Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 9th July 2008

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

PM urged to back call for an early referendum



Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

GORDON Brown is being advised to back Wendy Alexander's call for an early referendum as the best way to nullify the threat of the SNP.
A new opinion tracker of 100 politicians and political pundits shows that 51 per cent think an early referendum is the best way to save the UK from being broken up, a move flatly rejected by Mr Brown.

The results suggest that while her presen
tation may have been messy, Ms Alexander may have had her finger on the political pulse when she said: "Bring it on."

Ph100 tracker collects the thoughts of an online focus group of parliamentarians from all parties, political editors, columnists and party strategists.

However, whatever happens north of the Border there is a feeling that it provokes very little interest in England.

The poll found that 74 per cent of respondents thought the Scottish question was only a minor issue for the English and none of them thought it would actually decide the outcome of an election in England.

The same poll saw greater division over how the SNP should press home their current advantage.

About 24 per cent of those asked thought Alex Salmond should consolidate his position, while 22 per cent thought he should pick fights with Westminster.

There was also no firm view about what should happen next on devolution, with discussions ongoing in the Calman commission and, south of the Border, on finding an English version of devolution.

The poll showed that just 22 per cent thought the status quo was viable, while 31 per cent believed there should be English votes for English laws in Westminster, further marginalising Scottish MPs.





The full article contains 283 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 20 May 2008 7:51 AM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Angus Ogg,

19/05/2008 22:58:52

Lord Brown of Ditheringham promised he will listen but he isn't.

As for Wendy, well her mouth keeps on moving, but, maybe it's just me, but I have stopped listening to the annoying noise coming outa while ago. Maybe this is one person Gordon can be forgiven for ignoring.

One thing is for sure, The referendum will be in 2010 as promised by the SNP Government.

As for Labour, it is going the way of the Tories in Scotland under Thatcher.

When will numpty politicians get it into their stupid heads, if you ignore, or worse abuse the voters, the stupid politicians may get away with it for a while, but eventually they will be booted out of office for their misdemeanours.
2

Edward,

20/05/2008 00:08:58
'opinion tracker of 100 politicians and political pundits shows that 51 per cent think an early referendum is the best way to save the UK'
Desperate or what!!!!!!!!!!
Who give a flying fig what 100 politicians and political pundits think
3

Edward,

20/05/2008 00:11:18
this is just a yawn!
its a non story, with no journalist acredited
Why does the Scotsman waste time on such rubbish
4

Vivas,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 00:41:47
The Northbritishman puts THIS as the "quote" at the top of the article.

" "The results suggest that Wendy Alexander may have had her finger on the political pulse" "

And yet I do not see that quote being ascribed to any individual in the course of the article. Rather it seems that they are generating this non-existant quote out of thin air about their own article.

Journalism ??? Ma erse !
5

a proud doonhamer,

Dumfries 20/05/2008 01:15:20
Please God, please let them do it.

Calling a WESTMINSTER CONTROLLED referendum question on Scotland's future would be a spectacular own goal for Labour.

The SNP and the other independence supporting parties will simply boycott the vote. This would give them the leverage to hold another vote in 2010 or campaign in the 2011 election for a mandate to hold the vote.

The Tories and LibDems would benefit greatly by also boycotting the vote. They could claim to be against a Westminster vote, conveniently forgetting that they are against the SNP referendum and this would gain them support at the expense of Labour in Scotland.

The only losers in a boycott of the WESTMINSTER referendum would be Labour as thier policies would be exposed at both incompetent and anti-Scotland.
6

Guga II,

Rockall 20/05/2008 01:32:47
#3 Edward. There maybe no journalist accredited with this story, but what's the betting it's by Eddie Barnes?

Westminster and these assorted, unelected, "political pundits" should butt out. It is for the people of Scotland to decide when, where and how we should have a referendum.
7

Vivas,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 01:43:54
I just googled this "Ph100 tracker". IT RETURNED JUST ONE HIT...right back to this article.

