I'm dissapointed looking down at the comments to see the usual drivel from the unionists "Scottish people are too poor and stupid to run their own country, yadda, yadda, yadda"
Oil production may have fallen in the north sea but each barrel is worth much more than it used to be and reserves that couldnt be tapped in the 80's can be drilled using modern technology so I have no doubt they will be drilling oil from the North Sea long after I'm dead and buried (I'm only 30!!) So please change the tune (lies) unionists!!
Good god Ireland fought a war to get what were being offered on a plate and we sit and eye it nervously not quite sure what to do. Take it people....take it!!!!!

To Adam: For your information, there have been studies by several political personalities who deny such statement. One of them, elaborated by Dr Antoni Abat, Prof University of Stanford , Ca (USA), concluded that one State seceded from current members of the EU would originate two new States. The above mentioned new State and the "new" State resultant from the secession -what is left from what it was the former State. Because there is no legality within the EU treaties regarding this topic, International Law would be applied. Then, for instance, Scotland seceded from the UK, if Scotland has to request for (re)admission to the EU, so has to request it the "new" UK -due to the separation of Scotland-. So that, to avoid such lengthy and tortuous process -exclusion, inclusion/re-inclusion, the EU would accept the two new States immediately. Also, it mentions the keep of the civil rights acquired by citizens of the EU that reside in the actual countries of the EU. This study was endorsed by Linda Fabiani, MSP.

Socialism is the answer, my concerns are that an independent Scotland would fall into the same trap as other "Democracies". Capitalism is the drain of every single human being in the country, except the wealthy. We need to restore power back to the public, having a represented government and most importantly a single constitution. Clear the statute books of all the absurd by-laws, after all we are adults able to use our common sense! Only an independent Scotland will pave the way for our future and prosperity, this country once provided the world with things such as penicillin, the first steam boat, the tubed tyre... we can excel again!

Beats me why the West coast vote for New Labour. Old Labour were the party of the working class; this lot are the party of middle management, the traditional enemies of the working class. As far as the next two elections are concerned - Westminster and Holyrood - every candidate should punch home the same message. In an independent Scotland we would never have to suffer under a Tory government again.

Like Silje I am Norwegian.
I find Scotland more simular to Norway than Sweden in many ways.
When traveling in Scotland I find  the nature familiar and people that could have been my family members/neighbours by manners and look.
Last year I found the birtplace of one my anchestors at Southend, close to Mull of Kintyre.
By blood you scots are 30 pst. norwegian.
I also know that a origisatation called Scottish Patriot were willing to send soldiers to die for Norway in 1905.
The longest lasting peace act between to countries, not broken, is the Act of Perth between our 2 countries , near 800 years old.
I hereby give you my support !!

My most signifcant concerns around an Independant Scoland are mostly about individual rights - Scotland should reject the 'nanny state' that has been an utter failure in the rest of the UK. ASBOs have done nothing to curb crime and the weapons laws have disarmed good, honest citizens and left them exposed to these animals.

Scotland needs to affirm the right of self-defense and self-government for it's future citizens.

William McCartney has a prudent point. You have a window of opportunity right now where independency for Scotland could be a reality, who knows how long before the window closes again? You need to become more high-profiled, not only in Scotland or Great Britain, but in all of Europe. Use the media all over Europe to get your message through, use lobbyists to work for your cause in every nation in Europe. Most of the smaller nations have a lot of sympathy for your cause, like my own nation Norway, but we never hear about it!

Of course, Norwegians wanted their independence so much that they were willing to go to war for it. Thankfully that never became a reality because Norway managed to get so much support for their cause, from the US, Japan, Imperial Germany and even Great Britain, that the Swedes had little choice but to give in.

Norway has never looked back or made any regrets about our decision, and from being one of the poorest countries in Europe we are now one of the most successful countries in the world. Why? Because we took control over our own destiny and the resources which rightfully belonged to us. Scotland has nothing to lose and everything to gain, but you have to work for your independence, work hard!

to whom it may concern,

I am a Scot born and raised till 22 years of age in Scotland,immigrated to the USA,have resided here as a special occupation professional,with life residency,note,never gave up being a Scot,even when inducted into the USA army,now as years pass,not being a citizen of the USA,I cannot vote in USA ever,and the law in UK states the time statute disqualifies me from voting in Scots elections,I am now nearing 70 years of age,and,have never been able to cast a single vote for independence Scotland,and long to put a Saint Andrews cross down on a ballot box sheet,why,SHOULD A LIFE LONG PROUD SCOTS PATRIOT BE KEPT FROM VOTING FOR SCOTLAND,

THIS LAW SHOULD BE CHANGED, JAMESMCCALLUM.COM

Why is the scottish independance convention not putting themselfs on a higher profile.I,ve only accendently stumbled onto the site.With scottish media taken up by labour and tory bias,this convention should be screaming of the rooftops to get our message across.Why can,t we buy up newspaper space to get our message across even within these bias daily records and sun readers after all thats what the average man on the street buys.We need conventions and groups like yourself to balance the arguments out,It disgusses myself that 1 in 4 scots are malnurtiched and certain large populated areas of scotland life expectancy is 47yrs of age which is lower than many of africa,s poorest country,s.Its a total embarssment that succesive tory and labour gouverments have failed scotland for almost a century.Aye i do believe that scotland does have the skills to improve the standard of living of our people and to put us on the world stage where we'll thrieve.

yours billy

Now before I start, I am English and Pro-Union. I would not consider myself a 'Unionist' in the terms it is used today, since it has gathered a very negative image since the troubles in Ireland. As well as many Unionists taking it to the extremes.

I am however against all independence movements for each nation that makes up the U.K. In fact if Scotland does not get independence, then I suspect England will, unless something is done, will increase hugely in demands for its own independence. Then again, I couldn't blame anyone for wanting independence given the modern state of British politics which has been well and truly damaged by the Conservatives and Labour.

I was just going to put forth that despite me being pro-Union. I am stuck in between dreading Scottish independence and hoping it will happen. I think Westminster is to archaic; those supposedly pro-Unionist politicians are suppressing every nation of Britain rather than allowing it to become better. The fact we are stuck in this pathetic Quasi-Federal style Government because of rising nationalism, just shows you need to scare politicians to get anything done not vote for them. I prefer a Federal Government, where every nations Government, is equal to that in power of the central Government. Not this strange, Wales, N.I, Scotland assemblies can have a say on what there bit does, but not internationally. When England has awful representation, yet Westminster has all the say on international affairs. If we had not have gone to war in Iraq or Afghanistan, then would their have been a terrorist threat to Scotland? Let alone the rest of Britain so therefore, if Westminster is going to put them on the line, should they not have a greater say?

