Why Scotland can do better with independence

By Alex Salmond

Scotland is underperforming. We have the lowest long-term growth in the European Union and over the past 10 years – the Gordon Brown era – our growth has been almost 30 per cent lower than that of the UK as a whole. Growth is the key to a flourishing country. We only have to look to Ireland to see the transforming effect of annual growth rates averaging almost 8 per cent – four times the Scottish rate.

The result is that too many new businesses in Scotland struggle to survive, average wages are lower, households have less money to spend and each year 25,000 young people leave home to find work and opportunities elsewhere.

Twenty-five years ago, Ireland was the poor relation of these isles. However, with the Dublin government free to choose the right policies to give Ireland an economic edge – lower corporation tax, full engagement with the EU and a national investment in skills and education – it has soared past the UK to become one of the world’s wealthiest half-dozen nations. Last month, Ireland was judged the fourth best place in the world to live by the United Nations, leaving Britain (and Scotland) trailing.

Sustainable growth is the central objective of economic policy for any country and it is Mr Brown’s proudest boast of his record as UK chancellor. By the same measurement, he has failed miserably in his home country.

The devolved government in Edinburgh is unable to move the most important economic levers. It cannot lower corporate tax rates like Ireland or effectively husband our huge natural resources like Norway. It is powerless to make the necessary improvements that could see Scotland join the premier league of successful countries.

What frustrates me most about Scottish Labour politicians is their insularity, illustrated by their depressingly low ambition for our nation. They seem proud when growth figures almost touch the UK average, but over the cycle leave Scotland trailing each of our near international neighbours. They boast of high employment, but seem to forget that includes more low-wage, low-skill, part-time positions. They claim, wrongly, that Scotland is subsidised by the generosity of the London Treasury, euphemistically describe it as a “dividend” and seem content with that state of affairs.

Never have so many people spent so much time desperately attempting to “prove” that their country is subsidised. In the Labour looking-glass, world oil revenues are “falling”, the oil price is about to collapse and the resource is about to run out. In reality, oil revenues are rising (even in the pre-Budget report), we are only about halfway through the North Sea oil revolution in resource terms and the expectation is for a continuing rise in prices over the medium term. The Scottish National party’s approach to oil is to control the resource for the long term – as Norway has done through a capital investment fund – not the grab everything you can, “boom and bust“ attitude of the chancellor.

Scotland’s economic performance today is not good enough for any self-respecting Scot. We urgently need a new management and a new, fresh approach. We can be more successful: we can create a wealthier, fairer and more dynamic nation.

All around us, we have examples of successful independent countries. The human development index is a measurement by the UN that looks at both the performance of a nation’s economy and the success of its society. To our west is Ireland, the fourth most successful country in the index; to our north, Iceland, the second; and to our east Norway, for the sixth year in a row the top country for quality of life. These nations, all also in the top six in terms of gross domestic product per head, form an arc of prosperity that Scotland must aspire to join.

Scotland has as much talent, energy and enthusiasm as these nations. Our people are as skilled; our geography, if anything, offers more advantages. Only Norway could claim to match Scotland in terms of natural resources.

Why are these nations powering ahead, while Scotland’s economy slumbers? I believe independence is the key. Norway, Ireland, Iceland, Finland, Denmark and Sweden are all comparable nations to Scotland, each with the freedom to find the best way to enable their economy to compete.

Not one would leave their success to another nation or tolerate the whining defeatism that is the miserable excuse for unionism in Scotland – the extraordinary proposition that somehow Scotland is uniquely incapable of managing a successful economy. We have tried devolution and, after almost eight years, we know its shortcomings. It is time for Scotland and England to be equal, independent partners, neighbours and friends.

Nuclear Chain Reaction could Break up Britain

Opposition to Trident could trigger a win for the SNP, which in turn could generate a push for independence and the euro.

John Palmer (Comment is Free - Guardian)

The increasingly desperate-sounding calls from Labour leaders to the party faithful in Scotland to prepare for a life-or-death struggle against the Scottish National party comes on the heels of the cabinet's decision - come hell or high water - to drive the modernisation or replacement of Britain's Trident nuclear weapons system through his party and parliament. It is difficult to think of something better calculated to play into the hands of the SNP. As Iain Macwhirter reminded us, the vast majority of Scottish people do not want Trident and demand that the nuclear base at Faslane is removed from Scottish soil. As matters stand Labour is heading for a humiliating defeat in its traditional Scottish heartland next May. According to the latest YouGov poll, the SNP already enjoys a substantial lead over Labour among Scottish voters.
A convincing win for the SNP in the elections to the Scottish parliament next year would generate new momentum behind the demand for independence. With an ICM poll in the Sunday Telegraph showing a clear majority of English voters in favour of dismantling the United Kingdom the London establishment could find it much harder this time to win the case for union.

It is true that the SNP will need to find coalition partners to take office in Edinburgh. The Scottish Greens would certainly back the SNP in demanding an end to the Trident nuclear base at Faslane. Although Tommy Sheridan's anti-Trident, pro-independence Solidarity party will need time to recover from the split among the Scottish socialists, it may yet win seats next May. As Iain Macwhirter points out, more leading Scottish Tories - the latest being Michael Fry - have now come out for independence.

The most likely coalition partners for the SNP are the Liberal Democrats. They will not be keen to agree to a full-blown referendum on independence during the life of the next Scottish parliament. But they will not have missed the opinion poll evidence showing a small - but measurable - majority support for Scottish independence. They will also know that the Blair government's obsession - no matter what the expense - to maintain and enhance Britain's capacity to unleash nuclear devastation will strengthen the move of public opinion flowing towards independence.

The shape of a future independent Scotland remains unclear. But getting there will involve negotiations not only between Edinburgh and London but also between Edinburgh, London and Brussels. If Scotland is to become an independent state in the European Union, the consequences for the UK state within the EU will be very far reaching. The number of votes the UK is entitled to cast within the EU council of ministers would be sharply reduced - and the balance transferred to the new Scottish state. Mind you, a reduction in the powers of the UK to block EU decisions will cause few tears elsewhere. Scotland would also - subject to future treaty changes - be entitled to nominate a member of the European commission.

A common complaint heard in Scotland is that its economy needs lower interest rates than are being set by the Bank of England. If and when independence within the EU comes to be negotiated this could open the debate on whether an independent Scotland should join the euro. After all real interest rates (nominal rates adjusted for inflation) just now are lower in the euro zone than in the UK. In this event a political border between Scotland a rump British state might also become a currency frontier between sterling and the growing number of countries in the euro area.

Even short of outright independence, the polarised political atmosphere in Scotland after the next Scottish elections may make an eventual closure of the Faslane nuclear base inevitable. A new home would then have to be found for Trident - almost certainly somewhere in England. Wales and Northern Ireland are most unlikely to volunteer to house the new system. The consequences of the Blair government's determination to turn its back on nuclear non-proliferation will last much longer than ministers seem to understand. The ultimate irony is that Blair's Iraq war and Trident bequests to his Labour successors may now help set the scene for the break-up of the UK.

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'

I don't have a subscription to the Wall Street Journal unfortunately however this article certainly begins on a very positive note:

Scotland's Strong Independence Movement Is Hardly a 'Faint Blip'
Word Count: 629

Scottish and English readers were probably surprised to read Quentin Letts's assertion that Scottish independence is a "faint blip" on the political radar ("Scot Free," editorial page, Dec. 8). After all, the latest numbers show 52% of Scots and 59% of English people are in favor of Scottish independence. Mr. Letts may call this a "faint blip," but in democracies the more appropriate term is "majority."

It is a certain type of critic who takes issue with the basic principal of self-governance, and I am pleased to say that they are in the minority in the United Kingdom.

Scotland's destiny is in our own hands

Letter to the Editor
11/12/2006

Dear Sir,

Not many people realise it but after the treaty of union Scotland's official designation was North Britain, and people used to write NB at the bottom of a letter rather than Scotland.

