Something put a rocket up his fat arse! I wonder what it could be:)

Alex regain the initiative, can't help believing myself, Alex S. anticipated this move from the government.

It is believed the paper was due to be published before Christmas but its release was delayed by the eurozone crisis, which many critics argue proves how vulnerable and exposed an independent Scotland would be to major economic crises

.

Do you have a link /source to/for the pre Christmas publication evidence?

And by the by seems Emirates are not shying away from the so called business fears over uncertainty, etc.

Emirates Airline has announced a second daily non-stop flight from Glasgow to Dubai, starting from the beginning of June.

Emirates has been flying from Glasgow since 2004 and this increases capacity by 47%, an extra 199 seats each way.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-16486258

'It is believed the paper was due to be published before Christmas but its release was delayed by the eurozone crisis, which many critics argue proves how vulnerable and exposed an independent Scotland would be to major economic crises.'

So what about the other smaller countries around Europe? Denmark, Holland, Sweden etc etc - Are they in a mess becuase of the Euro crisis?

Oh no, thought not. They are doing better than the UK!!!

Go for it Scotland, you certainly have nothing to lose...

The critical issue here is whether the "devo-max" option is on the referendum sheet. If it is, it will allow the Scots to vote for increased independence (i.e. spending powers) while retaining the safety net of UK funding. Understandably, Cameron is against that and wants to push the Scots into an all-or-nothing vote. Salmond knows he won't win a complete independence referendum and is banking on devo-max to increase his position.

The timing issue, 18 months or two years is a red-herring.

The "right" to hold a referendum may reside with Westminster under Westminsters own rules but the right to self determination of governance is a basic human right that cannot be legalised against.

As such, any action to impede or deny the people of Scotland a right to vote would be in contradiction to the obligations to uphold self determination as signed and agreed by the UK as part of the UN Charter.

Article 1 in both the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) both read:

"All peoples have the right of self-determination. By virtue of that right they freely determine their political status and freely pursue their economic, social and cultural development."

The United Nations Universal Declaration of Human Rights article 15 states that everyone has the right to a nationality and that no one should be arbitrarily deprived of a nationality or denied the right to change nationality.

The International Court of Justice refers to the right to self-determination as a right held by people rather than a right held by governments alone.

United Nations studies on the right to self-determination set out factors that give rise to possession of right to self-determination:

* a history of independence or self-rule in an identifiable territory
* a distinct culture
* a will and capability to regain self-governance

Scotland is a distinct country with our own traditions, national dress, borders, health service, legal establishment, education system, flag and a history of nationhood tht was not discarded by the Act of Unions in 1706 and 1707.

These were international treaties and once signed the UK government came into existence and the Scottish and English Parliaments were suspended. Please note that they were not disbanded, merely suspended. The countries still exist and upon creation of Devolution the Scottish Parliament at least was reconvened.

So we can demonstrate before any referendum is held that we have a history of independence in our own identifiable territory, that our culture is unique and in fact unique enough to be recognised around the world instantly, and that through the Scottish Parliament we have the capability to regain self governance.

At the end of the day it will be the will of the Scottish Electorate that will decide the outcome for Scotland. If a majority of the votes cast are for Independence then the people have demonstrated the will to regain self governance.

Devo Max is likely to be the way forward for Salmond. It's probably the most he can get at the moment and is quite likely to lead to genuine independence eventually.

And the London government recognises this by attempting to keep it off the agenda.

England telling Scotland what she can or can't vote for; that'll go down well North of the border, won't it?

Advantage Salmond.

I have a very good source on this, and I put that line to a senior Scottish government spokesman and it was not denied.

Devo-Max?!?

More fiscal independence to spend a disproportionate tax take from England?!

That's having ya MacCake and Mac eating it!!!!!!

Of course, those who would vote for Devo Max have already started thinking that the current situation could be improved upon. It's easier to switch people from a middle option to a yes or no opinion than it is to switch people from a yes to a no or vice versa.

The SNP want independence. They might well end up with a straight yes/ no vote precisely on that in a referendum. But it's in their interest to have a middle option on the table for as long as possible. If they can then portray that option as not existing on peoples ballot paper due to the Dave & Gideon show, so much the better for them I'd imagine.

The SNP are basically letting the tories fuck things up themselves. The SNP need to get people changing from being in favour of Devo Max to being in favour of independence. Leave all three things on the table and Devo Max would probably be the winner. Let the tories deny people the chance to vote for Devo Max, and I'm betting the SNP strategists will be saying a lot of those people would be able to be persuaded to end up voting for independence.

