waters by introducing the question of increased powers (but note these powers are not defined). The purpose of which is to supplant the question of independence or no and by splitting the vote, claim there is no majority for independence.

If Unionists are so certain that there is no significant support for Independence then why not put it to the test in a simple YES/NO question. If the Unionists are correct then they will have settled the question for a generation. Incidentally the longer the referendum is delayed the more the nationalist cause will grow.

This question is not going to go away no matter how hard the Unionists may wish it so. Even those who do not understand the ramifications of the question will wonder why the question is not being put – is there something to hide?
325

numba,

27/03/2008 13:08:26
as my old dad says, "you can't count the crows until the fox has been caught" and "there is no fool like a scottish nationalist fool".
326

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 13:09:15
395. Why don't you mention that the 1979 referendum was a washout as the required turnout was not reached?

Less than 40% turnout = the 50% pro-devolution vote was ~20% of the population.

How is 20% of the population a mandate??
327

Cracker06,

Livingston 27/03/2008 13:10:17
Why aren't the full range of options going to be offered in the referendum. I know many people who think the whole Holyrood experiment was a huge mistake so if the First Minister really wants to know what the people of Scotland think there should be 5 options

1. Full Independence
2. Increased powers
3. Status Quo
4. Reduced powers
5. Abolition of the Scottish Parliament
328

Calum Crubag,

27/03/2008 13:11:26
True - Unionists ARE by definition British Nationalists. And these unionists, be they from Labour or the BNP, want to 'control' immigration, fly the UJ and seek to 'make Britain great'. How forward thinking.

Other such 'unionists' (also known as colonialists, emprire makers, fascists....) include Hitler and Franco.

Other 'nationalists' inlcude Mandela, Gandhi, the Sandanistas, Castro, Bolivar, Chavez and the US founding fathers.

'Great (?) Britain' and her history of empire, slavery and genocide is something that belongs in the past. Good riddance to it.

Scots not Brits.
329

Calum Crubag,

27/03/2008 13:11:55
Am a Jambo btw... sorry to spoil the Brit Nat conspiracy theories!
330

Sanny,

Upwey 27/03/2008 13:12:40
396 Alastair the First
Thankyou Alistair, you have just demonstrated how simple it is to expose AM2 schoolboy debating points.
331

,

27/03/2008 13:13:30
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
332

Calum Crubag,

27/03/2008 13:14:44
Just to prove that we shouldn't trust Brit Nat scare stories, remember that nationalists such as Mandela and Gandhi were labelled by Brit Nats as 'terrorists'.

No doubt, when the Yanks wanted out of the Brit Empire, they were told that it couldn't work.
333

Highland Mighty,

27/03/2008 13:16:12
"Hitler was a unionist"??

LOFL!! Brilliant!

Step aside Jackie Priest, you have been toppled!
334

Alan B,

27/03/2008 13:17:01
#401 The majority of people that voted in 79 voted for a scottish assembly. The views of the majority that voted were rejected to favour the minority view.

It is simply not democratic to ingore the wishes of the majority opinion of those that voted in a referendum even if u do not like the result.

Could u honestly see the british government ignoring the most favoured option in a referendum over an issue with the eu because of a low turnout.

Also part of the low turn out from what i remember (was young at the time) was nationalists abstaining becuase it was such a weak assembly (not even with the powers of the sp today).
335

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

27/03/2008 13:17:51
#404 The irony of your argument is that you display exactly the same characteristics of the BNP nationalist.
336

Sanny,

ortugal 27/03/2008 13:19:41
401 Highland Mighty,
Quote\ “ Why don't you mention that the 1979 referendum was a washout as the required turnout was not reached?” /Unquote

And why don’t you mention all the dead people and those that had left the country who were counted as being on the Electoral register?

Incidentally what would happen if we applied the same rule to Westminster elections? I think there would be a large amount of vacant seats.



