A majority of Scots favour independence, according to a new poll.
The
ICM survey for Thursday's Scotsman newspaper also
found a surge in support for the SNP just months away from next May's
Scottish parliamentary elections.
Next
year
also
sees
the
300th
anniversary
of
the
Act
of
Union
and
nationalists
are
hoping
to
exploit
unhappiness
with
the
The
poll showed support for Scottish independence running at 51 per cent,
the first time since 1998, the year before devolution, that support for
separation has attained a majority.
That
compared
with
39
per
cent
who
actively
wish
to
remain
part
of
the
Scottish voters will have two votes - one for a first-past-the-post constituency MSP and a second for the party they favour on a proportional representation list system.
On
the first the poll shows a resurgent SNP enjoying 32 per cent support
to Labour's 30 per cent. On the second both parties are level on 28 per
cent.
But if the results were replicated in May's election the ruling Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition would retain a majority in the Holyrood parliament.
Labour would take 41 seats with the SNP on 37, the Lib Dems 25, the Conservatives 17, the Greens five and 'others' four.
Alex Salmond has said that there is growing support for nationalism in Scotland.
The SNP leader said recent polls showing a narrow majority in favour of separation proved that ministers had "miscalculated" in offering only limited devolution.
"Initially people wanted to try the devolved parliament, they wanted to suck it and see," he told the BBC's Sunday AM programme.
But the present arrangements had been "found to be inadequate", he argued, because too much power remained in Westminster.
Salmond said chancellor Gordon Brown had a "vested interest" in retaining the union because he would need Scottish MPs to allow him to form a government in Westminster as prime minister.
And he said he would be "fighting Gordon Brown" rather than Jack McConnell in next year's Holyrood elections because of the Labour first minister's low profile.
Mr Brown told the Scottish Labour Party conference that the economic futures of Scotland and the rest of the UK are inextricably linked.
The chancellor said UK links should be maintained for "solidarity" in the age of "interdependence".
Mr Brown also used his conference speech to attack Labour's opponents.
Earlier, writing in the Daily Record newspaper, he pointed to links between Scotland and the rest of the UK by saying: "Two-and-a-half million people in Scotland have a family in England."
He added: "Almost one in six Scots make their home south of the border and 400,000 people who live in Scotland are English-born."
In his conference speech, he claimed that Britain is a model for how countries can co-operate together.
Mr Brown said: "The 21st Century is going to be characterised by interdependence."
He added that those who "believe in solidarity across borders and across countries know that to sever links with countries when these links are so close is not only bad for economics, it is bad for the solidarity that should exist across borders and across countries in this world".
BBC political correspondent Norman Smith said Mr Brown's comments come amid mounting fears within the government that the Scottish National Party could be victorious in next May's elections to the Scottish parliament.
On Friday, Prime Minister Tony Blair urged Labour to defend Scotland from the "constitutional nightmare" of an SNP government.
Speaking at the conference, the chancellor said Labour had to "expose" what its opponents "are up to".
He said: "The Conservatives don't care about the union and about Britain. They are fighting a policy of English votes for English laws.
"The Liberals have a shopping list that doesn't add up at any point.
"And the Nationalists continue to practice a politics of grudge and grievance and we have got to expose it."
Dr Reid, MP for Airdrie and Shotts, said the SNP were unfit to face the great challenges of the coming decades.
He said international terrorism, organised crime, mass migration and the environment did not stop at the border.
SNP leader Alex Salmond claimed Labour was "scared stiff" of his party and acting in its own self-interest.
Dr Reid's comments came after similar attacks by Prime Minister Tony Blair and Chancellor Gordon Brown.
Border guards
He dismissed the SNP and their cause as "not fit for purpose" in the modern world.
He told Labour delegates: "The true liberation of this country lies not in the rhetoric of the Nationalists but in developing the talents of each and every one of our children through education. That is the Scottish heritage."
Dr Reid added: "In the face of the environment, international crime and terrorism, and mass migration, the narrow Nationalists stand helpless.
"Because these challenges cannot be tackled by putting border guards at Gretna Green."
| |
For the first time in history
almost half of all Scots have relatives from south of the border John Reid Home secretary |
He also emphasised the "interdependence" of Scotland and England.
The home secretary said that almost one million Scots lived and worked south of the border.
"A million Scots working in England in every trade and every profession up to the prime minister - and I'm told the next prime minister might be Scottish as well," Dr Reid said.
The home secretary said that in 1707 when Scotland first entered the union only 30,000 Scots had English relatives.
He said: "Now there are over two million of us, who either have an English partner, as in my case, or have family in England, as in many other cases.
"For the first time in history almost half of all Scots have relatives from south of the border."
Dr Reid said separating the two countries would not be acceptable to these people.
Scottish resources
The home secretary's attack followed an ICM survey for the Sunday Telegraph which suggested support for Scottish independence had reached 52% among Scots and 59% in England.
The SNP leader said Labour had a vested interested in keeping Scotland and England from being independent because it wanted to run England on Scottish votes.
