By Martin Kelly
A new poll published on the eve of the launch of the No campaign indicates that support for a so called second question on the independence referendum ballot is now running at seventy per cent.
The MORI poll, commissioned by the Civic Scotland campaign “Future of Scotland”, showed that seven out of ten people in Scotland believed that the ballot paper should include a Devo-Max option.

The Future of Scotland campaign is an alliance of civil society organisations and includes the STUC, the Church of Scotland and the Scottish Council for Voluntary Organisations (SCVO).

The survey will put pressure on the anti-independence parties to reconsider their opposition to a second question as they prepare to launch their own campaign in favour of the status quo.

Thus far all three parties have indicated that they will offer more powers should Scots vote no in the referendum, however neither Labour, the Tories or the Lib Dems are prepared to define what extra powers would be offered.

The No campaign will launch on Monday under the banner ‘Better Together’.  There has already been controversy over the choice of slogan after it emerged it is already being used by the Scottish NHS.

The new poll comes only days after it emerged almost two thirds of members of the Unite union also supported the inclusion of Devo-Max on the ballot paper.  Devo-Max would see all powers, with the exception of foreign affairs and defence, returning to Scotland.

Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish, a supporter of Devo-Max, has already urged Scottish Labour to change its attitude towards further powers.  Earlier this year Mr McLeish called on Scottish Labour leader Johann to “lead the debate”.

He said: “We should be less concerned about whether it’s devo-plus or devo-max, but Labour has to lead the debate on the future for Scotland, which is neither independence or the status quo.

“Labour is the party that delivered devolution in 1997 and the party now has to embrace devo diversity and see how we can lead and develop the debate.”

Commenting on the survey results, Martin Sime, the chief executive of the SCVO, said: “It is pretty clear that people want some kind of home rule.  There’s a strong majority against defence and foreign affairs, but people want control over domestic policy.

“People don’t want a yes-no question.  They want a more inclusive debate.”

However Mr Sime was attacked by Scottish Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie who suggested the SCVO Chief was working to the SNP’s agenda.

Willie Rennie said: “I think Martin Sime has overstepped the mark and I think there is a danger of threatening the independence of the SCVO.

“There are increasing suspicions that he is working closely with the Scottish Government on this agenda.”

Mr Rennie’s claims were dismissed by Mr Sime who insisted he was “not a cheerleader for the SNP” and added: “The politicians ought to keep all the options open, rather than rushing into their yes/no camps.”

The imminent launch of the No campaign brought calls for a mature debate and away from ridiculous scaremongering.

Speaking ahead of the launch of the official ‘No’ Campaign on Monday, SNP Referendum Campaign Director Angus Robertson today appealed for an end to the ‘scaremongering silly season’ on Scotland’s constitutional future.

Calling for a grown-up and honest approach from the anti-independence campaign, Mr Robertson highlighted some of the what he described as the “more ludicrous scare stories” that had been peddled over recent months, including:

  • - Claims by Lord Fraser, the former Tory Solicitor General, that England could have no choice but to bomb Scottish airports in order to defend itself from attack if Scotland became independent.
  • - Claims by Tory Education Secretary Michael Gove that an independent Scotland would no longer have a National Health Service.
  • - Claims by Home Secretary Theresa May that passport checks would be issued at Scotland’s border with England.
  • - Questions published by the Westminster Scottish Affairs Committee querying if people could still buy wine form The Sunday Times Wine Club or whether the school curriculum would include ‘English’?
  • - Claims that the Westminster Government would seize custody of the giant pandas at Edinburgh Zoo post-independence.

Mr Robertson said:

“I hope the launch of the ‘No’ campaign will bring an end to the scaremongering silly season which we have seen over recent months.

“While of course people have legitimate questions, some within the anti-independence camp have been guilty of the most ridiculous scaremongering.  They have treated people like fools with bizarre claims that, for example, the NHS would cease to exist, that ‘English’ would no longer be taught on the school curriculum or that there would be a custody battle over the pandas at Edinburgh Zoo.

