First Minister Alex Salmond will have the attention of the world’s press today as he outlines his party’s referendum plans that will lead us up to a 2014 plebiscite.
Today we will hear nothing that we haven’t heard before and many, many soundbites that we have but it is, nonetheless, a famous day for Scotland, not just for the SNP.
The publication of a white paper on an independence referendum had its importance exaggerated in the 2007-2011 term but with a Nationalist majority in the Parliament ensuring easy passage for whatever plans Salmond puts forward today, coupled with an emasculated coalition Government down South, the hand of history is certainly upon us.
The positioning is pleasingly already coming to an end. The Electoral Commission question has been ceded by the SNP and the 16-17 argument and Devo Max additional question will surely follow by also falling by the wayside and, in return, there will be no legal confusion over the holding of the referendum in 2014, despite the current token resistance from Westminster. All that is left is the question, a question that the SNP has already proposed and I don’t see why the final wording won’t be too dissimilar to that. Certainly the argument that the pro-UK side should take the Yes side of the answer has been straightforwardly dispelled. So we’re good to go and have the best part of 32 months to make our decisions.
As someone who was on the receiving end of the line ‘you can’t build an economy with shortbread and whisky’ last night, I have to admit that I am allowing my imagination to run away with itself a little bit about what today could bring. I have no qualms, as I might have had before, to let on to work colleagues that I’m very much in the Yes camp. After all, do we aspire to be the equal of Yorkshire, Cornwall and Northumberland, or the equal of Norway, Ireland and Finland?
It is the reaction to today that I am most looking forward to though, for therein lies the answer to what kind of referendum debate we are going to have. It is no coincidence of course that it is Burns Day today, so one hopes that the responses will be more poetic than prosaic. Labour may prick our collective unionist consciences with a romantic tale of British camaraderie, Lib Dems may reawaken the slumberous giant that is federalism, the Tories may wreak rhetoric in selling a dubious happy clapitalism and the Greens can paint a picture of a cleaner, healthier tomorrow.
From today the nation is back to being a blank canvas again, a post-Darien construct that knows not yet where it should turn. Alex Salmond will try to lead the way but is he our nation’s pastor or just a Tam O’Shanter? We don’t have ‘too’ long to find out I suppose.
#1 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 9:49 am
I get confused by that shortbread and whisky type argument because it implies that other countries have some vast source of economic potential that Scotland doesn’t. And I am not sure what that is!
Scotland surely has a pretty wide range of natural resources that can be deployed. There is the oil & gas, a vast renewable energy potential, world class agricultural products as well as whisky – for example in all the Michelin starred restaurants I have ever eaten in, no matter where they were, the beef has always been Scottish – plus fishing etc. And in terms of our human resources we have a well educated workforce, lots of academic institutions etc. Yes there are many things which need to be improved in terms of infrastructure, connectivity and encouraging more business start-ups and of course a lot more needs to be done to tackle inter-generational poverty and social exclusion.
But just looking at the bare bones of Scotland, what we would be starting off with, we actually have more natural advantages than many other countries which are very successful. It would be totally perverse if we could not make better use of those resources to help tackle some of the things that hold us back.
#2 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 10:06 am
Yeah, that argument is just tiresome. The way I’ve started dealing with it is “okay, tell me what the UK economy is built on”. Never gotten a reply yet. The reason? Because no successful economy is built on just one thing, and Scotland is no different.
“Shortbread & whisky”, “the oil will run out”, “you’re subsidised by the English”, “you can’t afford to defend yourselves”, “you’ll need passports at the border” – if any of these ridiculous, baseless arguments actually put people off of voting for independence, it’ll be a very sorry state of affairs.
#3 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 10:44 am
Decent response Doug, will keep that one in mind. I just said, hopefully not too coldly, that noone was proposing that. I think it was clumsily meant in jest as the lady looked suitably sheepish.
#4 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 12:29 pm
I’ve heard it said in all seriousness many a time. One of my best friends uses it a lot (between that and the “we can’t live off the oil” line) and he was completely silent when I asked him what the top five UK industries are.
It’s all part of the Scottish cringe, isn’t it? Any other country would be proud of the amount of fine produce we export. You have a whole chain of restaurants named after Aberdeen Angus beef, such is its quality. If you ever eat smoked salmon or venison in a fine restaurant, you can bet it’ll be from Scotland. Stornoway black pudding is famously exceptional as well, and the only choice for the best restaurants.