Mr Salmond said: "They, like the Tories, also want to get their hands on Scottish resources.
"I mean what they're speaking from is not the national interest of Scotland or England. It's the self-interest of the Labour party and Labour party politicians like John Reid, Gordon Brown, who want to be prime minister".
| |
If the question is the rights
and wrongs of the action in Iraq, the answer is not Scottish
independence Douglas Alexander Scottish secretary |
Later Scottish Secretary Douglas Alexander joined the attack on the SNP.
He told delegates in Oban: "The Nationalists just don't get it.
"While children throughout Europe are learning Cantonese, they (the SNP) want to re-enact Culloden."
Acknowledging voter unease over Iraq he said: "If the question is the rights and wrongs of the action in Iraq, the answer is not Scottish independence.
"If the problem is stability in the Middle East, a border between Scotland and England is not the solution."
The chancellor told the Fabian Society that some groups were "playing fast and loose" with the union of England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.
He said the UK was a country "built on shared values" which served as a "model for the rest of the world".
SNP leader Alex Salmond said Mr Brown was thinking only of his "self-interest as a prime minister designate".
Mr Brown, a Scot who is MP for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, is expected to take over as prime minister later this year.
Talking to former Labour MP Oona King at the start of the Labour think-tank's conference, Mr Brown stressed the importance of the country's shared values.
| |
He cannot tolerate the idea of
Scotland slipping out of Labour's control just at the point he wants to
move into No 10 Alex Salmond Scottish National Party |
"It is very important to recognise that Britishness and Britain itself is not based on ethnicity and race," he said.
"It is founded on shared values that we hold in common: a commitment to liberty for all, a commitment to social responsibility shown by all, and a commitment to fairness to all."
He said there was now a dividing line in Britain which pitted "those of us who are prepared to support the shared values of the union" against "those who are prepared to play fast and loose with the union and put the whole future of the union at risk".
English issues
This year is the 300th anniversary of the Act of Union that merged the English and Scottish parliaments.
The pro-independence Scottish National Party is tipped to do well in the Scottish Parliament elections in May, with the independence debate likely to crop up often in the campaign.
SNP leader Mr Salmond said the chancellor "could not tolerate the idea of Scotland slipping out of Labour's control just at the point he wants to move into No 10".
"Revealingly, Mr Brown is unable to accept that, under his chancellorship, the Scottish economy has lagged behind both the UK and spectacularly, the small independent countries in Europe."
The Conservatives have suggested for some time now that it might be better if exclusively English laws were voted on by English MPs alone.
But Mr Brown said the idea of "English votes for English laws" would pull the union apart.
'Faustian bargain'
During a wide-ranging address to the Fabians, Mr Brown pledged support for the idea of raising the school-leaving age to 18.
And he told delegates that terrorism and security issues could not be solved through military means alone.
Earlier, he had written an article in the Daily Telegraph where he criticised the Conservatives for siding with the nationalists over constitutional issues.
In it he warned: "It is now time for supporters of the union to speak up, to resist any drift towards a Balkanisation of Britain and to acknowledge Great Britain for the success it has been and is."
He attacked today's Conservatives for embracing "anti-unionist positions" in collusion with nationalists - contrasting them with Lady Thatcher's determined support for the union.
Liberal Democrat leader Sir Menzies Campbell said the chancellor was right to highlight the "Faustian bargain" between the nationalists and the Tories.
"They may have different motives but their actions will jointly lead to the same conclusion - the break-up of the union," he said.
But shadow Scotland secretary David Mundell said the chancellor was "undermining Britishness with his support for English regionalisation, identity cards and the European constitution."
Mr Mundell also accused the chancellor of sticking his "head in the sand" over any modernisation of the union.
He told BBC News 24: "Gordon Brown simply sticks his head in the sand and says the only way to deal with that issue, and that question, is not to ask it."
This was not meant to happen. Scottish devolution was supposed to satisfy most Scots who wanted a political expression of national identity. In so doing, it would ensure that the SNP became a mere party of protest. Well, if the polls are right, the Nats will come first on Thursday. They will still be some way short of half the seats, let alone half the votes. But first place would convey moral momentum.
With the tacit support of various fringe parties plus the Tartan Tarts - the Scottish Liberals - Alex Salmond will almost certainly become First Minister. Though it would not be a stable administration, this would not worry Mr Salmond. There would be endless opportunities for disruption, with he and his ministers insisting that London was to blame for all of Scotland's woes. Alex Salmond would rely on his political skills, plus his opponents' lack of them. Throughout his manoeuvrings, he would be waiting for the moment to launch his referendum.
Though he would not be counting on them, he might well find allies in England. Ultimately, the mortal threat to the Union could come from south of the border. There is only one circumstance in which the Scots would vote to separate themselves from England's chequebook: if the polling booths did not close until after closing time on Saturday. Otherwise, common sense would prevail. But the English might opt for their version of common sense.
Over the past 40 years, there has been no more fascinating political phenomenon than the rise of the Cross of St George. At the 1966 World Cup, the English went into action under the Union Flag. So how did St. George's Cross move from the church steeple to white-van-man's bonnet? Although no one seems to know, it does not suggest that English Unionism is in good order.