“In contrast, the Yes campaign is rooted in a positive approach that represents all of Scotland’s communities – job-creators; labour movement figures; civic Scotland; the Arts; urban and rural Scotland; young and old; north, south, east and west.

“Part of the job and the process of the Yes campaign is to answer all the questions, and explain all the benefits and merits of independence – and that is exactly what we are doing. It contrasts with the confusion and negativity of the Tories and other anti-independence parties.

“They are confused, because they are either unable or unwilling to spell out to the people of Scotland what their alternative to independence is. So far, the anti-independence parties have not been able to answer any questions about their constitutional proposals.

“And they are negative, because in the absence of a positive alternative they are consigned to negativity about independence.

“Instead of more scare stories from the anti-independence parties, we need an honest and grown up debate on Scotland’s constitutional future.”

However the signs were that these stories will continue, with a press release from Lib Dem Treasury Chief Danny Alexander claiming that independence would see Scottish mortage costs increasing.

Today Lib Dem leader Willie Rennie has also claimed that anything other than a straight Yes/No question on the ballot paper would result in the referendum outcome being mired in "legal chaos" as people challenged the result in the courts.


# Alan 2012-06-24 03:23
Is there really controversy over the choice of slogan ‘Better Together’ or would somebody just like there to be?
# redcliffe 2012-06-24 03:29
NO IDEA what we believe in campaign, so Key to ask each person what they do believe in and are they happy to have what they belive in as a suggestion on the ballot?
If your party supports ONLY the status quo, and nothing changes, then can it be that the question says, words like "status quo" or "as they are" financially can be used, as jam tomorrow never happens as we know.
# Suomi 2012-06-24 05:42
Better together with equal parliaments would be a good slogan for the YES campaign.
# Jim Johnston 2012-06-24 06:22
From this poll it looks very obvious to me that 70% of Scots just don't believe in jam tomorrow. They wouldn't trust Westminster as far as they could throw the place, hence either put up or shut up.
# weegie38 2012-06-24 06:51
The hostility of the Unionist parties - I would call them the Westminster parties - to the Devo-Max option is grounded in their interpretation of "Parliamentary sovereignty".

Basically Westminster is not, in its heart, a democratic institution. It simply does not understand the notion of being "told what to do" by the electorate. We are merely there, in their minds, to rubber-stamp their actions, not steer them.

You see this time and time again in the arrogance of Westminster politicians and their hangers on in the circles of law, journalism, and business - it's a culture they all get seduced and sucked into.

This cultural arrogance is at the heart of a huge number of the problems that have befallen the UK in the last century. The handling of Irish home rule, universal suffrage, the economic incompetence of the post-war years, our dilapidated infrastructure, devolution's shortcomings, the enormous rich-poor gap, even the English riots - all of them were/are symptoms of a fundamental disconnect between government and the governed.

It has to change, otherwise the notion of the UK as a third-world country will come true. In Scotland, we're lucky: we have a chance in 2 years to get out.

Let's take it.
# hiorta 2012-06-24 09:35
Great post weegie38, neatly nutshelled and reveals the sleekit UK overlord mentality that intentionally negates democracy.
# hektorsmum 2012-06-24 11:02
I think you summed the situation up wonderfully and yes we are lucky, so many people in England would give their eye teeth to get out from under the "Westminster" Government and yet we seem to have so many Fearties that right now will not grasp the opportunity with both hands.
Let us hope by 2014 they will see how much better they can be in an Independent country.
# Barbazenzero 2012-06-24 12:50
Quite so.

Quoting weegie38 above:
I would call them the Westminster parties

You would be perfectly accurate in doing so. All 3 of those parties have HQs with SW1 postcodes within the London Borough of Westminster.

BTW, those few of you who wrongly refer to the Liberal Democrats as the Liberals should note that, nowadays, The Liberal Party has its
HQ in Liverpool.

Quoting Koenig below:
We don't want a third question otherwise people will vote for it.

