Scots Independence Referendum

[Ad Lib]

It's the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland." It'll surely just change to the "United Kingdom of England, Wales, Northern Ireland and Associated Territories" or something - it'll still be the United Kingdom, just as it was in the days of the "United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland."

edit: what the guy above said

We really should stop agreeing like this.

Mon God

[centralparker]

Anyway, back to more pressing matters - what colour are we going to paint the telepone kiosks and pillar boxes?

[doulikefish]

It is the most plausible explanation as to what would happen. Suggest a more plausible one and I'll consider it.

i dont care what it is but i dont think you should make assumptions

so ill just assume if scotland gets independence then wales will break off too

but on the other hand what if the english want to break off???

[Swampy]

Anyway, back to more pressing matters - what colour are we going to paint the telepone kiosks and pillar boxes?

We won't be putting swastikas on them, sorry to disappoint

[Michael W]

Anyway, back to more pressing matters - what colour are we going to paint the telepone kiosks and pillar boxes?

I suggest we follow the Larkhall model.

[centralparker]

We won't be putting swastikas on them, sorry to disappoint

Suppose I'll have to settle for a thistle.

[Guest RTB]

Politics and the press

Murray Ritchie, former political editor of The Herald, calls for more political balance in the Scottish press.

A few weeks ago Scotland on Sunday carried this eye-popping headline: 'Despite its critics, an independent Scotland is irreversible and must be nurtured'

Not only was this apparent acceptance of independence as inevitable highly exceptional if not unprecedented for a Scottish newspaper, the article was the work of none other than John McTernan, the new policy adviser to the prime minister. Tony Blair.

Newspaper readers in Scotland who constantly complain that the independence issue is either ignored or misrepresented by our media must have been stunned - until they took a closer look and read all of Mr McTernan's article and not just the headline.

He did not quite argue that independence was irreversible - he said that of devolution - but he did insist that the present constitutional arrangement was not sustainable and that new powers were inevitable for the Scottish Parliament. 'Some have read the 2003 election results as a blow to nationalism from which it will not recover. It is, however, far form clear that that is the case,' he said, moving on to examine the justification for more constitutional reform, and to conclude: 'There is a need, at some point, to ask clearly and to answer unequivocally the question about whether our future lies in full independence.'

Having just retired after a lifetime in Scottish journalism, where free discussion about any benefit from independence is regarded as too dangerous by half, I welcome this call for debate. Most Scottish newspapers are downright hostile to independence and those which are not are mainly indifferent. This is an auld sang, and an affront to democracy and free expression. Indeed it is more than that because it amounts to a conspiratorial denial of the existence of a political ambition which is attractive - sometimes obsessively so - to a significant section of the electorate.

When I began in newspapers more than 45 years ago my father, who was non-political, worked on the Glasgow Herald where several senior journalists were aspiring Conservative MPs. Tory Party activism was regarded as the natural order and a good career move for those working on a strongly Unionist newspaper. Life is still like that on papers like the Daily Telegraph which has trenchant right-wing views. But the Telegraph sells mainly in England where those who disagree with its politics have rival newspapers to choose from. In Scotland we take anti-independence papers or none because of the self-denying ordinance editors practise on the most important division in Scottish politics.

Some of my father's colleagues were active in the Labour Party but had to keep the fact quiet for fear of their careers. Not so very much has changed in Scottish newspapers except that the party which now commands most support among proprietors and senior journalists is Labour, the new Unionist establishment. The SNP hardly has a look-in.

When I was Scottish political editor of The Herald and covering the 1999 Holyrood elections my paper was denied hundreds of thousands of pounds of advertising from Labour-supporting businesses because, in the words of a senior Labour figure who picked favoured media outlets, we were 'not sufficiently supportive'. This sort of political sectarianism is nothing new. For generations Scottish journalism has been littered with examples of independence- friendly writers finding life unusually complicated.

I once made a light-hearted speech at a private function where I confessed personal support for Scottish Nationalism and was immediately reported by a Labour spin doctor to my editor. I wasn't fired, thanks to an understanding editor (but the spin doctor was, eventually). When a bright young BBC journalist stood for the SNP in a Falkirk West by-election, he was promptly banished to covering sport in London. When the SNP leader took a wife who was a BBC political correspondent she was bumped into general reporting. When Dorothy-Grace Elder stood as an SNP candidate she had her Sunday column killed off. At present I cannot think of a single columnist who is paid or even permitted regularly to advance the case for independence - while many others make lucrative careers by routinely rubbishing the idea.

Contrast this with the easy ride for Labour (or Tory) supporting journalists. The divide between Labour Party employment and political journalism is easily crossed. For years Scottish Television was regarded by many as a Labour club. The political editor was the daughter of a former Labour cabinet minister, and the political correspondent was a Labour activist who went on to spin for Donald Dewar. The present head of news is a former Labour spin doctor, and, of course, the former SMG chairman. Lord Gus Macdonald, became a Labour minister. BBC Scotland's main political programmes are produced by the husband of a Labour ex-cabinet minister and Labour's current spinner is a former BBC broadcaster.