337

blackadder,

Scottish Borders 27/03/2008 13:19:44
why no option to do away with all MSPs, turn Follywood into an income generation project instead of a black hole?
338

kimba,

27/03/2008 13:21:12
408,guess the people in Zimbabwe wish the "Brit Empire" as you put it, had been a little more forceful and denied them independence!
339

pwd,

Hawick 27/03/2008 13:21:46
We had a referendum at the last elections for the Scottish Parliament when the people of Scotland had the opportunity to vote overwhelmingly for the SNP and to show just how much they wanted independence. In the event only 17% of the electorate voted for the SNP and 87% did not. It will always be thus and AS knows it. Perhaps this explains his latest nonsense. It seems the stock of gimmicks rolled out since the election has now run out and he's at the bottom of the barrel.
340

uranus,

Falkirk 27/03/2008 13:22:07
I am afraid Salmond is not a clever operator. The Labour needs Scottish Westminster MPs as voting fodder at Westminster. The loss of Scottish Westminster MPs mean that the Labour will never again gain power at Westminster. The Libdems have 12 MPs and Tory just 1. I am hearing that the most noise for English MP only voting at Westminster comes from Tories, and the loss of 1 Scottish Westminster MP for Cameron does not
make a difference. Cameron knows that Tories would never again in majority in Scotland and though he makes union noises. Salmond should go south of the border to give speeches supporting English nationalism, which Cameron would know win voters for him. There is English backlash brewing against Brown, Martin the Speaker, Darling.. Salmond could accelerate it.
341

Sam,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 13:22:23
#393,

"By contrast, the United Kingdom represents a voluntary sharing of sovereignty between its four constituent countries." Please. The Welsh were brought in at the point of the sword. The Scots came in under threat of trade sanctions and with the liberal application of English bribes. Northern Ireland stays in out of fear of Catholicism. Why not have an honest vote on the question of Scots independence?

Here is a modest proposal: Scotland has never for even a day been a republic. Let Holyrood invite Pr. Harry north be King of Scots in a newly free Scotland. That would bring the English Queen over to independence as both of her grandsons would be kings. It would also settle the question of Crown property in Scotland.
342

Media 1,

cape town 27/03/2008 13:26:56
The referendum MUST be a simple yes and no vote! Thats it, end of story!

Mr Salmond, I ask you to please offer the people of Scotland some respect by agreeing to let them vote YES or NO to independence. Please do not make this complicated in order to satisfy some political agenda. Take a step back, look at the country you profess to care for and accept that the PEOPLE are all that matters in this instance, not Alex Salmond. We want a referendum and we thank you for moving in the direction of a referendum on independence, but please keep it simple. Yes or No is all that is required, it really is that simple.
343

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 13:28:16
This is hilarious.

Here we have the Unionist parties refusing to have a National conversation. Yet, day after day the online forums are full of the usual mix of intelligent comment to trolling rants about Scotland, the UK and the constitution.

The independence or not question and the constitution is THEE subject in Scotland. Salmond is getting his conversation whether the unionists want it or not. The debate will only grow and the advantages and disadvantages of the options will become clearer regardless of how a referendum is conducted.

A referendum WILL happen, though the unionists will vote against it when the Bill appears. Salmond already has the unionists arguing about the format and dancing to his merry tune.
344

kimba,

27/03/2008 13:29:01
419.only one trouble with that, prince Harry loves England to much,better have wills.
345

Busymale,

27/03/2008 13:30:15
we've had governments who were elected on minority votes for generations. Why the hypocracy in argument when it no longer suits you?

Name me a country who got independence from England and ever clammered to get back?

I rest my case!
346

Busymale,

27/03/2008 13:30:20
we've had governments who were elected on minority votes for generations. Why the hypocracy in argument when it no longer suits you?

Name me a country who got independence from England and ever clammered to get back?

I rest my case!
347

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 13:32:17
409 AM2,
I challenge you to find the posts where I have said “Scotland “has been subjugated” by England, who has said that only people who favour independence are “TRUE Scots” and who, in particular, said that “We don't recognise [Gordon] Brown as a a Scot”: If you cannot find them then I expect your unconditional apology!