I bet no one in Denmark asks how they manage to survive on bacon alone. Why don’t people accuse Belgium of building their economy solely on chocolate and brilliant beer? And when was the last time a Dutchman said “yesh, if it washn’t for edam cheeshe, the Nederlandsh would be shtuffed”?
It’s a silly argument that deserves nothing but contempt.
#5 by An Duine Gruamach on January 25, 2012 - 2:37 pm
Bingo. 100% right, Doug.
#6 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 11:49 am
Well….the oil WILL run out….the question is only when.
As for passports…why wouldnt the English, or rUK is you want to talk like that, want to retain control of their borders?
#7 by Ken on January 25, 2012 - 12:11 pm
They will, but it won’t be a problem. Since Scotland would only border the UK (like Ireland) they would most likely choose to remain out of the Schengen Area, but remain in the Common Travel Area. No change required.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Common_Travel_Area
#8 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 12:44 pm
The passport issue is one of those areas where the nationalist case really ticks me off. It ticks me off because it so very often misses a major issue with most of what the SNP suggests would be the case in a post UK world. That issue being the English. Scotland choosing to stay in the common travel area is all well and dandy, but if scotland can choose to stay in then England can choose to come out, or amend the terms to mean that a Scot would need to have a passport to enter England.
#9 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 1:25 pm
Realistically, why would they choose to do that?
#10 by Ken on January 25, 2012 - 2:15 pm
Why would the English put up barriers between themselves and the rest of the Common Travel Area ? It was brought it in to ease travel across the islands – Ireland, Britain, Isle of Man and the Channel Islands. It’s not in their interest to undo a successful and long established partnership. Considering, Ireland takes in 25% on the UK’s exports (more than all the BRIC countries combined) there is zero economic or political sense to that.
#11 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 4:14 pm
i could give a good argument as to why they would do that, i could make it long and detailed, but its probably better to give a suggestion as to how an english government would justify such a move, and for that i only need one word……terrorism.
But thats not the point, none of use, north or south know if it would happen….maybe not right away, but who knows what the situation will be in 5 years. the point is…..we dont know, so saying something will or will not be the case cannot be in anyway founded in fact.
#12 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 7:55 pm
Terrorism? Oh wow, you guys are really pulling out all the stops now. But you’d better keep something back, because how are you going to top this?
Scaremongering at its worst, Iain. Clutching at straws, playing on fears of the unknown, taking extreme examples and talking them up as if they’re even slightly likely… The SNP might as well just leave you guys to it, because you’re doing a great job of turning people onto independence yourselves.
#13 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 2:00 pm
They could – but why would they want to spend a fortune setting up border posts and all the rest of it? Especially when Scotland wouldn’t do that. So English people wouldn’t need to show their passports to get into Scotland but they’d have to show their passports to get back into England?
This is another example of people citing a possible situation which could result from indepedence which does not actually make any logical sense. I remember travelling to Ireland at the height of the troubles going to visit relations. You never had to show a passport then. Why would the British Government take a different tack with Scotland? If there was some logical reason to do that you could understand the argument being made but I just don’t see one.
#14 by An Duine Gruamach on January 25, 2012 - 2:39 pm
I also fail to understand the horror of the situation. Thirty seconds’ delay at a border post to show a passport to a bored-looking official? Help ma boab! It makes me reconsider my support for independence, it really does.
#15 by John Ruddy on January 25, 2012 - 5:17 pm
You’re assuming that the UK would allow Scotland to be part of the Common travel Area? These things are a two way thing.
I am not for one minute saying that it wouldnt – but its interesting how many nationalists assume this will happen, or that will happen, without realising that, like everything else, this will be up for negotiation.
#16 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 5:31 pm
To be fair John, I think it is more disingenuous to suggest in any way that there wouldn’t be a common travel area than it is disingenuous to assume that there would be one.
#17 by John Ruddy on January 25, 2012 - 7:02 pm
Although there have been moves to eliminate it – sadly by the last Labour Government.
My point is really why should we assume that this or that will be granted – when it may not. Its all the negotiation. And Dave could say something like “we’ll let you keep the common travel area, if you take an extra £50bn in debt”.