It is only fair, indeed crucial, to point out that these individuals were and are all honest journalists who proved themselves perfectly capable of questioning Labour when the need arose. My quibble is that they obviously had little time for independence and were unlikely, therefore, to suggest testing public opinion by putting the subject up for objective examination. And, even if they had felt moved to do so, they would have found little encouragement from their employers.

The Scottish media's unfair treatment of independence should not be put down simply to prejudice on the part of pundits or political correspondents. Rather it is more to do with newspaper ownership and the culture in Scotland where Unionism, whether Tory, Labour or Liberal Democrat, remains ingrained. I know of at least one case where a respected editor suggested to his management that it might be useful and exciting to support independence (but not specifically the SNP) and was promptly warned to back off. The thinking was that sympathy for nationalism would so offend advertisers that revenues would collapse. There was, of course, not the slightest evidence to support this fear and this commercial knee-jerking ignores the equally obvious possibility that some advertisers might be encouraged to place their business with a newspaper which endorsed independence.

For a time Rupert Murdoch, of all people, allowed the Sun in Scotland to support independence. The SNP derived no noticeable benefit. Nor, apparently, did the Sun itself which eventually cooled on the idea and last year fired Jim Sillars. The Sunday Herald has shown itself fairer than most to independence. My old paper, almost alone, has made strenuous efforts to be even-handed with the SNP, but also to criticise the Nationalists when they deserve it. The trouble is that being fair to the SNP or Scottish Socialists is routinely interpreted as being unfair to their Unionist rivals. All this means that those newspaper readers in Scotland who support independence - more than 50% according to some polls and including, it is said, up to 40% of Labour voters - are generally starved of any editorial expression of their views,

What is especially unfair is how the SNP's disappointment at the 2003 Holyrood elections has been interpreted by a hostile Scottish media as a stalling of the independence cause. Yes, the SNP fared poorly (as did Labour) in the elections but independence itself did rather well - well enough to put more independence-supporting MSPs into the Holyrood chamber than in 1999. What's more they and their Unionist colleagues are now demanding a wide range of new powers, if for different political reasons.

Everyone seems to agree, except (publicly) the Executive, that control of taxation should pass from Westminster to Holyrood. Many MSPs are vociferous in seeking more power over transport, broadcasting, fisheries and Scotland's representation in Europe. At the same time there is rising resentment among many Westminster MPs about Scottish MPs voting on English-only affairs. All this surely means Scottish politics is moving closer to, not farther from, independence but you would never know it from the Scottish press.

A dam is building, a dam of the sort which burst when the Conservatives denied devolution and were swept away. History appears to be repeating itself as the pressure rises for another constitutional advance with independence as the inevitable destination. How long can the Scottish media continue to ignore it?

Revealed: True oil wealth hidden to stop independence.

LABOUR ministers were warned in a secret Whitehall dossier 30 years ago of the powerful case for Scotland becoming independent with booming oil revenues, but the information was kept confidential by Harold Wilson's government to keep nationalism at bay.

The dossier, most of which was written by a leading government economist in 1974 and 1975, sets out how Scotland would have had one of the strongest currencies in Europe, attracting international capital into its banks in the same way as Switzerland.

It argued Scotland could quickly become one of Europe's strongest economies with "embarrassingly" large tax surpluses.

The balance-of-payments deficit that dogged Britain at the time would be "swamped" in Scotland by oil revenue and would "transform Scotland into a country with a substantial and chronic surplus".

The assessment demonstrates that the official Whitehall projections for oil tax revenue by 1980, six years after the document, were exceeded nearly 40 times over.

It shows officials advising ministers about how to "take the wind out of SNP sails", but they warned ministers to stop making any economic case against Scotland splitting from the UK, once oil revenues started flowing. The document refers to how the extent of the North Sea boom was being "disguised" by the Department of Trade and Industry.

The dossier details how a split of England and Scotland and a separate Scottish currency would force England into serious economic difficulties comparable to the 1930s slump, as it would have to import oil. It warned of an English backlash, and the possible use of force to ensure a share of the North Sea fields.

Released to the SNP under freedom of information legislation, it states that the scale of Scottish surpluses would be "embarrassing . . . and its currency would become the hardest in Europe, with the exception perhaps of the Norwegian kroner". The SNP said it had cost Scotland £200bn.

The key part of the dossier was prepared when Edward Heath's Tory government was about to lose power in 1974. Much of it was written by Gavin McCrone, one of Scotland's leading economists, who was working for the then Scottish Office. The following year – with Labour concerned by the SNP surge in the two elections of 1974, using the slogan "it's Scotland's oil" – Dr McCrone's projections for independence were circulated to a tight circle of Labour ministers and officials throughout Whitehall. Willie Ross was Scottish secretary.

Dr McCrone argued that if Scotland were independent with its own currency, it could expect to see incomes rise from a figure then clearly below English levels, probably surpassing its southern neighbour, with sustained growth for at least a decade and an end to "stop-go" cycles.