I hear you cry, but you would be quite wrong to do so. As others say, it's undemocratic, but most importantly of all, it would require either:
Common guarantees from all 3 Westminster parties, painting them further into the same corner
An entirely different kind of question authorising the Scottish Government to negotiate for Full Fiscal Autonomy, which would lead either to Scotland paying a subscription of the SG's choosing for the FO and Defence or a Czechoslovak-style divorce.

I can't see them agreeing on the former, but should they manage to do so they'll have to implement it before the referendum to spare their own blushes, turning it back into a single-question one.

Both options are effectively no-win for the Westminster parties.
# Koenig 2012-06-24 07:11
We don't want a third question otherwise people will vote for it. We will still be stuck in this useless union with them taking and squandering our money. As soon as Labour won power they would begin to reverse devo-max or whatever.
# Holebender 2012-06-24 10:04
Oooh... we don't want to go around giving people options they'll only end up voting for, do we? Do you realise how undemocratic you sound?

If people want to vote for something they should have that option. Our task is to persuade them that our option is better, and change their minds.
# mudfries 2012-06-24 07:19
Spot on weegie 100%.
# Silverytay 2012-06-24 07:22
Until I started looking in on this site I would have settled for devo max .
This site has taught me that there are 3 good reasons reasons to avoid devo max like the plague .
[1] It will not stop westminster from sending the youth of our country to fight their illegal wars .
[2] It will not remove the obscenity that is TRIDENTfrom our country .
and last but the most important .
[3] What westminster giveth ! westminster can taketh away .
# J Wil 2012-06-24 07:57
"...Mr McLeish called on Scottish Labour leader Johann to “lead the debate”."

I can't imagine Lamont standing up at FMQs and promoting a second question. She knows it will be a step too far for her party to offer anything more to the Scottish people other than bland promises about something happening in the future that they have no intention of implementing.
# Dougie Douglas 2012-06-24 08:15
I think the SNP needs to take a good hard look at it's strategy for the referendum. It openly invites others to frame the third option of Devo Plus / FFA and insists that it's focus is and only should be full Independence. That's a reasonable positiion until you take on-board that the unionists will not propose the third option without being forced into it.

The full Independence strategy is a high risk gamble - there clearly is not a majority in favour of Independence at present and it will be difficult to gain. We have been lucky that Scotland has not suffered the sort of major stress that normally pre-empts an Independence push. Yes, we are in an unhappy partnership where one party is domineering but the Scottish people simply don't feel strongly enough about the issue. The social bond between the people in these islands cannot be ignored either.

The majority of Scots want Devo Plus/ FFA - surely in the face of unionist resistance to promote this choice it becomes incumbent upon the SNP to promote this alternative on purely democratic grounds?

I think most gradualists agree that Devo / FFA is merely a stepping stone and that within 10 years we would become a fully Independent nation. I don't want a high risk gamble - we know the script - we know what mud and lies the unionists will employ in defence of London's power. Far better to promote what a comfortable majority want, gain it, make work (well) and then step up - Independent in 10 years.

A failed Independence yes/no campaign will put us back 25 years.
# xyz 2012-06-24 08:49
Devo whatever seems quite well defined here:
... and this is how I know only independence will prevent the 'British' state from robbing us, insulting us and trying to grind us down every single day.
# tartanfever 2012-06-24 09:15
On the other hand Dougie, if devo-max is not on the ballot paper and just 15% of those in the devo-max camp decide to join the 36% that are already going to vote for independence then we've done it.
I also disagree that a failed independence campaign will put us back 25 years. Westminster reneging on 'jam tomorrow' policies will soon make most people change their tune.
# Forteanjo 2012-06-24 09:23
Dougie, I think a no vote will put us back a lot more than 25 years. This is probably our only chance of doing this via the ballot box.

We have an unpopular (and unrepresentativ e) government at Westminster, a still fairly popular and competent government at Holyrood, a puppet opposition in Scotland that makes policy up on the hoof (can anyone really name 5 main Labour policies in Scotland that don't involve opposing anything the SNP propose?) and a fighting fund that runs into millions. The stars will never align like this again.

Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, things will never be the same again in Scotland. We can vote "yes" and have control over that change, or we can vote "no" and have changes imposed on us that will ensure we can never do this again. Scotland is giving Westminster scare after scare. I doubt we can remain in the Union and get away with that.
# nchanter 2012-06-24 11:11
Quoting Forteanjo:
Dougie, I think a no vote will put us back a lot more than 25 years. This is probably our only chance of doing this via the ballot box.

We have an unpopular (and unrepresentativ e) government at Westminster, a still fairly popular and competent government at Holyrood, a puppet opposition in Scotland that makes policy up on the hoof (can anyone really name 5 main Labour policies in Scotland that don't involve opposing anything the SNP propose?) and a fighting fund that runs into millions. The stars will never align like this again.

Regardless of the outcome of the referendum, things will never be the same again in Scotland. We can vote "yes" and have control over that change, or we can vote "no" and have changes imposed on us that will ensure we can never do this again. Scotland is giving Westminster scare after scare. I doubt we can remain in the Union and get away with that.

I agree 100%. To think for a second that those we trust the least would suddenly become honourable for the people politicains,hav e a Damascus experience and come to believe in democracy. What's the old expression "aye right" We the people have a choice of many life times ago it must be YES (or else0.
# Aplinal 2012-06-24 12:05
Dougie, the SNP/Scottish government can not propose Devo-whatever, because THEY can not deliver it. It really is as simple as that. It is up to others to persuade the Westminster political cartel that they should enable the question to be put, and to afford, without any question of doubt, that they will POSITIVELY DELIVER Devo-W if there is a majority vote for it by the Scottish voter. Then you have the additional issue of whether in such a 'solution' the rest of the UK should also be allowed to vote, as anything less than full independence is in the gift of Westminster politicians, and will impact on the rest of the UK.

No. It is up to the SNP/Scottish government to present the people with an alternative that they can take forward without anyone else's approval.

The majority of Scots want Devo Plus/ FFA

Do they? Let's take a look at the way the preferences spread when there is a 'second question'. I will be simplistic here (no doubt S_S can provide a more professional analysis).

Independence = 35/40%
Dependence = 35/40%
Don't know/undecided = 20-30%

The Devo question = 70%
BUT, the YES vote is included in that figure, surely? So the voter who really ONLY wants Devo-W and nothing else, may be only 30%, so in the real sense of the word, not a majority at all.
# Onwards 2012-06-24 08:55
I think the unionists are well aware that devo-max would eventually lead to full independence - that is why they are desperate to oppose it.

But it is also true that devo-max requires agreement from the governing party in Westminster. It would be a pressure vote only, so far better to try and get a favourable independence question result.

It seems to me like the proposed referendum question is not detailed enough as it stands, and is open to scaremongering as to what independence actually means - The accusations of separation, divorce and isolation will be relentless.

Personally I would like to see a clearer definition, making clear we are dealing with political powers only.


1. Should Scotland become an independent country within Britain, where political sovereignty is held by the Scottish Government in Edinburgh, instead of the UK government in London? YES or NO.

2. In the event that Scotland does not become an independent country, should the devolved Scottish Government have full income raising powers, with responsibility for defence and foreign affairs remaining with the UK government? YES or NO.
# FREEDOM1 2012-06-24 09:57
Onwards I think you are overestimating the IQ of the normal man/women in the street. These questions are too long. I think the majority of folk will say a dinne understand whit that means. A lot of people dont even know we are devolved if you ask them. Whats needed is Independence for Scotland Yes/no
# Onwards 2012-06-24 11:09
Maybe replace political sovereignty with political powers. I still think the words 'within Britain' or 'within the British Isles' would be reassuring for some people.