LADIES AND GENTLEMEN, FELLOW POSTERS.
AM2 is blatantly lying and I don’t suppose it is for the first time! The words attributed to me are untrue or certainly have been distorted. Why doesn’t he answer the points I made at #399 or is it that he knows his poor third form debating style has no answer? I suppose he feels the best method of defence is attack !
348

kimba,

27/03/2008 13:35:37
418. We English will not now, nor in the future be used to push salmonds independence bill through
349

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 13:35:46
Since AM2 singularly failed to answer my question about the 1979 referendum there can only be one conclusion.

His post #1 was his usual disingenuous lying comment purely to provoke his daily agenda of disinformation, mock offense, insinuation of Scottish racism and promotion of BritNat arch unionism.
350

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 13:38:34
#426

Thank phuque for that.

Anyone notice that Colin Boyd is on Team Trump? Imagine a former Lord Advocate, whoring himself out to a rapacious property developer...
351

,

27/03/2008 13:39:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
352

monkey man,

27/03/2008 13:43:22
Salmond is a run of the mill populist and ludicrous fraud, but he does appeal to the lowest common denominator in Scottish society who blame everything on " The Engerlush."

If he really wanted independence for Scotland he'd want freedom from both Westminster AND Brussels, but he doesn't say that to the saps who believe his bilge. THAT is not called independence.

If he also loves referendums /i that much and if Salmond truly believes that Holyrood should listen and act on what the Scottish people want, well where is the referendum the Scottish nation wants to end the sectarian apartheid in our education system.?

Why are the SNP so quiet on a referendum to end this moral evil.? Not a squeak from them at all.

The SNP, a joke wee political party for a joke wee pretend Parly in Edinburgh.
353

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 13:43:59
427 David MacVicar
David I've noticed AM2 has a tendency to go to bed or otherwise disappear when he either caught out on his disinformation or finds someone who will not be confused by his weasel use of words.

I've got to go so no doubt he will be back on to attack me and come up with more lies on what he purports I have said.
354

,

27/03/2008 13:45:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
355

Sanny,

Portugal 27/03/2008 13:48:21
427 David MacVicar
David I've noticed AM2 has a tendency to go to bed or otherwise disappear when he either caught out on his disinformation or finds someone who will not be confused by his weasel use of words.

I've got to go so no doubt he will be back on to attack me and come up with more lies on what he purports I have said.
356

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 13:48:54
Monkey man, please pause from flinging you fæces around for a moment and consider that the SNP have THREE more years in power before you get to scrawl your signature on ballot paper. Now get back to spoffing, you're a very entertaining monkey.
357

Fresh_Thinker,

Scotland 27/03/2008 13:50:31
ADMINS PLEASE - HAVE THE GUTS TO LIST A 'REASON' FOR REMOVING COMMENTS FROM NOW ON OR QUIT YOUR JOBS IN SHAME!

EVEN IF IT IS "Cause London told me to and this biased Rag is anti-scotland..."

358

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2008 13:53:52
423 Busymale. No country ever got its independence from ENGLAND. It was the BRITISH Empire remember.
Funny isnt this England/Britain mixup what some of you throw at the English all the time?
359

Yes We Can,

Sitting on a chair 27/03/2008 13:55:35
If the Unionists are so confident that Independence is so unpopular they should have no issue with accepting the 1,2,3 Voting System. If they are sure of their facts Independence would not be the outcome of the vote. Conclusion, the Unionists know that there is a popular movement towards Independence.

A minority vote took us into the Union!