I could go on about it for ages, but doubt I could put it into a clearly understandable or structured way. My point being is that Britain itself needs a massive reforming, and Westminster politicians will not allow it. Thus to rescue any sort of diminished feeling of friendship or unity between the British nations perhaps Scottish independence is the only answer. A more democratic answer also (Unity as I understand it is meant to be based on choice rather than force?).

Then even if Scotland does not cope well with being independent at the end of the day, at least it will have sent a huge message to those politicians who believe they are defending any sort of unity, or protection etc. Thus force them to allow greater change such as a federal Government. And if Scottish independence is successful, it will open politicians eyes to the fact we are no longer, and should not be stepping into international issues as some old super power. Forcing them to come back and help the British peoples (if you like that term) as they should.

So, bring on the referendum, I heard recently the parties opposing parties stopped the bill. Hopefully not for long.

As I said I am pro-Union, but a Union of any sort cannot go on like this. Scottish independence in my view is the answer to put politics back in its place and will help all of Britain not just Scotland, even of there are huge drawbacks.

So good luck. Best wishes and hope all goes well no matter the outcome at the end of the day.

Perhaps I was being idealistic and a bit confusing in how i explained what i thought. However hope you all understand.

Thanks!

To kick the debate going on Calman am I alone in finding it unbelievable that 16 distinguished people, (including God help us politicians albeit retired) could sit for a year and consider financial powers without grasping the basic fact that the purpose of taxation is to raise money!
Calman is seriously suggesting that any practical politician would be prepared to incur the public odium involved in raising taxes to end up with nothing more to spend on services.
I never had many hopes of Calman given that his Committee were allowed only to consider half, and the least radical half, of the debate but I didn't expect to have my intelligence insulted.
If anything were needed to reinforce my belief that I do not want the great and the good to decide what is good for me and this country this is it. We have to have a referendum

I'm scunnert with all these news stories we're hearing about Labour's incessant complaining about the SNP.

I'm just after reading about how an - and I quote - "SNP ad 'cost more than Slumdog'"

It turns out that this awful Labour party which the blind and naive have imposed upon us is attempting dirty and unfounded smears more and more often to try and do down the SNP.  Sadly many people trust what these Labour high-heids say and so are put off the SNP.  Well not me.

When one actually looks into the story, one discovers just how liberal these detestable Labourites are with their words.

It turns out that the "SNP ad" is actually a 1-minute promotional advert selling Scotland's Year of Homecoming to North Americans.  It is not advertising the SNP.

Then you find out that not a penny of the £600k-odd fee was paid to the Scottish Celebrities featured within and most of the £600k is being spent on transmission costs in America - in order to generate much more in revenues for Scotland.

Thirdly, one reads on and learns that Lewis MacDonald, tourism spokesman for Labour wrongly states that Slumdog Millionaire cost £3.3 million.

A quick look through cyberspace and unanimous sources declare it to have been £15 million, the figure to which Lewis MacDonald later amended his claim to.

Finally it is revealed that what Lewis MacDonald meant was that the cost PER MINUTE of the promotional ad was more than Slumdog.

Yet this promotional 1-minute long advert is set to bring in a fortune in revenue.  Trust Labour to scoff at Scottish ambition.

Hae a look yourselves:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7999044.stm

So £600k was spent to improve our image abroad and boost tourism here.

That amounts to about 3 MPs annual expenses claimings for one year.  I'm proud to say my very own Labour MP Eric Joyce for Falkirk is the costliest out of all 645 MPs in the UK.  How I detest the Labour machine's stranglehold over Central Scotland but even more so I detest its greedy representatives who award themselves with masses of our money before patronising us with reasons for needing them.

Yet Labour are the first to complain about spending when the SNP are making an investment in Scotland.

As far as I can see, Labour does not like ambition, they thrive on depressions and lie to people who are poor.

They only have goals for their own pockets and the pockets of their families.

Saorse a-nis! / Independence NOW!

Alex Salmond's economic policies are based on the reserves of North Sea Oil, (and the assumption that if independence were ever to take place, most of this would be awarded to an independen Scotland) and Scotland's financial institutions. Things looked pretty rosey during June, when oil was up to $147 a barrel and both HBOS and RBS had yet to be hit by the financial crisis. At their estimates, Scotland would be in surplus of more than £6bn if indepedent. However, 4 months down the line and with oil at less than $90 a barrel things aren't looking good for the second largest part of the union. Salmond had promised £100m of help for both RBS and HBOS during the worst of the crisis. Westminster bailed them out with £38bn. At our estimates, if Scotland had been given 70% of North Sea Oil and was independent, the nation would enjoy a £6bn defecit, excluding the bail out of RBS and HBOS.

UK North Sea Oil production peaked in 1999 at 2.559 million barrels per day, and has dropped sharply (and is predicted to do so further) to 1.452 million barrels in 2007. This is the largest drop of any oil producing nation, and has made the UK a net importer for the first time in decades. Not only is oil a finite resource, but its price is very volatile and future environmental considerations could make it redundant as a resource within 50 years. Norway, an often quoted example of prosperity, has tackled this issue by investing in a soverign wealth fund, now estimated at £200bn, over the past 20 years. This was done because many in Norway believed that the country would struggle massively after the oil runs out. Now Norway has more oil than Scotland (so much so that it isn't even in the EU), so if it will have problems, Scotland undoubtadly will. Basing the entire independence debate on one rapidly dwindling resource seems like economic stupidity, and a lack of touch with reality. This is exactly the consistency of the SNP, it is a political party which is completely out of touch with reality.

It's a rainy day in Edinburgh, and the piper is out playing "Scotland the Brave" on the Royal Mile. Salmond's honeymoon period has been fueled by and unpopular Westminster government and the hatred of Scots towards the conservatives (a hangover from thatcherism). To this end, in the 2006 elections Scots voted in a third way: a confident SNP administration which promised change and progress. It has taken 2 years for the novelty of this new 'government' to wear off but now it seems that the party is having to fight the usual problems of incumbency - some promises which were made during the election campaign have not been met. The party is facing criticism over police and school funding, as well as the fiasco of the independence referendum. The SNP had betted the St. Andrew's Day 2010 referendum on 4 years of popular policies and an unpopular tory government in Westminister. Now it seems that the entire economic independence argument is temporarily out the window, the party will have to work harder to convince the Scottish electorate that the country would be better off without the rest of the UK than with it.

