Is the end of the Union in sight? (It may well be but then again…)

[Evil Genius]

There is no way Westminister will let scotland go, not until the north sea is drained of

"... Oil".

Obviously.

For whatever else, the British aren't complete idiots. Then again, after 800 years of being "oppressed" by them us, you probably know that...

[Evil Genius]

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place

Only in the sense that the "threat to the Union" from NI is negligiible (imo).

Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long )

No "panic" whatever - see my post #105.

... but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.

The key word being "if". I would be interested to see your evidence (for replication), since I see little or none.

The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

Only when it comes to local and regional/Holyrood issues.
When it comes to "National" issues, I need only repeat their Westminster results:
1974 - 30.4%; 1979 - 19.4%; 1983 - 11.7%; 1987 - 14.0%; 1992 - 21.5%; 1997 - 22.1%; 2001 - 20.1%; 2005 - 17.7%; 2011 - 19.9%.

Try picking a "trajectory" out of that! 

And Independence is most decidedly a National issue.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent time

Really?
Since the Scottish Labour Party's Economic  Manifesto was virtually identical to that of the SNP's, why did the former's vote collapse?
In fact, if you look at the opinion polls leading up to the election, Scottish Labour and SNP were neck-and-neck, until Labour panicked and "re-launched" its campaign in mid-stream.
They first tried to make it an Independence Referendum (Salmond was far too cute to fall for that), then brought "the Two Eds" up from London to lecture their Scottish supporters of the need to send a message to the Coalition Government in Westminster etc.
Unsurprisingly, Scottish voters resented being told how to vote by English "blow-ins" and defected to the SNP in droves during the last few days of the campaign.

... why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone?

Er, Portugal? Greece? Iceland? Irish Republic, even? 

... especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

Jeez, that belongs to the "Lynchbhoy Graduate School of Wishful Thinking"! 

When the 2004 EU entrants (Easter Europe, Baltic etc) found "the cupboard was bare", never mind Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, what on earth makes you think that the Germans, French and, ahem, British are going to pump money into a newly-admitted Scotland? Especially when in order to achieve independence from the UK, the SNP will have to persuade the people of Scotland that the newly-independent Scottish nation will be able to stand on its own two feet economically.

They can't boast Wealth in Westminster, then Poverty in Brussels...

[Eamonnca1]

Belfast Telegraph:
SNP secures majority election win

Friday, 6 May 2011

The SNP has secured an unprecedented victory by taking a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament election.

Alex Salmond's party passed the half-way point by taking its 65th seat in a historic win at Kirkcaldy, the first time gains on this scale have been achieved since the Parliament was established in 1999.

The decisive victory comes at the heavy expense of Labour in what were considered heartland territories, and with a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote.

As the scale of Labour's losses became clear, including right across Glasgow, questions were raised about the party's election tactics and the surprise surge in SNP votes.

Professor Murray Pittock, a vice principal of Glasgow University, and author of The Road to Independence?, suggested Labour may have been guilty of complacency in seats the party did not expect to lose.

He said: "The scale of it is a surprise, particularly the fact that so many first-past-the-post seats have fallen.

"One thing that is very clear is that Labour were expecting a tough battle and hoped to maybe unseat Kenny MacAskill, for example."

Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was predicted to be fighting against a Labour advantage in Edinburgh Eastern, but ended up with a 2,233 majority. Similar pictures emerged across the country.

Professor Pittock said: "They weren't expecting to lose those seats. They couldn't have been working too hard.

"Even in Glasgow, people really didn't believe. Maybe they thought Nicola Sturgeon would get in, perhaps seats like Clydesdale would go, but they really didn't believe all these seats would go.

"They've had their potential front bench wiped out. They're going to have to completely rebuild."

Even in seats that Labour held, the SNP recorded swings in its favour. And the party replicated that trend in seats previously held by the Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Prof Pittock said Labour misjudged the approach to the election, adding: "Labour has steadily treated Holyrood as a B-team, just somebody that people should vote for to give the Tories a bloody nose. Labour was negative."

[Evil Genius]

To pick up on a couple of points there EG the SNP are not the only pro independence party in Scotland. The Scottish Green Party (who currently have 2 MSP's with 2  lists still to declare) and the smaller socialist parties are also nationalist. With those 2 Green MSP's and the independent nationalist MSP Margo MacDonald you will be most likely looking at 70 pro independence MSP's at Holyrood by the end of play tonight.

Aye, but how many votes do the Scottish Greens and Socialists* etc get in Westminster  elections?

* - Those that aren't in prison, that is...

