The world's most-read Scottish politics website

Wings Over Scotland


Chancer calls bluffers

Posted on February 15, 2013 by

There’s a rather interesting story buried deep down in the dusty undergrowth of the Scotsman’s politics section today, featuring Jeremy Purvis of the cross-party “Devo Plus” (remember THEM?) group, which apparently marks its anniversary this month.

Purvis’s campaign (also featuring former Tory Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson and, um, we’re sure we’ll recall the others shortly) pretty much died at birth – its Twitter account last saw action on November 30 last year and we can’t even tell when the website was last updated because it has no timestamps, but it was a LONG time ago. He seems to have sensed an opportunity today, though, and has called on what the Scotsman rather startlingly refers to as “the anti-independence parties” to support Devo +’s proposals to devolve full tax powers to Holyrood in the event of a No vote.

The paper reports that:

“Mr Purvis says that the parties need to make it clear how exactly devolution will be improved to defeat the SNP in the referendum. [He] said that he would write to the main party leaders about the issue ahead of the spring political conference season in the next few weeks. The Devo Plus campaign leader’s demands were backed by former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish and Tory MSP Murdo Fraser.”

We wouldn’t go so far as to call this a “development”, because we’d bet almost everything we own that the “demands” will be comprehensively ignored by Johann Lamont, Ruth Davidson and the other one, whatshisname. But the intervention of Murdo Fraser – the only person referenced in the piece who’s a serving MSP – is certainly at least interesting.

Our view on the prospects for devolution after a No vote are well-known to readers by now. But it’ll be intriguing and instructive to watch just how the No campaign leaders go about dodging this rare outbreak of friendly fire from within their own tent.

Print Friendly

    67 to “Chancer calls bluffers”

    1. Cuphook says:

      I didn’t really pay much attention to the whole Devo Plus thing as I didn’t see it going anywhere. I read a couple of articles but at no point did I realise that Jeremy Purvis was part of Better Together. Wee Willie says that he is so it must be true.
       
      PS Left you a link for those stats you were looking for.

    2. DougtheDug says:

      …to support Devo+’s proposals to devolve full tax powers to Holyrood in the event of a No vote.

      Devo + is in the same bracket as the Lib-Dem and Devo More proposals with about 40% of the Scottish Parliament’s money coming from a block grant which, surprise, surprise, is set to give Scotland a grand sum which is equal to the sum they would have got under the Barnett Formula anyway.
       
      Labour may endorse more devolved powers for the Scottish Parliament before the referendum as a spoiler but it will be difficult for them as a No vote will mean they can ignore Scotland and their English based MP’s won’t see the point in disrupting UK government departments to see off a no longer existing threat of independence in Scotland.
       
      That’s the problem of giving a written promise of Jam Tomorrow when you have no intention of ever handing out the jam.

    3. Elizabeth says:

      BBC are currently asking us to ‘Put your referendum questions to Jeremy Purvis of Devo Plus’ 
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-21426676  

    4. Peter A Bell says:

      Jeremy Purvis is tilting at phantom windmills. Devolution is not an issue in this referendum. The British parties rejected the opportunity to have a “more powers” option on the ballot. Unless Purvis has a time machine, that isn’t going to change.

      The referendum is a straight choice between independence and an undefined option which purports to offer no more than the status quo but which almost certainly means considerably less.

      Of course, the anti-independence campaign now seeks to dupe the people of Scotland by pretending that it is offering something more. It is for Jeremy Purvis to explain why he seeks to assist the British parties in this deception.

      There is not the slightest doubt about what a YES vote means. Those intending to vote NO in the referendum are entitled to know what they are voting for. There is no way that the British parties are refusing to provide an honest explanation of their intentions. Why then would any sensible person assume that those intentions are anything other than malign?

      If the British parties had any interest in doing more than pay lip service to “improved devolution” they had plenty chances to do so over the past decade. What they actually did was bend their every effort to preserving the power of the British state.