Salmond's promised "Arc of Prosperity" of Ireland, Iceland, Scotland and Norway has been quashed. Indeed, this was labelled by Brown as an "Arc of Insolvency" with Iceland teetering on bankrupcy, Ireland securing deposits which total more than the value of the country, Scotland appealing for aid from the central government (to the tune of £1bn) to sort out its finances and Norway digging into its 20 year oil earned Soverign Wealth Fund to bail itself out - money which was intended to be used to diversify the economy after the oil ran out. I'm not even going to mention the thousands of other jobs which depend on the union in Scotland - the MOD jobs, the manufacturing jobs, the service sector jobs etc. but I will say that the economies of the countries of the UK are inextricably linked, and severing these links would not be a simple as cutting an umbilical chord.

We shouldn't, however write off the nationalists this early. Despite the blatent stupidity of their independence arguments, they can still implement popularist policies, and who knows what will happen 2 years from now. When this banking crisis spills over into the real economy, the nationalists could attack Brown for continuing the economic policies of thatcher and of course the argument that 'it is easy to make big changes in a small country' could come out of the cupboard.

So despite this financial crisis Window is still worried that even though the honeymoon period may be over, the nationalists may have built up enough momentum to at the very least put the possibility of independence in the minds of thousands of young Scots, when it wasn't there already. Window thinks that Westminster government needs to tackle the issue head on, which I hope it will when Brown heads north to fight the Glenrothes by-election. The people of Scotland need to understand the full ramifications of independence, and the enormous change and uncertainty it would bring because looking at the comments of the working peopel of Scotland, many of them assume that independence would be a small rather than a big change.

At the very least this financial crisis has increased the argument of the unionists where before they were uncertain and lacked confidence.
Every cloud has a silver lining.

As a commited Scottish Nation supporter I find that there seems to be a complete disregard of the fact that every Scottish Citizen would be voting for the return of their position as the Sovereign Power in our renewed Scotland.

Ignoring the fact of the return of authority to the People, lets loose the fanciful idea that a Gordon Brown type of constitutional manouvering to meet their own aims, would be an impossibility in an Independent Scotland.

The present set up in Westmonster is based on convention not the written word. There is absolutely no safeguards for the People who elect a politician who turns out to be verging on Browns Insanity.

Scotland is populated by an ethnically diverse population who bring much gifts to our Scottish Society. Lets not forget that everyone of them who love our shared country and Nation deserve the protection from unstable political trends such as we are enduring with a Right Wing Neo Fascist New Labour Party.

Scottish Independance is way more than simply assuming this and that. Its about the right to develop as a people without fear or favour from governments that try to hold people for 42 days without charge, or attack Iraq to grab their Oil Resources. I do not have a muslim who hates me for something I didnt agree with, but thanks to Westmonster I have Muslims in some far off land who hate me because we invaded their Nation without UN blessing.

Its time for the People to hold the authority over the Politicians. Not the other way round.

Saor Alba

First of all, Ryan, all economic experts from across the world agree an independent Scotland would be incredibly wealthy. Even leaked Labour documents say so. Your opinion is one of "don't dare change" and is cowardly.

Support for independence comes from a belief that Scotland and the Scots can be equal with the rest of the world. Support for the union is a fantasy of an old empire, now diminished and ridiculous.

Independence is the one hope for Scotland, the promise of a brighter future. If you choose to stay behind; so be it.

Ryan Houghton,
Why do you think that Scotland will be isolated?It is nonsence.

Yes Ryan, what an arguement, let's take no risks at all and just be thankful that we are all truly equal partners and therefore safely opt to continuously relive the biggest fantasy of all - that is the 'Union Act' - sorry, the Act of Union. 

With worsening world finances surly its better for scotland to stay part of one of the worlds strongest economies? Why go break of and be isolated ? So you can relive the fantasy of William Wallace?

Which sadly is where most of the support for independance comes from.

Here here, John! And here's again tae us, fae there's nane like us!

I study history, and the story of Scotland just makes the necessity of independence clearer. The union had no real benefit (to Scotland) and still has none - Scotland makes its own way.

As the French say; 'Liberté, Égalité, Fraternité'.

Caged By U-nion

I saw Scotland at Edinburgh Zoo,
Just killing time waiting for you,
Pacing the crosses of a Union cage,
Barred for the lack of courage.

Don’t get me wrong we’re fed and watered,
Some Bar-me formula divides what is slaughtered,
A benefit for subservient state,
That bars from taking the kill.

It’s held us back this United Konfinement,
In prosperity and continuous refinement,
Restricting same our self belief,
That purblinds our real potential.

Are the charges just or union pretences?
Is the barrier real that defeats good senses?
Or is our simple truth the fact;
Wasting muscle turns oil to fat?

It’s time for courage and the sense to vote,
To return the cage and drain the moat,
It’s time to serve a single lion,
It’s time for a Better Scotland.

Just think how a martian would respond!!!!!!!!!!!

Thank you for the kind words, John!

I very readily acknowledge that not everybody agrees with republic ideology (which, due to American influence, sounds very rightist, call me a Republic-Democrat, centre left, maybe?)- and I'm glad they don't, the world would be boring if everyone agreed! So long as they don't disagree violently it is absolutely their right.

Whether we keep the monarchy or not, we certainly have to ahcieve independence first - beag air bheag, little by little to the future(independence when the government I voted for asks me, not when Wendy does, thank you!).

Frankly, the royalty of early modern Europe was so inbred that it can never be surprizing when people are related. Makes you wonder how confusing family reunions were! Still, I can't make myself comfortable with our head of state residing in another country, just because it seems a bit daft really, rather than anything more serious than that.

Thankfully, one of the best things about 'our camp' is that we can put aside our minor differences (for that's all they are) for the common good of the people. Contrast with our opponents: party in-fighting and an absolute lack of faith in the people they theoretically work for.

The SNP's website quite rightly points out that independence is normal. When I explain to some of my friends from other countries the situation Scotland is in, without sovereignty and nationhood, they always have one thing to say.

"That's stupid."

Steven, with guys like you on board the good ship Freedom, Scotland’s future is indeed in safe hands.

I cannot really argue with the point you make because I believe it to be fundamentally sound. However, the thinkers say that perfection can only be achieved through an imperfect frame of reference and just maybe the joint goal of independence and a republic, to be achieved simultaneously, is that kind of scenario.

For me personally, at 43, I would be content for our nation to achieve independence with the present Queen remaining as head of state. Queen of Scots as Alex nicely puts it. But I am also aware that the revolution you refer to might turn out to be evolutionary and that we both might die happy in a Republic of Scotland just the same.