Did anyone notice the news story that the Nimrod upgrade project has gone over budget by £800million. That's £800m of additional Tax Payers money being spent at a B.Ae factory in England. £800m of subsidy for jobs in England. £800m that Westminster expects Scottish taxes to support although there is no benefit North of the Border.
360

Ian Dubh,

Inverdruie 27/03/2008 13:56:03
In 1707 the majority of the Scottish people didn't vote for there to be a Union,as a matter of fact they rioted against it. The few won out and for centuries now we've sold our children out to go fight for English causes. Our language,customs and Identity took a backseat to the wishes of Westminister. I don't see why ( besides fear) people of Scotland wouldn't want to break away from the Union.
361

Geoff,

sa 27/03/2008 13:56:11
437 fresh Thinker-yes it would be nice if the Administrator gave reasons for deleting certain posts, in the interests of good journalism though I disagree with the manner in which you make this request FT.
362

Chum of Boris,

Henley-on-Thames 27/03/2008 13:57:58

I'm on the Scotsman site because I want to advertise for a plumber. Our Polish plumber fellow has gone back to Poland and taken his friends with him. So we now need you Jocks to do the plumbing and things. It is jolly encouraging to read all the stuff about culture. Perhaps someone can suggest a Gaelic paper for my advertisement.
363

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 14:01:01
432 Sanny,

Indeed and I wonder how he behaves in everyday situations when caught out? Probably he notes the name of the offender in his little red book.

Meantime he pretends that there is some urgency requiring his attention: some hack at the hootsman has spilled their coffee and AM2 has been called away to clean it up with his red, white and blue mop!
364

brownlie,

glasgow 27/03/2008 14:01:23
Am2 at 411

Highland Mighty and "tackle" in the same posting - how perceptive of you. No-one else could possibly comment.
365

A Scot in America,

New York USA 27/03/2008 14:06:23
With Scottish independence two problems could be solved at the same time. The Scots get their country back and then Scotland could annex Northern Ireland and relieve the "British Empire" of that particular annoyance.
366

monkey man,

27/03/2008 14:07:52
# 436

Oh please stop,Oscar...your witty repartee is just too much.

Nobody even recognises Salmond as a genuine First Minister or Holyrood as a legitimate parliament after the voting debacle at the last election.

The Brigadoon Bravehearts might curl up their sporrans in excitement at Salmond's latest nonsense...normal people just look on in amusement.

The sooner we go back to our rightful home in Wstminster ( where Salmond was also a failure )the better for all concerned.
367

kimba,

27/03/2008 14:08:59
436,Jeez,3 more years of salmond bile, poor bas--rds!
368

,

27/03/2008 14:11:59
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
369

,

27/03/2008 14:14:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
370

David MacVicar,

web 27/03/2008 14:15:24
447 AM2,Glasgow.

Meanwhile...
Still waiting for that answer AM2...tick, tock.

People can read Sannys posts and judge the context for themselves,as they can yours and mine.
371

,

27/03/2008 14:17:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
372

Miss H,

27/03/2008 14:19:26
420 You would be better off directing those remarks to AM2 and others who have accused the SNP of trying to limit peoples choices.

A simple yes no referendum was what the SNP initially proposed but given that the unionist parties are now engaged in a commission or review or whatever it is to look at enhanced devolution that also has to be taken into account.

If the SNP said no we're paying no heed to that, we are going to hold a simple yes no referendum they would be attacked for that. When they say OK all options can go on the ballot paper they are attacked for that.

The reality is that the unionists don't actually want any questions to be asked. The more this debate develops the more obvious that will become.
373

Ian Dubh,

Inverdruie 27/03/2008 14:21:19
You have to laugh at this sad lot that their only rebuttal against breaking the Union up is to constantly squeal " BraveHeart this and Braveheart that" Blue faced this and Blue faced that" keep thinking those pathetic thoughts,keep thinking that only a handful of "Highland Reenactors" are the ones proud of this country and want it ruled by and for it's people. Just remember,we run your Banks,we run your country too,your Queen is half Scot and enjoys getting away from you lot to come up here. We will break away remember that,sooner or later the people here will have their fill of you taking our natural resources,having our fine young lad's die for you somewhere far from home,and grow weary of your constant assault on our history.
374

,

27/03/2008 14:21:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
375

Miss H,

27/03/2008 14:25:38
384 AM2 you are truly an idiot if you believe that and since I don't think you are an idiot I don't take your remarks at face value.