      If they had been at all concerned with serving the will of the people of Scotland they would not have so vehemently opposed the referendum.

      If they had any genuine intention to develop devolution after the referendum they would have leapt at the opportunity to put their plans to the people of Scotland in the 2014 referendum. Instead, they threw endless tantrums and refused to even consider such a course of action.

      Let us be very clear! A NO vote means the end of devolution; the “repatriation” of powers to Westminster; the imposition of social and economic policies to bring Scotland into line with the devastation being wrought in England.

      A NO vote means massive cuts to the Scottish Parliament’s powers and its budget.

      A NO vote means gerrymandering of the voting system to ensure that the British parties retain control of the Scottish Parliament in perpetuity.

      A NO vote means legislation to outlaw any further referendums on Scotland’s constitutional status.

      A NO vote will be represented as a rejection of the concept of popular sovereignty and an affirmation of the concept of the sovereignty of the Crown in parliament. It will be portrayed as a ringing endorsement of the union and the final say on the matter of Scotland’s nationhood.

      A NO vote truly will “extinguish” Scotland and bring about the culmination of the centuries-old project to absorb our country into a Greater England euphemistically labelled, “Britain”.

      A NO vote means we will be reviled by future generations as the people who, from craven cowardice and misplaced self-interest, betrayed the aspiration to build in Scotland a prosperous and socially just society.

      Vote NO if you will. But do so knowing what you vote for.

    5. tartanfever says:

      Posted the other day that Purvis is appearing on BBC with Brian Taylor on the big debate thingy that Jenkins and MacDougall have already done.
      How this lot deserve that kind of recognition is beyond me, they haven’t held a single event since last September (according to their own website), not even tweeted since the end of November.
      Not only that but very strong links between this group and the Tory think tank ‘Reform Scotland’, who, for my money, are getting far to political considering they are a registered charity.
      Reform Scotland are the group whose every report calls for the Scottish Government to contract out more and more public services to private companies, like the building of new GP surgeries / medical facilities by companies like Skanska – who just happen to have representation within Reform Scotland and support the group financially.
      It’s nothing but a business lobby group, and how they manage to hold charitable status when you can’t if you have any political motivations is simply dumbfounding.

    6. Keef says:

      Tartanfever.
       
      I’m so with you on the Reform Scotland mob. I was researching them a few weeks ago.
      What I found bizzare is they have an ex SNP member on their board as well?

    7. Cuphook says:

      When the Greens had to ask their members if they should join Yes Scotland is was treated by the media as a schism, a great blow to the Yes campaign and a snub to Salmond.
       
      Why is it that when a leading member of Better Together disagrees with the fundamental approach of the No campaign it’s seen as a thoughtful intervention?

      And why is the BBC interviewing him as an alternative to Yes Scotland and Better Together?

    8. Grahamski says:

      Mr Bell
      “The British parties rejected the opportunity to have a “more powers” option on the ballot.”
      Ermm, it wasn’t the (ahem) British parties who rejected the option of having a DevoUndefined option on the ballot, it was the majority of those who responded to the SNP administration’s consultation.
       
      Nice to see Mr Bell puncture the lie that the YESnp campaign is unrelentingly positive..
       

    9. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “PS Left you a link for those stats you were looking for.”

      You did? Where? Don’t see any posts in the thread, nothing in my email or Twitter.

    10. Keef says:

      Hey Grahamski,
       
      hope your weekend is looking good. Have you donated yet? A few on here are donating everytime you post. What a kind bunch eh?

    11. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      I understand the SDA have links to Reform Scotland as well. Is this so?
       
      During the Jacobite rebellion some well off Scottish families made sure they had a son on either side. Is this where the SDA comes in?

    12. Cuphook says:

      Just under your request on ‘And finally #19’. Hyperlinked – Is this what you’re looking for?

    13. Keef says:

      Dave.
       