So that being the case, let me announce the findings of the Vivas500 tracker of ... well never you mind who ...which shows an 85% verdict in favour of independence, free beer and sunny days ahead for this country.

Better than 51 shadowy muppets opining (allegedly) for a referendum. By the way, platinum membership of the Vivas500 can still be obtained for a very reasonable sign-up fee...
8

the_figures_are _fudged,

Galashiels 20/05/2008 01:46:02
hahhahahaahah

51 / 100 thats hardly a majority anywhere but in the minds of the Hootsman.

Wendy couldnt tell a pulse from an electric fence.

Meanwhile Bean dithers and delays.

Pathetic, they cant even agree on wheter it is the Scottlish Labour party or the Labour party in Scotland.
9

Jimbo2,

20/05/2008 03:17:44
Aye Gordon, lets have a referendum. Let's get all the the scare-mongering and lies over with and get on with it. Remember not to let slip to your fellow Scots how you and your Union loving London Jocks have lied to us for decades about Scotland's true worth.

Tell us how a country so rich in natural resources is considered, in your opinion, too poor to be independent. Justify to us how we're the only country in the world to discover oil and yet become poorer. Tell us how poor and pitiful wee Norway is with all their oil wealth and how we should not aspire to be the same.

Norway's Oil Fund is on the rise. The value of the fund, officially called Norway's Government Pension Fund -- Global, now stands at 396.5 billion dollars (US). Scotland's potential to have an Oil Fund has been squandered by Westminster on illegal wars, Trident, posturing on the world's stage and otherwise filling their black hole for decades. This would have been Scotland's Futures Trust. The true extent of the wealth kept from us by Brown, Reid, Dewar, Darling, Browne, Cairns and all the rest of the feeble, inept Labour politicians more intent on their own advancement.

Give us a referendum and let's be shot of this Westminster leech.
10

morris,

edinburgh 20/05/2008 05:49:20
Labour have a problem. One that will NOT go away,but they might!(permanently is possible).
Should they go for an early referendum knowing that the governmnent's popularity is at an all time low,and the result will certainly not be the 25% they have been crowing about.The million dollar question is how much higher will it be? They dont know,which is why they are afraid of democracy.
U bendy on the other hand realises that things can only get ...............................worse,and if the Union is to be "saved" its certianly far less likely in 2010, when Labour have been kicked out by a landslide Tory victory. Thats the real problem! Labour will get a humping and that cannot be reversed,or stopped. Its pay back time Gordon,and you owe us big time!England does not want you,and increasingly Scotland is waking up to reality.Neither do we!

Its time for the Labour voters in Scotland to prove that the accusations that they are thick as mince and will vote Labour if the candidate was a plank of wood are exaggeration, (and in so doing elect another Tory government which Scotland does not want),but our attempts to halt this are thwarted by an army of dopeheads who think you can defeat a party of at least 300 if not 400 seats with 30 Labour seats in Scotland!Arithmetic should be better in primary 1 than that !

So far I see some (but only some) proof of it.


Vote Labour.You Know its makes No sense !
11

morris,

edinburgh 20/05/2008 06:06:26
6
I think you are spot on here.Eddie Barnes either cobbled this together to fill a space, or authorised its cobbling by a junior space filler.In either event we are agreed its a load of cobblers.
There is a world of difference between having your finger on the pulse,and recognising that Maggie Broon and Mouth of the South (herself)are in the doldrums.That is more akin to knowing you are terminally ill! Hardly the same thing I would have thought.
12

,

20/05/2008 06:14:33
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
13

Castaway,

20/05/2008 06:41:28
Coming soon: poll of political insiders-New Statesman - 28 February 2008
It will be called the PoliticsHome100 (PH100) and the results will be published every afternoon on a new website, PoliticsHomeIndex.
http://www.newstatesman.com/200802280058
http://www.politicshome.com/
14

morris,

edinburgh 20/05/2008 06:52:20
12

Thank You for pointing that out.
I am guilty of subconciously thinking the Hoots and the Sunday Hoots are the same animal,since they come from the same stable. Indeed Barnes cannot be responsible so it must be someone from the Hoots department,and Simon Pia certainly would fit the bill. Why he would write this though is a mistery,surely he cannot beleive it. Can he?
15