One might have thought, and hoped, that Englishmen's swords would have leapt from their scabbards to defend the integrity of the United Kingdom. That may now be a sentimental illusion. A lot of English voters are forming the impression that the Scots do not like them, that they rejoice in England's sporting defeats by other nations - while filling their boots with English subsidies and sending their MPs to impose laws on England that do not apply in Scotland. Over the years, the Scots have grown accustomed to proclaiming their grievances with no retaliation from England. They would be foolish to rely on an indefinite supply of English reticence.
So what has gone wrong? It is tempting to answer, "everything''. The devolved Parliament is a wretched body. The Scots have a word, "mouthless'', whose meaning is self-evident. If it had not already existed, it would have been invented to describe the debates in the Holyrood Parliament. They are a disgrace in a country which has always prided itself on its standard of education.
The final Scottish Parliament, which voted to extinguish itself before the Act of Union, had no claims to be democratic. Yet its standards of debate were infinitely higher than its successor 300 years on. Few, if any, Scots respect the current parliament. The Scots are prone to suffer from political delusions, but in this instance they are right.
Underlying the disillusion with Holyrood there is the long psychodrama of Scotland's relationship with England. On the left they pretended that this was all Maggie's fault. There is no doubt that Mrs Thatcher was widely loathed in Scotland. However much she professed her - sincere - admiration for the Scottish Enlightenment, whose luminaries were the progenitors of Thatcherism, many Scots saw her as a South Kensington nationalist. Thus the understandable view on the left that once she was gone and devolution achieved, all would be well.
This ignored the crisis which had been caused by the end of Empire. As long as there was an Empire, the Scots were happy to be British. Imperial commerce and administration enriched many a Scottish family. But as the Union Flags were lowered at the Imperial sunset, horizons contracted and resentments grew. The Scots felt insecure about their national identity, and threatened by their over-mighty neighbour.
There is no precedent or parallel for a small country to find itself in a democratic union with a nation 10 times it size (Wales was never a political nation). It was easy for Scottish malcontents to claim that Scotland was England's last important colony. This was not England's fault. In the United Kingdom, English predominance was ensured by size, not by arrogance. Even so, large numbers of Scots became obsessed by the Anglo-Scottish relationship. Every time an Englishman said "England'' to mean "Britain'' many Scots regarded it as a casus belli.
All this was inflamed by the use of history to promote Scottish nationalism and anti-English feelings. Ulster Protestants are often accused of talking as if the Battle of the Boyne (1690) took place last week. What about the Scots? Wallace's heroic gore, the glory of Bannockburn, the grief of Flodden and the Flowers of the Forest: these are still live events in contemporary Scottish politics, even though Flodden, the latest of them, took place in 1513.
Admittedly, the Battle of Culloden was as recent as 1746. But it has also become part of an anti-English national narrative, even though there were more Scots in the Duke of Cumberland's army than in Bonny Prince Charlie's. In the early decades of the 19th century, the ancient Highland order was engaged in a doomed, romantic, cattle-raiding final phase of resistance against the forces of modernity, which included the Scottish Lowlands. At the same time, Edinburgh was becoming a world capital of intellect. Glasgow would shortly follow, as a great entrepôt. The Union with England pulled Scotland out of poverty and backwardness. Yet most Scots still believe that their history entitles them to demand reparations from the English.
None of this will be solved before Thursday. From a Unionist point of view, it has been a hopeless election campaign. Those who are opposed to Scottish independence have been reduced to claiming that Scotland is not fit to run itself. Though this is not an implausible argument, it is hardly calculated to win over Scottish voters. The other parties have seemed desperate for power, despite their past failures, while Alex Salmond has come over as fresh and exciting. He is also the cleverest Scottish politician based north of the border.
As for the hope that the SNP could be dismissed as a party of protest, anyone who believed that was taking insufficient account of the Scottish character. It is as hard to sell protest in Scotland as it is to sell cold beer in Australia.
Those of us who support the Union will have to hope that the opinion polls are wrong. In order to prove them so there is only one thing to be done. It may seem an unlikely endorsement from this column, but apart from the few constituencies where the Tory candidate could win, everyone in Scotland who believes in the Union should vote Labour.
The Scottish National Party's victory in last week's elections might still amount to no more than a hill of beans. The SNP may have 47 seats in Scotland's Parliament compared with the 46 held by Labour, but neither party has anything like a working majority. There are, after all, a total of 129 seats.
Nevertheless, the SNP has got one foot through the door marked "independence". What, economically, might independence mean for the people of Scotland?
Oddly enough, my initial, knee-jerk answer is "not very much". Politicians are always fond of claiming they can transform the performance of an economy but most of these "political" transformations are either limited in their ambition or, alternatively, simply unsustainable. It's all very well establishing a national border just north of Berwick upon Tweed but everyone knows these days that national borders no longer determine economic borders. Of course, it's always possible to impose capital controls or place limits on trade but neither of these would be too clever and neither, within the European Union, would be legal.