We know that this upset some of our historic contemporaries like Robert Louis Stevenson who complains in a letter to a friend "Don't put `NB' on your paper, put Scotland and be done with it ... the name of my native land is not North Britain, whatever may be the name of yours."

Robert Burns was similarly concerned about his country's identity writing "Alas, I have often said to myself what are the boasted advantages which my country reaps from a certain Union that counter balance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her name!"

Sir Walter Scott said "All must center in London... What are we esteemedby the English? Wretched drivellers, incapable of understanding our own affairs; or greedy speculators, unfit to be trusted? On what ground are we considered either as one or the other?"

However Hugh MacDiarmid probably summed it up best when he wrote"Without it's own culture, Scotland will remain a slave."

We owe a great debt to MacDiarmid, to Sir Walter Scott, Burns and the rest for defending our identity during the height of the Empire and beyond and itis probably true to say that without the actions of patriots like them our identity as Scots could have been snuffed out. Of course we can also look back to the heroic deeds of Sir William Wallace and King Robert the Bruce who fought England to a standstill and guaranteed our national independence for four hundred years.

Today most Scots according to the opinion polls support full self government for Scotland. Devolution, though it was a hundred years delayed, and denied undemocratically for twenty years has encouraged us to realise we can have normal powers for Scotland whenever we choose to vote for it.

We have a historic opportunity next year to vote to resume our proper place in the world as a proud independent nation.

Let's go for it.

Joe Middleton

www.scottishindependence.com

MCCONNELL 'HAS MIND MADE UP FOR HIM' ON TRIDENT

[Excellent attacking stuff by Sturgeon. JOE]

First Minister Jack McConnell today came under fire from the SNP and his Liberal Democrat coalition allies for backing plans to keep Britain's nuclear deterrent. In clashes at Question Time, SNP Holyrood leader Nicola Sturgeon accusedhim of being out of touch with the majority of Scots on the issue - and with the majority of his own party.

The Question Time clash began with Nicola Sturgeon recalling that MrMcConnell had previously refused to give his views on replacing theTrident nuclear missile system. On Monday morning his office said he still had an open mind - but on Monday evening he said he agreed with the Government's decision to replace Trident, she told MSPs."What were the compelling arguments that turned the First Minister from don't know to gung ho in seven hours?" she demanded.

Mr McConnell told her: "It's easier to comment on a decision after it has been made than before it's made."Miss Sturgeon may find it easy to have a preconceived position regardless of the evidence or analysis or proper discussion, but I takea far more serious approach to my responsibilities and to the defence of the nation."

He said he believed the decision announced by the Westminster Governmentwas right on two grounds. He did not believe in "unilateral action" to disarm Scotland or the UK -and he also believed it was right to announce that the number of Trident warheads would be reduced, along with reductions in the number ofsubmarines on duty."I also believe it was right to indicate that in the next UK Parliamentthere will be a further decision to be made on the future of the warheads themselves," said Mr McConnell."On all of those bases, I believe the decision was right for the moment,while offering further opportunities for multilateral disarmament in the future - and this is right for Britain and right for the world."

But Ms Sturgeon retorted: "What happened on Monday was that the Prime Minister told the First Minister what his view was to be, and the First Minister complied."She demanded of Mr McConnell: "Doesn't the Government's White Paper make nuclear proliferation more likely, not less likely?"She said Tony Blair had described nuclear weapons as the "ultimate insurance" and a vital element of national security, and had also said he would be prepared to use them in a first-strike attack.

"What does the First Minister say to other countries that cite their national security and their need for an insurance policy as justification for developing nuclear weapons of their own?"

McConnell said he welcomed the Government's decision to reduce thenumber of warheads by 20%, the number of submarines if possible by 25%,and moves allowing a future parliament a decision on whether the warheads should be renewed."I think that's the right decision for multilateral disarmament worldwide, the right decision in an uncertain world - and a decision the SNP could never take because they are not serious about government or the defence of the nation - and they're certainly not serious about being in Britain." [What a shock! JOE]

Ms Sturgeon said: "Just one nuclear warhead can wipe out entire populations - that's why they are morally wrong."She continued: "The decision to replace Trident, publicly backed onMonday by the First Minister, represents the most appalling hypocrisy and robs the UK of any moral authority in arguing the case for non-proliferation." The First Minister is out of touch not only with the majority of Scots on this issue, but also with those in his own party who say in aparliamentary motion tabled yesterday that there is convincing military, economic and political case for the non-renewal case of Trident."And she urged Mr McConnell to have "the courage and honesty" to make the case against new weapons of mass destruction instead of "meekly following Tony Blair's line".

Mr McConnell told MSPs she appeared to be arguing the world would be safer, and it would be morally right, for only other countries to have nuclear weapons in a dangerous world."I believe, as I have said consistently in this chamber for at least six months now, that the only way to reduce the nuclear arsenal worldwide is through multilateral action, and certainly not through weakness," he said.

And it was "essential" that Britain continued along the path first set by Tories, and followed by the Labour Government, of continuing to reduce Britain's nuclear arsenal.He said of the Government's announcement last Monday: "These are the right decisions for multilateral disarmament, the right decisions forthe security of our nation - and the right decisions in an increasingly uncertain and dangerous world."

Ms Sturgeon told MSPs there were eight countries with nuclear weapons but 180 countries without them."I want Scotland to be in the majority," she said.She went on to argue that the difference between Mr McConnell and theSNP was that he was happy to see £25 billion "wasted" on nuclear bombs, while the SNP wanted it spent on better health, education and pensions."

He's for weapons of mass destruction, we stand for building a better Scotland for all - isn't that why more and more people want to see an SNP government?" she said.

Former Herald Editor Signs up For Independence

A former editor of The Herald newspaper has joined a campaign calling for a referendum on Scottish independence. Harry Reid, author of a recently-published history of the Scottish press, Deadline, has signed up with the Scottish Independence Convention, saying: “I’ve been a ‘fellow traveller’ for a year or so now, yet somehow I’ve never quite faced up to what both my heart and my head have been telling me: that an independent Scotland could – and almost certainly would – be a better Scotland.”

An author also of books about the Church of Scotland and Scottish football, Mr Reid was editor of The Herald when it was urging a yes-yes vote during the 1997 devolution referendum.He continued: “I further believe that the Union is finished, and that England could benefit greatly from rediscovering itself by going through the potentially positive process of becoming English rather than British.“And then my old friend and colleague, [The Herald’s former political editor] Murray Ritchie, bludgeoned me into writing this short piece [for the Convention’s website].

So, let me come out and scream it: I believe in, and now I earnestly desire, an independent Scotland.”The war in Iraq is one of the reasons for Reid’s decision. “This man Blair – surely the worst British leader in living memory – has been responsible for the worst thing I can recall the British state doing. That is, the reckless and illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country, Iraq.”

Continues Reid: “And what has this to do with an independent Scotland? It is quite simple. An independent Scotland would never ever misuse its power in this manner. I could never imagine, in a thousand years, an independent Scotland sending its army to invade a far-off country on such phoney pretexts.”

http://www.allmediascotland.com/spike/628/05122006/former_herald_editor_signs_up_for_independence

http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

Smearing Drivel on the Daily Record Forum

This appeared on the daily Record (moderated) forum:

You should grow up and be less of a bigot again. The only reason the bigots and
Ayattollahs at the SNP are riding high in the polls is because Blair's social
policies are a disgrace. The SNP should depart to Iran or Syria etc given thier
love for Islamic fundamentalism. We dont need racists here [plus other rubbish].

I replied:

What on earth is this garbage? Is this the new Labour line, waffle a lot of crap about the SNP being in favour of Islamic Fundamentalism? Completely desperate stuff.

Britain seems to believe it is still a world power which is why it feels it should have it's virility symbol of nuclear weapons. Scotland doesn't need Nukes, it doesn't need England fan Gordon Brown and it doesn't need Labour. Labour are noi better than the Tories and there scaremongering garbage that Scotland would fall to bits with independence is beneath contempt.