,

20/05/2008 07:10:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
16

Jimmy the Pie,

20/05/2008 07:21:46
The only place Wendy's finger is, is somewhere dark and smelly!!
17

LEAL,

20/05/2008 08:38:56
Brown is only concerned with hanging on to his position for as long as possible.An early referendum will do nothing to help him in his aim,regardless of the opinions of anybody else.2010 is when the referendum will be.The Unionist parties can call for an early referendum bill at Westminster or Holy Rood any time they like.They have the majorities to do so.But they are all scared to do so.They are going to deny the Scots a referendum for as long as possible in the hope of the wheels falling off the pro-independence train.Its difficult to see what could derail the drive to independence at the moment because the arguments in favour of it are getting stronger all the time The Scots are becoming more confident in their abilities to make a good job of running their own affairs.They are beginning to ask "why are we still struggling with poverty,ill-health and low economic growth when other oil rich countries are forging ahead socially and economically?Why after 50 years of Labour dominance are we so far behind?"
18

Hamish Scott,

20/05/2008 09:17:56
Another episode of the Scotsman's suicide mission to defend the Union even if it means the death of balanced, professional journalism and the death of the Scotsman itself.

For example: 'About 24 per cent of those asked thought Alex Salmond should consolidate his position, while 22 per cent thought he should pick fights with Westminster.'

So there was a question worded about Alex Salmond 'picking fights with Westminster'? Unbelievable.
19

Doh,

20/05/2008 09:26:10


ITS TIME
20

Alan B,

20/05/2008 09:45:41
The problem with this newspaper is a referendum is to allow the people of scotland to choose the way the country should managed. It should not be about politicians trying to manipulate the whole thing for their own political advantage.

If labour had wanted a referendum they should have held one when in power themselves.

U also cannot sensibily have a referendum before calman reports as labours current position in the sp seems to be, devolution is not working we will deliver something better. If we hold a referendum before calman then we will not know what the options are.

If we have a referendum now, and scots vote for the union based on the fact that calman will deliver a strong scottish parliament, but it is then a damp squib, do we have another referendum. It is just silly.

This is an important decision and we the public should know the options on the table. Otherwise it is a union at any price.




21

,

20/05/2008 10:30:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
22

,

20/05/2008 10:37:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
23

Alan B,

20/05/2008 10:41:31
#4CHC

"Direct control from westminster"

We have been there and had the referendum only 10yrs ago. why have another asking the same question. there appears little demand for it.

Surely the bigger question that u have missed out is, how much more powers to the scottish parliament.

24

Alan B,

20/05/2008 10:50:20
#4CHC

"The in between parliament is very wasteful"

Why? I would argue the house of lords is more wasteful if u want to abolish something.

Many countries have federal solution US, Germany etc.

The problems pre-devolution were:
1)we had different systems of government. ie education. if u look what happened the tories ran campaigns for alevels calling it the gold standard (under baker education sec in england). The tories were rejected at the ballot box in scotland but imposed completed different policies in scotland to reform our education system. for instance they implemented a national curriculum down south. This resulted in no democratic accountability of scotland public services.
2)point 1 above would duplicated to a lesser extent in the nhs in scotland. it was not run by the minster for health but by a junior minister accountable to the scottish secretary of state. therefore no matter how bad the public perceived that person they could not vote them out.
3)the underlying problem to this was the fact that england would vote for one policical party the tories and scotland would vote labour. scotland had no power to vote this party out if england voted decisively the other way becuase of the numerical differences.

This meant that england voted happily for the tories during the scottish recessions in the 80s, but turned against the tories with the recession that hit the south in the early 90s.

Centralised direct rule just does not work.

25

Al Ford,

Insch 20/05/2008 11:26:29
"(...) whatever happens north of the Border there is a feeling that it provokes very little interest in England."