Why even have a referendum? The SNP was elected in Scotland with a vast majority using a campaign manifesto for independence, surely this shows that a large majority of people in Scotland want independence? It did not take a referendum to create the union, why do we need one to end it? IMO it would be better for us in England, if the UK government just accepted that Scotland will be independent now, theres no need for a referendum. Why dont both sides just begin to negociate a break up settlement now? this would end the matter decisively and would be less threatening to the UK economies

You don't understand what it is. Devo Max is complete fiscal autonomy. Tax raising and setting powers within Scotland.

There would be a unified defence and foreign policy with the rest of the UK.

Still procrastinating are we Alex?

Thanks for the response. In light of the Bannockburn nonsense everywhere yesterday, inlcuding sadly the Guardian, just thought I'd check. Though sure you'd agree it's rather unfortunate no one will allow you to quote them on the record.

BTW On the Bannockburn date A Salmond in his own words said to R4's WATO, he had never said that, it came from M Forsyth and it would not be on 24/6/14.

Live and interactive on the iplayer for the next 7 days BBC R4 around 140pm.

Ending the UK could be great for the world as the English government would not have so many resources (financial and military) to continue with its pro-USA imperialist shenanigans. Although England would be lumbered with a Tory government for eternity, let's face it, Labour have shown they are no better, so it would make little difference.

This comment was removed by a moderator because it didn't abide by our community standards. Replies may also be deleted. For more detail see our FAQs.

The main problem is that the whole of the UK would need to agree to such a setup. We would need to have a parliament for each constituent country as well as a federal. Cameron won't even grant a referendum on the EU, knowing that it would probably be rejected.

There is also the question of how it would affect the structure of devolution in Wales and Northern Ireland, not to metion the GLA - would London be a federal state/region in itself? What about other regions of England?. There certainly isn't any appetite for independence in Wales and I don't even know if devo max could command enough support there. So what we would probably end up with is slightly increased devolution in the rest of the UK but Scotland having the status of a (perhaps sovereign) confederal partner. Another complexity would be which legislature the Welsh / N Irish / London assemblies would be subordinate to without them having the same fiscal independence as Scotland - would the "Federal" parliament assume primary powers over certain policy areas in Wales/NI but not in England and Scotland. Sounds like "West Lothian Mark 2" to me.

Even if put in place such a setup would probably be unstable. How many illegal wars or other examples of kowtowing to the US State Department's agenda of geopolitical hegemony would it survive?

TBH and without being party political on this I can't blame Cameron (or Westminster if you like) saying "make your minds up now once and for all it's either complete independence that Salmond has been on about for years or as you were. Can't keep on with 'a bit more and a bit more' for ever."

It;s time it got sorted once and for all.

More fiscal independence to spend a disproportionate tax take from England?!

If you were to back up your statement with some basic fact, I might be persueded that your not simply talking bollocks.

of course, there is a very god reason why your statement can't be substantiated.

Can they not just give us English the vote to break up the Union and be done with it?

The problem for David Cameron in all this is that he knows the stakes are enormous, even if others don't (e.g. J. Lamont, R. Davidson. D. Alexander), and I don't just mean the political stakes.

If Scotland were to become independent, and waltz off with ( a conservative estimate of ) 90% of the oil, where would the UK's triple A rating be then? More importantly, where would the UK (continuing) be able to take its economy in the future?

And all this scaremongering tripe about Scotland being exposed because of its size really disappears with one look at Norway, even before you look at the details of the Norwegian Government Pension Fund.

Cameron is risking it because he doesn't really have an option.

The noises emanating from Scottish Labour and the Scottish Tories are like the wails of gulls as the tide finally comes in.

OH dear, no it doesn't.

It means full responsibility for collecting and using all taxes as well as all internal administration, welfare etc.

Defence and Foreign Policy would be outsourced, for a fee, to the Westminster Gov.

Someone must have told Posh Dave that 2013 was the 500th anniversary of Flodden. If they keep doing their research that well the unionists are doomed.

The invention of the "Salmond wants it on Bannockburn day" was always absurd - the world cup will be on.

Its all going REALLY well if you want Scotland to be independent again.

Love the "More Pandas than Tory MPs" slogan - I think that will be well used in the coming months.

@sneekyboy

All well and good what you say but I think the act of union came about because Scotland bankrupted itself and needed bailing out.

I am totally in favour of Scottish independance as an English tax payer, just wish Salmond would stop messing and call the referendum.

Finally someone else gets it!

All recent polls have suggested suggest that Devo Max or Indy Lite is a popular alternative to full Independence and completely outstrips the Con-Dem backed, Labour initiated Calman commission recommendations, the status quo of no change, is completely unpopular with one poll showing it retains about 9 percent support.

This means that those most likely to vote in a referendum, have already crossed the rubicon, with regard to more powers, the next step of full powers is easier to take forward than one which involves going backwards to the status quo...