As things stand it is almost certain that the devolution max option would come out the winner under a preferential vote. Think about it.

Highland Mighty you are just an idiot.
376

,

27/03/2008 14:26:37
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
377

Media 1,

cape town 27/03/2008 14:27:01
Miss H

I hear you, the SNP are dammed if they do, dammed if they dont. I am a staunch unionist, I will NOT vote yes to independence, but I am absolutely in agreement that a referendum on the issue should be held. I want a simple yes or no...that is it!

I am a little concerned about Salmond in that I dont think he will accept a no vote against independence. He scares me in that regard, anything fanatical is always a bad thing! Lets hope we get that yes/no vote.
378

Sgurr,

27/03/2008 14:27:47
kimba@ 454, 451 & 459 - you've changed! Something is definitely different about you...ah, you've become far more coherent and you are starting to make some sense! The new pills are clearly working for you.

379

Miss H,

27/03/2008 14:29:55
462 What do you think he'll do? Take the post office at the Scottish Parliament hostage and issue a proclamation?

Get a grip on reality. The only way this is ever going to be settled is democratically. The SNP will never ever give up arguing and campaigning for independence but will never do anything else to bring it about. It is for the Scottish people to decide and no-one else.
380

Border Scot,

27/03/2008 14:31:08
#440 - Can you show me the results of the vote that took place in which people in the land mass that is now Scotland mandated the creation of Scotland?

The majority of people in Scotland did not riot aainst the creation of the Union. Yes, there were riots, but thsse did not involve hundreds of thousands of people. And do you know why? For most people the Union made absolutely no difference. They were just as poor, landless and voteless the day before it happened, as they did the day after.
381

,

27/03/2008 14:32:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
382

A Clamper,

Edinburgh 27/03/2008 14:33:00
#397 - This will be the SNPs' "dropping support" will it.............



The MRUK poll found the SNP would increase their majority if a Scottish election were held tomorrow, winning 57 seats while Labour would win 44
383

Loki Eastergreen,

Belfast 27/03/2008 14:33:20
""The real question is which parts of Scotland might become independent. I guess that some parts would opt to remain within the UK. Like the referendum which established the Scottish Parliament we would surely see large differences in views across various regions of Scotland. Would Edinburgh and the south-east opt to stay in the UK while Glasgow would want to be independent, for instance?"

This raises some interesting points. At any point in history, for instance, has splitting a country into an independent state and a statelet which remains part of the Union every proved to be a bad idea? When has it ever caused any sort of problems?

This seems to me like a very, very bad idea, unless we want various "33-county" movements springing up..... In fact, where is Adam Busby these days?

On the subject of an independence referendum, I think it's a good idea to break it down to a series of questions, to lessen the intimidation in the polling stations that non-politically minded voters might feel if faced with a simple YES/NO choice. However, it would be unfair to base independence on a dramatically minority vote. Though a firm believer in the break-up of the Union, and the crown, I am also a fimr believer in democracy.

Maybe then, the idea of a county-by-county referendum would be the fairest way, if there is 100% support of independence in one and a majority Unionist vote in the other. It would be a very strange feeling to need a passport to travel from Glasgow-Edinburgh however, or at the very least have your mobile flicking dramatically through Uk/Non-UK networks every second.

Oh, and "crossed George", the phrase "The only benefit for us in the UK (those of us who don't have a huge chip on each shoulder) is our tax money will be spent on us, and not a load of whinging, self-satisfying, self obsessed, bigoted, boring, dour, tight and tartan skirted xenaphobics" sounds like a typical rant from a typical The only benefit for us in the UK (those of us who d
384

Border Scot,

27/03/2008 14:34:43
#458 - That's right. We're such wee victims up here aren't we?
385

Loki Eastergreen,

Belfast 27/03/2008 14:38:22
something went wrong at the end there hehe. Point tried to make:

Crossed George, the statement "The only benefit for us in the UK (those of us who don't have a huge chip on each shoulder) is our tax money will be spent on us, and not a load of whinging, self-satisfying, self obsessed, bigoted, boring, dour, tight and tartan skirted xenaphobics" sounds like the typical rantings from a whinging, self-satisfying, self obsessed, bigoted, boring, dour, tight and tartan skirted xenaphobics" sounds like the typical rantings from a whinging, self-satisfying, self-obsessed, bigoted, dour, paranoid xenophobic Brit. Just to let you know that you're coming across as a hypocritical eejit, in case , in the future, you want to make a serious point without coming across as a complete tube.
386

The North Briton,

27/03/2008 14:38:30
464

Miss H - I'm glad to see you have stopped your racist taunts directed at those who consider themselves British and Scottish.

Your point about the SNP never giving up on independence is a grim one indeed.

There is no doubt that a "No" vote will be returned at any referendum. What will the SNP do?

My guess is they will have another referendum the next month, and one the next month, and the month after. They will increasingly use dirty tactics to confuse the referendum questions.

The real danger of the SNP is not that they want a referendum, a "No" is a foregone conculsion. What they will do is continue to behave like an opposition party in power!

The SNP are elected to form a branch of the UK government. They will never behave in any professional sense as branch of the UK government. That is the problem they cause.

As such the parliament will rightly have powers removed to restore joined up governance of the UK as is the will of the Scottish people.

Therefore by cruel twist of irony the SNP will destroy devolution.

But that is all hyperbole.

Scotland will simply vote the up-starts out of power rather than watch Alex Salmond and the SNP in a straight jacket banging their heads off a sturdy and democratically constructed wall for 4 years at a time.
387

Miss H,

27/03/2008 14:42:35
469 It is an indicative referendum. The result will show us what people want and what they think. There is no way the SNP would claim a mandate for independence if they don't have one. But I think everybody should agree that Scotland is ready to move forward - people should be able to have a say on that directly rather than leaving it to politicians to decide behind closed doors.
388

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 14:50:17
#448 Spunky Monkey boy, glad you enjoy my most splendid wit, that makes two of us.

"Nobody even recognises Salmond as a genuine First Minister or Holyrood as a legitimate parliament after the voting debacle at the last election."

Jumping Jebus man if true that's terrible, please forward the name and address of the 'Nobody' you mention who can't recognise Alex Salmond IS the First Minister of the devolved Parliament of Scotland, so that we can enlighten the poor misguided onanist to a level of understanding nearer your close relatives.

"The Brigadoon Bravehearts might curl up their sporrans in excitement at Salmond's latest nonsense...normal people just look on in amusement."

That really ranks somewhere south of cat vomit on the scale of witty comebacks. Just between us, I'd love to curl up my sporran with excitement. Do you insert your gnarled monkey stump through a secret passage into the sporran and then think of the WENDY fellating Swiss DES?

#449 Ooooh KIMBA, care to give us one example of the Salmond bile you refer to?
389

The North Briton,

27/03/2008 14:58:13
475

Is your references to South Africa also references to when our First Minister, Alex Salmond wrote to Robert Mugabe to drum up support for Scottish independence.

I have still not forgiven him for that one.

As the SNP wish to join the European Union, as does most of the UK, it would be better to join as Great Britain, we would have more influence.

I would far rather have a UK Prime minister standing shoulder to shoulder with France et al than have an Independent Scotland holding state visits for Robert Mugabe and the Tehran to show gratitude for their support in disarming the UK military.

Shameful.
390

,

27/03/2008 15:01:42
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
391

John1,

Stirling 27/03/2008 15:01:51
This proposal sounds like the start of more of the gerrymandering which landed us with the Scottish Parliament in the first place. For a major change in the constitution like this we need at least a 70% majority approval before it is implemented. Those who wanted a Scottish Parliament knew they could not get this so the system was changed until what they wanted was achievable. We then had the abuse of power which ensured the No/No vote was refused a level playing field as far as arguing their case in public was concerned, while public funds were squandered pushing the idea of a parliament. The only certainty then was that it would cost us all money with no guarantee that it would do anything useful. Now we are stuck with it and have to think of some way of making it do something useful. Giving Alex Salmond his heart's desire I do not count as 'doing something useful'.
392

Aeternum Vale,

Wellingborough 27/03/2008 15:03:13
Divide and rule - Maxims "Divide et impera" or "Divide ut regnes" are traditionally identified with the principle of government of Roman Senate.