So, to get to the heart of economic independence, I think we have to go back a few steps. In particular, we need to think about the institutional arrangements that may have an impact on economic progress. Of these, one of the more important is money.
The Bank of England currently sets Scottish monetary policy as part of its mandate to achieve price stability in the United Kingdom. What happens, though, if Scotland votes for independence? Alex Salmond, the SNP's leader, has already accepted that, in the months and years initially following independence, sterling would remain Scotland's currency. However, Mr Salmond has also dropped a few hints suggesting that, ultimately, he'd be more than happy to consider membership of the euro.
What should the Bank of England's Monetary Policy Committee do in its first meeting following Scottish independence? Should the Committee's members consider Scotland's economic performance alongside other parts of the former United Kingdom in coming to a decision with regard to interest rates? Or, instead, should they cast Scotland's economy asunder?
Presumably, the decision ultimately rests with what would now be the England, Wales and Northern Ireland parliament in London. It seems to me, though, that there is no particular reason why the Bank of England should pay much attention to developments north of the border. If Scotland's leaders decide to stick with the Bank of England's monetary policy, that's up to them, in much the same way that Hong Kong's leadership chooses passively to accept the monetary rigours of the US Federal Reserve. It's monetary policy without representation, the price to be paid for piggy-backing on someone else's credible monetary arrangements.
Another option would be to argue in favour of a sterling "monetary union" between Scotland and the economies south of the border, along the lines of the monetary union that exists for the countries within the eurozone. It's difficult, though, to see how the eurozone model could apply to Scottish independence. The European Central Bank's (ECB's) Governing Council includes representatives from all nations who are members of the euro. Applying similar principles to the Bank of England would require a national representative from Scotland. But why should Scotland get an independent voice when Wales, Cornwall and London presumably would not?
True monetary independence requires a separate currency but it's doubtful that Scotland would ever go down this route, even if there are a few precedents. Irish punts were first introduced in 1928, six years after Irish independence although, for many years, they really behaved a bit like Scottish banknotes: different from sterling in appearance but, ultimately, much the same thing. It wasn't really until the formation of the European exchange rate mechanism in 1979 that the Irish currency went its own way. Even then, its room for manoeuvre was curtailed and, not long after, the punt disappeared from view altogether, subsumed into the euro in 1999.
Then there's the Australian pound which, for many years after its introduction early in the 20th century, stuck like a limpet to sterling. Only following the Depression at the beginning of the 1930s did Australia go its own way, choosing to devalue its pound against sterling and a range of other currencies.
These days, though, many small economies which trade a lot with others end up joining monetary unions. The costs of independence - widely fluctuating exchange rates, volatile interest rates, unpredictable capital flows, particularly for what would be an oil-centric state - are just too painful, making membership of a broader club an attractive option (Norway is sometimes argued to be an exception, but Norway's economy has had huge ups and downs over the last few decades). For Scotland, the euro has a certain allure. Joining the euro would, first, underline Scotland's separation from England, second, provide (at the moment) a windfall reduction in interest rates and, third, deliver the Governor of a Scottish Central Bank a seat at the ECB's policy table.
This might not be monetary independence, but it does emphasise that Scotland would, at least, have a monetary choice. Certainly, the lower interest rates on offer in the euro area would be an attraction, but this kind of argument is rather phoney: lower rates might pave the way for higher inflation, rampant gains in house prices and growing inequalities of wealth (I'm reminded of a conversation I had with a taxi driver in Dublin. We were talking about the costs of overheating - notably the terrible traffic congestion - so I cheerfully pointed out that at least he'd made some money out of his house. Unfortunately, it turned out that he rented, and at that point the conversation went just a little flat).
Perhaps Scotland's real economic hopes lie, instead, on the fiscal side. Why not be another Celtic tiger and emulate Ireland's remarkable story? Plenty of explanations have been put forward to explain Ireland's success in the 1990s and beyond (although Scotland's leaders should also examine carefully Ireland's earlier decades of economic failure). The legalisation of contraception in 1980 contributed to a falling birth rate which, in turn, gave women more opportunities to find work. When the economy began to improve, Ireland was able to tap into its diaspora, with many prodigal workers returning home. On top of all these factors, though, was Ireland's decision to set remarkably low corporate tax rates to encourage foreign capital to head to the Emerald Isle.
Could Scotland do the same? Possibly, but there are some notable obstacles. North Sea Oil is a mixed blessing. Big changes in oil prices can leave an economy rich one minute and poor the next. A dominant oil sector can make it difficult to attract investment for other purposes (think of Russia and the Middle East). And it took Ireland many decades before, finally, it turned into the Celtic tiger we recognise today.
The most economically credible aspect of Scotland's desire for independence is, I suspect, the existence of the European Union. A few years ago, Quebec went through the same kind of soul-searching. French Canada wasn't sure it was really Canadian. Ultimately, though, Quebec stayed Canadian, perhaps because the alternative was, economically, an empty void. For Scotland, there's no such void. It may want to rid itself of English institutions, but there are plenty of European institutions already established waiting to take over. From that perspective, Scottish independence is definitely do-able. Whether it amounts to the independence the SNP dreams of is, of course, another matter altogether.