      Is that the same SDA who had their manifesto posted online and in it they advocated the right to send troops onto the streets to quell any social uprising?

    14. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      Keef
      Probably.

    15. Crisiscult says:

      As most opinion polls seem to put greater powers but not independence as the most popular option, and with Michael Moore having said that there needs to be grass roots calls for greater powers, I think this needs to be factored into the pro independence strategy. I haven’t done any canvassing yet but from friends who have I have gather that there are a lot of don’t know’s out there and if they, nearer the referendum, can be shown that there definitely won’t be any more power if they vote no, that may tip a lot of them into yes’s. Having been reading news and comments and blogs on the net for some time now about the referendum it sometimes feels like the YES and NO individuals are communicating only with each other, which is ultimately a waste of time as they’re not going to change anyone’s mind. The 20 – 30% of don’t know’s need to have strong evidence presented to them that a) there will be NO MORE POWERS if they vote no b) Scotland won’t be poorer after a yes vote and c) the UK Government think Scotland was absorbed into England (has any newspaper reported that part of the UK Government’s legal advice by the way?)

    16. naebd says:

      Pete that’s all scaremongering speculation on your part, expressed as fact. You should join BetterTogether.

    17. DougtheDug says:

      Grahamski:
       
      You’d be brilliant as a surreal standup comic.
       
      For months the British political parties have been accusing Alex Salmond of wanting a second question and the Edinburgh Agreement was only signed on condition of a single question. Margaret Curran was triumphant at the single question condition put in by Moore and Cameron.
       
      And now it wasn’t them who rejected it at all. They were left sobbing while holding their fully worked out schemes for devo-max. They were left bereft when bad Alex took their second question away.
       
      Brilliant, brilliant comedy.

    18. Grahamski says:

      Hi Keef
       
      “A few on here are donating everytime you post.”
       
      Great to hear it.
       
      Mr Campbell can consider this post my donation.

    19. mrbfaethedee says:

      re: Reform Scotland – their website tells you all you’d ever need to know.Powerbase is usually pretty useful for getting started with lobbies and thunk-tanks, in true wikipedia style they also have ‘portals’, one of which ois for Scotland .

    20. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T
      There has been a significant change in attitude at the Herald this week. Main political coverage has come from Rob Dinwoody who is a good guy and Magnus Gardham, erstwhile daily front page headline bollocks merchant, either hasn’t appeared or appears, like today, with a  tiny piece at the bottom of page six

    21. Stevie Cosmic says:

      I actually think he’s bang on the money. Didn’t you read the proposed amendments to the Scotland Act as it was going through the Lords? It’s still there on Hansard. I suggest you take a look and then have a think about what will happen if there’s a NO vote.
       

    22. muttley79 says:

      @tartanfever
       
      How this lot deserve that kind of recognition is beyond me, they haven’t held a single event since last September (according to their own website), not even tweeted since the end of November.
       
      They are getting attention precisely because it is in the interests of both the MSM and the No campaign.  Both want to persuade the people of Scotland that a No vote is a vote for more devolution.  However, the evidence for this is not exactly overwhelming.  We have had the 1979 Jam Tomorrow fiasco, the watering down of the inadequate Calman Commission, and the time spent by the unionist parties after the 2011 elections shouting about how a more powers option was Salmond’s “insurance card.”

    23. CameronB says:

      @ Grahamski
       
      Cheapskate!

    24. Keef says:

      Mr. Grahamski.
      Thought not.
      My first clue was your meaness with the truth.

    25. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “it was the majority of those who responded to the SNP administration’s consultation”

      Since when did any of the London parties care what a few thousand voters thought?

      http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/2765041.stm

      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-20432989

      http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/10/80-of-lib-dems-want-independence.html

    26. Cuphook says:

      OT
       
      Hope you don’t mind, Rev, but it looks like your crowd sourced funding has inspired others in the independence fight.
       
      The Radical Independence Campaign are seeking to raise £10k. You can donate here.