ID cards have nothing to do with terrorism (as the Home Office have admitted) so John Reid is talking rubbish about this as well.

Scotland WOULD be less of a target to international terrorists if our government wasn't involving themselves in illegal wars in the middle east and denying others the nuclear weapons that Tony Blair seems to love so much.

The SNP are right to want to leave NATO and get rid of unusable nuclear weapons and the fig leaf of 'a nuclear defence' when really we are just an aircraft carrier for the US.

Scotland doesn't want to spend money on unusable nuclear weapons, we don't want or need them and if England wants to buy them from the US they should do so theirselves and base them in England, not Scotland.

Scotland does not need to interfere in the middle east or prop up despotic dictatorships, we need to have our own foreign policy and our own independent representation in the UN and the EU.

Toryism whether Blair style Pink or new style with call me Dave is equally as bad. It's time for a socialist/social democratic Scotland and an SNP/SSP/Green coalition.

As for Brown, get a grip! He's no different to Blair and like Blair he puts England first, even to the extent of supporting their football team!

Free Scotland Now!

www.scottishindependence.com

Poll predicts Labour council wipe-out (Ha ha ha!)

SCOTTISH LABOUR are set to lose almost half of their councillors as well as the control of 12 local authorities next year, according to a new opinion poll. If the figures are reflected in May's council elections, First Minister Jack McConnell's party would only have a majority of seats in North Lanarkshire.

It would be Labour's worst result in a local authority election and signal the end of the party's domination of local government politics in Scotland. The figures are contained in a YouGov poll commissioned by the SNP. Around 1000 people were asked in November about their voting intentions for next May's council elections.

Alex Salmond's SNP polled 28%, up 4% from the last local authority election in 2003, while Labour slumped to 27%, down six points from three years ago.

The Liberal Democrats were shown to be up marginally to 16%, while the Conservatives were down 1% from 2003 to 15%. Another category, marked "Independent/Others", gathered 15% support. But it is the 5% swing away from Labour to the SNP that will worry election strategists in McConnell's party.

Labour were expecting to lose dozens of councillors next year because of the introduction of proportional representation, but a dip in the party vote would be a double disaster.
An analysis of the poll findings found that a 5% swing would result in a "near wipe-out" of Labour-held councils next year. Labour currently has more than 500 councillors and controls 13 of Scotland's 32 local authorities.

Such a result would see Labour lose overall control of 12 councils, including Glasgow, Edinburgh, South Lanarkshire and North Ayrshire. McConnell's party would have to consider forming coalitions with others if they still wanted to control these local authorities. Only North Lanarkshire would remain in Labour hands.

The SNP report claims the poll indicates a "revolution in Scottish local government bringing to an end decades of Labour domination". It adds: "Due to proportional representation and low Labour poll ratings Labour seem ready to crumble at local level."

Another YouGov question on the council election, this time based on those "certain to vote", was even better for the SNP.

The poll found support for the Nationalists at 30%, up 6% on 2003, while Labour trailed in second place at 26%, down seven points from three years ago.

If reflected in the council election result next year, the SNP would end up with 385 councillors, a gain of 211. Labour would be left with 319 local government politicians, down 190 from 2003. This would mean the Nationalists winning more council seats than Labour for the first time in their history.

The Liberal Democrats, on 14%, have been predicted to gain 18 council seats, while the Tories would lose two compared with the 2003 election.

The heavy losses have prompted Labour's local bosses to start coalition talks with other political groupings ahead of next year's poll.

Already the local parties in Edinburgh and Glasgow have reportedly been in talks with the Liberal Democrats to see if a post-election pact would be viable.

SNP leader Salmond said the poll was further evidence of a Labour meltdown in Scotland.
"One of the final bulwarks holding the Labour Party in Scotland together is their domination of local government. That now, too, is coming to an end. The very foundations of Scottish Labour are collapsing," he said.

A spokesman for Labour Party yesterday dismissed the local election poll: "The dogs in the street were laughing at the last discredited poll when it was published well before Labour's successful conference in Oban. It's time the Nationalists started publishing information like how they would pay for their wild spending pledges."

[That 'successful conference' would be the 'bash SNP' farce where Labour showed they didn't trust Jack McConnell and drafted in Tony Blair, England fan Gordon Brown and other True Brits to waffle a lot of utter cr*p about the prospects of an independent Scotland would it? Despite every other country managing their own independence, Labour's message is that Scots are uniquely incapable of running their own affairs and the sky will fall in with independence. If this is the best argument they can come up wth then the SNP must be rubbing their hands with glee. JOE]

http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.1054760.0.0.php

SAME NONSENSE BY BLIAR FOR WALES

Blair: Independence is backward

INDEPENDENCE for Wales and Scotland would be an old-fashioned backward step, Prime Minister Tony Blair said yesterday - while claiming his own legacy was to make Britain a more modern place.

[A backward step? More like a necessary step which every former colony of the British Empire has made and none have regretted! Independence is not 'backward' for Wales or Scotland. As Jack Straw has pointed out the union is useful for England but it is not useful for Scotland or Wales, both of whom would benefit from independent representation in the EU and the UN. JOE]

Mr Blair has been under pressure on the constitutional issue after a series of polls showed growing support among the English for the break-up of the UK, and a surge in support for the SNP in Scotland.

But Mr Blair told a Westminster lunch that autonomy for the nations of the UK was "a completely regressive step, totally wrong and totally contrary to where the modern world is moving, which is countries moving together."

Using his own background to stress the "interdependence" point used repeatedly by Chancellor Gordon Brown, Mr Blair said, "My mum was Irish, my Dad was English, both lived most of their lives in Scotland. I was born in Scotland but brought up in County Durham, and I now live most of my life down in London. [Who cares? Blair's allegiance is to England, fair enough, but can he not realise that others put Scotland or Wales first?]

"It's a good newspaper story - You have an opinion poll question to people saying 'Scotland have got their own parliament, should England have its own parliament?'
"I would be kind of surprised if people didn't answer that question 'yes'.
"But to then take it a step further and say they want to bust up the United Kingdom; I don't think they want to bust-up the UK." [Pity that's exactly what the polls say Tony.]

An ICM survey for The Sunday Telegraph which suggested support for Scottish independence had reached 52% among Scots and 59% in England. And a poll in yesterday's Scotsman suggest the SNP was on course to be the largest party in the Scottish parliament after next May.

Mr Blair said he recalled similar poll results being published in the summer of 1998, which were not reflected in the results of the 1999 Welsh and Scottish elections.
"When people come to the point of do they want to bust up the UK, I don't think they want to do that," he said. "I'm not saying these aren't difficult arguments that you have to handle carefully, because you do, but I think independence would be a thoroughly old-fashioned and regressive step."

The Prime Minister has said he will step down before next September, but would not be drawn on his departure date when questioned by reporters yesterday. Asked about his biggest mistakes since entering 10 Downing Street in 1997, he hinted they might not include issues such as the Iraq war.

"If people ask me what's your biggest mistakes, I always say 'that's for me to know and you to find out'. Although they may, funnily enough not be some of the things you might think of," he said. He added, "I think the thing that has changed about the country overall is that I think the country is basically more willing to advance people on merit today, and ... I think we've become a far more modern country."

Returning to his theme of the regions [Scotland and Wales are COUNTRIES not regions], he said, it was wrong to always compare areas such as Wales or the north-east of England with London, saying there had been strong economic growth throughout the UK

"Part of the trouble with comparing region by region is, if you take London for example, you have some of the wealthiest parts of Britain and some of the poorest. It's more sensible to analyse disparities within regions rather than pitting regions against each other."

STICK TRIDENT TONY - SCOTLAND DOES NOT WANT IT

So Tony has decided, yes Britain needs it's nuclear deterrent so it can play big man on campus. His friends in the US will be very happy to receive a £20 Billion order for an unusable nuclear defence system.