Stephen King is managing director of economics at HSBC
| |
Alex Salmond said
no change was no longer an option Salmond speech |
Launching a "national conversation", First Minister Alex Salmond said "no change was no longer an option".
The SNP leader said the white paper set out the "full range of options" which would be debated.
Labour, Tories and Lib Dems, who hold a majority in the Scottish Parliament, have united to oppose independence.
In a broad, 40-page document, Mr Salmond set out the case for a ballot on independence, while saying he was "open-minded" on alternative opinions.
| |
The opportunity now presents
itself for those who want another option in a referendum to define that
option Alex Salmond First Minister |
He claimed it was the "settled will" of the Scottish people for their parliament to grow in "influence and authority".
The white paper sets out what the SNP sees as the three main "realistic" choices for Scots.
These are: the present devolved set-up, re-designing devolution by extending the powers of the Scottish Parliament in specific areas - or full independence.
The white paper also includes the draft wording of the ballot paper for a referendum.
This asks voters whether they agree or disagree "that the Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of a United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state".
'Division and uncertainty'
However, Mr Salmond said he was "relaxed" about the possibility of a multi-option referendum.
He said: "The opportunity now presents itself for those who want another option in a referendum to define that option and present the case to the government for inclusion on the ballot paper".
The first minister unveiled his white paper the day after Labour, the Tories and the Lib Dems joined forces to claim the plan would damage Scotland by creating division and uncertainty.
All the other parties aside from the Greens, who have two MSPs, are opposed to independence - but said they were willing to review devolution.
| |
Gordon Brown set
out his determination to tackle the SNP Gordon Brown |
Prime Minister Gordon Brown has billed Labour as "the front line of defence" against the SNP.
And he declared that Scottish Labour leader Wendy Alexander would be the next first minister of Scotland.
Mr Brown was addressing the Scottish Labour conference in Aviemore, the first since the party lost power to the SNP in Scotland last May.
He also used his speech to reinforce a unified Britain in making the world a better place.
Speaking from the stage without notes, the prime minister claimed the Scottish Government had put youngsters' future at risk through cuts in education spending.
He declared: "I say we should stand up for the people of Scotland and for the young children of Scotland and we will be the front line of defence for them against those SNP cuts.
| |
We will stand up against the SNP
not only because their policy is wrong
but they are depriving people of the best chance of a future for
Scotland Gordon Brown Prime Minister |
"Those cuts are not only wrong, they are depriving our country of its best future."
Listing various SNP policy decisions in areas such as educational maintenance allowances, Mr Brown declared: "We will be the front line of defence for young people that need that help to get the qualifications.
"And we will stand up against the SNP not only because their policy is wrong but they are depriving people of the best chance of a future for Scotland in this new global economy."
Mr Brown also paid tribute to Ms Alexander and her warning that Labour had to learn the lessons from its defeat in the Holyrood election.
He went on: "And I believe that Wendy Alexander is not only the leader of our party here in Scotland but she will be the next first minister of Scotland whenever an election is declared."
The prime minister went on to say that the current generation could be the first to eradicate centuries-old diseases and ensure every child in the world had access to education, if the UK worked with other countries.
Mr Brown said the SNP's "separatist policies" would not prepare Britain for the future.
The Nationalists, he claimed, wanted to "build barriers and erect borders", while the prime minister threw his support behind the new, independent Constitutional Commission, set up to review Scottish devolution 10 years on.
Mr Brown spoke of the achievements of Labour in more than a decade in power at Westminster, telling delegates it had created 200,000 jobs across Britain and brought in the national minimum wage.
He outlined his desire for a country where there was opportunity for all - announcing an extra £120m to help athletes win medals at the Olympics and the Commonwealth Games - to be held in Glasgow in 2014.
The Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath MP told delegates he was proud to have gone to his local school in Fife and said he was angered by children destined to fail through poverty, or youngsters unable to stay on at school because of parental circumstances.
"I believe in a Scotland where everyone should have the chance to rise as far as their talents can take them, where the talents of each of us should contribute to the wellbeing of all," he said, outlining his aspiration to "unlock all the talent of all the people".
Mr Brown stressed the rise of India and China - places where it was no longer about the race out of low pay, but the one to better skills, adding: "While those countries produced five million graduates, this country produced just 400,000.
"We used to talk about the arms race. Now we have a skills race around the world.
"That is why the message that we have always believed in - that social justice is about everybody having the opportunity to make the most of their lives - is the message for the future of our economy as well."
Gordon Brown has accused the SNP of making the "wrong decisions" for Scotland.
Campaigning in Glenrothes ahead of the by-election next Thursday, the prime minister joined Labour candidate Lindsay Roy to speak to a group of voters.
Brown said that the actions of his Labour government at Westminster had been best for the whole country whilst those of the nationalist administration at Holyrood had weakened Scotland.