    27. Morag says:

      Peter A Bell said:
      There is no way that the British parties are refusing to provide an honest explanation of their intentions.
       
      Come again?

    28. Eoin says:

      I though the central premise of Reform Scotland was devolving tax raising powers to the same level at which those taxes are spent?  Am I being naive? (wouldn’t be a first!)

    29. tartanfever says:

      @keef
      re- Reform Scotland.
      Yep, they claim that they are an all encompassing group with representation from all sides of the political divide, of course, thats just to give them a ‘false front’ to claim their supposed impartiality. I noticed Wendy Alexander has joined their ranks.
      I remember their last report on the NHS, where they called for more private company involvement and accused the SNP govt. of being ‘scared of competition’. This was reported as such on the BBC. How this isn’t political in nature I have no idea, so as I said, it’s bewildering that this group retain charitable status.
      Time to write a letter to the charities register methinks.
       

    30. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Hope you don’t mind, Rev, but it looks like your crowd sourced funding has inspired others in the independence fight. The Radical Independence Campaign are seeking to raise £10k. You can donate here.”

      Don’t mind at all – just kicked in a wee tenner myself. But I don’t think much of the way they’ve done it, in technical terms.

    31. Keef says:

      Have I missed the announcement that the regional paper The Herald has been taken over this week?
      Every +ve article highlighted on Twitter seems to lead to this paper.
      Granted the content is not stunningly pro-independence, but at least it’s not the usual spin and smear.
      It has left me a bit disorientated.

    32. Marian says:

      The biggest problem the “NO” campaign has is that it is all based on lies and as we know you can only keep a lie going for as long as you can shield people from the truth.

      The “NO” campaign would have collapsed long ago if it wasn’t for the unqualified support of the BBC and MSM.

      Truth is the greatest enemy of the unionists hence why they have tried all along to close down the debate on Independence.

    33. Marjorie Godfrey says:

      I have to agree with Peter’s projection of what a ‘No’ vote will mean for Scotland. It is depressingly accurate  and shows what a grim future is ahead of us should the unionists prevail. 
      I intend to carry a copy of it (hope that is okay) with me to help persuade the fence sitters.
      Vote YES!

    34. scottish_skier says:

      Devo Plus is a no goer simply because it would make the West Lothian Question even more of a problem. It’s impossible to justify Scots MPs voting on England-only matters where this occurs currently (its very undemocratic), never mind increasing the number of important policy areas where this can occur, as would be the case for devo plus, max etc.

      Take corporation tax under Devo Plus. Scotland could lower its rate below that of the UK to be more competitive. So, Westminster tries to lower its rate to even the playing field. Scots MPs could vote against this, potentially blocking it. That’d go down really well in England.

      Some will argue you could put a rule in that Scots MPs can’t vote on English matters. Problem is, there’s too much crossover, e.g. with increases in spending on one area potentially impacting on spending in another. At the moment, the NHS is supposed to be devolved. It’s not really; if the English NHS budget is cut, so is the money sent to Scotland for its NHS (technically).

      Nope, you need to remove Scots MPs from Westminster. That requires federalisation or independence. The former is never going to happen making the latter inevitable.

      And don’t worry about a no vote meaning an end to devolution. Any attempt at that and Scotland would be independent immediately. A narrow no vote in 2104 would just delay the inevitable.

    35. Cuphook says:

      @Rev
       
      But I don’t think much of the way they’ve done it, in technical terms. In what way?
       
      I don’t like the presentation, myself. Normally RIC are good at presentation but this just looks amateurish.
       
       
       

    36. cath says:

      “you need to remove Scots MPs from Westminster. That requires federalisation or independence.”
       
      Exactly. Which is why Labour, especially, are so dead set against and we have devolution lines in the sand beyond which they cannot and will not go. They will cling to their jobs, power and expenses with every last fingernail.