The problem is a lot of people don't know what degree of independence is on offer, and the unionists will try to make us seem like North Korea.
# xyz 2012-06-24 14:02
How does our IQ now compare to that of 1979? The question then was: "Parliament has decided to consult the electorate in Scotland on the question whether the Scotland Act 1978 should be put into effect. Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect?"

# Mac 2012-06-24 08:57
Support for a second question has been overwhelming for many, many months. It has to be on the ballot.

Scots should be offered full independence and the option of fiscal independence because that is the choices they want.

As for the No Campaign all they can offer is scaremongering. 'Bitter Together' seems more appropriate for this rag tag mob of unionists.
# cadgers 2012-06-24 09:11
"There’s a strong majority against defence and foreign affairs" This bothers me. So we could run our own affairs but still be dragged into illegal wars AND have to put up with trident? Is this true?
# Forteanjo 2012-06-24 09:38
In fairness, for years we've been told we're too wee, too poor, too stupid and that did have traction. Even now, we've got Unionist ministers telling us we wouldn't be able to raise an army to defend ourself (coz who'd want to join OUR army?), our navy would consist of a couple of tugs and fishing boats and we won't have any airbases because England will bomb them all to protect itself. For all these are classic scare stories, they do stick in (some) people's minds.

The argument you put forward, re illegal wars and trident, is the response we should be pushing. Okay, we might not have the biggest naval fleet in the world, but at least we don't have WMDs in Scottish waters. Okay, we don't have a standing army as big as China's but at least WE decide where they're deployed and what wars they fight in. Now that's something that can gain real traction if we push it enough.
# Koenig 2012-06-24 09:22
Westminster running our defence and foreign affairs:-

£25 billion.

Aircraft Carriers
£7 billion.

Fighter Aircraft
£23 billion.

Whitehall figures released in June 2010 put the cost of British funding of the Iraq conflict at £9.24bn ($14.32bn), the vast majority of which was for the military but which also included £557m in aid.

£11.1 billion between April 2001 and March 2010.

£1.25 billion.

The first 3 totalling £55 billion have still to be payed for and added to the national deficit and debt. Is that what Scottish tax payers want their money spent on. As well as the south getting the majority of the defence budget with Scotland bearly getting anything.
# alasdairmac 2012-06-24 09:28
There is a great big open door waiting for Scottish Labour to step through and deliver DevoMax. How long will the likes of Henry McLeish stand back while Lamont does her London Head Office's bidding and refuses to grasp the nettle?

Personally, I dont want DevoMax and I believe that it simply cannot work in practice.I would however accept DevoMax as the will of the Scottish People, if that was their choice,in the full knowledge that it would surely lead to full independence within less than ten years, for example following a constitutional crisis prompted by a bill for our share of Trident arriving from Westminster when Holyrood has just voted decisively against it.

I have got to end though on Willie Rennie's latest conspiracy theory, that the head of the SCVO, in publishing this poll, is a secret agent of the SNP. Willie, you've come up with some howlers in the past but this is your best yet.
# rhymer 2012-06-24 09:57
[quote name="alasdairmac. M i have got to end though on Willie Rennie's latest conspiracy theory, that the head of the SCVO, in publishing this poll, is a secret agent of the SNP. Willie, you've come up with some howlers in the past but this is your best yet.

Nope. I think that his new one, where the Chinese secret service has forced Alex Salmond into hiding from the Dali Lama" has to be the silliest so far. Maybe oor Wullie was thinking of llamas and Salvador Dali and got his script a bit mixed up.
# Forteanjo 2012-06-24 09:59
For all the independence campaign has just (officially) started, I think the debate on a second question is long past.

No politician will have ANY credibility putting forward a second question now. Salmond took dog's abuse over this whole issue and I've always said he played a blinder on it. He has ensured it will be his government and his government alone that decides if there is a second question and he doesn't want one. He knows that the status quo is less popular than a venereal disease and given the direct choice between it and independence, I'm confident people won't vote for the status quo.