Despite the fact Britain can hardly equip it's troops in the current US instigated wars, Tony thinks that a new missile system is a snip. "No madman can blow us up, if he did we'll blow him up, they'd have to be mad" he assures us, yes Trident will save us from all manner of unlikely scenarios dreamed up by Whitehall mandarins.

Well I'm sorry Tony but Scotland doesn't want or need your 20 Million quid virility symbol. We don't need to have the capacity to blow up other nations and we don't feel the requirement to pretend we're a big bully on the international stage.

Scotland is a small country, we are a rich country but we are not willing to waste our money on bombs which can't be dropped, again. There is a simple way to destroy Tony's nuclear dream where he sits in his bunker as the last man under the nuclear slag heap. That way is by voting for Scottish independence.

The radiation won't stop at the border but at least we won't waste our money on a unusable nuclear deterrent nor will we contribute towards a future nuclear conflict. Let's leave the US to play their games in NATO and if England wants to pretend they've still got imperial power they can pay for their bombs themselves.

Harry Reid joins the Convention

One of Scotland’s most eminent journalists, Harry Reid, has joined the Scottish Independence Convention, throwing his weight behind the campaign for a referendum and proclaiming his belief that the Treaty of Union is dead.

Mr Reid is a former editor of The Herald who ran the paper during its acclaimed campaign for a Yes/Yes vote in the 1997 devolution referendum. He has since written authoritative books on the Church of Scotland and the state of Scottish football. His latest book, Deadline, is a fast-selling history of the Scottish press.

He explained his decision to embrace independence: “I’ve been a ‘fellow traveller’ for a year or so now, yet somehow I’ve never quite faced up to what both my heart and my head have been telling me: that an independent Scotland could – and almost certainly would – be a better Scotland. I further believe that the Union is finished, and that England could benefit greatly from rediscovering itself by going through the potentially positive process of becoming English rather than British.

“And then my old friend and colleague Murray Ritchie bludgeoned me into writing this short piece. SO LET ME COME OUT AND SCREAM IT: I BELIEVE IN, AND NOW I EARNESTLY DESIRE, AN INDEPENDENT SCOTLAND.”

He said there were many reasons for this, some subtle, some crude, some cerebral, some emotive, some obscure, some historical.

“But the clincher for me has been the way this man Blair – surely the worst British leader in living memory – has been responsible for the worst thing I can recall the British state doing. That is, the reckless and illegal invasion of a sovereign foreign country, Iraq. I’m not sure if the invasion would have been justified had our security been genuinely at risk, but without doubt a case could have been made. Whereas the case that Blair presented was utterly false.
“And it was easy enough to invade, easy enough to topple Saddam: but how to secure the peace and how to construct a new and stable Iraq? How to persuade that country’s people – those of them who have not been slaughtered - that their life is better and the invasion has been beneficial? Not a thought seems to have been given to these crucial policy decisions. And thus, for the people of Iraq, life has slipped towards the abyss.

“The invasion of Iraq has been supremely and horrendously counter-productive. Our fine military have been shamelessly sent on a grotesque fool’s errand, a mission that was supposed to help us defeat terrorism but is instead creating and mentoring a whole new generation of terrorists.

“And what has this to do with an independent Scotland? It is quite simple. An independent Scotland would never ever misuse its power in this manner. I could never imagine, in a thousand years, an independent Scotland sending its army to invade a far-off country on such phoney pretexts.

“Iraq must dominate our current political agenda. But as I have tried to explain, Iraq is relevant to our constitutional debate.

“There are many other, far more positive, arguments for Scottish independence and I look forward to discussing these in the months ahead. The key point in the here-and-now is this: the British state – and it pains me to write this – has done something that is seriously wrong and very stupid. A Scottish state would never have behaved in this way.”

Murray Ritchie, convention convener, welcomed Mr Reid to the campaign. “Harry’s an intellectual heavyweight. He has thought through the arguments for and against independence and, like most of Scotland’s leading thinkers, reached the conclusion that the benefits will be overwhelmingly in favour. We are delighted to welcome him to the winning side.”

from Scottish Independence Convention www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

We'll keep the oil, you can have the Trident submarines

By Paul Henderson Scott, Sunday Telegraph

Last weekend in Oban, the Scottish Labour Party held a very unusual conference. A succession of ministers from the Westminster Government, beginning with Tony Blair and followed by Scottish MPs Gordon Brown, John Reid and Douglas Alexander, all indulged in hysterical speeches about what they saw as the dangers of Scottish independence. They spoke as if it would be a strange anomaly in the modern world of increasing interdependence. Have they failed to notice that in recent years all the old empires, including the British, and most of the multinational states have resolved into their component parts? It is Scotland (probably the oldest nation in Europe) that is the anomaly in failing so far to follow the modern tendency.

"We are two open countries, England and Scotland," Mr Blair said, "open to each other and open to the world." So they would remain with Scottish, or Scottish and English, independence. We should both be members states of the European Union and of the United Nations. On most issues we should agree and be able to support one another.

As separate states, we should have more influence in Europe as two voices than as one; more seats in the European Parliament and more votes in the Council of Ministers. But when our interests and views differed, Scotland would be able to state its own case. And, of course, we should still have free movement of people and goods, not only between us but over the whole of the European Union. Scottish independence would remove grievances between England and Scotland, not increase them.

advertisementWe have a parallel close to home. Ireland, as part of the UK, was impoverished and resentful. As an independent country it is contented and prosperous. The small independent nations of Europe, such as Ireland, Norway, Iceland and Finland, are among the most prosperous. Small countries are closer and more responsive to the needs of their citizens and more flexible in responding to changing circumstances in the global economy.

An independent Scotland would, of course, have to stand on its own feet financially. There would be no suspicion, as there is at present in England, that it is being subsidised from south of the border. In fact, the financial flow is in the opposite direction because of the proceeds of the oil in Scottish waters, which, at the current oil price, is worth about £10 billion a year. The oil revenues have been seized by Westminster, although under international law they are a Scottish asset. That is presumably one reason why the present British Government would like to hold on to Scotland. This may be a contentious issue but, after all, oil is a diminishing asset, Westminster has enjoyed it for 30-odd years, and that is probably at least half of the total.

With independence, Scotland would assume responsibility for its own defence, with such international agreements as it might wish to make. This is one of the issues where majority opinion in Scotland and England diverge. Most people in England still seem to hold on to the idea of Britain (or England) as a world power. From this follows a desire to renew the so-called nuclear deterrent.

We in Scotland see no advantage in trying to act as a major power, especially if in practice it means hanging on to the coat-tails of the United States. This is the attitude that leads to such disasters as the Iraq war and the consequent provocation of terrorism.

This, of course, brings us to the awkward matter of the nuclear submarines on the Clyde. In the opinion of most people in Scotland, they are immoral, useless, hideously expensive (an independent Scotland would be more than happy to have to contribute towards them no longer) and always liable to an explosion, either accidentally or as a consequence of a terrorist attack. They are close to our major centre of population. How can Britain express indignation about other countries seeking to obtain nuclear weapons when it proposes, contrary to its treaty obligations, to renew its own? British nuclear weapons should be abolished, which might be an encouragement to other countries to do the same.

If England takes a different view from an independent Scotland, what happens? An elaborate and expensive base has been built for the submarines at Faslane. It would take time to build a new base in England and one can imagine the outcry from people living close to it. If that consideration helps to influence a decision against renewal, so much the better. If not, perhaps an English government could persuade the United States to allow them to share one of their bases. They use the same technology, after all, and it is highly improbable that an English government would ever want to start a nuclear war on its own.