He said: "I'm afraid the decisions that the Scottish National Party have been making are the wrong decisions. They have not done right by Scotland."
Brown claimed the SNP's policies had been "proved to be inadequate" and he also accused them of being "totally reliant on a volatile resource, oil".
The SNP has previously compared Scotland's position to small independent European countries such as Iceland and Ireland, with nationalists claiming these nations formed part of an "arc of prosperity".
Brown said: "They have compared themselves to economies like Iceland and Ireland that are not doing well at all, they are small economies doing very badly indeed.
"I believe in Scotland, but I believe Scotland is stronger, not weaker, as part of the United Kingdom and I believe all of us, the whole of the United Kingdom, benefit from Scotland being part of it."
The by-election in Glenrothes is taking place following the death of Labour MP John MacDougall, who had a majority of 10,664 at the last election.
But that is smaller than the majority that the SNP overturned to win the Glasgow East by-election in the summer.
The prime minister said: "We are fighting for every vote. We recognise these are difficult times and we recognise that we are taking this country through a downturn, but we are doing it fairly.
"I think people understand that we can't solve this problem by walking away like the SNP. They have made all the wrong judgments on all the wrong policy decisions about major issues affecting our country."
And he stressed: "We have to make the right decisions, we have to take people through long-term difficulties."
| |
Mr Trump's plans
have caused two years of division |
Donald Trump has said he is "greatly honoured" his £1bn golf resort plan in Aberdeenshire has been approved, but opponents expressed disappointment.
US tycoon Mr Trump's plan to build two golf courses, as well as hundreds of homes, at Menie has caused business and environmental division for two years.
The plan was called in by the Scottish Government after it was rejected by an Aberdeenshire Council committee.
Finance Secretary John Swinney has backed it after a public local inquiry.
First Minister Alex Salmond also hailed the news, citing 6,000 possible jobs.
Please turn on JavaScript. Media requires JavaScript to play.
Donald Trump on the golf resort decision
However, opponents of the project, such as RSPB Scotland, were angry at the news. Mr Swinney said outline planning permission was being granted - and that the significant economic and social benefit of the project was a major consideration in his decision.
He said the Trump Organisation would need to make sure sand dunes and wildlife on the estate at Menie were properly protected.
Mr Swinney has also ordered that no more than 500 private homes be built.
'Greatest course'
Mr Trump said: "We are greatly honoured by the positive decision and believe that the people of Scotland will be extremely happy with the final product.
"It will be a tremendous asset and source of pride for both Aberdeenshire and Scotland for many generations.
"I would like to personally thank the thousands of people and organisations who have supported us throughout this process. As I have often said, because of the quality of the land we are given to work with, we will build the greatest golf course in the world."
Many business leaders have backed the plans.
However, groups including Scottish Natural Heritage (SNH) and RSPB Scotland opposed the project due to Mr Trump's plans to build part of a course on sensitive sand dunes.
Welcoming the decision, Aberdeenshire Council leader Anne Robertson said: "I truly believe a development of this type will bring significant benefits to the area, particularly in terms of jobs and tourism.
"Before the development can proceed further applications, which contain the full details of all of the elements of the proposal, will have to be submitted to, and approved by, Aberdeenshire Council."
Ken Massie, VisitScotland's regional director for Aberdeen and Grampian, said: "We welcome the decision as the development will make a significant impact on the economy."
'Precious wildlife'
Martin Ford, the Aberdeenshire councillor whose casting vote originally saw Mr Trump's plans rejected, told BBC Scotland: "I am very disappointed, it sets a very bad precedent."
Green MSP Patrick Harvie said: "The fact that this project has been approved in its entirety demonstrates a blatant disregard for the legal protections these dunes are under.
Rob Ashlin of the Sustainable Aberdeenshire group, which opposed the development, said: "I think this is a damning verdict.
"Donald Trump is not just planning a recreational facility, it is a huge housing development that goes against Aberdeenshire Council's planning policy.
"It's very disappointing."
Aedan Smith, head of planning and development at RSPB Scotland, said: "RSPB Scotland is surprised and extremely disappointed at this decision, which we believe is wrong both for Aberdeenshire and for Scotland.
"The development will cause the destruction of a dune system, with its precious wildlife, on a site which is protected by law and should continue to be available for future generations to enjoy.
"We, and the thousands of other objectors, consider that this is too high a price to pay for the claimed economic benefits from this development."
A decision has been reached which could see the Lockerbie bomber freed or transferred to jail in Libya.
The Scottish justice secretary has said he will announce the fate of Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi on Thursday afternoon.
Megrahi, 57, is dying from terminal prostate cancer. The BBC revealed last week that Megrahi was likely to be released on compassionate grounds.
He is serving at least 27 years in jail after his conviction for the Pan Am bomb in 1988, which killed 270 people.
Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill said he had informed families and other interested parties that he had reached his decision on the applications for prisoner transfer and compassionate release.
He will announce his decision on Thursday at 1300 BST at the Scottish Government's ministerial headquarters in Edinburgh.