The other point is regarding last year's Westminster election. The reason the Labour vote rose sharply there in contrast to other recent  Scottish elections to Westminster and Holyrood was the spectre of a Tory government in London. Scotland still holds a massive suspicion of the Tories and Labour picked  up huge support last year because of that. It wasn't an issue here and as such Labour lost much of that support. The distrust of the London Tories has been a factor again though with the Lib Dems paying a huge price for their Westminster coalition with their vote in Scotland collapsing last night.

In short all that means probably backs up for your point, the Scottish electorate will vote differently according to the bigger issues and this result can't be seen in  such black and white terms as Scots now wanting independence. In reality I believe people recognised that a a minority SNP goverment had done well in it's first term in difficult circumstances whilst Labour under Iain Gray had been a poor opposition. The SNP then ran a very strong positive campaign with Labour rather flat and negative. Add the Tories always struggling in Scotland and the Lib Dems collapsing and you get a huge SNP win. The SNP have won this because people see them as the best option to run the Scottish Parliament, not because they want independence. The SNP have been clear in the campaign that people should back them on their record even if they support the Union and many of their high profile endorsements and media support were from unionist supporters who said they would vote NO in a referendum but backed Alex Salmond as the best First Minister in a devolved Scotland. Rather similar to the situations in the Basque Country and Catalonia.

Still an incredible result for Scotland however. The SNP have won seats in places in Central Scotland where Labour would always win whatever the circumstances, places like Glasgow and Lanarkshire. In Edinburgh where the SNP never had a look in they now have all but 1 MSP. In the North, where they have been strong before, they now have total control. As an SNP supporter for many years I find it incredible to see SNP MSP's in these areas. So whilst it's not really a vote for independence it's still huge to see the SNP make these breakthroughs and see this surge of  support when voters know they will also get an independence referendum. Support for independence tends to go back and forth between 30 and 50% and when this referendum comes the media and wider British politics will campaign furiously against a YES vote. Ultimately it won't happen this time, but the SNP have still made great progress towards their ultimate goal by getting into this position and forming 2 governments in a row. Independence or not they will almost certainly win further powers for Holyrood and perhaps the long term picture will be a Scottish Parliament which is all but indepent within the Union. I don't agree the "end of the Union is in sight" but certainly this is the finest hour of Scottish Nationalism so far. I'm a bit happy .

As someone who is not  well-disposed towards the SNP, I can't argue with any of that (esp the bits I've emboldened!)

[Evil Genius]

Belfast Telegraph:
SNP secures majority election win

Friday, 6 May 2011

The SNP has secured an unprecedented victory by taking a majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament election.

Alex Salmond's party passed the half-way point by taking its 65th seat in a historic win at Kirkcaldy, the first time gains on this scale have been achieved since the Parliament was established in 1999.

The decisive victory comes at the heavy expense of Labour in what were considered heartland territories, and with a collapse in the Liberal Democrat vote.

As the scale of Labour's losses became clear, including right across Glasgow, questions were raised about the party's election tactics and the surprise surge in SNP votes.

Professor Murray Pittock, a vice principal of Glasgow University, and author of The Road to Independence?, suggested Labour may have been guilty of complacency in seats the party did not expect to lose.

He said: "The scale of it is a surprise, particularly the fact that so many first-past-the-post seats have fallen.

"One thing that is very clear is that Labour were expecting a tough battle and hoped to maybe unseat Kenny MacAskill, for example."

Mr MacAskill, the Justice Secretary, was predicted to be fighting against a Labour advantage in Edinburgh Eastern, but ended up with a 2,233 majority. Similar pictures emerged across the country.

Professor Pittock said: "They weren't expecting to lose those seats. They couldn't have been working too hard.

"Even in Glasgow, people really didn't believe. Maybe they thought Nicola Sturgeon would get in, perhaps seats like Clydesdale would go, but they really didn't believe all these seats would go.

"They've had their potential front bench wiped out. They're going to have to completely rebuild."

Even in seats that Labour held, the SNP recorded swings in its favour. And the party replicated that trend in seats previously held by the Liberal Democrats and Tories.

Prof Pittock said Labour misjudged the approach to the election, adding: "Labour has steadily treated Holyrood as a B-team, just somebody that people should vote for to give the Tories a bloody nose. Labour was negative."

More Breaking News: Titanic sunk off Newfoundland...

[Eamonnca1]

More Breaking News: Titanic sunk off Newfoundland...

I'm not surprised. Those dodgy rivets used by them shipbuilders in Belfast - couldn't be up to them, could you?