    37. Rev. Stuart Campbell says:

      “Have I missed the announcement that the regional paper The Herald has been taken over this week?
      Every +ve article highlighted on Twitter seems to lead to this paper.
      Granted the content is not stunningly pro-independence, but at least it’s not the usual spin and smear.
      It has left me a bit disorientated.”

      I did say I was cautiously optimistic about the new editor, based on what people with first-hand experience of him had told me. Not counting any chickens yet, and there’s still the Gardham Situation, but it does seem to be a little more balanced lately.

    38. Chic McGregor says:

      @Peter A Bell
      I agree with you that those outcomes are possible, very possible.
       
      That is Why I have several times elsewhere, suggested that their possibility be put to the Unionist party leaders by straight questions in as direct and public manner as possible.
      On televised debates.  As official questions at PMQs.  In open letters to the MSM.
       
      To the point where the voting electorate are aware of those likliehoods.
       
      Then, even should they still refuse to answer them, at least the electorate can draw their own conclusions from that.
       
      THIS MUST BE DONE!

    39. Peter A Bell says:

      I know how much you detest inconvenient facts so this one will probably choke you. The British parties had rejected a “more powers” option on the referendum ballot long before the result of the consultation was known.

    40. Macart says:

      Westminster had two bites at the cherry vis a vis devolution and rigged it both times.  I believe Peter’s appraisal of the situation to be considered and accurate. These are more than likely outcomes to any no vote.

    41. scottish_skier says:

      O/T. That’s the Mariner field got the go ahead. At least 30 years of production once up and running.
      http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-scotland-business-21474052

    42. Craig M says:

      Re Peter A Bell says;
       
      A NO vote will also mean the following, to which we musn’t sneer, as these outcomes are most important to those in receipt.
       
      A peerage for A Darling @£300 per day, plus pention plan.
       
      A safe Westminster seat in England for J Lamont.
       
      A peerage for D Alexander @£300 per day, plus pention plan.
       
      A peerage for the other D Alexander @£300 per day, plus pention plan.
       
      An Invitation to Buckingham Palace for Blair McDougall.
       
      An Invitation to Buckingham Palace for the editor of the Scotsman.
       
      An increase in funding for Pacific Quay and promotions all round for the key journalists and presenters who contributed to the victory.
       
      A safe Tory seat in England for Ruth Davidson.
       
      A removal of the planning block at Holyrood and the subsequent building of new Nuclear Power Stations in Scotland to send energy to England.
       
      New media laws to tighten control of blogging and internet discussion groups. (far fetched? wait and see)
       
       

    43. Macart says:

      @ Peter A Bell
       
      See my post above for unionist soundbite Peter (number of links). There was never a hope in hell that either the Conservatives or Labour were going to let a second question anywhere near that ballot.

    44. Peter A Bell says:

      Actually, it’s reasoned analysis based on half a century of observing the way the British state operates.
       
      And it is not scaremongering if what is being described is a realistic scenario given certain reasonable assumptions. Scaremongering is when British nationalists talk of Scottish airports being bombed on the basis of nothing more than one too many wee drams.

    45. Jeannie says:

       “Mr Purvis says that the parties need to make it clear how exactly devolution will be improved to defeat the SNP in the referendum
      You see? It’s still all about defeating the SNP.  When are they going to wake up to the fact that the referendum belongs to the Scottish people, not its politicians!

    46. Peter A Bell says:

      My apologies! I thought I’d fixed that editing faux pas. It should, of course, read as follows.
       
      The British parties are refusing to provide an honest explanation of their intentions.

    47. muttley79 says:

      @Jeannie
       
      That is all the unionists care about, defeating the SNP and Salmond.  The Scottish people do not enter into it.  The No campaign fails to acknowledge that the referendum is not a vote for the SNP, and that support for independence exists within unionists parties.  Their sole focus on the SNP could well be a grave mistake.