What we have to keep in mind is that Unionists claim that a question on Devo Max is the SNP's fall back position, not theirs. That means that regardless of promises of jam tomorrow, Unionists are not serious about giving Scotland any real further powers. This is the message that the Yes campaign have to push. Call-Me-Dave can promise what ever, he isn't sincere (I'm sure it won't take a lot to convince most Scots that an Eton educated Tory PM is being insincere when making promises to Scotland). His puppet-on-a-string Davidson has already drawn a line in the sand that the Scotland Bill is enough. Lamont will tell us what she believes as soon as the communique arrives from London. Moore's nonsensical spoutings are irrelevant (and subject to change) anyway. And Rennie is less relevant than Moore.
# SCO 2012-06-24 10:13
A scond question winning the referendum would require the rest of the UK to have a referendum to accept it.

Only Independence is enforsable on the rest of the UK.

There should be no second question people choose one or the other.
# Hugo 2012-06-24 10:53
Did mainland Britain have a referendum when Ireland was partitioned?
# Wee-Scamp 2012-06-24 10:19
Devo Max, Plus or whatever will not take Scotland out from under the malign influence of the Treasury or the City. It simply isn't the answer Scotland needs.

Only full fat independence where we run our own Treasury and regulate our own financial institutions will do. Anything less is a cop-out!
# RTP 2012-06-24 10:31
Why not put a second question on the ballot paper was asked of a senior official of one of the opposition parties.
"BECAUSE WE WANT TO HAMMER THE SNP WAS HIS ANSWER",this is part of a story in the Sunday Post it does not say what the party he belonged to but we must assume it was a Lab.
This says it all for me no matter who said what we all know what the unionist think.
# colin8652 2012-06-24 11:00
I hope the refusal of a third question is shown to be the defining miscalculation of the unionists. Allow the third question and they loose. Hoping Scots are too scared to vote for full inependence and denying an alternative they hope that the status que will be maintained However on the evidence of the reaction by some, of how Englishness (potrayed as Brittishness) has been forced down our throats for the last monththis will spectacularly backfire on them, people will not put up with the status que, independence is the only way forward
# Red Squirrel 2012-06-24 11:07
For many of us posting on this site, the answer is very simple - we're already committed to voting yes. For others though we need to accept that independence isn't that easy a concept and we need to support our friends to get to the same confident position, including offering a devo-max option. I still believe this will lead us to independence, just by a slightly less direct route and if that's what others need (time to adjust, to have confidence that this really is the right decision) then we need to allow them that. That is what a democracy is all about.
Trident, nuclear energy and illegal wars may yet be the tipping point for the undecided however we should stay well away from negative scare-stories - the NO campaign and MSM already occupy this slot.

Having a devo-max question may well give folk the confidence to vote for independence - it doesn't seems to far away from full independence compared with the NO vote maintaining the status quo (which actually it won't, Scotland will enter a powerless darkness from which we may never emerge - now that's scary)

ps - I'm not sure how long I can endure the shame of being represented in Westminster by a muppet. Though not of course a reason to vote for independence, being de-muppeted will be a very satisfying side-effect.
# Rannoch 2012-06-24 11:28
The Scottish electorate should blame and hold the Unionists at Westminster accountable if they are not given a form of devo-max option because only Westminster as the UK Parliament can enact legislation to define, endorse and create devo-max for Scotland.
# Dougthedug 2012-06-24 11:41
Devo-max, devo-lite, devo-medium, devo-anywordyoucaret ouse have to be offered by the Unionist parties because:

1. Only Westminster can pass a bill which grants more powers to Scotland if Scotland remains within the Union. Holyrood cannot unilaterally declare devolution.

2. The only parties which can get a devo bill through Westminster are the parties which can command a majority there which excludes the SNP immediately.

3. Because only the unionist parties can get a devo bill through Westminster then they have to define the powers because they have to sell the idea to their own parties which will be mainly English based members and MP's.