And, as an interesting aside – during a recent visit to Scone Palace with my young daughter I was surprised to learn that the present Queen’s roots, through her mother, can be traced back to auld Kenny McAlpin! So, whilst not perfection – good enough for this particular Scot. 

Steven, if that's one of your rubbish poems It's Time you put a collection together.

The Scottish Flower

NOW sleeping Caterpillar,
Of the Caledonian clan,
Join and form as long as you can.

As sunken hearts hold pearls in union,
Buoyant threading breeds the Scots’ reunion,
One heart, same will, does growth inflate,
Compelled these years mere jewellery state.

In times gone by, it could be said,
That Wully’s courage cracked Bobby’s head,
The Spider’s will was strong claimed he!
That spun a yarn for me and thee.

Our Declaration for Scots’ does suit,
Don’t settle for less than a hundred foot,
A ‘Hairy Wully’ with a Saltire mask,
This VISION to promote, that is our task.

The ‘Scottish Flower’ is within U.C.
Will’s Butterfly reborn from you and me,
One day, they’ll say, canny Scots kept tryin’,
Clever Spiders willed a Caterpillar to Flower without Diein’.

By Will U.C. Flower

Steven, if that's one of your rubbish poems It's Time you put a collection together.

Would it be safe to assume that very few people who wish for Scottish independence want to keep the monarchy?

I understand why Alex Salmond had his pleasant talk with the current Queen - if we seem like we're going to change too much too fast it'll be easy for the unionists (The Sun specifically, I'm thinking) to brand us 'radicals' or 'revolutionaries' or something else which makes us sound like hardline Bolsheviks. Another way to cut support for nationalism which wouldn't include 1.Sound arguement or 2.Any basis in reality.

In my opinion, for a modern state to be truly independent it has to have elected its own head of state.

I may only be 19, but I feel fairly confident in saying I'll die a happy man if I've lived a single day in the Republic of Alba.

In the meantime, I'm having plenty of laughs watching 'Gordon and Wendy go to Fantasy Land' on the news. It's like Punch & Judy, but with Scotland's constitutional future at stake.

Actually, strike that last part. As I've said before, Scotland's future will be decided by her people. And long may that continue!

The Woe of the Union

The Empire of old,
Which once conquered the waves,
Ancient Alba forgotten,
As it made its graves;
Watch, watch!
It falls, it falls!

All over the world
They feared us so;
The Scots! The Scots!
Union banner and foe!

But no more for those days,
For all the world has changed.
The Union is weakened,
Its leaders deranged.

Here come the days
Where we open our eyes;
Stand side by side,
And look to the skies!

Ancient is Scotland,
And sacred our freedom,
Hold true to the Cause;
Independence is wisdom.

- rubbish poem by me.

When Wendy Alexander first came out with her "referendum now" demand, like many folk I thought "surely she must have cleared it with Gordon first". But it is now looking like a divide has opened up between her and Gordon. In fact, the divide could be even bigger than that. Wendy's fellow Labour MSPs have backed her new policy, while Labour MPs representing Scottish constituencies at Westminster are horrified. The divide is not just between two leaders, but between two different groups of Labour representatives. And which way will the constituency Labour parties in Scotland jump? My bet is that they will back their MSPs, rather than their MPs.

Since there is now definitely going to be a referendum on independence, the focus needs to shift from campaigning FOR a referendum, to campaigning on the form that this referendum should take, and also to campaigning IN that referendum.

The referendum should be on a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no question, to be decided by a majority vote of those on the electoral roll in Scotland. And there must be no repeat of the sheer incompetence which characterised the Scottish Office's running of the last parliamentary election, in which one hundred and forty thousand folk in Scotland were disfranchised.

Speaking of the electoral roll, huge numbers of folk (probably at least as many again as those whose votes were discounted at the last election), young people, students, people who have moved, are not on the electoral register. There are also folk who aren't on it because they say "politicians are all the same". Well, maybe they are. But in a referendum you aren't electing any politician, you are simply answering "yes" or "no" to an important question. We need an electoral registration drive, to urge folk not to miss THEIR opportunity to take part in this historic vote.

The proof is not in the making alone it is in the eating together said my Grandmother, and I suspect a lot of Grandmothers have uttered a similar line once or twice! And since Wendy & Co are in an understandable rush they want us to eat now before the pudding has had all the correct ingredients added – such is the sheer desperation to avert a Better Scotland.

In my opinion previous Holyrood leaders have genuinely been tormented with the dilemma of being forced to dance to the Westminster jig of the status-quo at any cost. A defensive jig that allows no steps out of line because the union would prefer to underachieve as a whole rather than admit defeat to anything new and progressive. And more, I see it clearly now as a poorly built unionist damn that is finally leaking the truth, a truth that I am pleased to say will at last embody an irresistible cast iron WILL.

So, Wendy has built her wooden horse (sorry house) in an attempt to stop positive and rewarding progress for Scotland. Wendy, when the anvil is ready to be struck it will indeed be prepared – make no mistake – and for the time we have given to add good ingredients, neither will ALL the peoples of Scotland.

The official reason for not pressing ahead with a referendum NOW is that "people are entitled to judge the SNP on their performance in government first". But the whole point of a referendum is that it gives people the chance to answer a single question, without committing themselves on a hundred other questions. In a referendum, they can vote for independence without committing themselves one way or the other on plans for large golf parks in the North East of Scotland. In a referendum, they can vote for independence without thinking that a local income tax is the best idea since sliced bread. A referendum is about whether we should be independent, NOT about which political party should form the government of an independent Scotland.

Some months ago myself and a few colleagues held a small demonstration at the Scottish Parliament, demanding "REFERENDUM  NOW  -  INDEPENDENCE  -  YES OR NO". I could scarcely believe my eyes when I read that Wendy Alexander has abandoned her earlier opposition and come round to supporting this demand. I can still hardly believe it's real, but it's a fact that, on taking office at Westminster in 1997, the Labour Party did manage to organise a referendum on a Scottish parliament within a few months. It would be ironic indeed if the Scottish Government allows itself to get into a position of appearing to be the ones favouring delay  -  and it would be even more ironic if campaigning groups such as the Scottish Independence Convention should get themselves into a position of appearing to go along with this.

There is going to be a referendum on independence. That is now pretty much a certainty. There will be arguments about the timing. There will be arguments about the wording of the question. There may be attempts to add conditions. But it is looking like, sooner than some had thought possible, a referendum bill could get through the Scottish Parliament.

This creates an entirely new situation. Both the National Conversation sponsored by the SNP government and the Calman Commission backed by the Labour Party now look as if they are struggling to have very much in the way of a purpose.

In this new situation, we have to reconsider our priorities.