However, industrial manufacturing, then the backbone of the Scottish economy, would find it hard to compete. The suggested answer was that Scotland should use its surpluses to lend heavily to England and its other European neighbours. With proper management, "this situation could last for a very long time into the future".

When the paper was written, the UK was one year into the European Economic Community, later to become the European Union, and Dr McCrone's analysis pointed out that an independent Scotland would have equal access to all its markets. Whereas Scotland without oil would be ignored by large EEC countries, oil would give it considerable bargaining clout.

Kenny MacAskill, SNP deputy Holyrood leader, claimed the dossier countered arguments used at the time that "Scotland's too wee, the oil would run out and that it's not our oil".

He said: "A whole array of myths and lies have been exposed. This means that the Scottish Office and British government . . . knew the North Sea wasn't going to be dry as a bone by the 1980s, and that it would have transformed Scotland economically, socially and politically."

He argued Scotland had missed out on £200bn of revenue as a result of the secrecy of the 1970s. With oil prices at record highs and Treasury revenues from it soaring, the Lothian MSP added: "The North Sea is half full and not half empty, and oil is back on the Scottish political agenda."

[Colkitto]

FFS. ALL countries are political unions you nutsack.

Listen ya thick cnut (apologies if you're not a thick cnut and you just come over that way from your postings).

The union of England and Scotland was ratified in a Treaty of Union. A political union of parliaments. That makes it a political union that could be dissolved after 2010 when hopefully a democratic referendum will be held to let the people of Scotland have their say.

No matter the outcome of the referendum I'll still be a Scot.

If the vote goes to a YES majority, you won't be a brit anymore Gettit ??

[jags_mad]

It is the most plausible explanation as to what would happen. Suggest a more plausible one and I'll consider it.

u really dont have a clue do u

the only 'kingdoms' in the uk are england and scotland

sooooooo

if we left then there would be no uk

[centralparker]

the only 'kingdoms' in the uk are england and scotland

Correct, joined by the union of the crowns in 1603.

[Ad Lib]

u really dont have a clue do u

the only 'kingdoms' in the uk are england and scotland

sooooooo

if we left then there would be no uk

Except the United Kingdom is only one Kingdom. Scotland as a Kingdom is no more. The Unity refers to the lands it encompasses, which happens to be led by a monarch.

Bored of making enough of a tit of yourself on the Jags Forum yet?

Whilst I wouldn't usually move to Wikipedia to support my arguements, read the first paragraph here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Scotland

Note the tense used.

[Guest RTB]

Except the United Kingdom is only one Kingdom. Scotland as a Kingdom is no more. The Unity refers to the lands it encompasses, which happens to be led by a monarch.

Bored of making enough of a tit of yourself on the Jags Forum yet?

I think you have been battered over the heed with a large bible or you are just young and silly.

[Ad Lib]

I think you have been battered over the heed with a large bible or you are just young and silly.

The Kingdom of Scotland (Gaelic: Rìoghachd na h-Alba, Scots: Kinrick o Scotland) was a state in North-West Europe which existed from 843 until 1707.

The Kingdom of Scotland is no more.

[centralparker]

The Kingdom of Scotland is no more.

Of course the Scots kingdom still exists. It was united with England, not obliterated.

And it could be hived off again.

[jags_mad]

The Kingdom of Scotland is no more.

u are right in a sense, but so am i

there was only ever two kingdoms to make it up, so if one leaves, then how can there be a union?

scotland is still a nation, it is simply not a state....yet

[The Old Northerner]

Of course the Scots kingdom still exists. It was united with England, not obliterated.

Both Kingdoms ceased to exist. The nations, however, didn't

[Ad Lib]

In fact, since this issue was actually about passports, let's look at the historical names of the Kingdoms in the British Isles and how they have changed to reflect new borders:

Initially Kingdoms of Scotland and England.

Become the Kingdom of Great Britain after the Act of Union in 1707.

Becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland upon the merger with the Kingdom of Ireland.

Becomes the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland upon the establishment of the Irish Free State.

Now we can conclude a number of things about this.

The Kingdom of Scotland no longer exists.

The "United" term in the phrase was not introduced as a result of the presence of the Scottish.

The "United" term is not removed by the departure of any part of the Kingdom.

In short, if historical prescedent is used for appropriate re-naming upon the departure of an Independent Scotland, there will still be a United Kingdom, just not "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland".

So my English granny would, in fact, make me eligible for a UK passport if Scotland left the Union.

[Guest RTB]

Both Kingdoms ceased to exist. The nations, however, didn't

I hope you never voted ive told you before worry about your own country

[jags_mad]

Bored of making enough of a tit of yourself on the Jags Forum yet?

and im not 'making a tit of myself'

i am simply expresing my opinion

and im not the only one that feels the way i do about those issues, but can u kindly stick to the subject

[Ad Lib]

I hope you never voted ive told you before worry about your own country

a ) Haddington is in East Lothian, Scotland

b ) You told a Berwick fan, not him.