Precisely. Mention Scotland and the English switch off: "I don't want to hear another Scottish accent" or anything else at all ever from "those drunken savages", "whingeing, sponging Jocks", to regurgitate just three southern utterances culled from the English press over the past week.

Time to stop boring them with our affairs. Time to be realistic and take our affairs completely into our own hands. Time to move on.

The UK government under Mr Brown is a different kettle of fish from the average Sasunnach on the Clapham omnibus, of course. A Westminster-controlled referendum on Scottish independence with the wording of the questions carefully composed to prevent the decomposition of the Union must be a proposition of great interest to it and indeed a great temptation. The trouble with that option, however, is that Mr Brown is no doubt acutely conscious of the resentment over the discredited 1979 (40 per-cent-rule) devolution referendum, which begat a fairer one, which begat the Scottish Parliament, which begat an SNP government of Scotland.

A Westminster-controlled Scottish independence referendum heavily weighted in favour of support for the Union might bore the entire population of England to distraction, but its effect upon the people of Scotland would be quite another matter altogether.
26

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 11:30:11
There is a pressing need for a referendum, organised by Westminster and complete with a simple “separation: yes or no” type question, rather than the Nats’ confusing legalese. I personally can’t wait to see the SNP neutered, ie deprived of its foolhardy separation policy. It’ll no doubt become more like the mainstream parties and it’ll be fun just to sit back and watch the implosion as fundamentalists are forced to recognise that separation just isn’t going to happen.
27

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 12:17:10
The SNP don't have a seperation policy since independence does not mean being seperated from the rest of the world.I would think that the small countries within the EU,especially the newer ones,feel like that.In my adopted country of Finland,my wife's family certainly belive that ther independent nation is very international and connected to the rest of the world.The same view was expressed by a former student from Malta,about her countries independence and EU membership, when she visited me recently.

The only seperation that I see is the seperation of parliaments.We already have situation.The only problem is that they are not equal parliaments and the limited powers of the Edinburgh parliament restrict what polticians can deliver.More and more people recognise this and there is a groundswell of opinion in favour of increasing those powers.Greater powers or full indpendence are no more than an adjustment of the existing relationship between Scotland and the other nations in the British Isles.The social relationship will continue,the union of the crowns (UK) will continue and Scotland will develop its own relationships with other EU contries.Currently Scotland is prevented from being itself in the EU and cannot take the presidency.You could argue that Scotland is sepperated from the rest of the world already and that independence is a solution to ending that long seperation.
28

Arfur,

20/05/2008 12:18:55
"Ms Alexander may have had her finger on the political pulse" - FFS hootsman.
29

BrianHill,

Edinburgh 20/05/2008 12:27:28
As a lifelong supporter of Independence and former SNP and Labour activist let me assure SNP supporters that we do not have a monopoly of love for Scotland or competent and intelligent politicians, only a fool or a bigot would think so.

I've said in these columns that Wendy Alexander's strategy re the referendum was the correct one but that her timing and means of delivery were wrong. (It needed to be done much earlier, it's already too late, the SNP momentum is flooding across Scotland. Nothing is going right for Labour in the UK.)

The timing had less to do with Wendy's intelligence and political acumen, of which she has an abundance and more to do with the fact that she, like the rest of her colleagues are hampered by their bosses in London.

I can think of nothing more frustrating than being a Labour politician in 21st century Scotland.

Henry McLeish is able to speak his mind and his comments are listened too by all parties, but then he has escaped the shackles of London.

Wendy, Henry and other Labour players, especially potential First minster (post Independence) Steven Purcell will play major roles in an Independent Scotland and we will consider ourselves lucky to have them.

Point is, let's not get carried away with ourselves. Let's keep the argument political and be aware that the opposition contains many good people who are a credit to Scottish politics.
30

MtnKat,

Jet Lagged 20/05/2008 12:55:55
18 Hamish
"For example: 'About 24 per cent of those asked thought Alex Salmond should consolidate his position, while 22 per cent thought he should pick fights with Westminster.'