• Paul Henderson Scott is a former diplomat. He has written many books on Scottish history, politics and culture. The most recent is The Union of 1707: Why and How (Saltire Society)

Source: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2006/12/03/nuk103.xml

JIMMY REID, ALASDAIR GRAY, CHRIS HARVIE ON INDEPENDENCE

Scottish independence? No fear!
by Jimmy Reid, Alasdair Gray and Christopher Harvie

Scotland’s election of May 2007 may be decisive for the future of the British state. On St Andrew’s Day 2006, three leading Scottish writers urge voters to choose the route of national independence.

Before a major general election in 1966 an "independent voters' initiative" was launched by German writers and artists supporting Willy Brandt's challenge to the federal republic's Christian Democrat government. Brandt's campaign success strengthened democratic institutions and defeated what looked like becoming a neo-Nazi revival.

The election to the Scottish parliament on 3 May 2007 is a comparable challenge to Scotland. It occurs exactly 300 years after the Act of Union, passed by the last independent Scots parliament, made Scotland part of England's expanding empire. The loss of that empire after 1997 allowed Tony Blair to give Scotland what Billy Connolly rightly called "a wee, pretendy parliament." Since then the London government has made that term apply to Westminster by using docile Scots Westminster MPs to carry through legislation against majority English and Labour opinion.

Result: ever-angrier Anglo-Scottish stand-offs, and the functional and moral collapse of local Scottish Labour parties whose main work nowadays is selling public property and giving well-paid jobs to its members. More and more Scots now accept independence as inevitable. The question is: when?

Do we want a new generation of nuclear-power stations, or of Trident nuclear submarines? Does Glasgow need a super-casino? Does Scotland need another corporate golf course? Must the country's local hospitals be closed so that most invalids must travel long distances to a few super-hospitals? Must the Scottish executive's plan to help local authorities sell off chunks of our public parks to private businesses succeed? Is Scotland's only social construction plan to build big work-spaces for global corporations to lease cheaply, though after a few years the corporations pull out because they can hire workers more cheaply in third-world nations?

New Labour has sold itself to private business at every level, cutting deals with individual, corporate and multinational wealth as enthusiastically as the John Major and Margaret Thatcher governments it replaced, promising only (but failing) to rule us more honestly. We want instead a land whose government encourages local businesses of different kinds, and enterprises whose goals are not just profits, but support for innovation and cooperation.

New Labour's economics are fraudulent - an indiscriminate growth of gambling, retailing and fast food, financed by borrowing, arms-dealing and social inequalities, with the bill yet to come in. We need independence to start sorting our country and making it a nation with a voice in world affairs. The approaching fuel crisis has been brought nearer by Tony Blair's foreign wars, making Scotland's North Sea resources even more valuable. These oilfields won't last for ever, but Scotland could use them as collateral for an independent government and technology for an eco-hi-tech future and responsible international role.

We accept the view of Tam Dalyell - an honourable opponent who in some respects we agree with - that devolution was a motorway to independence without an exit. It is time to go down it, making our own decisions and not blaming others when things go wrong.

We need independence, and soon, to debate the choices open to us, make alliances with other lands in and outside Europe, and make the sort of Scotland we want. It will be years before we get another chance.

Leadership matters. At a time when New Labour has weaved and dodged through the ambiguities of devolution, wrapped in a tattered Union Jack, Scottish National Party (SNP) leaders Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon have shown an articulate social democracy, weak on spin and strong on principle. What matters to them is not a party victory but our empowerment as the community of Scotland, again exercising that "freedom alone, which no good man gives up except with his life."

We ask you to support this appeal for what has been called the "Scottish Cooperative Wholesale Republic".

Alasdair Gray, Christopher Harvie, Jimmy Reid

Christopher Harvie is a historian who was professor of British and Irish studies at Tübingen University, Germany. His homepage is here

Alasdair Gray is a novelist and artist.

Jimmy Reid is a journalist and broadcaster

http://www.opendemocracy.net/globalization-institutions_government/scottish_independence_4141.jsp

Murray Ritchie - The truth about independence

From: www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

Well, we told you so. Some months back we predicted in this website that Labour would resort, as ever, to lying as the independence cause continued to make progress. The big lies, we suggested, would be the following:

Scotland is too poor to afford independence

There would be border patrols at Berwick

We would make foreigners of our families

We would need passports to go from Dumfries to Carlisle

Scotland would have a crippling deficit if we became independent

Scotland will be a haven for terrorists and illegal immigrants under independence
Scotland would need a new and separate currency

And so on. It was all the usual venal propaganda that we have heard a millions times before. And we will hear it all again. What those shameless Labour so-called heavyweights did not explain was why the independence cause is soaring to new heights of popularity in Scotland – and now in England. Or why the polls are showing support for the Union collapsing in both England and Scotland as we approach the 300th anniversary of the Treaty.

So, as a service to any few remaining doubters who might still be worried by this Unionist tosh, we offer this response based on facts, not fantasy. In place of disinformation designed to scare off the independence vote next May, here are a few basic truths.

1 - The legacy of the Union is that Scotland has had the lowest average economic growth of any west European country for a generation. That is an astonishing and shameful record. There is an uncomplicated reason for it: we are denied – by the Union – control over our own economy. No country can have economic prosperity when it has no fiscal power.

2 – Scotland has all the economic resources for a modern prosperous independent state – but only if the Scots are given control of these resources. But we are denied that power because Unionists like Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are determined that economic and fiscal policy must be decided in the best interests of the most populous area of the British state – and that means the south east of England. (Remember Eddie George, erstwhile governor of the Bank of England, who said unemployment in the “north” was the price of prosperity in the south.)

3 – There will be no border patrols at Berwick, or Gretna or anywhere else when Scotland becomes independent – unless, of course, an independent English government decides to put them there. Anyone who has travelled in Europe in the past decade knows that internal EU borders are coming down, not going up. You can travel across most of the EU without showing a passport – except in cases where security is an issue. The EU is all about removing internal borders and the need for passports. The only people who ask for passports inside the UK these days are airlines!

4 – We will not make “foreigners” of our families. When Ireland left the British state its citizens continued to have free access to the UK, and vice versa. The Irish could still vote in British elections for many years after Ireland became a republic. On the night that Scotland becomes independent everyone in it can choose to be a Scot – or not. This choice would unite families, not split them.

Families living in different countries would see no change. Scots in New Zealand are no more foreigners to their families now than he they would be after Scottish or English independence. Do we really see the Irish as “foreigners” when we criss-cross the Irish Sea?
Besides, dozens of small countries have become independent in recent times and the nationality issue has never been an issue.

5 – Scotland might or might not have a fiscal deficit after independence. The big lie is that our deficit, if it existed, would be crippling because we are so poor and dependent on the British state. It is curious, is it not, that Scotland is apparently in such a hopelessly impoverished mess after almost a decade of the best chancellor since sliced bread, that we must remain dependent.

How can this happen when the Union is so wonderful? Or is it just another Labour lie?) The truth - as even the Scottish Tory Unionists now freely admit – is that Scotland’s deficit or surplus will be decided by the independent government of the day and its running of the economy. The UK deficit now is running at just over £35 billion. If it is acceptable for the best chancellor ever to run a deficit of that order why can’t Scotland do the same proportionally? To misquote Jack McConnell, but only slightly, Scotland could happily run the best wee deficit in the world. Labour’s argument is nonsense and they know it.

6 – The argument that independence will make Scotland a haven for terrorists is pathetic. At present the UK is a terrorist target because of the illegal war in Iraq, a war based on more Labour deceit. If Scotland becomes independent there will be no Scottish armed forces in Iraq unless a Scottish government sends them there – which would be highly unlikely. Scotland is against Trident – a real cause of terror, and against the shame of rendition flights. But we have Trident and rendition and Iraq forced on us because we are part of the Union. As for immigration, Scotland needs immigrants. Our economic slide means population decline and a loss of skills. But we are not allowed our own immigration policy – because of the Union.