#18 by Indy on January 26, 2012 - 7:18 am
Yes it wil be up for negotations but just as we can assume that an independent Scotland won’t ban UK planes from flying over Scotland we can assume that the UK Government won’t require everyone to show a passport when they drive over the border! There would simply be no sense in doing that!
#19 by Aldos Rendos on January 25, 2012 - 12:12 pm
You can currently travel from Dublin to Belfast without a passport why would you need one for travelling from Glasgow to London. In actual fact you can’t currently travel from Glasgow to London via Ryanair without a passport!
I think Doug’s wider point was that if people are genuinely seeing the passport issue as a potential yes/no vote breaker then you would have to question their priorities.
#20 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 1:15 pm
Well, partly that, but also that it will mean people have been duped by scare stories that bear no resemblance to reality, which would really make you question if it’s possible to have a true democracy with the existence of a free press, where the “free” means “free to tell lies and get away with it”.
The passport one is a great one – as pointed out, there is already an example of the UK sharing a border with another country and being able to travel back and forth without a passport (and there always is an example elsewhere in the world if people would just expand their horizons a bit). But even if you DID need passports to cross the border, do the kind of people who bring it up as a stumbling block refuse to travel to any country that requires a passport to enter? Are they on some sort of blacklist that doesn’t allow them to hold a passport? Or is it just such a massive inconvenience to them?
#21 by Galen10 on January 25, 2012 - 12:20 pm
As is widely discussed elswhere, there is probably a lot more oil and gas out there than people think… even if some of the estimates are over optimistic, it’s still a hell of a lot more than many other small countries (who seem to manage ok!) are fortunate enough to have!
There is nothing wrong with them wanting to control their borders. I live in England, but will want a Scottish passport since I was born, grew up, went to university and worked there for many years. No reason Scotalnd and RUK couldn’t have a “no-passports” rule for travel between them.
#22 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 12:40 pm
Well if the SNP get what they want I hope you have the right to get a scottish passport…..i just hope it isnt blue!
But just because you want it, and i would hope you would get it in that circumstances, when the SNP dont want you to vote in the referendum they may not want you to have that passport.
Would be nice to hear on what basis the SNP think a person should be able to claim scottish citizenship in the case of independence.
#23 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 1:25 pm
Good question!
#24 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 1:33 pm
If you live in Scotland, if you were born in Scotland or you had a parent born in Scotland you would be automatically entitled to Scottish citizenship. All others would be free to apply.
#25 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 2:35 pm
Sorry, but do no other nations in the world have a concept of citizenship?
What exactly is it that confuses you?
#26 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 4:20 pm
every other country has a a concept of citizenship
the concept isnt the point, its the definition of who constitutes a citizen that matters.
unless you think that every country in the world defines such a person in exactly the same way…..which they dont…..so unless we see a draft scottish citizenship bill whe only have the assertion of people with know basis in fact to much such a judegment like indy has done
#27 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 8:03 pm
I can barely understand the last bit, you must have been in a bit of a temper as you typed it or something. But let me ask you this Iain – what is it you’re so concerned about? What facet of Scottish citizenship makes it such a big deal for you? Are you worried only people born in Scotland will be Scottish citizens? Maybe only people who voted for independence?
If you want an answer, be more precise in your questions, and don’t move the goalposts every time someone answers you. I mean, just below, Alec gives you a good answer, and all you can say is “mebbes aye… mebbes naw”. If you’re not going to be grown up enough to accept a valid answer, why bother asking the question?
#28 by Alec on January 25, 2012 - 2:55 pm
The concept of Lex familiaris is established. Currently anyone with a British grandparent (or great-grandparent?) can apply on that basis.
~alec
#29 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 5:15 pm
all i can say to that is….mebbes aye….mebbes naw
Since Scotland is not, as it were, an ‘independent’ country, we do not know on what basis that country would define its citizens as…..and unless it becomes so and legislates one way or another, or accepts standing british law, then were all really just guessing.
#30 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 6:01 pm
You know what SNP policy is – I told you.
If you want to check it read an SNP manifesto or email snp hq.
#31 by Galen10 on January 25, 2012 - 6:22 pm
You are being disingenuous.. it’s abundantly clear from other similar situation how it would work. Anyone born in Scotland or with a Scottish parent and probably grand-parent will be able to claim citizenship.