So there was a question worded about Alex Salmond 'picking fights with Westminster'? Unbelievable. "

Jumped right off the page at me too. Pathetic.
31

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 13:11:15
#27 Suomi: age old question: why do you resent powers being reserved to Westminster whereas you don’t have the same resentment towards the ever encroaching power of the EU? If the SNP don’t have a separation policy, then why do they want to split up Britain? There’s only so much loquacious gloss that someone like you can put on all this: I know what you’re about!
32

brownlie,

20/05/2008 13:13:17
26 The dark side

Welcome back, AM2, with your repeated reference to the "Nats' confusing legalese". Credit the Scottish electorate with the intelligence to understand the question even if you, personally, have problems in understanding it.
33

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 13:48:04
Darkside,I have an open mind about EU membership.Finland is a full member and Norway,where my sister-in-law lives is not a member However,both countries are part of a type of a loose union with the Scandanavian countries.Estonia has recently joined the Sacandanavian group. All seem to be relatively prosperous.
My argument was more to do with the fact that if Scotland is to be in the EU (as it is)it needs to be able to talk for itself,as many other small countries can.I was also suggesting that independence afforded an opportunity,not only to create equal parliaments within the UK,but also an opportunity for Scotland to forge new types of relationships with the other countries in Europe,and the rest of the world.This new collaboration and international outlook could end Scotlands current status of seperation from the decision making process in many key areas.I suppose I am arguing that the union in its current form actually facilitates a state of seperation from the world and that independence is a way of preventing seperation.I recall in the 1970's suggesting that using this logic,the real seperatists were those who advocated the continuation of the union in its current form.We have moved considerably since then,but there is still a long way to go.
34

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 13:52:20

#32 brownlie: it’s not a question of demeaning the intelligence of the Scottish electorate: it’s a question of producing a question which is accessible to all in society, whatever their level of education or interest in politics. My interest is democracy, whereas you Nats want Scottish separation at all costs. Btw, it would seem that AM2 has greatly curtailed his participation in the forum due to details of his registration details leaking out: see yesterday’s “MSPs hit back amid fear over fairness of election” thread.

#33 Suomi: you sound like an acceptable face of nationalism, which is something of a rarity on here. I shall get back to you in due course.
35

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/05/2008 14:06:33
#29 Brian

I am still struggling to understand what her "strategy" was. Perhaps you can explain?
36

Suomi,

Salo,Finland. 20/05/2008 14:28:21
Yes Darksside,I would think that I was part of the acceptable face of nationalism.I think that I am only one of many.Of course there are some unacceptable postings on this site but we should be careful not to generalise this to many people who have a legitimate point of view.Actually there is a need to question whether many of us who support independence for Scotland are nationalists.Since I do want independence and since I support the SCottish National Party,I have tended to accept the label of nationalist.However,many people would just say that they believed in the independance of their nation and were also internationalists.I think that my Finnish wife and her family feel that way but would not descibe themselves as nationalists.

I have no problem with people who call themselves unionists,I just disagree with them,see things differently.We could say that diversity is good.What I was trying to do today was to illustrate that there is a diverse number of ways that we can analyse and understand a situation.Our conclusions are dependent upon the number of variables that we take into account.My argument is that we already have sepperate parliaments but that the Edinburgh parliament is sepperated from much of the decision making powers that are of vital importance to the aspirations of the Scottish electorate.Thus independance ends seperation,it does not cause it.It is not about breaking up anything,it is about changing the nature of relationships in order to improve it for everyone.The following analogy illustrates this point.

A couple whoe's relationship is in trouble talk about their problems.They could sepperate/divorce but dialogue results in an agreement that one person will be given more autonomy,treated with greater respect,and viewed as an equel.That anlogy could be applied to to independance.