[Franko]

When Scotland pull the plug and go for full independence, how secure with NI be within the Union, especially when most NI Unionists are of Scottish extraction in the first place.

Interesting couple of decades ahead for those around to see it.

There is no more sign of a majority in Scotland opting for independence than there is for a majority in NI opting for a UI.

In fact, all the evidence of successive elections proves that there is even less appetite for Independence in Scotland, than for Unity in NI.

P.S. Can somebody explain to me why Republicans appear so insistent about their right to vote etc, at the same time as being so capable of ignoring the results whenever a vote actually does take place? 

Where exactly did this 'evidence' come from EG?  If that's the calibre of the rest of your evidence the postboxes could be green by the morning!

+1 EG i would like to know where this bold assertion of your's came from especially given the results coming out of the Scottish Parliament election results this morning....

Where is my evidence?

Simple. It comes from the voting figures.

If we accept (from the NI voting figures) that support within NI for a UI is somewhere around 45%, I believe that the support within Scotland for Independence is rather less, as follows.

Given that the SNP is the only Independence Party contesting elections within Scotland, here are its election results since 1974, when it made its big breakthrough:

1974 - 30.4% Westminster ("WM")
1977 - 12.4% Local
1977 - 24.2% Local
1979 - 19.4% WM
1980 - 15.5% Local
1983 - 11.7% WM
1984 - 11.7% Local
1987 - 14.0% WM
1988 - 21.3% Local
1992 - 21.5% WM
1995 - 26.1% Local
1997 - 22.1% WM
1999 - 28.7% Holyrood ("HR")
        - 28.9% Local
2001 - 20.1% WM
2003 - 23.8% HR
        - 24.1% Local
2005 - 17.7% WM
2007 - 29.7% HR
2011 - 19.9% WM

The conclusion to be drawn from the above is clear. That is, whilst Scottish voters "trust" the SNP on local or regional issues etc, when it comes to Westminster, they draw back from voting for the only independence party and instead vote for the Unionist parties (in varying proportions).

In particular, I would point to the Westminster election of last year, where the SNP gained only one fifth of the vote.

Of course, they have had a staggering jump in support at yesterday's Holyrood elections, and perhaps some of their new voters might be being persuaded as to the merits of independence. However, I do not believe that these "new-born Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

You may not expect it at all.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Nonetheless;

1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

[Evil Genius]

I do not believe that these "new-born [SNP] Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

No you may not.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Fair enough.

But do your subsequent comments (below) not indicate that you're not prepared to make a case of your own, preferring instead merely to pick holes in another posters' case?

C'mon, Franko, don't be so coy! 

Nonetheless;
1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

Firstly, I don't think many (any?) of the new SNP voters predicted that the SNP would actually gain an overall majority in Holyrood, thereby mandating a referendum. Even Salmond didn't predict it!
Second, they (new SNP voters) know they can always vote "No" in any referendum which might follow.

2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

In effect, therefore, the core Tory vote remained "solid", whereas that of Labour and the Lib Dems didn't?
Very unlikely, imo.
Have you any, ahem, evidence to support your conjecture? 

3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Doesn't make sense.
If Salmond was confident that these new SNP voters were now converted towards Independence, that must mean that they had already overcome thier former "fright".
Let's be clear, if the majority in Scotland are now in favour of Independence, the SNP waiting three or four years to test that only risks something new emerging to "frighten the horses" (voters) in the meantime.

3.Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

Not "ignoring" anything - I listed the full election results from 1974, after all.

Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does. And SNP traditionally polls well in the former, but rather more poorly in the latter.

But if you don't believe me on this point, why not re-read Lamd Dhearg Alba's post #106, where he (a committed SNP voter) basically concurs with this point?

[Franko]

I do not believe that these "new-born [SNP] Independents"  are sufficiently numerous to take the Independence vote from around 20%(?) to over 40%, for the following reasons:

1. Alex Salmond clearly stated before the Holyrood election that it would NOT be a Referendum on Independence, and his party studiously avoided bringing it to the fore in their campaigning (i.e. not wishing to "frighten the horses");
2. If sentiment had switch decisively towards Independence in yesterday's vote, you might have expected the most obviously pro-Union party - Tories - to have been obliterated. In fact, their vote held up better than eg the Lib Dems, who are the most "wishy-washy" of the pro-Union parties and were absolutely "caned";
3. If sentiment had, indeed, switched towards Independence, you would expect Salmond to "Strike whilst the Iron is Hot" i.e. call for a Referendum asap. Instead, he has been extremely cagey, only saying he expects one "towards the back end of the new Parliament" i.e. 3 or even 4 years away. The only conclusiion which can be drawn from this is that he knows he has a considerable deal of work to do before he has a realistic chance (40%+?) in any Referendum.