It is thought preparations for Mr Megrahi's possible release were being made in time for him to be home with his family in Libya by Ramadan, which starts on Friday.
Intense pressure on the justice secretary and the Scottish Government has been mounting, including interventions from the White House.
On Wednesday, US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton reiterated her opposition to the possible release of Megrahi.
She said it would be "absolutely wrong".
"I knew a lot of these families. I talked with them about what a horror they experienced," Mrs Clinton said.
Earlier this week, a letter from seven US senators including Edward Kennedy and John Kerry urged Mr MacAskill to keep Megrahi behind bars.
A Scottish Government spokesman said: "We have a strong justice system in Scotland and people can be assured that the justice secretary's decisions have been reached on the basis of clear evidence and on no other factors."
Appeal dropped
Chancellor Alistair Darling, standing in for the prime minister while Gordon Brown is on holiday, said it was a decision for the Scottish Government.
On Tuesday, judges at the High Court in Edinburgh who accepted Megrahi's application to drop his appeal were told Megrahi's health had recently worsened very considerably.
By dropping his appeal, Megrahi has removed one potential obstacle to his transfer to a jail in his homeland.
However, a Crown appeal against the length of his sentence is still ongoing.
Megrahi has been serving his sentence at HMP Greenock, in the west of Scotland, after being convicted of the bombing under Scots law at a specially convened court in the Netherlands in 2001.
Labour have hailed their win in the
Glasgow North East by-election as a dramatic victory and an endorsement
of Prime Minister Gordon Brown's policies.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8358429.stm
The
point
is
Brown's
opponents
are
not
on
good
ground.
They
can't
get
their
supporters
out
for
good
reason.
The
good
judgment
of
the
SNP
over
Al
Megrahi has not helped them turn out
their misguided supporters of independence, financial support for
independence is linked to two Scottish banks that screwed up totally,
and the Sun newspaper is well on the way to keeping Brown and Labour in
power by supporting Cameron and playing dirty with the news.
The leader of the Roman Catholic Church in Scotland has attacked the US over the release of the Lockerbie bomber.
Cardinal Keith O'Brien said the Scottish government was right to free Abdelbaset Ali al-Megrahi last year on compassionate grounds.
US lawmakers want Scots politicians to explain their decision to a
committee, but the cardinal said ministers should not go "crawling like
lapdogs".
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-10905562
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
My Lords, could my noble friend confirm that privately the First Minister has been threatening government
Ministers that if we constitute a legally conducted referendum campaign
in Scotland, he will make it his business to boycott that referendum
and to prevent the police and other services from seeing that it is
carried out? Is the First Minister not getting a bit too big for his
boots?
Lord Strathclyde (Leader of the House of Lords, House of Lords; Conservative)
My Lords, I cannot confirm to my noble friend Lord Forsyth that
the First Minister of Scotland has been threatening UK government Minsters. If
it were true, however, that he would seek to frustrate a referendum in
Scotland that had been legally and rightly established by the Westminster
Parliament, it would be the most extraordinary event. Surely the
first person who should whoop for joy if there were to be a referendum
on the issue of separation in Scotland should be the First Minister.
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
Can the Government confirm whether they have conducted any research
into the year-on-year implications for jobs in Scotland of investment
decisions that might be affected by the prospect of a referendum and
the prospect of independence? The First Minister talks of an independence
referendum perhaps in 2015, with no certain date or timescale. Will the
Government consider making representations to ensure that the
uncertainty that that creates is minimised by bringing forward the date
to as soon as possible?
Lord Strathclyde (Leader of the House of Lords, House of Lords; Conservative)
The noble Lord brings a lot of experience to this whole subject. I am glad to say that my right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland himself has laid six-there could be many more-questions to the First Minister for Scotland on the whole issue of what independence means, so that we can have the clarity that I alluded to in the first Answer.
Lord Soley (Labour)
To ask Her Majesty's Government whether they have any proposals to inform the public about the advantages of maintaining the union of the United Kingdom.
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, the noble Lord, Lord Soley, said at Second Reading of the Scotland Bill that the United Kingdom,
"is one of the most effective political and economic unions that the world has ever seen".-[Hansard, 6/9/11; col. 234.]
The Government wholeheartedly agree, and my ministerial colleagues
and I will do all that we can to make the case for the United Kingdom.
I also urge those who support this unique partnership to join the
debate and promote its benefits.
Lord Soley (Labour)
I am very grateful for that Answer. Does the noble and learned Lord agree that this message needs to go out not just in Scotland but in England too? There is a very real danger to our nationalism and we need to get out the message that many states around the world envy our stable system, which has brought peace and prosperity to the United Kingdom and is a model for other countries. Does he also agree that this issue is not for any one party or any one part of the United Kingdom?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I certainly agree that this is not for any one party or any one part of the United Kingdom. Judging by the response to my Answer and to the noble Lord's Question, we all share a common interest in spelling out the merits for the union, which is of 304 years' duration. I think the question the separatists have to answer is: why separate?