Some of us might have to agree to disagree.We will get on better if we do.We need to accept that everyone has a legitimate point.I would like to continue this d
37

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 14:51:36
#27 & #36 Suomi: given that Scotland’s main trading partner is the rest of the UK and that many Scottish companies are UK wide, why does it make sense to you to set up Scotland as a separate nation? I just don’t see how this is a sensible business plan, except on the purely emotional level. The parliaments may not be equal, but so what? Many countries have devolved administrations within them, with greater or lesser power than the SP.

To a certain extent, I too believe in the independence of my nation without being a nationalist: rule Britannia and all that! I resent being called a “unionist”, by the way: after 300 years, this is an outmoded label to impose on the unified state that is Britain. It’s just not a case of Scotland’s requiring to be “given more autonomy, treated with greater respect, and viewed as an equal”: it’s only in the minds of you Nats that Scotland is more “put upon” than any other region within Britain. Areas of England have grievances against Westminster, real or imagined, but the only difference with Scotland is that Scottish resentment expresses itself as a divisive and often poisonous form of nationalism.
38

brownlie,

20/05/2008 15:13:25
34 Darkside

It is a fundamental mistake to class those who question your opinions as Nats. Nor should you make the mistake of thinking that only SNP supporters would vote for independence.

There is a big difference between independence and separation. Separation suggests a Scotland trying to exist in isolation along the lines of Burma, North Korea etc., which is clearly not what the question being asked suggests.

I do not class myself as being super-intelligent but I quite clearly understand the question that the SNP Government want to put. It seems reasonable to ask the people of Scotland to vote for a system which allows the Scottish Government to consult the UK Government regarding indepence.

My understanding is that the legal position suggests that that is the only course of action open to the Scottish Government.
39

All Politicians are the same,

Scotland 20/05/2008 15:24:41
#38

Polling has shown that this question produces the highest number of yes votes of any reasonable question. Also lots of people do not realise the question is binding as they say "but negotiations fail all the time" that means we would not necessarily become Independent even if we vote yes.
40

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 15:36:51
#38 Brownlie: I’m perfectly well aware that, legally, this is the only course of action available to the SP: my point is that the SP should not pose a question at all if they can only pose it in this way. Why do opinion polls always show distorted approval for the separation policy when this question is posed, if it’s not misleading?

You write: “There is a big difference between independence and separation. Separation suggests a Scotland trying to exist in isolation along the lines of Burma, North Korea etc., which is clearly not what the question being asked suggests.”

This argument is completely spurious, because Scotland has necessarily become such an integral part of the UK economy that any separation from the rest of the UK would be comparable on a smaller scale to the isolation of countries such as Burma and N Korea from the rest of the world.
41

,

20/05/2008 15:41:06
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
42

Number 6,

Germany 20/05/2008 15:50:48
What a shuddering embarresment Labour have become.
Can anyone think of 2 more incompitent, unlikable,
slimy politicians than Brown and Mzzzz 10/10. Breathtakingly arrogant in the way they put themselves before their parties, no matter how much damage their very presence is causing. A bit like that haridan Clinton in "yee-ha" land. I dont think I can recall politicians who change their views so easily as these terrible 2, especially Wendy" Because I dont want a referendum" Alexander. Throw a double six and it's all change AGAIN.

Labour's latest mantra, to be chanted after the main
theme, "We cannae dae it on our own, we cannae dae it on our own", is "We have priciples but are willing to change them if you want".
43

,

20/05/2008 15:50:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
44

,

20/05/2008 15:52:52
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
45

,

20/05/2008 15:58:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

brownlie,

20/05/2008 16:04:23
40 Darkside

Your last paragraph shows that you have only a tenuous grasp of the SNP's policies and if you read genuine SNP posters' views on this site you will note that your visions of independence are far removed from their hopes and aspirations.
47

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 16:13:24
#43 Voice: After the Treasury stated that Scottish Ministers did not have the authority to introduce poll tax 2, a “source close to Mr Swinney” said: "They are charging around behaving like a proconsul dealing with some far-flung territory. In the process, they are doing enormous damage to Labour's poll ratings in Scotland.”