Goodbye Eton schoolboy dictators, hello independent Scotland!

to deal with mounting expert evidence that the Scottish parliament is prohibited by law from staging an independence referendum.

Poorly researched bollocks: The supposed 'expert' evidence (by anonymous experts) is that the referendum which will be held by the Scottish government and parliament is not constitutionally binding.

But No one ever said or thought it was. The referendum is about establishing the will of the Scottish people to open negotiations on independence or a new constitutional arrangement.

Simple: Got it?

The above obfuscatory rubbish about legality is put about by the Tories and then repeated by lazy or perfidious journalists.

You haven't been paying attention. Scotland pays more to London than it get;s back.

Devo Max is being responsible for the raising and using of all tax in Scotland and for having a shared Defence and Foreign Policy.

MacListen MacRead MacUnderstand?

Scots to have a right to vote for an a slight over proportionate vote the Uk government, they are not under represented or over taxed, so please stop this self dtermination crap you are no who this rule was designed for and the many people who died in the south sudan liberation struggle woulf laugh at your pettyness.

the this way should not be on a referendum as it does muddy the waters, and as pointed out many times can not be offered, by hollyrood only westminster.

Westminster as the right under law to do all this, and as the whole of the UK is effected by this decision, it is right that they should guide the process.

the UK, may be at risk in its council votes in the EU, its SC seat at the UN, there will be effects on energy policy, fishing rights, oil, economics, defence, national debt, that whole UK political system will be up for review in the new EW&NI union, so to continously preach that this is a scottish issue for scottosh people only is wrong.

I want you to stay with us, but if you think you can just leave with out sorting out the record collection and custody of the cat, then you are in clouod cuckpoo land.

I think the 700th anniversary was actually the date for the referendum that recreated the Holyrood Parlaiment and that was run by Labour.

I don't know why so many commenters are assuming that Scotland wouldn't vote Yes to Independence, if you check the Guardian Map from yesterday (although practically unreadable) it's looking more yes than no north of the border. Most people I know who have been sitting on the fence about the issue are getting more and more involved with the debate- I'm hearing more support for Independence day after day.

To most people's minds, being stuck to England means we're stuck to Tories and a country that's progressively becoming more right wing. The way 'Britain' is being represented is the opposite of what Scotland is, it took long enough to fight the Tories off before can you imagine how frustrating it is to have them back in with the knowledge that no one in Scotland voted for them? Being brought up with 'No To Poll Tax' posters on the windows means even the younger generations in Scotland know never to trust a Tory. If there was any a time in history when Independence might happen, people are just about riled up enough to say YES this time.

Alistair.

You can keep the cat and the Coldplay albums.

Sorted.

Do you ever feel that Salmond is just enjoying this? I mean what is going to do when its over demand independence from Europe and then from the Sea?

Once this is complete he will be as newsworthy as a smoked salmon, Alex is in it for the long run as once Scotland goes (incidentally I really hope it does) he just won't know what do with himself "Planning everything for two, Doing everything with you, And now that we're through...."

Re: Timing of any vote.

Salmond wants any vote delayed, to give him more time to garner support.
The ConDems want it hastened, for the greatest chance of a vote against.

Can't they be honest and just say so?

9 January 2012 6:34PM

Alex Salmond is acting like a brute who tells his wife he may want to divorce her in three years time.
Cameron should act like any self-repecting spouse and tell him to make his mind up now. Shut up or go!
Its not for the Scots to tell the rest of us when they want to hold a Referendum. The Union is a common posession and if it is to be disolved then its for all its citizens to say whether it should be sooner or later.
Infact its a disgrace that we are considering a referendum to take place only North of the border. The English might also not be happy with the present Constitutional arrangements, with National Parliaments for all but themselves, and with Celtic fringe MPs from tiny Constituencies still able to influence purely English affairs
For my part I'm not interested in a Union which has the support of less than an overwhelming majority in all of its countries, and so, for that reason alone, if I were to have a vote, then, with a heavy heart I woud vote for dissolution,and the opening of negotiations for distibution of the national debt to the new Governments. I suspect that a majority of English would take the same view. Will we get a chance to express it ? Come on, that would be democracy!

Hello cbonn

On behalf of burnleyfc, I would assume he is referring to the Barnett formula, which sees a public spending per head higher in Scotland then in England

I live in the west country, can we have a vote on independence from the neoliberal elite please?

Devo-Max?!? More fiscal independence to spend a disproportionate tax take from England?!

Yawn! If Scotland is such a disproportionate financial drain on England, why does anyone in Westminster give a shit about keeping the Union in such cash strapped times? Surely getting rid of us would be even better than all of the Tory imposed austerity cuts rolled into one?

Or is it down to a sense of tradition and love of the mighty United Kingdom?