It now becomes vitally important to ensure that the referendum question is not loaded. We have to keep up the pressure for a simple, straightforward, independence-yes-or-no type question.

We also have to insist that the result of the referendum should be based on a simple majority. None of that counting the dead but still on the Electoral Register as “no” votes, as happened in 1979.

We also have to start thinking about what part, individually and collectively, we will be playing in the actual campaign for the “yes”, or pro-independence, vote in the referendum itself.

Dave, With all due respect most of this has been taken into account. No launch exists in a vacuum. The streetwork following the Dundee launch, for example collected 249 signatures in an hour. The Convention has attended two party conferences and the activists are well aware of the need to contact the non-aligned. They are already on the job with streetwork, doorstep work and attendance at events. They are aware of the need for all party members to sign and again are on the job.

Constructive criticism and ideas are always welcome but please contact someone first to see what is actually being done and build your suggestions on that.

A lot of the posts here boil down to "independence is a good idea". Yes, of course it is, and of course supporters of the Scottish INDEPENDENCE Convention think so. Having agreed that, the question is, what do we DO? Specifically, how do we get that petition presented to the Scottish Parliament as soon as possible, and ensure we get a referendum as soon as possible?

I believe the SNP alone claims a membership of twelve and a half thousand. If each of those SNP members was to fill up one petition sheet (15 signatures, their own signature and 14 others, not impossible given that most folk could raise half a dozen signatures just from their own family and close friends) that would give a total of 175,000 signatures. However, in my view, relying on the SNP (or any other political party) ALONE to organise the petitioning could be
self-defeating. The reason is that, if it was widely known that this was what was happening, then opponents of a referendum on independence would dismiss the petition before it was even presented, as merely a party-political stunt. In my view, a petition of 100,000 signatures, collected on a genuinely non-party-political basis, would carry far more weight than a petition of 200,000 signatures collected by a political party. ANY political party.

I am doubtful of the strategy of holding "rolling launches" in different areas consisting of public meetings with prominent folk speaking. If there are prominent supporters of the petition in a particular area, then, instead of them giving speeches, get both them and their listeners out on the streets with clipboard, pen, and petition forms, asking folk for their signatures on a petition. THAT would be worth a photo in the local paper, and if it's worth a photo, it's worth a news story. Thus achieving two things, getting more signatures, and getting more publicity at the same time also.

As the Summer approaches, it could be worth organising, spread out over two or three of the less-chilly months, some door-to-door collection of signatures. It would be impossible to knock on every door in Scotland, but what I'm suggesting is TARGETED canvassing, in specifically chosen areas of each of Scotland's four main cities, plus SELECTED other places.

Another thing I'd like to propose is that we ask active supporters of the campaign to each, individually, collect a minimum of at least 100 signatures for the petition. In an hour and a half on a Dundee street I collected 30  signatures, so it wouldn't take too many efforts like that to achieve this target. Let's suppose that there are one thousand people prepared to put in a not-too-strenuous bit of effort to collect signatures on this petition. (This doesn't seem like an unreasonable assumption to me. So far as the SNP, Green Party, SSP, Solidarity, are concerned, if even just one party member in twenty shows sufficient commitment, plus a somewhat higher percentage of members of some other organisations, plus a few non-aligned individuals, that could easily add up to a thousand.) If 1,000 people collect 100 signatures each, that's 100,000 signatures. So, what I propose is, that we ask INDIVIDUALS to commit themselves to collecting 100 signatures. Not their parties, not their organisations, but them as individuals. I suggest doing this on the basis "I WILL, IF YOU WILL, SO WILL I". If people know that other people are also committing themselves to do this, then they are much more likely to do so themselves, and they will encourage each other
to keep the commitment. Of course there could be no way of verifying people's individual totals, but, nevertheless, asking for an individual commitment is likely to have a more positive effect than just relying on the political parties.

Now, of course the political parties were involved, as such, in the SIC right from when it was started. I am certainly not suggesting trying to keep members of political parties out of the petitioning, far from it. The category of "individual" includes all political party activists, but the category of "political party activist" does not include all individuals. A political party is composed of individuals, but sometimes this simple fact can get lost sight of when it functions as a party machine. It is a fact that, for a great many years, a large number of members of the Labour Party have been against nuclear weapons, in favour of peace, etc etc; and yet the party machine of that party has persistently supported nuclear weapons, war, etc, against the wishes of many individual members. So far as all parties are concerned, it's a fact the party as a machine can have different priorities from many of the individuals of
whom it is comprised. The party as a machine may be more-or-less solely geared to the next election, whereas an individual member might think it worth aiming AS SOON AS POSSIBLE to collect 100,000 signatures on a petition for a referendum on independence and to get this petition presented to parliament. Because of this possible difference in timing, in priorities, between some individual party members and the party machine, the SIC itself should seek out its active, individual, political party supporters. Yes, of course, the SIC members best placed to do this will themselves be party members. The point is, encourage individual initiative, rather than relying solely on the party machine.

In my view, by adopting the approaches outlined above, there is no reason why 100,000 signatures could not be collected, on a non-party-political basis, within six months, and I would certainly be willing to play my part in this. Let's get that petition presented, and debated by parliament, in the Autumn of this year.

Upon reading through the various comments and posts regarding independence, the one thing that strikes me is that people still refer to Scotland as a nation being 'better off' within the Union. A Nation that for the past 300 years has been in growing prosperity.

This simply isn't true.

Now, I am fairly new to serious independence discussions, however, any small amount of Scottish History can teach us that Scotland was not, and very rarely ever was a poor nation right up UNTIL it joined the Union.

Over the last 100 years Scotlands economy, which was tied to its industry, has been stealthily 'moved' outwith this Country. People continue to rave about how much the union gives to Scotland and how the ratios are unfairly balanced in Scotlands favour, ignoring the fact that somewhere in the region of £170 BILLION in oil revenue has been pumped into the UK economy, with a somewhat modest return for a below-UK-average-growth Scotland.

As for political clout - we, as Scots, have always been well known and well liked for the way we express ourselves. We used to be a powerhouse of intellectuals, artists, manufacturing etc.... what could possibly make anyone believe that we could not be once again? Its disturbing to see people refer to us as  the 'poor neiighbour', given our heritage. Afterall - our heritage is the one thing that has eroded more slowly through the last 300 years.

Scottish National spirit seems to have proven an easier target.

May I suggest a book - its actually the one that got me started in the independence debate but it surely one of many out there. It's titled "The Road to Independence? - Scotland since the Sixties" by Murray Pittock

I long for Independence, even if only to show that everyone who said we would fail, was wrong and to restore some sort of national pride.