    48. CameronB says:

      I have posted this link several times, but it goes some way to support the last point made by Craig M. Unfortunately, we will have no opportunity to influence the nature or scope of these restrictions on internet usage, regardless of the outcome in 2014.
       
      http://www.globalresearch.ca/the-war-on-media-freedom-undermining-the-independent-alternative-online-media-eu-to-manipulate-internet-search-engines/5321104

    49. Peter A Bell says:

      There’s really no need to fact-check Grahamski’s inane assertions. From an acquaintance that is far longer than any sane person would prefer, I am aware that this particular British nationalist fanatic simply makes up stuff that seems to suit whatever point he’s struggling to express. Having thus concocted the “facts” he needs, these then become fixed in the poor soul’s mind as unchallengeable truth – right up to the moment when expediency requires an alternative version of reality.
       
      As you may have guessed, I don’t take the fool at all seriously.

    50. The Man in the Jar says:

      @Scottish_skier at 12.12pm.
      2104. I hope that isn’t a prediction.
      Wee smiley thing.

    51. Training Day says:

      @Peter A Bell
      Nail. Hammer. Head.  By all means let us run a positive campaign but the consequences of voting No are not remotely understood by the majority as yet.

    52. Chic McGregor says:

      Peter,
      I originally started with a list of about a dozen questions for the Us to answer but then realised that the key questions, the ones which inform the voters whether this is a one-shot referendum or not, are not only vital to the Scottish people but also totally required if democracy is to be properly served.
      So I think we should concentrate on making the public aware either to answers given (or indeed even more so to answers not given) to the questions which directly effect whether this a noce only referendum or not.

      The other answers should be pushed for of course but we should bust a gut on those key ones.

    53. Luigi says:

      Jeannie,
      Mr Purvis and his allies know fine well that the referendum is not about the SNP. However, it suits the NO campaign to convince the general public that this is the case. It is very important to refute this false allegation at every opportunity. I am very impressed by the way Blair Jenkins always retorts, without hesitsation “I am not a member of the SNP” each and every time his opponents (and the media) try to lay that one on him. The number of times he has to say this highlights just how hard the media are trying to paint the referendum as an exclusive, SNP-owned vehicle. It is all very subtle, but the media are relentless and we all need to challenge anyone and everyone who labels the independence referendum as an SNP referendum. It is Scotland’s referendum, but not all Scotland is aware of this yet. We need to tell them.

    54. Chic McGregor says:

      Luigi,
       
      The latest SNP PPB didn’t help in that regard though.

    55. Luigi says:

      Chic McGregor,
      The PPB could have been better, particularly the ending. However, people will expect the SNP to support YES Scotland. It is more important for the other, non-SNP groups (and big non-SNP names) supporting independence to step out and raise awareness that they also exist. It is happening slowly but surely, and we still have c. 20 months.

    56. Dcanmore says:

      Devolution = Westminster Government giveth …
      NO vote = Westminster Government taketh away!
       
      That is what reserved power is all about. THEIR choice, not ours.

    57. Alan Gerrish says:

      Re Purvis and his Devo-Whatever agenda, I was surprised and disappointed to see Iain Macwhirter write in his blogspot on Monday this week ( my highlighting of text) :
      “The SNP need to be realistic about the climate of opinion among Scottish voters, and the difficulty of persuading a country that lacks confidence in itself to go it alone. That means working back to where the voters actually are, rather than where the SNP would want them to be.  It means going back to the multi-option referendum Scottish voters sought but are being denied.
      Never been really sure where Iain’s personal sympathies lay but for sure he’s not an independista on the basis of this.  I did however think he was brighter than to infer a devomax option is the way to go when we all know it could never be delivered.
      He also says in the same blog :
      “They ( the SNP) don’t understand why the Scottish press is so hostile to independence.  But the fact is that they are.”
      Come off it Iain, the SNP knows full well why the press are so anti-independence, and so do you, so why not come out with it and state the bleedin’ obvious?
      Petty really, I thought the boy used to show a lot of promise ..
       