4. Devo-whatever will be part of the "No" campaign. It is nothing to do with the SNP.

5. Any powers of a devo-whatever settlement will be defined by the English based MP's in Westminster not by Scots because these MP's are the only ones who can pass a devo bill.
# Onwards 2012-06-24 11:44
If Devo-Max is not an option, I think the most realistic chance of winning would be with an 'Independence within Britain' style campaign.
Especially if the polls do not improve.

The YES campaign should make clear that independence within the British Isles, while keeping the pound and the monarchy, can at least put us in a very similar position to Devo-Max,
but with the important advantage of political sovereignty.
Keeping NATO links, and pledging to cooperate with, or even join a joint British defence force may be useful too.
It would be about reassuring as many undecided or middle-ground voters as possible, and getting the devo-max vote.

I see too many people - women especially - who seem reluctant to back independence as they feel they might offend English friends here.
Even those who are indifferent to independence.

The YES campaign needs to emphasise that the social union within Britain - friends and family, culture and business links, is far different from the unequal political union of the UK.
And after independence all these links will remain.

This 'Better Together' message will be reinforced over the next couple of years with the slogan no doubt appearing in backdrops and posters all over the place..
An 'Independence within Britain' framework, or as mentioned previously a 'Better as Equals' type slogan could go some way to neutralizing the scaremongering.
I think we need to frame the debate in this sort of way in a straight independence vote - or we will constantly be on the defense against isolationist scare stories.
# Rannoch 2012-06-24 11:49
If there is no Devo max defined option offered by the Unionists in the referendum which way will the disappointed 7 out of 10 vote in the Scottish referendum ?
# alasdairmac 2012-06-24 11:58
Rannoch - as was said in a post above, it only needs a small number of them to go with indy to add to the last opinion poll's 35% and we are home and dry. Sir Tom Farmer, Sir Tom Hunter, and Jim McColl, three of our very top self-made businessmen, have already said that is what they will do. Others will follow; be sure if it.
# JRTomlin 2012-06-24 22:20
This is the question that the Unionists are very carefully NOT asking themselves or maybe they really thought that Scots were stupid enough to buy Cameron's "jam tomorrow" promises. In the meantime, if they do reallize it before the referendum they have managedd to back themselves into a tight corner.
# clootie 2012-06-24 11:52
I would prefer the YES vote. However many people may wish to take it in stages with more devolved government and therefore a gain in confidence.

The key point is the unionist parties oppose any vote and only because of the SNP landslide victory did we gain any progress.
# Aucheorn 2012-06-24 12:02
I was out gathering signatures yesterday in Elgin, we got some cracking answers for not supporting Independence.

The one that almost stopped me in my tracks was
"I've been told I'll need a passport to visit my mother and that all we English people could get deported"
Before I could respond her friend said "Don't be so bloody daft Helen, I'll sign your sheet son."
As I moved on I heard her comment that Helen was going to get re-educated.
# naemairleesplease 2012-06-24 13:31
Hi Aucheorn.

Sorry to go off topic but I wonder if you can help me here.
I just printed out the declaration form so I can get friends, family and others to sign it but when I print it on A4, the text is very small. The wee bit under each box (please tick this box bit) is almost illegible! Is this something I'm doing wrong?
# Aucheorn 2012-06-24 14:09
No, that's the form being used by everyone.

The illegible line - Tick the box if you don't want contacted. Only applies if there is an email address.
# naemairleesplease 2012-06-25 23:11
Cheers for that.
I'll take a magnifying glass with me :)
# Nautilus 2012-06-24 13:11
#Onwards - agree.
‘Stronger together – weaker apart’. Is this unionist Newspeak a la Orwell’s 1984? We’ve tried the first part for three hundred years and where has it got us? We have seen our population fall from 20% to 9% on mainland Britain in that time. We have given our brightest and best to the rest of the world including England, leaving ourselves bereft of the talent we need to run a strong and prosperous country. What’s more their descendents who may have inherited the traits of these Scots emigres stay to strengthen the economies of the countries they settled.

Only when we demanded and got our own government with its own powers have we seen a reversal of that trend (2003).