Having been an election agent (twice)for SNP candidates, I was careful and professional enough to read electoral law particularly when it changed in recent years. The rule book was never far from my side.

So it is with continuing incredulity that we hear Wendy & Co saying "we didn't know" or "it is very complex".The rules are NOT complex and it certainly is NOT rocket science. Harriet Harman and Wendy Alexander are paying lip service to the electorate at large by hanging on thus far. So is Peter Hain who resigned only after wriggling for a long time. Now this week we hear that the Electoral Commission don't know what to do next!

It will be a pleasure to sign the Referendum Petition and encourage many others to do so--the quicker we rid of ourselves of tainted politicians and ineffective electoral quangos and get on with becoming independent the better.

Where are the nerves coming from about being a separate country? I think the Union left us, and Wales for that matter, in the role of the very poor relations and barely acknowledged by England. We were the scroungers remember? England paid our way? I think we especially have so much to be excited about for the future and starting to backtrack isn't a good thing. It sort of implies we aren't sure.

I will tell you one think I would like to see tho Murray in any new set-up: I want clear rules to say that any MSP in Ms Alexander's present situation need to stand down at once while they are subject to an immediate investigation by the Scottish Parliament Standards Commission, the Electoral Commission and the Police. I would also want them charged with bringing the Scottish Parliament into disrepute. No wonder people are switching off from politics with the level of sleaze around. It is a sewer and the stench around Scottish Labour is overpowering at times.

We are hearing today that Ms Alexander intends to go the "We didn't know." route. It won't wash. The Labour Party, who actually created this legislation on political donations, cannot be permitted to do that and if they are it will be because the Electoral Commission are doing them a favour. That would surely be collusion by the Electoral Commission which is surely also against the Law?

Could an ordinary person go to court having committed a crime and say simply, "But I didn't know." and expect to get away with it? I think not.

This pantomime has gone on long enough. A great many eyes are watching the Electoral Commission on this one because of the many rumours circulating that there are people there who will indeed save Alexander. Well I do hope they don't, not with the evidence: Labour actually took a considerable sum of money from the public purse to "educate" their people on "legal" donations. So how can they say they didn't know the rules and what did they do with the money? Did Alexander and her team phone in sick the day the seminars were on? What about the other donation on the list which was to be "transferred" to another name? What about the emails leading back to Ms Alexander's husband's computer? Not to mention her personal letter of thanks?

The bottom line here is that the Law is the Law and no politician is above it. A crime under the new law for political donations was committed, Ms Alexander admitted it and she is the regulated donee involved. The buck stops with her. If she gets away with this then the Electoral Commission will have done the people of Scotland a grave disservice and Labour sympathisers there will themselves be guilty of shielding those whom they know have broken the law. If that happens then what is the point of being active within the political scene when politicians will not be held to account by the very bodies set up to ensure they toe the line? I will wholeheartedly embrace apathy if she gets away with this!

A final thought: if there are indeed Labour sympathisers on the Electoral Commission they should actually be furious with Alexander and her colleagues for being part of the collapse of a Party that once was trustworthy and once represented the people and cared about the people. They, and others in old AND new Labour destroyed real Labour and they should never be forgiven for that either.

It seems to me that there is a lot of scaremongering about what may or may not happen if Scotland becomes independent from the UK. It is interesting to me, as a young Irish man, to read here about the attitudes prevalent when the Irish free state formed, when some said, "Give them a year and they will be pleading to be part of the United Kingdom again".

In the 1980s people were saying similar things, that the Irish republic was a failed political entity in that we were near bankrupt with a huge unemployment and emigration problem. Nowadays, of course, the Irish republic outperforms almost every other EU state in terms of economic growth, GNP per capita, average earnings, rate of population growth etc. Of course there are still huge problems, such as with income disparity, with the health service etc., but it is a far cry from the way things were in the pre 1990s when the prejudice among UK people, at least, was that Northern Ireland was very much more prosperous than we (lazy) southerners were! Nowadays, we are net investors in Northern Ireland and there is a significant number of Northern Irish employed in the south, especially in the computer software sector and construction industries.

I believe the single biggest reason for our success is precisely our independence and the fact that we can manage our economy without (too much) interference from outside. Remember that we have no oil to speak of either! (I don't understand the obsession with Scottish oil, the Irish model shows that oil isn't necessary for tremendous economic growth; management and innovation are. Of course, if Scotland has that much oil and becomes independent then perhaps it should do what the Norwegians do and stay out of the EU!)

One (perhaps the most significant) area which we have control over, but as far as I know you Scots don't have yet, is in setting corporation tax rates. We have perhaps the lowest in Europe and it is for this reason that many American, Japanese etc. companies chose to have Ireland as their Europe hub. Also, the fact that we speak English, or at least a form of it(!), have a fairly educated workforce, and are part of the Euro zone is attractive to these companies, especially American.

Being a sovereign state (with a small population) within Europe gives us more clout than if we were part of some federation, I would say. Remember the way in which we held the Nice treaty ratification up because most of our population voted against it in a referendum? We have our own EU commissioner and have negotiated financial help from the EU, which has helped enormously with our infrastructure.

Ian Paisley and the Northern Ireland executive are at present negotiating with Gordan Brown to reduce Northern Irish corporation taxes. I think they will have a hard time doing this; if the Scots, Northern Irish and Welsh can begin to control their own taxes then what will the state of the Union be then? I think, if the Irish republic is anything to go by, that Scotland would benefit more in the long run from independence. It might be difficult at first; however, it would be very sad if, after a mere 300 years of political domination of Scotland by London, the thousand years of Scottish independence beforehand couldn't be recovered simply because of fear.

Also, having political control over your own affairs doesn't mean that the economic interdependencies of the British Isles is going to disappear over night. Ireland's biggest trading partner is still the UK, but this is paradigm now shifting. Our trade with other EU nations has, to our benefit, increased enormously over the past decade. We are no longer so dependent on trade with the UK and this is a very good thing.

I feel a tremendous sense of pride in my nation, and especially because it is independent. I also feel pride now that the future is much brighter for everyone on the Island of Ireland and, despite being independent, I personally feel closer kinship with an Ulsterman, a Scot, a Welshman or an Englishman than with any other EU national. But, as Ian Paisley said of being in power with Sinn Fein, I don't want a "love in", I want a "work in".

Forgive me for not agreeing with Edward or you about how to best respond to Michael Hunter and Alison Chorley's remarks.

It is one thing to disagree and protest people's comments, it's another
thing to damage the National Trust for Scotland by withholding, suspending or cancelling payments. Moreoever I think we live in a new atmosphere in Scotland, an atmosphere where we can have dialogue and respectful disagreement, in place of the previous culture which was one of polarised perspectives and often deeply personal enmity.