How’s that for a “poisonous form of nationalsim”?

There’s also Christine Grahame, who once tabled a motion in the Scottish parliament which “lamented” cricket on TV and who suggested that we should “re-name the BBC the EBC”.

Or SNP councillor Ross Vettraino, who's on the record as describing the English as “so bloody arrogant”.
48

Miss H,

20/05/2008 16:42:47
47 Erm. How are Labour's poll ratings these days?
49

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 17:26:25
Okay Darkside we do need to agree to disagree.I see Scotland as a seperate nation in the sense that it exists already.Not a question of creating a new nation.I do not see independance as seperation.I believe that most Europeans value the independence of their country but do not see it as seperation,since most of them are very international.

Independence will not change the possibility of Scotland trading and collaborating with other countries in the UK.There are many examples to support that assumption.Finland who was ruled by Russia before declaring its independence,trades extensively with that country and assist Russia economically.That is in spite of Russia invading Finland in 1939.Finland also trades and collaborates with Sweden,in spite of being owned by Sweden for 400 years.Norway and Sweden collaborate extensively,in spite of having a union of parliaments in the past.The issue is that what made sense in the past needs to be modified and adapted to what faces us now.

I am not remotely concerned about any notion that Scotland is put upon by England.However,there is a growing concensus that the Scottish Parliament needs to control broadcasting.The suggestion that the BBC are London focused is widely accepted,irrespective of whether people want independence or not.I can understand peoples frustration with that and I predict that will change in the near future.

As I said earlier,we just need to agree to disagree.No problem.Now since Finland is two hours ahead of Scotland,I need to concentrate on Family affairs.Perhaps I can enjoy this forum tomorrow,although I don't have as much time as some people who post on these sights.
50

The Darkside,

20/05/2008 17:56:31
#49 Suomi: happy to agree to disagree: we have very different outlooks. Enjoy what remains of your evening.
51

lilywhite,

borders 20/05/2008 18:11:02
There are 4 billion reasons for a referendum .Trouble for the unionists is the way the price of oil is going could be 5 or 6 billion by 2010.
Shame none of the Scottish media is prepared to tell the public.

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/industry_sectors/natural_resources/article3954031.ece
52

Saruman,

20/05/2008 19:08:54
#51 lilywhite: there may be 5 or 6 billion short term reasons. Why can you Nats never see "the big picture"? Nationalism's had its day and the referendum will deliver the final coup de grace (always assuming the Nats aren't allowed to skew the result with the confusing question which they're oh so upset that the lawyers have forced on them).
53

,

20/05/2008 19:21:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
54

,

20/05/2008 20:37:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 20/05/2008 20:48:55
#55 AM2

You have totally lost the plot. We all take those same risks when we post on here.

Grow up and either accept that risk or stop posting. Simple really!
56

lilywhite,

borders 20/05/2008 20:57:56
#52 Saruman
My point is that if the media are not prepared to report this what else are they hiding or distorting. You could bet your bottom dollar that if Arthur Midwinter had come out with a report suggesting a 4 billion deficit for an Independant Scotland it would have had the front pages of the Scotsman and The Herald.
I personally would vote for Independance even without oil, as I believe in the people of Scotland, and can see many other benifits.
However I accept that for many the finnancial stability of the country is the defining issue,with a futures fund set up such as they have in Norway this is anything but a short term benifit but we have to start investing it a.s.p.
57

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 20/05/2008 21:05:52
Before crawling tio bed in Finland,let me comment on this curious idea that nationalism has had its day.If we define nationaluism as valuing your countries independence and collaborating with other countries in matters of mutual interest,it would be incedible if that had passed us by.I think that most people would laugh at this idea.In fact,a union devised in 1707 has had its day.All suppporters of Sc ottish independence do value the social relationship amon g the nations that comprise the British Isles but we also recognise that it is time to adapt to the challenges of the modern world.
58

,

20/05/2008 21:27:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
59

,

21/05/2008 07:21:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.