Having utterly lost all confidence in government and political process, I take a far more objective view of matters such as Scottish independence being about the question of 'should Scotland be independent from the UK and more specifically from England'.

That question does not matter. Why? Because, in a round-about way, it will happen regardless. With the signing of the 'Lisbon Treaty' the UK will become 12 EU regions, broadly autonomous to each other, but no longer forming any separate or definable nations in themselves.

For sure the Scottish parliament will remain, becoming one of a dozen regional assemblies across what was the UK. This is the 'snake-oil' Blair found as his solution for Northern Ireland - they become no more a part of Eire than a part of the UK. Wales just happy to keep self to self. England is disseminated, broken and the remains no more a nation, just 9 politically autonomous regions of the EU and a historic coloured shape on a tourist map of the world. Westminster will be a museum to the British Empire, Great Britain, the United Kingdom and a country that was called England where people may visit to learning about the people who brought civility to the world.

Scotland will be independent from the UK, that is a forgone. But Scotland will not be an independent nation, it will be simply one of many regions, albeit once a region with a name the same a the old nation that once historically stood in its place before.

The clamour for Scottish independence is being driven by a desire to make the people of Scotland and the UK believe the breaking-up of the Union is not caused by our nations assimilation into a federal European sovereign state. Don't be fooled, the 'blood-line' of the EU and the Roman Senate are very close indeed.
393

A Scot in America,

27/03/2008 15:07:37
#477

Our very own G.W.Bush(my apologies to the rest of the planet) would never have launched us into that insane asylum (aka Iraq) if he hadn't had the support of Tony Blair and the "UK military". The resulting "coalition of the willing" would have looked even more foolish than it does. If Scotland had been an independent country in 2003 maybe Blair and the diminished UK's ambitions might have been muted. Government by the consent of the governed is never a bad thing.
394

Miss H,

27/03/2008 15:12:37
482 Exactly. It's quite hilarious to see these unionists who are completely and utterly obsessed with independence. In truth, rather more than the SNP is!
395

kimba,

27/03/2008 15:13:50
They do say "IMITATION IS THE BEST KIND OF FLATTERY",HOWEVER, IN MY FAKEYS CASE THINK I'LL PASS ON THAT!
396

LinBP,

Linlithgow 27/03/2008 15:15:27
Cannot understand this proposed referendum. Surely there are only three options; no devolution, devolution and independence. The first two have already been put to a referendum and the choice was devolution. If there is a further referendum, surely the straight choice should be devolution or independence.

It does not matter how many powers are devolved - it's still devolution. And the powers are always subject to change by the Westminster government.

I keep seeing references to "devolution max" but I have never seen a definition of what that means. If it means devolving the maximum power, then that sounds like independence to me.
397

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 15:17:24
Ha ha ha ha, this just in.
--------------------------------------------------------
Gordon Brown was reported in the Herald on 4th May 1992, speaking at the Glasgow May Day Rally, as follows

"Mr Brown called on all organisations to support a "persistent, determined, and concerted" campaign to force the Tory Government to accept a multi-option referendum on Scotland's future."


Ha ha ha ha rumbled.
398

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 15:20:30
It gets better.

On 13 April 1992, The Daily Telegraph reported that the late Donald Dewar said:

"…the party's 49 Scottish MPs would campaign for a multi-option referendum on the country's political future, something which had been endorsed at the meeting of all Scottish Labour MPs."