7 – As for the currency, well, we would probably just remain in the single currency with England in the immediate aftermath of independence. The Irish shadowed sterling for years after their independence until they joined the euro, and Scotland could do the same if the people so decided. It would be relatively painless. We have little to lose. After all, we lost our central bank centuries ago, because of the Union.

So the next time the Labour, Tory and LibDem Unionists start their scare stories – remember the truth. The Union has had its day. It is time for a fresh start with independence. It would do so very much for Scotland.

[Excellent! JOE]

Scots barbs and English commentators

"A poll showing that the Scots wish independence is a rarity: I can remember only one other, some years ago. The much more common view expressed in polls - and certainly at the ballot box - is that somewhere between a quarter and a third of Scots say they wish independence.

The high watermark in a British general election was in the second election in 1974, at 30.4 per cent of the Scots electorate - which was something of a freak result, since the vote fell to the low teens in the 1980s. In 1997, it was 22.1 per cent: it fell to 20.1 per cent in 2001 and to 17.7 per cent in 2005. In Scots parliament elections, the high was the first such vote, in 1999, with 28.7; in the last election, in 2003, it was 23.8 per cent.

The highest vote the party has received was in 1994, with 32.6 per cent in the European parliament elections. These are substantial votes: but they are also volatile, and never more than a third."

http://commentisfree.guardian.co.uk/john_lloyd/2006/11/scots_barbs_and_english_commen.html

John Lloyd has deliberately directly equated SNP support with independence support however he should know that these are not the same thing.

The Scottish Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party and Solidarity all support independence as well. In addition to this there are numerous small groups and parties such as the Free Scotland Party, the Scottish Independence Party, the Scottish Enterprise Party the Communist Party of Scotland, the Scottish republican Socialist Movement and the Celtic League who all support independence as well.

This widening of independence support then includes every political organisation which is actually based in Scotland (Labour Lib Dems and Tories are London controlled and it shows) and in fact many voters of the unionist parties actually support independence as well.

Two organisations have been set up to represent this cross party support, one is the Scottish Independence Convention, where the Greens SNP and SSP meet on a regular basis with others from 'civic Scotland' to discuss promoting independence in the style of the successful 'constitutional (devolution) convention'.

The other is the referendum campaign Independence First www.independence1st.com which has not only received messages of support from all the organisations listed above but which is aimed directly at the Scottish people of all parties and none who support a democratic referendum on independence.

The independence movement as a whole is more united than it has ever been, the SNP is the biggest player in that movement but it is not the whole story and as long as commentators ignore every other organisation in that movement they will fail to understand the massive rise in independence support.

Independence is very simple, it is about democratic equality with other nations, a union with a country ten times our size is not equal and never has been.

This has been recognised by every organisation based in Scotland, it's a pity our media aren't more open minded and less biased. It appears the only voices they want to hear are the 39% minority who share their preference for the status quo.

It's time for Scots, English to File for Divorce

It's Time for Scots, English to File for Divorce
By Matthew Lynn

Nov. 29 (Bloomberg) -- Next year, England and Scotland will mark the 300th anniversary of the 1707 treaty that melded the two nations together. What better way of celebrating that than by filing for divorce? Far-fetched? The latest polls suggest there is growing support for a separation on both sides of the border.

The English and the Scots appear to be fed up with each other. And a split would be the best outcome for both countries. Scotland might take the chance to emulate the miraculous success of Ireland. England would be able to cut its taxes at a stroke. It might even get the Conservative government it voted for, rather than the Labour one the Scots wanted.

There is no doubt that there is now real momentum behind independence. ``Although Scottish independence in the foreseeable future is still unlikely, the chances that it might happen have risen from below 1 percent to perhaps 10 to 15 percent,'' Douglas McWilliams, chief executive of the Centre for Economic and Business Research in London, said in a recent report.

An ICM Ltd. poll in the Sunday Telegraph this month found that 52 percent of Scots supported full independence for their country. In September, a YouGov Ltd. poll showed 44 percent of Scots in favor of independence, compared with 42 percent against. The level of support had almost doubled since 2000. Meanwhile, the Scotsman newspaper reported this month that 51 percent of Scots favored full independence versus 39 percent against.

The English are even keener to get rid of the Scots. The ICM poll showed 59 percent of English voters supported the break-up of the union as well.

2007 Elections

``We are becoming Britain's Quebec,'' Stuart Thomson, a bond-fund manager at Resolution Investment Management in Glasgow, Scotland, said in a telephone interview. ``It is going to be a constant case of ``will they or won't they?'''

The crunch may come next year. Elections for the devolved Scottish Assembly are set for May 2007 -- and the pro- independence Scottish National Party may well emerge as the strongest grouping. If that happens, the momentum for a split would become unstoppable.

There would be nothing for either side to fear from that. In fact, both would be better off without each other.

It is a myth that countries need to be big to prosper. The Paris-based Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development last year counted only five countries as ``high income'' -- the U.S., Luxembourg, Norway, Switzerland and Ireland. The U.S. is a big place, but the rest of them are pretty small. That still hasn't stopped any of them getting rich.

Irish Model

The list includes another small Celtic nation on the edge of Europe. Through a modest amount of deregulation and a lot of tax- cutting, Ireland has turned itself from a relative backwater into one of the most successful economies in Europe. It has long since stopped blaming its problems on the English, and set about creating a dynamic economy of its own.

Could Scotland follow in its tracks? It couldn't do much worse than it is now. The Scottish economy is a mess, dependent on a bloated public sector and showing few signs of life. ``If Scotland had simply matched the success of Ireland since 1997, our nation would now be 6,000 pounds a head better off,'' the Scottish National Party said in an analysis this month.

There are few more entrepreneurial people in the world than the Scots. Just take a look at the numbers of companies around the world with names starting with ``Mc'' or ``Mac.'' And if the birthplace of Adam Smith can't create a thriving free-market economy, then who can?
North Sea Oil

True, it wouldn't happen quickly. ``You had 70 years of pain in Ireland after independence,'' Thomson said. ``You probably wouldn't get that in Scotland, but it might be a long time before the economy started to flourish.''

And how about the English?

The accounts of the two countries are hard to disentangle. The U.K. government collects a lot of tax revenue from North Sea oil, and that presumably would have to go to the government in Edinburgh. The financial details of the separation would take a lot of haggling -- as they do in any divorce. Still, the chances are that the English would pay lower taxes as a stand-alone nation.

Most importantly, the English would get the kind of low-tax, free-market government they want. At the 2005 election, the Conservative Party won more votes in England than any other party. Many of the main figures in the Labour government are Scottish, including Chancellor of the Exchequer Gordon Brown. And they are kept in power by Scottish votes.

Better Off Apart

In reality, the political cultures of the two countries have drifted so far apart, they are no longer compatible. The Scots want a Scandinavian-style social democracy with high taxes, generous welfare and big government. In Scottish politics, there are virtually no right-of-center voters left. The Conservative Party won less than 16 percent of the vote in Scotland last year.
The English want a U.S.-style free market with lower taxes, and a smaller state. The only reason they can't have it is because of the Scots. That is hardly healthy.

As the divorce lawyers like to point out, once a relationship has broken down, you are better off apart. England and Scotland have reached that point. The 300th anniversary of the union should be the last.

(Matthew Lynn is a Bloomberg News columnist. The opinions expressed are his own.)

To contact the writer of this column: Matthew Lynn in London at matthewlynn@bloomberg.net

WE SCOTS WOULD BENEFIT FROM ENDING THE UNION

The London based 'The Business' claims that 'No-one would benefit from break-up of the Union' in this article:

http://www.thebusinessonline.com/Document.aspx?id=5847ADE5-5951-4D08-82FB-93981126427C

"The imbalances which Labour introduced to the British constitution should be addressed. Scottish devolution should be matched with an English-votes-for-English laws protocol in the Commons. The financial relationships should be levelled and Scotland’s budget linked directly to how much tax it generates.

England needs to realise that it will lose a lot more than it thinks if it loses Scotland. The Scots need to realise that they cannot live off massive public spending forever. A sense of fairness must be reintroduced between both nations.