Keep up the good work.

Cheers,
Martin

I have sent this to the National Trust for Scotland. I am however copying it around. I suggest that if you are a member that you withdraw your subscription for this year.

Dear Sir

I have just returned from the bank where I have been cancelling my direct debit to the National Trust of Scotland. I will not therefore be renewing my membership when it runs out at the end of August.

I am doing this in protest at the statement by Michael Hunter supported by Alison Chorley, that the Battle of Bannockburn was a battle between two kings, not between England and Scotland.

I quite appreciate where the thinking behind this statement is coming from. Even today it is the Queen who commissions officers and the armed forces are “her” forces. It could on this logic be argued therefore that the title for the First World War of the “War between the cousins” is absolutely accurate, that it was merely a war between the Kings of Europe who were all inter related. It could equally be argued that the medieval wars in northern Europe were merely a Norman family tiff.

It is all very well to push the politically correct idea that war is between the leaders of nations, and without the malevolent influence of the leaders, the people would live in peace and brotherhood. I am not sure that history confirms that pleasant fantasy.

The fact is that at least one of the results of the Battle of Bannockburn was that Edward of England was weakened in terms of his Scottish policy, and that Bruce, whom I’m not actually sure Edward accepted as a brother King, had his position as King of Scots infinitely strengthened.

At the end of the Twelfth Century and the beginning of the Thirteenth, the previously independent nation of Scotland was fighting the attempts of England to take her over, – yes a simplification of the situation, but true. Bannockburn ended the military threat to Scotland and although it took ten years the Independence of Scotland was ultimately recognised. Scotland remained an independent country for almost the next 400 years until the leaders of Scotland decided that they would give up that independence.

Today 300 years later the question of the nature of the Parliamentary Union which was established in 1707 is very much to the fore of the minds of many in Scotland. If the National Trust for Scotland is to carry out its task for caring for the heritage of Scotland it is important that it cares for the emotional heritage. When I read the report in the Scotsman about the meeting and further heard comments about the meeting from those who were there, I decided that for this year at least, in protest at the attitude which has been demonstrated that I would withdraw my support from the organisation and encourage other people to do the same.  JEA
 
Only by recovering prophetic and objective modes of preaching, in faithfulness to the gospel of Christ crucified and in contradiction to society’s profane habits and priorities, can we truly challenge our dying culture and reveal to it its own possibilities for resurrection.

Alan E Lewis. “Between Cross and Resurrection. A Theology of Holy Saturday” Eerdmans 2001 p 377

Within a hundred days of the new Scottish Government the SNP will produce a bill setting out the benefits of Scottish independence and calling for a referendum on the issue.

The SNP plans to hold this referendum in 2010 (possibly after a Conservative Government victory at Westminster).

I hope there will be a large public response to the consultation process and all organisations which support Scottish independence should do their best to make sure this is the case.

It would be a massive boost to this process if the SNP and other parties were willing to fund a leaflet setting out the basics of the bill and asking for comments. Of course it would be preferable if the Scottish Government itself paid to advertise the process, after all if the unionist parties can use the SP budget to insult our intelligence about washing our hands, some advertising about Scotland's constitutional future seems appropriate (including TV and bus adverts), however if this is not felt to be possible our parties should fund a leaflet themselves, with a view to doing something bigger prior to the actual vote.

The reason for this is to stimulate a massive public response to the SNP's bill that will dwarf all past public consultations. This will generate massive positive publicity for the independence referendum cause.

The SNP are also planning a petition in support of the bill, Independence First launched a petition during the last parliament and it gained significant support
(despite no coverage of the fact it was happening n the media) however it was ruled out by the Public Petitions Committee.

I think a new petition is a great idea. Who-ever starts it off (possibly the Convention) we all need to get behind it and make sure it is successful as possible.

A target of 100,000 has been suggested I think this is both ambitious and achievable of we work together.

If there is a big response to the public consultation and a massive petition for a referendum then in those circumstances if the unionists turn around and say no in the parliament to a referendum bill then I believe there could be a substantial public outcry.

If that happens then we are in Scotland United territory with the possibility of mass demos like we had for devolution which forced the British Government (eventually and grudgingly) to finally legislate for a devolved parliament.

The SNP could site this massive public interest in independence as legitimate grounds to hold a referendum as soon as possible (possibly in conjunction with COSLA or other public bodies who might be willing to share some of the costs).

Obviously we (in the independence movement) want to win a referendum and the timing of it will be important however lets remember that most polls before the election showed large support for independence and it is still far higher than the unionist media are trying to claim.

It's entirely possible support for independence may have taken a dip with the ridiculous and irrational scaremongering against it during the election campaign but equally the election of a new SNP led Scottish Government will have given the pro independence cause a huge shot of confidence.

The new Government should do it's own independent polling on this issue to get a true picture of support for independence, it may be much larger than we realise. 

Aileen Campbell
30/12/06

I enjoyed reading Murray Ritchie’s article about there being no newspaper explicitly backing the SNP or the SNP’s ultimate aim of independence.  It is, I agree, a frustrating situation.  However, Mr Ritchie stated that there has never been a newspaper to champion independence.  He is wrong because, although it only lasted for around seven editions, the Scottish Standard did try to venture into the cut-throat world of the Scottish press as a paper supporting national freedom.  It was an audacious attempt to right a wrong and despite ultimately failing, was an experience I thoroughly enjoyed.

Unfortunately, the journalists that worked on the paper had to return to jobs where they had to toe the editorial line i.e. pro-union.  But surely there is someway in an age where the internet and computer rules, that journalists like Murray Ritchie, Harry Reid, the Scottish Standard alumni plus many more can unite and broadcast their opinions that does not rely on an a proprietor, printing presses, or deep pockets?

Getting the message to the masses via the internet, digital broadcasts/Podcasts today is easier than it’s ever been.  The excellent Deadline programme on BBC Scotland concluded that newspapers will have to come to terms with new media in order to survive.  This should and could be our niche.  We need to think out of the box and find ways to utilise technology to further our goal of independence.  An updated news service that can rival BBC online or gets the cult following of Indymedia should be
a reality.  Within the youth wing of the SNP I know there are many talented and able people with the resources to make such a project happen.

A meeting of minds is needed because we cannot wait for the editors of the established press to switch their allegiances.  If being a member of the SNP has taught me anything, it¹s that no one is out there to do us any favours and that we have to rely on our own resources and talent.