#32 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 12:33 pm
100 years or something like that. But the point is that it won’t just run out in the North Sea! The whole of Europe will be looking at ways to transfer to other sources of energy. With Scotland having 25 per cent of Europe’s potential for wind and wave power, plus developments in the pipeline (pardon the pun!) for a North Sea supergrid to allow renewable energy to be exported to the continent as well as down south, we’re in an excellent position to be a leading player in the switch to renewables.
#33 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 1:21 pm
Well, as long as Scotland becomes independent, the answer to when the oil will run out will be “long after we’ve moved away from relying on fossil fuels”, because we’re going to be focussing on generating energy from renewable sources.
Meanwhile, rUK will continue with nuclear energy, merely replacing one fossil fuel with another, more dangerous one.
#34 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 4:54 pm
OK thats cool…..so an independent scotland is a scotland of higher electricity bills. Cool…..this i can work with.
#35 by Doug Daniel on January 25, 2012 - 8:09 pm
Err, do you understand the concept of fossil fuels? They run out. As they run out, their scarcity makes them more valuable, pushing up the price. That’s why even climate change deniers should be getting on board with renewable energy – because it doesn’t run out, and once we’ve got the technology there there’s no reason for the price to spike.
(Obviously, technically speaking, nuclear fuel is not made from fossilised plants and animals and therefore it’s not entirely correct to call them “fossil” fuels. But that’s just me being pedantic now.)
#36 by Jeff on January 25, 2012 - 10:08 am
Full agree Indy, particularly on the food front. I find it deeply disappointing that our reputation abroad is for haggis and deep fried foodstuffs when the food from Scotland is insanely good, and well travelled. I really think more and more that independence will unlock a lot of that potential, force us to sell ourselves that bit better than we have done before. Bring it on.
#37 by HenBroon on January 25, 2012 - 10:35 am
Your assertion that the electoral commission point has been ceded is a wee bit economical with the actuality, why would you do that.
The UK has agreed that the Electoral Commission will be under the control of, and reporting to, the Scottish Government. Puts rather a different complexion on things eh what?
As to the rest of your post:
I invoke Hen Broons law:
Hen Broons law is a humorous observation made by Hen Broon in 2007 that has become an Internet adage. It states:
“As an online discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Mel Gibson and Braveheart approaches ”
In other words, Hen Broon observed that, given enough time, in any online discussion on Scotland’s inevitable independence, someone inevitably criticizes some point made in the discussion by sneering about Braveheart, Mel Gibson, Deep Fried Mars Bars, Buckfast, Brigadoon, Scotch Mist, Subsidy Junkies, independence for Orkney and Shetland, etc etc.
#38 by Scott on January 25, 2012 - 10:45 am
The irony of course with those who mock whisky and Scotland’s economy is that it adds over £2 billion to the balance of UK trade making it one of the UK’s top five manufacturing export earners. The question should more be ‘how will England build and economy WITHOUT whisky and shortbread?’
#39 by Iain Menzies on January 25, 2012 - 11:50 am
Well….there is always Rolls Royce……pretty sure that Aero engines bring in a pretty penny.
#40 by Indy on January 25, 2012 - 5:58 pm
Terrorism? That seriously doesn’t make sense when there was a totally open border with Ireland right through the troubles. Type your comment here
#41 by Iain Menzies on January 26, 2012 - 7:08 am
No there wasn’t. You can only just about say that you have freedom of travel in Northern Ireland during the troubles. Just because you can get on a train or a boat, where passengers can be monitored, photographed and identified, does not mean there was free movement.
On the passports point tho I’m not willing to go into that anymore. Its quite clear that the SNP fan club (not everyone but there are a few here) have the sound bite about still being able to go anywhere and wont give up on that sound bite for love nor money.
Just amazes me that the SNP want to gove the english the right to decide who can and cant enter scotland.
#42 by Doug Daniel on January 30, 2012 - 10:46 am
“Just amazes me that the SNP want to gove the english the right to decide who can and cant enter scotland”
I love it when unionists try to use an existing situation as a stick to beat independence with. This argument only makes sense if you’re arguing from a complete-independence-or-nothing stance. England already decides who can and can’t enter Scotland, because immigration is a reserved issue.
What is your point in all this Iain? That if we must have independence, you’d like it to be in such a way that it is completely alienating to our neighbours?