The Union between England and Scotland has given each nation more than either is minded to commemorate next May. As the anniversary approaches, both sides of the border would do well to calm down, take stock and realise just how absurd the break-up of Britain in the 21st century would seem to the rest of the world – and how it would do both Scots and English irreparable damage."

This article repeats the usual lies that Scots are 'subsidised' by England because there is higher per head spending in Scotland however with one third of the land mass and 10% of the population this is always going to be the case. What should be considered is the total amount of revenue raised and spent in Scotland, on those figures as the SNP have conclusively proved Scotland pays her own way.

The real question is why the media and business are so far behind the public in their desire for normal powers for Scotland. A union with a country ten times our size is not equal, never has been or could have been and is now long past its sell by date.

Every other country manages to rule their own affairs so why should Scots be considered uniquely incapable of doing so?

There are four Scottish based parties with representation in the parliament. All support independence. It is only those parties based in London who do not and who pretend that all manner of disasters will befall Scotland if we vote to exercise our rights to national self determination.

If between them the Scottish based parties marshall one million votes ie around half the current supporters of the independence cause to vote for them then the independence parties will be able to force through a referendum on this issue.

Perhaps at that point business, commentators and media might wake up to the fact that English rule has proven unnecessary for every colony in the British Empire and is not actually required for Scotland either.

Cracking Letters in the Herald

Only security and negativity at Oban conference
Your Letters (Herald)
November 28 2006

ANYONE arriving in Oban over the past week could be forgiven for wondering if they had entered a danger zone. A massive police presence with armed officers wandering around with guns at hip level, cars escorted with police outriders, roads blocked off, police boats with support vessels in Oban Bay, at what cost to the taxpayers, and why? Even the Church of Scotland weekly worship next door to the Corran Halls had to be moved. The reason? The Scottish Labour Party conference. This used to be a political event; now it is a three-day, organised opportunity to insult the Scottish National Party and its leadership. There were no delegated motions, no votes, no democracy – just negativity. With the media outnumbering the delegates, the opportunity for national coverage was used for personal agendas. First Minister Jack McConnell was removed from the frontal assault, the good guy/bad guy routine, while the major political figures from national government, Prime Minister Tony Blair, Home Secretary John Reid and Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander, were used as the bad guys, to try to make Jack look good. The reality is that the Labour Party has been in power in the UK since 1997 and in Scotland since 1999, and Jack McConnell's speech was a 35-minute apology for not fulfilling promises and five minutes of more promises. This is the party "not fit for government".

W W Wilkie, Oakbank, Benvoullin Road, Oban.

In recent years, I can recall Labour ministers telling us that an independent Scotland would suffer the malnutrition that afflicts Bangladesh, the ethnic bloodshed that befell the Balkans, the type of passport control employed on the North Korean border and the sort of economic chaos that has only been seen in Europe in the past few years when Albania infamously discovered a pyramid-sales scam involving the distribution of brushes.So it comes as little surprise to hear this week from Labour that independence would somehow be "a gift to terrorists and illegal immigrants".I would say "give it a rest", but as a supporter of independence myself, I'm actually very keen to hear more of this wild, hysterical nonsense from Labour, particularly when it comes from the lips of the most unpopular and discredited Prime Minister since polls began. So, Mr Blair, let's be hearing more of the same.

Alasdair Allan, 54b Vatisker, Isle of Lewis.

THE last time I heard mass hysteria of the kind that emanated from Oban was when some poor itinerant swan ended up in Cellardyke harbour in Fife. Then what ensued was a lot of hot air about avian flu. This time it was a whirlwind of fevered outpourings about the apocalypse which would arise should Scottish independence ever be attained by those nasty Nationalists (forgetting that independence can only be achieved by the consent of the Scottish people – not by the actions of one political party). Alas, like the poor swan in Cellardyke, Scottish Labour is dead in the water – the poor souls just haven't realised it yet. For people who claim to be in control, methinks they do protest too much.

Donnie MacNeill, 65 Pentland Park, Livingston.

Labour's own polling predicts win for SNP!

The Scottish National Party holds an eight-point lead over Labour in a poll commissioned by Labour itself, the biggest gap registered by recent surveys. It suggests that, if the findings are translated into results at the ballot box next May, the Nationalists would win nine seats more than Labour, and be in the driving seat to form a new coalition administration.

The private poll, carried out by independent research company Populus, found Labour lagging eight points adrift of the SNP on both the constituency and the regional votes. One analysis of those figures suggests Labour would lose 14 of the 50 seats it holds, while the SNP would gain as many as 18 seats, on top of the 27 it won in 2003.

The information was leaked to The Herald in the wake of another worrying poll published in a newspaper yesterday, which put the SNP five points clear of its main rival on both votes. A confidential warning from a senior Labour strategist says that the party's polling position is "bleak" and "a major concern".

http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/75470-print.shtml

Public Petitions meeting on November 15th

Referendum on Self-determination (PE1014)

The Convener: Our next petition is PE1014, by Neil Caple, on behalf of Independence First. It calls on the Scottish Parliament to consider and debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation to the people of Scotland of a referendum on self-determination. Before being formally lodged, the petition was hosted on the e-petition system, where it gathered 1,333 signatures and 132 discussion comments.

Do members have any suggestions on how we should deal with this petition?

Ms White: First, I ask whether there is anyone here to present the petition. I note that Neil Caple wanted to make a statement to the committee. Did he subsequently say that he did not want to come along?

The Convener: No. I did not ask him. The petition is straightforward and there was no requirement for him to come along and give additional information. The petition speaks for itself.

Ms White: I am not challenging that. I am just asking the question because Mr Caple ticked the box on the form to show that he wanted to come and make a statement to the committee. I thought that perhaps he was ill. I did not know whether he was here.

The Convener: Almost all petitioners tick the box, but I have to decide whether they are required to come and give additional information. Because Mr Caple's petition is fairly straightforward, there is no requirement for him to come and give additional information.

Ms White: I was just asking for clarification. The situation has arisen on numerous occasions and I always ask why there is no one here. I accept your explanation. I might not agree with it, but it has clarified the matter for me.

As the petition states, independence would be down to the Westminster Government, [the petition did not state any such thing and this is not the case it is up to the Scottish people to decide when and if we want independence JOE] but the Scottish Parliament has the power to consider the matter and, in particular, to set up a referendum.

Professor Munro, professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh, said:
"You have to make the distinction between the reserved powers and what parliament can debate and discuss ... there is nothing to stop the parliament arranging to hold a referendum, because that would not involve a change in the law."

That view was confirmed by the Labour-dominated House of Commons Scottish Affairs Committee, which reported: "constitutional matters are reserved but it is hard to see how the Scottish Parliament could be prevented from holding a referendum on independence".

I recommend that we ask the Scottish Executive for its view on the petition.

The Convener: I will make my position clear, Sandra, as you made yours clear. Starting next April, we will have a debate called an election. Political parties will stand for election and some of them will stand on their proposal to hold a referendum on independence. If the outcome is that those parties win, they will be able to take up the issue and debate it where it requires to be debated. However, the present Scottish Executive does not support independence. I do not see why the Parliament should use time to debate something that will be debated next April. The petition is about publicising an event that the petitioner wants to take place after the election. I think that we should let the election take place and debate the matter after that.

Campbell Martin: This might come as a surprise to you, convener, but I do not agree with you. I agree to a certain extent—I hope that the matter will be settled next May, but I hope that we will have a pro-independence majority in the Parliament at that time. With the greatest respect, you are being a wee bit disingenuous in that people do not vote only on the constitutional issue. We know that they vote on a range of issues rather than on a single issue. The petitioners are asking for all the other issues to be stripped out, leaving a simple question.

