Monday, 13 May 2013

If I was Salmond.......

As a devoted reader and poster of nonsensical comments on the Scotsman newspaper(?) I cannot help noticing that, on rare occasions, the paper is less than impartial and that every initiative announced by the Yes faction is apparently scrutinised and dissected by the NO campaign before going into print.  If one expert agrees with a Yes policies the Scotsman seems to find another expert to countermand the policy and the political opponents or other non-entities are quoted at great length. 

Not that the Scotsman newspaper is alone in this lack of impartiality but the world famous tax-payer funded BBC even use judicious editing of news items to make them appear anti-independence as was the case with a senior Irish politician.  We could expect something along these lines from unionist newspapers - we all know who they are - but not from an impartial broadcaster like the BBC.

Now, if I were Salmond I would say on behalf of the SNP and the Scottish government that: 

Next year the people of Scotland will make the most important decision of their lives which will affect not just them but their children and their children's children and for generations to come.

We will be voting not just for independence but also regarding monetary union or alternatives, membership of organisations such as the EU, NATO, the UN or alternatives to these organisations.

Whilst we were voted into Government with more MSPs than the other parties we are, of course, aware that significant numbers did not vote for us or our policies.  We are also aware that we may not be forming the next Scottish government and that our policies might be subsumed by others.

That being the case, in the event of a YES vote, to be fair to all concerned, we will hold a referendum on all issues such as those mentioned above and, in view of the importance of these decisions we will let the people of Scotland decide the future direction of this country.

To my mind, such a decision would completely wrong-foot the Better Together campaign who would not be able to argue that Westminster knows best regarding the wishes and aspirations of Scottish voters.

It would also attract voters who may, or may not, wish to join the organisations mentioned but who, at present, feel that their voices may not be heard or that their opinions do not matter.

When all is said and done if voters feel that, far from being dictated to, they are being consulted in every aspect of their future they are much more likely to vote for the opportunity to do so.


  1. This is one of the things which would raise the SNP in my estimation (for what that's worth); if they said more often that they won't necessarily form the first Independent Scottish Government.

    (I mean, I think they will anyway because the rest are so utterly dismal, but its the sentiment that counts.)

    On the EU, its impossible to say because there will be a renegotiation anyway; perhaps a referendum on that then?

    1. Pa. I think Salmond has pointed this out on a few occasions, but obviously he can't go around shouting it from the rooftops. Most politicians don't even think about the possibility of defeat.

      But I think that Yes Scotland could make a lot more of it.

      There seems to be a perception amongst some people who are maybe not thinking it through, that a yes vote means that Mr Salmond will be first minister for life, sort of Mugable style.

      I don't think that there will be much renegotiation going on in the EU. The most important people to persuade are the big countries and Cameron pissed off President Hollande big time by inviting rich Frenchmen to tax dodge in England. I can't see Mr Hollande looking favourably at the UK getting to cherry pick the parts of the EU it fancies and leaving the rest.

      Mr Cameron is not destined to leave anything much behind him, except a sort of a laughable period of history when the Tories tried to resurrect the Eton cabal of yesteryear. The days when you could get by as PM because you knew the right people, spoke Latin and had a good knowledge of when to wear a white tie, are long since gone. Today you need brains and Cameron hasn't got any.

    2. Sorry for not replying before as I was busy and only able to pop in now and again. I seem to recall that the SNP said that they would hold a referendum before joining the euro. If that is a prerequisite to remaining in the eu I should imagine the referendum would go ahead. The reasoning behind my post, however, is that it would make it impossible for the No campaign to be critical of the aspirations of the Scottish public rather than that of a political party.

  2. I think that that is sensible.

    A new country; a new start.

    Nato; EU; EFTA; and all the other organisations of which we might of might not want to be members, could be put to the Scottish people, before we apply to join them as an independent nation.

    I don't know how difficult that would be, but it would make sense to me to try it.

    We might also like to ask the people who they want as head of state. Personally, although I'm a republican I've no particular desire to see Elizabeth decrowned, but I do have very serious reservations about King Charles and Queen Mrs Parker Bowles.

    But I'll go along with what the majority wants. Charlie and Mrs PB shouldn't be around for long I'd think.

  3. Vote Yes, choose your next Scottish Government. Vote No, have it chosen for you.

    1. Brilliant, I think that should be repeatedly pointed out by the Yes campaign.

  4. Tris,

    If we must have royalty I would vote for Princess Anne - if nothing else she knows and can sing the words of Flower of Scotland. I personally think it's a dirge and would prefer Auld Lang Syne which is internally known as endorsing friendship and neighborness to all!

    1. Aye she's not a bad old thing.

      Flower is a bit of a dirge you are right. I'd be happy with Scotland the brave, or something entirely new, but not weird.

  5. Dear me, I understand it is internationally known as well!