Lord Lang of Monkton (Conservative)
My Lords, if the Greeks can organise a referendum in four weeks, why should it take four years to organise one in Scotland? Is not the idea of the Scottish national Administration in Edinburgh organising a referendum on independence a bit like a plaintiff presiding over their own case in court when seeking a divorce? Would it not be more appropriate for the British Government and the British Parliament to take hold of this issue and to hold the referendum soon with one simple question: do you want Scotland to leave the United Kingdom?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, I certainly think that one simple question that focuses on whether Scotland should or should not be a part of the United Kingdom is key. We should avoid any attempt to muddy the waters-as I think one rather influential academic put it last week-in suggesting a second question. That is spot on. I do not think that that would bring the clarity that we need on an issue such as this. I assure my noble friend that United Kingdom government Ministers have been pressing the Scottish Government to come clean as to their timings and, more specifically, what they mean by independence. My right honourable friend the Secretary of State for Scotland has posed a number of questions and we are still waiting for answers.
Lord Empey (UUP)
My Lords, does the noble and learned Lord accept that a point will come shortly where the uncertainty created by the Scottish situation will impact negatively on investment opportunities in Scotland? When will a proper pro-union argument be put firmly not only to people in Scotland but to people throughout the rest of the United Kingdom?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
It is interesting that the noble Lord should mention the economic impact of the uncertainty. He may have seen a report published earlier this week by Citigroup on the very important issue of renewable energy, which made the point about the dangers of investing in Scotland while there is uncertainty about the future of the constitutional position of Scotland. The other side of that coin is that there are considerable benefits of a united kingdom in taking forward that agenda to ensure that we meet our climate change targets. It is not often that I have the opportunity to quote with approval a Daily Record editorial, but today it says:
"In the meantime, it's hard to disagree with pro-UK politicians who claim green energy is a great example of Scotland and the rest of the Britain working together".
Lord McConnell of Glenscorrodale (Labour)
Does the Minister accept that one of the great strengths of the union of the United Kingdom is the way in which the Scots, the English, the Welsh and the Northern Irish have moved throughout that kingdom over the last three centuries? Do the Government take a position on Scots who do not currently live inside the boundaries of Scotland but may have an interest in a referendum that will determine their country's future?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
My Lords, the noble Lord is absolutely right to indicate that the flow of people throughout the United Kingdom is important. Many families in England have relations in Scotland and vice versa. That only underlines the important cultural and social ties as well as the economic and social benefits that flow from our United Kingdom. However, we have made it clear in the past that a referendum would be on the basis of the people living in Scotland at the time of that referendum.
Lord Stephen (Liberal Democrat)
Does my noble and learned friend agree that rather than being for the UK Government it should be for Alex Salmond and the SNP to spend some of their own time and money explaining what full independence really means? For example, is it not time that Alex Salmond told us how many military bases would remain in Scotland? How would he split the Scottish pension system from the UK system? Would he create an entirely new tax and benefits system for Scotland; and if, as he says, he wishes to retain sterling as Scotland's currency, would EU membership allow this? If it would, what powers would he intend to have to instruct Mervyn King and the Bank of England on monetary issues, or would he just leave that to George Osborne?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
By asking that question, my noble friend makes it very clear that the First Minister of Scotland and his party have a host of questions to answer, not least on the currency because there are even those who think that if Scotland wished to join the European Union it would be obliged to adopt the euro. Andrew Hughes Hallett, who is on the First Minister's Council of Economic Advisers, indicated that, as was reported earlier this week. It would be rather odd. Some countries, but not many, adopt the currency of a foreign country but have no powers. It just underlines what a weak position Scotland would be in.
Lord Forsyth of Drumlean (Conservative)
Could my noble and learned friend consider the idea of establishing an independent commission to look at the benefits of the union to the United Kingdom as a whole and the consequences of separation, given that the nationalists are determined to hold a referendum on independence, so that everyone can see what the consequences could be and what the facts are?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
My noble friend makes a very interesting and very constructive suggestion. He will understand that I am not in a position to accede to it from this Dispatch Box, although I will consider it. In the mean time we will not wait for the setting up of any commission that might come along. We will continue to make the case for the United Kingdom.
Lord Wigley (Plaid Cymru)
My Lords, I can see that I am in a minority in this House. I want to press the Minister on the reply he gave a little earlier that he was fully in support of a single-question referendum in Scotland. If that was the case and there were a single-question referendum in Scotland and the people of Scotland voted yes, would his Government accept that as the outcome?
Lord Wallace of Tankerness (Advocate General for Scotland; Liberal Democrat)
Well, my Lords, it would depend on what the question was. It is important that we have clarity on this. There is an idea that you could have two questions. For example, the First Minister has indicated that if what he describes as "devo max"-perhaps even less defined than independence-was to get 98 per cent of the vote and "independence" got 51 per cent, independence would trump devo max. I do not think that that is the sort of basis on which we should go into any referendum campaign.
Chancellor George Osborne has claimed that the prospect of an independence referendum is damaging the Scottish economy.