You can bet your bottom dollar that, if the Scots vote ‘No’ to independence most of the hard-won devolved powers will be taken back to Westminster, the UK government arguing that the people of Scotland prefer to be ruled by London. Watch then the population of the London and the Home Counties determine the policies of any government that is voted into power. This will include privatisation of the whole National Health Service. Private health companies have been waiting to pounce on Nicola’s well-run and economical operation.

Watch, also, our legal system subsumed and eventually erased by the English version. See our sportsmen having to travel to England to find the training facilities they need. See our council housing being sold off. Watch as council tax starts to rise again. See the inward investment that is being sought by Alec Salmond diverted to England again and the decline of the successful industries that we currently have. See Scotland become a dumping ground for any nuclear or toxic waste again. And worst of all, have Michael Gove run our education system.

Hate to ape the negativity of the unionists, but woe betide us if we vote ‘No’.
# rgweir 2012-06-24 14:25
If your prediction comes true then I believe a no vote would result in UDI being an option very soon after.
Far Fetched,I think not.
# Marga B 2012-06-24 13:59
Why are Scots not looking on with horror at what's happening in England? Do they really not realise how lucky they are and that if Labour get in and/or the "No" vote wins, that's what they're in for - in fact in social security, they're already suffering due to the UK connection?

It says a lot for their total ignorance of the situation in euro-land, where in many countries real democracy never mind the welfare state are under attack.

Why are Scots so blind to the facts on their doorstep? When will they realise that it is urgent to get their hands on the levers of power or go under? What do people see on the news every day? Cat rescued, X celebrity makes a fool of itself, football - and casual unionism.

By the way, OT but have you heard of plans to make MEPs "multinational" so that, e.g. Cohn Bendit could represent Greens across Europe but then so could Farage and apparently they would be tasked with "electing" the president of the EP. More things being "decided" for us.
# the wallace 2012-06-24 14:55
Ive said before, the second question is an unavoidable booby trap for the unionists,we must deal with the aftermath wiseley and make sure we dont get caught in the blast,so to speak.
# Hillside 2012-06-24 15:36
The reason that the unionist parties don't want a third option is that they see this an opportunity to defeat the SNP once and for all - A kind of 'silver bullet' against nationalism if you like. They reckon that a No result will allow them to kick any further devolution into the long grass for a generation (or more). I'm sure they are already rehearsing their speeches - 'A total rejection of the SNP', 'No appetite for constitutional change' ad nauseam. The problem for them is that this is a high risk strategy. If the opinion polls start to show a decline in the NO share, then we can expect to see a good deal of panic in the Unionist camp, and more calls for Devo-max. Of course a yes/no option is also a high risk strategy for the SNP for the same reasons. This is why I tend to favour a Devo-max 'fall back' option on the ballot paper. (Although I don't know whether a narrow No vote would actually be as decisive as the Unionists would wish. If around half of Scots voted for major constitutional change, then it would be very unwise for the Westminster parties to portray the result as a victory for the status quo. If the Union isn't working, then a No vote won't fix it!)
# Thee Forsaken One 2012-06-24 19:10
Why is it when someone impartial agrees with an element of SNP policy we get accusations of them not really being biased and such colourful terms as 'going native'?

Willie Rennie just seems to love starting fights over nothing. He seems to come from the school of Nicol Stevens rather than Tavish (Who?) Scott. Both were useless, but at least Tavish was lest snide about it.
# Forteanjo 2012-06-24 20:43
I take it you haven't read much of Tavish's outpourings in the likes of the Hootsman since he resigned as Libdum leader.
# Thee Forsaken One 2012-06-24 22:23
Quoting Forteanjo:
I take it you haven't read much of Tavish's outpourings in the likes of the Hootsman since he resigned as Libdum leader.

I wasn't including his time out of leadership. He seems to have gotten rather bitter since his humiliation in the last election. I can't say it isn't understandable.

You must be logged-in in order to post a comment.


Donate to Newsnet Scotland


Latest Comments