The referendum would not be only on independence; it would also be on Scotland's continuation in the British union. In the 300 years of the British union, the people of Scotland—supposedly the sovereign power in Scotland—have never been asked the question, "Do you want Scotland to remain within the British union, or would you like independence?"

It would be a two-way thing. You would think that if both sides were confident of winning, both would be happy to hold such a referendum, but at the moment only the pro-independence side wants to have a referendum. The pro-British union side does not seem to want one. People will draw their own conclusions about why those on the pro-British union side do not want a referendum.

The petition asks the Scottish Executive to consider and debate what it could do
"to ensure the early presentation of a referendum".

We could at least, as we did with an earlier petition, seek the Scottish Executive's view on whether it can do anything with regard to such a referendum. Let us bear in mind the fact that Strathclyde Regional Council held a consultative referendum to determine what the people of Strathclyde wanted to do with Scotland's water.

If we are not scared of democracy and people power, I do not see why we should not ask people the question, and I do not see why the Scottish Parliament, the democratically elected Parliament of Scotland, should not play a part in doing that. Let us therefore do as the petitioners request and ask the Executive whether it considers that it can do anything to facilitate such a referendum, and what its position would be.

Jackie Baillie: I have always believed that clarity and transparency are essential in politics, so to hear some of the disingenuous comments that have been made is quite amusing. I do not intend to debate the terms of the petition. I simply say that, at the most recent, and very democratic, opportunity that people had to voice an opinion on the matter—the general election—the share of the vote for parties supporting independence dropped substantially. That might be an uncomfortable fact, but it is a fact nonetheless. I think that we should await May with interest.

In the meantime, I recommend that, as legislation in this area is reserved, and as people had an opportunity at the general election to do something about it and chose not to, we should agree to note and close the petition.

Helen Eadie: I second that. Clearly, the petitioners could lobby Westminster parliamentarians. I am never surprised—because it is the usual suspects who bring such petitions to the Parliament—that, although such people know that they could lobby Westminster members, they simply refuse to do so. Instead, they choose to use the option of petitioning the Scottish Parliament. This Parliament has powers to hold referendums on devolved matters but, as Jackie Baillie has pointed out, self-determination could be regarded as requiring a change in the constitution, so it is a matter for the United Kingdom Parliament. I whole-heartedly support what Jackie Baillie and the convener have said.

Mr Gordon: I have always supported Scotland's right to self-determination. It might well be that some kind of referendum will be held one day. The petition is quite interestingly worded, as it refers to "the early presentation of a referendum".

If that scenario were to unfold, a referendum ought to be held sooner rather than later. It is interesting to note that the Scottish National Party has been careful to say in Parliament that it might take quite a while to have a referendum on self-determination. The reason why I would support an early referendum, if such a scenario were to unfold, is that the uncertainty that would result if it took a number of years to get to that stage could damage our nation's economy. I worry about the example of Quebec. I have seen the economic damage that was done to Quebec by having what was, in effect, a never-ending referendum.

I am certainly not afraid of democracy and I do not oppose self-determination, but I am above all a practical person and I came to this Parliament to do things, not to indulge in grandstanding. The wishes of the petitioner could easily be met. We could have a debate about a referendum if the SNP used some of its parliamentary time for that. I support the recommendation.

The Convener: We know Sandra White's position. Is she going to tell us something startling—that she does not support independence?

Ms White: I was going to speak to the petition. I thought that we were here to do that, rather than to grandstand. The issue will be decided at the election. I am not talking about the SNP, Labour or any other party—I am speaking to the petition. I do not even know Mr Caple. The comments of Helen Eadie and others were pretty disingenuous. The Scottish Parliament has a Public Petitions Committee and people are within their rights to bring any petition before it.

The Convener: That is why we are discussing the petition.

Ms White: That is why I am speaking to it. I am not grandstanding on any political issue. As Campbell Martin said, the petitioner is calling on the Parliament to
"debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation of a referendum on self determination to the people of Scotland."

The outcome of that early referendum could be that the people of Scotland want or do not want independence. The petitioner is asking only for the issue to be determined by the people of Scotland—there is nothing in the petition about what the outcome should be. As I have already mentioned, the professor of constitutional law at the University of Edinburgh and the Scottish Affairs Select Committee have said that there is no legal reason that would prevent the Scottish Parliament from setting the format for a referendum. That is the issue that the petition addresses.

I recommend that we write to the Scottish Executive and seek its views on the mechanism that it would use. That is a sensible suggestion that does what the petition asks for. I have no doubt that it will not be accepted, but I will make it anyway.

The Convener: The organisation that submitted the petition is called Independence First, which hardly indicates that it takes a neutral position on the outcome of the referendum that it seeks. If it seeks a referendum, there is an opportunity for that referendum to take place following next year's election. Different political parties will have different platforms. Some will argue that a vote for them amounts to a vote for independence in a referendum and that the question of independence should be decided by the outcome of the election. The platform of some parties will be that there should be a referendum at some point in the distant future, whereas others will take the position that they are totally opposed to a referendum. At the moment, it is the will of the Parliament not to have a referendum—that has been clearly stated.

Mr Gordon: The petition is asking us to debate how we might have a referendum. I am making the practical point that Sandra White could give effect to the petitioner's wishes by having her party group request such a debate in its allocation of parliamentary time. The SNP can do that tomorrow, if it wants. The petitioner is asking us not to hold a referendum but to have a debate.

The Convener: I was going to conclude on that point. At the moment, the Executive has clearly ruled out holding a referendum. Regardless of whether it is legally permissible for the Scottish Parliament to hold a referendum, the Executive has said clearly that it will not happen while it is in government.

Ms White: Does that mean that we cannot get an answer on the petition?

The Convener: No. Political parties in the Parliament that wish to hold a referendum could have the matter debated, but it has been made absolutely clear that the Scottish Executive will not have it debated. There is no point in our writing to the Executive in order that the Executive may tell us exactly what we already know.

Campbell Martin: I refer to the wording of the petition. It calls on the Scottish Parliament
"to consider and debate what moves it could make to ensure the early presentation of a referendum".

It says "could", not "would". The petition is asking us to ask the Scottish Executive what the legal position on holding a referendum is. It is not asking what the Executive's position is.

Jackie Baillie: Irrespective of the merits of any petition, the Public Petitions Committee is not a posting box that passes petitions on to others without first considering them substantially. I have made a recommendation. We should now decide what we want to do, irrespective of the Scottish Executive's view.

The Convener: Jackie Baillie has recommended that we note and close the petition. I do not think that we will get any further by continuing to debate it. If we vote on Jackie's proposal, Sandra White can choose to support or not to support it. We do not need amendments to a straightforward proposal.

Ms White: I do not have an amendment. What about the recommendation that I made? You could vote against that—I presume you will, anyway.

The Convener: What is your recommendation?

Ms White: My recommendation is to write to the Scottish Executive and ask what its legal position is on a referendum.

The Convener: Okay. I think that we should deal with Jackie Baillie's proposal. If her proposal to note and close the petition has the support of the majority of the committee, that will be the committee's decision on the petition. If Jackie Baillie's proposal is not agreed to, I will then take Sandra White's proposal and we can decide whether to take the matter to the Executive.
The question is, that the Public Petitions Committee notes and closes consideration of petition. Are we agreed?

Members: No.

The Convener: There will be a division.

FOR

Baillie, Jackie (Dumbarton) (Lab)Eadie, Helen (Dunfermline East) (Lab)Gordon, Mr Charlie (Glasgow Cathcart) (Lab)McMahon, Michael (Hamilton North and Bellshill) (Lab)Munro, John Farquhar (Ross, Skye and Inverness West) (LD)Scott, John (Ayr) (Con)

AGAINST

Kane, Rosie (Glasgow) (SSP) Martin, Campbell (West of Scotland) (Ind)White, Ms Sandra (Glasgow) (SNP)

The Convener: The result of the division is: For 6, Against 3, Abstentions 0.

It is agreed that we will note and close consideration of petition PE1014.