Ha ha ha ha ha. Poor misguided unionists make up your mind.
399

oddoneout,

27/03/2008 15:20:33
Jackie

Yes it is a stunning success, you have at least a dozen or so people talking about it maybe if you could just encourage the rest of the 5 million population it would go beyond stunning!
400

Miss H,

27/03/2008 15:21:37
489 It was devolution as defined in the Scotland Act. The unionist parties now wish to extend devolution - to give the parliament more powers, they have not yet decided on what limits there will be. So it is not 'devolution' as it currently exists.
401

Miss H,

27/03/2008 15:22:36
493 You spend quite a lot of time in this conversation yourself? Have you not noticed that?
402

OscarMacApfel,

Dumfries 27/03/2008 15:24:24
#491 I don't believe AM2 is from Northern Ireland, he's never expressed any notion of pride in the land of his birth. No mention of the people or the places that inspire him or helped mould him. He's a fakey Nornironer.
403

Sgurr,

27/03/2008 15:26:15
A whole lot of hypocracy from AM2 and the like. First they huff and puff about there being no need for a referendum because the result is so obvious (in the same way that the English tabloids are always sure England are going to lift the world cup), and then they get upset that the referendum planned is not to their liking. Why are they so nervous about a referendum? For the record, I think if there was a vote tomorrow, it would be slim either way...but that's not to say we shouldn't set a new high-water mark for independence.

Anyway, I do wish George would foulk off and get on with his parliamentary business, rather than wasting his time on here.
404

oddoneout,

27/03/2008 15:27:30
Too much time on my hands...yes, but to say this conversation is a stunning success is going beyond the pale. If you could take out the inane and annoying comments, biggotted and racist diatribes from both sides it would even be enjoyable
405

Sgurr,

27/03/2008 15:30:03
Well Said Jackie @499
406

LinBP,

Linlithgow 27/03/2008 15:30:04
494 The Scotland Act was passed by the Westminster government to set up a Scottish Parliament with certain initial powers devolved to it. These powers would be reviewed over time and could vary (both ways) with the agreement of the Westminster government.My point remains - devolution is devolution is devolution.
407

Alan B,

27/03/2008 15:31:00
I think the difference between unionist and those that want independence comes down to personality traits of those that are persimistic and those that are optimistic. Those that are content and those that are ambitious.

Unionist are inherently pessimistic thinking this is as good as it gets. In economic terms it means that we scotland may not have done very well absolutely or relatively compared to other small countries but u cannot expect more scotland. We somehow are not capable of achieving more. There is also possibly an element of selfishness. u maybe doing ok and therefore have no wish to rock the boat to improve the lot of the rest of the country. A lack of ambition for the country even if not at a personal level.

Nats tend to be optimistic, that based on the experiences of other countries things can be better for the country as a whole. There is also an element of wanting policies decided by the democratic wishes of those in scotland rather than by the much larger rump of the uk which may implement policies that are not consistent with the wishes of the majority of those in scotland.
408

The Master,

27/03/2008 15:34:21
#497 Sgurr: we’re nervous about a referendum because, such is the apathy on this issue, it’s likely that the fanaticism of the culty Nats could have an impact if there were a low turnout. Also, why should we do the SNP a favour by finally putting the kybosh on the independence policy, which is nothing short of a millstone around the leadership’s neck as they seek to consolidate their position as the largest party in the parliament.
409

Ian Dubh,

Inverdruie 27/03/2008 15:35:10
Border Scot,read your history books my friend, there was NO vote to Join the union,it was done secretly and the Scottish people as a whole did not support it. We sold our soul for English gold, the old saying goes. People that denie their Country's history should avoid having a say about it's future. If your so opposed to Breaking up the Union then VOTE not too,all I ask is that we have the VOTE in the first place and put a stop to all of this " cap in hand" business we have to go through with Westminister. It's been the division of the Scot's that have led us to where we are today,let's unite and have a vote on the subject.
410

Alan B,

27/03/2008 15:35:59
#502 "devolution is devolution is devolution."

While u may see it that way. I think most see the referendum for devolution as a referendum for a certain model of devolution with specified powers.

Fundamental changes to the structure of the powers specified would therefore need a mandate from the people of scotland.