But imagine a news resource that could be accessed across the globe by ex-pats, interested followers and folk who are just a wee bitty curious? You know, it’s not such a scary prospect and might, just might actually work!  I’ve heard anecdotal stories about Radio Free Scotland, this project could be our 21st century equivalent!

One thing is for sure is that it would need to be credible and not just merely a platform for the SNP.  It should have international news, giving a Scottish perspective to events that are missing from the Onational’ news at present.  Technology has democratised the media and we need to capitalise on it.  But it needs established journalists like Murray Ritchie and Harry Reid to lead help lead the way.

Blair’s ethnic minority ‘integration’ speech may have some relevance in parts of England although his typically sanctimonious and patronising tone is unlikely to have changed any hearts or minds.  In relation to Scotland it is quite irrelevant to our interests.

As a small nation, Scotland can benefit from an active network of international links, not just at the state level but, more effectively, in the form of ‘people’s diplomacy’.  Through short-term and permanent residence by people from many different countries, Scotland gains personal contacts and good-will.  We become more ‘wired-in’ internationally. Of course, in some cases we will be offering a home to people who are in opposition to their own governments but the historical evidence is that those in opposition today may be in government to-morrow; think of South Africa.

To maximise our advantage from this, we should not be pressurising people to give up their identity and culture.  We should be positive in encouraging dual identity because if our various groups of in-migrants, be they from Poland or Pakistan, keep formal and informal links with their countries of origin, this creates pathways with real potential for our economic and cultural development.  This is something our universities have recognised in promoting a ‘deep links’strategy with a range of overseas countries.

Our various public authorities should be encouraging ethnic minority (yes, that includes the Australians and Americans) organisations here to maintain distinctive identities and contacts with their countries of origin as part of our own programme of national development.

Let’s leave Little Britain to Little Westminster.

The Labour Party conference in Oban at the end of November was a weird performance. It was not a party conference in the ordinary sense with debates and votes on party policy, but a series of impassioned speeches. Ministers from the Scottish Parliament spoke mainly about their policies for the Scottish administration, but Westminster ministers, Blair himself, Gordon Brown, John Reid and Douglas Alexander made violent and almost hysterical attacks on the SNP and their proposal for the recovery of Scottish independence. This is presumably how they propose to fight the Scottish election next May.
These attacks, often in very fanciful and exaggerated language, made four main points, all of them at variance with the facts. The first was that the idea of Scottish independence was out of date in the modern world which is increasingly interdependent. It is true, of course, that we are all closer together with globalisation and the increasing role of international organisations such as the European Union. But this has developed simultaneously with the break-up of the old empires and multinational states into their component parts, such as Ireland, Norway, Finland and more recently Estonia, Slovenia and so on. All of these new states are much more prosperous and contented as independent countries than they were as parts of a larger state. It is Scotland, the oldest nation in Europe, which is now out of date by not yet asserting its independence.
Secondly, these labour orators talk about the “break-up of the United Kingdom”, separation and such like as if it were proposed to build a new Hadrian’s Wall along the border. Gordon Brown even in a wild moment spoke about the need for a passport to travel between the two. Blair said: “We are two open countries, England and Scotland – open to each other, open to the world”. So we shall remain when Scotland regains its independence. The whole of the European Union is open between its member’s states and Scotland and England would both remain members. Both Scotland and England as independent countries would remain as open to the world as they are at present.
Then, thirdly, they tell us that independence would be bad for our economy. The experience of so many other small European countries which have become independent suggests the opposite. At present virtually all decision on economic policy are in the hands of the Westminster Parliament and the City of London. Naturally, and properly from their point of view, they are influenced by the needs of South-East England which are very different from our own. The consequence is that control and wealth are drawn irresistibly to that part of the world.  At the end of the 19th century Scotland was a major industrial country with its industries almost entirely owned and managed in Scotland. Now ownership and management of virtually our whole economy have almost completely migrated to the South. We have to be able to take our own decisions on taxation and all other aspects of economic policy.
It is not only in the economy that it is untrue that “we are stronger together and weaker apart”. The Union places us in even more hazard in matters of defence and foreign policy. In England there is a persistent nostalgia for the days when they were the major power in the world. In spite of his Scottish birth and education, Blair is a firm convert to this idea, and from that follows his invasion of Iraq and his desire to renew his weapons of mass destruction, the nuclear-armed submarines on the Clyde. Countries with such aspirations disturb the peace of the world; not the small countries which are mainly concerned with their own affairs.
Fourthly, Blair talks about “policies of grievance”. There are, of course, many reasons for a sense of grievance in the semi-impotence of the Devolution constitution, and in England as well as Scotland, as the opinion poll in The Sunday Telegraph of 26 November demonstrates. With both countries independent most of these would disappear. As members of the European Union we should probably agree on most issues and give each other mutual support. Where we have different views or interests (as over fishing, for example), Scotland would be able to argue its own case, which we cannot do until we are a member state.
All of these Labour orators are intelligent and well informed. I do not suppose that they are deluded enough to believe their own arguments. What then are their real reasons for their hysterical reaction to the idea of Scottish independence? In the first place of course, is their need to oppose the threat of an SNP victory in the Scottish election next May. Scottish members of the Westminster Parliament will loose their jobs when Scotland becomes independent. Then no Government ever willingly surrenders power or territory. Scotland has the important asset of North Sea oil which they have succeeded in taking over. Scotland has resources of water and the possibilities of carbon-free renewable energy which will become more valuable as global warming proceeds. But I suspect that the main point which troubles Blair is his nuclear submarines. They have built an expensive base at Faslane. Where would they put the submarines when Scotland becomes independent? No English constituency is likely to welcome them.

This is a tale of two nations.  Norway is to host an international conference to try to get a global treaty banning cluster bombs, the appalling weapons that kill so many civilians.  This follows the sabotage last week of the UN attempt to ban these weapons. Nine countries succeeded in blocking an agreement and, of course, the UK was one of these.

So Norway, a small nation similar to Scotland, is in a position to take an initiative which may build sufficient momentum to make it difficult for those deviant governments to resist.  Meanwhile Scotland is trapped within the morally bankrupt British state.

The First Minister tells us that we mustn’t risk the uncertainty of further constitutional change.  Well, Jack, most Scots don’t want the certainty of being dragged into disastrous wars or the certainty of being the base for nuclear weapons for the next fifty years or the certainty that the interests of the arms trade will be promoted before any humanitarian concerns.  These are the certainties that the British state has offered Scotland.

We need change so that Scotland can be known for its contribution to international peace and justice rather than as a major nuclear base, a convenient stopover for rendition flights and a source of young men and women as fodder in aggressive wars.