    58. Alastair Wright says:

      Mr Purvis and Co. Wouldn’t be flogging a dead horse would they?

    59. Holebender says:

      Flogging a dead horse? To whom? Tesco?

    60. creag an tuirc says:

      Question: Scotland votes ‘No’ in the referendum. The rest of the UK austerity cuts and privatisation kick in by 2016. Scotland is on its knees, polls clearly indicate that the ‘No’ voters realise they’ve been sold a lie and made a massive mistake. Would the SNP be able to put UDI in its manifesto and would they be able to implement it if they take the whole of Scotland in election?

    61. muttley79 says:

      @Alan Gerrish
       
      Yes, Ian McWhirter definently has a blind spot regarding the devo max question.  I think he would like a consensus between independence and the status quo.  It is not going to happen.  As you say he is also wrong about the SNP not understanding why the Scottish media are against them and independence.  The media have always been hostile to independence in particular.  The SNP know this fine well. 
       
      @ creag an tuirc  
       
      I don’t think there would be any point in the SNP saying in their manifesto that they would declare a UDI.  After all it is the nuclear option.  I don’t really see the point in a UDI anyway.  The circumstances would have to be very severe.  I do not think this tactic has a great track record either.  It usually annoyes other states as they have to get involved when they would rather stay out of it. 
      When I sometimes have a look at NNS there is almost always somebody saying randomly that the SNP should declare a UDI.  I really do not understand why some nationalists say this at all.
       
       

    62. creag an tuirc says:

      @muttley79
      I’m just looking for way out of this god forsaken union if the people are duped into voting ‘No’. Blame Peter A Bell and Craig M above for highlighting the consequences of a no vote and sending a UDI shiver down my spine 🙂

    63. Peter A Bell says:

      UDI would be an option. But why invite controversy? If the public mood is as you describe the simplest course of action would be to call another referendum. Of course, if the UK Government sought to block a referendum that would change things completely. Under those circumstances UDI would be a distinct possibility.

    64. ianbrotherhood says:

      Peter A Bell has expressed – in a calm, reasoned manner – what many of us instinctively fear but have trouble articulating. I know we’ve had the ‘low-information voter’ debate already, but perhaps Peter’s points can be summarised thus, for the benefit of that hypothetical person:
      “If we vote No? We’ll be bent over and shafted big-time…for decades.”
      I know that’s crude, but isn’t it the truth?

    65. Dave McEwan Hill says:

      O/T
      A bit off topic but I thought this piece by a Roland Smith on the “No Scotland ” blog put the facts very nicely in an easy to understand manner
      “It was very helpful for the UK government to publish its legal advise and to then offer their expert for interview by the BBC who was then able to confirm that Scotland would have no problem carrying out all negotiation between the referendum and independence date. The UK government deserve praise for countering the arguments of the scare mongers in the Better Together campaign. This follows on from their excellent Treasury report confirming that Scots would only be a pound a year worse off with Independence assuming the Scottish Government spent its income in exactly the same way as the UK government on items such as Trident for example. Also this week Michael Moore confirmed that tens of thousands of jobs that Scottish Tax Payers finance in the rest of the UK will require to be set up in Scotland.
      Keep up the good work I look forward to the next UK report.”

    66. Chic McGregor says:

      For the record here, the three questions I think the electorate MUST be made aware of, whether they are answered or not are:
       

      1. Will any of the existing powers in the Scottish Parliament be removed or downgraded if Scotland chooses NO?

      2. In particular, can you state that no legislation will be brought into existence which would prevent the Scottish Parliament holding another referendum when it deems fit?

      3. Will changes to the election system be made which would make another single party parliamentary majority even less likely?



    Comment - please read this page for comment rules. HTML tags like <i> and <b> are permitted. Use paragraph breaks in long comments. DO NOT SIGN YOUR COMMENTS, either with a name or a slogan. Ignore these rules and I WILL KILL YOU WITH HAMMERS.




    ↑ Top