I suspect neither, which would indicate there are very good financial reasons for trying to keep Scotland in the Union. I keenly await the flurry of reports from the "Economic Experts" stating otherwise,in an attempt to scare the Scottish Electorate into voting with their wallets.

Poorly researched bollocks: The supposed 'expert' evidence (by anonymous experts) is that the referendum which will be held by the Scottish government and parliament is not constitutionally binding.

But No one ever said or thought it was. The referendum is about establishing the will of the Scottish people to open negotiations on independence or a new constitutional arrangement.

Indeed, yesterday it seemed that the legal bod echoing the ConDem line was Aidan O'Neill QC, based at Matrix Chambers, though he clearly outlined his views in the Telegraph in November, whether they took their line from that or have others I would be curious to know who these legal minds are. Anyone?

Devo Max would absolutely have to be negotiated between Westminster & Holyrood, it wouldn't be as straightforward a negotiation as an independence vote that's a certainty.

Of course, if that was voted on and there was no negotiated settlement deemed possible, I'd strongly suspect it would be back to the polls on a pure independence referendum.

@sneekyboy

All well and good what you say but I think the act of union came about because Scotland bankrupted itself and needed bailing out.

The Darien Scheme to which you are referring was a failure in large part due to sabotage. The NATION of Scotland did not lose any money. The scheme was funded by the nobles.

Scotland did not have any debt on creation of the Union.

It was the Nobles that were bankrupt and took bribes to sign the act of union.

The people of Scotland were given no say in this hence the famous line "'We're bought and sold for English gold' Such a parcel of rogues in a nation!"

The Guardian story was careful to cite Tory sources on the Bannockburn line; funnily enough Salmond's people won't deny it outright, presumably to avoid a continual nipping away by the media trying to get at their favoured date.
But I agree: the actual Bannockburn date would be toxic and backfire spectacularly.
Though it seems pretty clear 2014 is the year in the frame: Ryder Cup at Gleneagles; Commonwealth Games in Glasgow; Homecoming festival etc
Any money on St Andrew's Day 2014?

no it didn't

A few belted Earls lost the family silver and were bribed to vote for a union with England.

The then Parliament was not universal suffrage and other members representing the merchants were broadly against but some were for as they saw entry to the English colonies as worthwhile.

The average peasant was enraged and mobs formed protesting the illegal vote and riots broke out across Scotland.

There were at least two votes to overturn the initial one which included such tactics as individual votes being further bribed and others being waylaid on the way to vote and thus prevented.

The Treaty was written to allow it to be broke,

No Scotland no more United Kingdom. No more United Kingdom means that both entities inherit equal rights responsibilities and memberships of relevant bodies and organisation to which the formed joinet entity had.

Also Scotland would have to take with it a proportion of the National Debt but would have sinilar share to all assets accumulated during the Union. These would include all military hardware, National Galleries and God knows about colonies like Falklands, named after a Scottish Lord.

The right to self determination is enshrined in international law.

Westminster cannot legislate to prevent a signatory to the act of union leaving that act if they so wish and all the bluster about legality is irrellevant.

If Scotland holds a YES / NO vote at any point it will be legally binding regardless of the 'blessing' of westminster.

Salmond could just continue to hold the referendum when he chooses and the result will still be recognised internationally.

Cameron has no power to prevent this.

As far as the rest of your post goes I would sugest reading up on international law regarding the break up of states. Either Scotland is a successor state with the obligations of all existing treaties and a share of debts and assets, or Scotland is a 'new' state and the clean slate principle applies.

It is in the interest of the Westminster government to ensure that Scotland is marked as a Successor state in any break of the union.

Goodbye Eton schoolboy dictators hello independent Scotland!

I can't think of a more typical Scottish name than 'Cameron'.
I'm afraid that the Eton boy is one of your own.

Set My People Free

Free England of the Celtic yoke!

Where you're wrong is that it actually is up to the Scottish people about both when to vote, and what we want to vote on. And the Scottish people alone. It's called a right to self determination and is one of the foundations of international law. And the Scottish people voted to elect a party with a majority that was promising a referendum in the second half of this parliamentary term.

You'll note that at no point have Cameron or Gideon ever told the people who voted for them that they would try to force through a referendum on Scottish independence. You should be holding your leaders to account.

I know... Why doesn't cameron get his lib dem colleagues to help him sort all this out.. they did so well with the AV referendum they've been promoting for 30 years.
They can't do a worse job than Cameron himself.

More power to the Scottish elbow, and good luck to our neighbours in the north.

No Devo Max

The English must be freed once and for all!

And he will be perfectly entitled to a Scottish passport I'd imagine. We certainly won't be stupid enough to ever have him in anything like a position of power following independence though.