So the above is my evidence for believing that support for Independence in Scotland is less than that for a UI within NI.

When may I expect your evidence to the contrary?

No you may not.  As I didn't make any sweeping assertions (here!  ) in the first instance, the burden of providing the evidence lies decidedly with you.

Fair enough.

But do your subsequent comments (below) not indicate that you're not prepared to make a case of your own, preferring instead merely to pick holes in another posters' case?

C'mon, Franko, don't be so coy! 

Nonetheless;
1.
The Scottish electorate knew clearly that if the SNP became the majority party, a referendum on independence would be called.  They duly voted SNP.

Firstly, I don't think many (any?) of the new SNP voters predicted that the SNP would actually gain an overall majority in Holyrood, thereby mandating a referendum. Even Salmond didn't predict it!
Second, they (new SNP voters) know they can always vote "No" in any referendum which might follow.

2.
Not necessarily.  It is equally likely that the results for the Tories stayed roughly similar because the 'hardcore' pro-Union voters voted as they had always done and were never likely to vote for any other party.  However,  those who were swaying in any way opted to plump for the main anti-Union party.

In effect, therefore, the core Tory vote remained "solid", whereas that of Labour and the Lib Dems didn't?
Very unlikely, imo.
Have you any, ahem, evidence to support your conjecture? 

3.
Again, not necessarily.  To use your own phrase, he was possibly afraid that he might 'frighten the horses'.

Doesn't make sense.
If Salmond was confident that these new SNP voters were now converted towards Independence, that must mean that they had already overcome thier former "fright".
Let's be clear, if the majority in Scotland are now in favour of Independence, the SNP waiting three or four years to test that only risks something new emerging to "frighten the horses" (voters) in the meantime.

3.Why do you keep referring to the Westminster vote as the only vote in town when it comes to the 'national' question?

What was that you were saying earlier about people's capability for 'ignoring' election results?

Not "ignoring" anything - I listed the full election results from 1974, after all.

Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does. And SNP traditionally polls well in the former, but rather more poorly in the latter.

But if you don't believe me on this point, why not re-read Lamd Dhearg Alba's post #106, where he (a committed SNP voter) basically concurs with this point?

1.
Of course they can.  However, the party makes no secret that their main aim is an independent Scotland.  The electorate have endorsed this party with their vote yesterday.

2.
I present you with the election results from yesterday's election.  In terms of seats won, the SNP gained massively, the Lib Dems and Labour lost and the Tories' vote remained the most stable of all the main parties.

3.
Please read Lamh Dearg Alba's most recent post for this.

Also,  you didn't post every election result since 1974, you ignored this result.

[Puckoon]

You've let yourself down a bagful with that last post EG.

[Eamonnca1]

Anyhow, you misrepresent my point, which was that when it comes to Local or Holyrood elections, the Independence Question doesn't feature. Whereas when it comes to Westminster elections, it quite obviously does.

What is the basis of this claim?

[bennydorano]

Interesting times ahead, Scotland is undoubtedly a bigger threat to the future of the Union than this place

Only in the sense that the "threat to the Union" from NI is negligiible (imo).

Elections and Referenda are different kettles of fish (as a panicky EG will undoubtedly be along to tell us before long )

No "panic" whatever - see my post #105.

... but if the Scottish Assembly Election results are anywhere near replicated (and assuming that a fair smattering of Scottish Labour and possiby Scottish Liberals wouldn't be averse to Independence) it would have to have a fair chance of success.

The key word being "if". I would be interested to see your evidence (for replication), since I see little or none.

The SNP have went from non-entities to the main (looking like sole) party of Government in what 50 odd years?  The political trajectory is quite clear.

Only when it comes to local and regional/Holyrood issues.
When it comes to "National" issues, I need only repeat their Westminster results:
1974 - 30.4%; 1979 - 19.4%; 1983 - 11.7%; 1987 - 14.0%; 1992 - 21.5%; 1997 - 22.1%; 2001 - 20.1%; 2005 - 17.7%; 2011 - 19.9%.

Try picking a "trajectory" out of that! 

And Independence is most decidedly a National issue.

What's clearly in the SNP's favour now is that the greater UK economic argument has been scuppered by the financial crisis of recent time

Really?
Since the Scottish Labour Party's Economic  Manifesto was virtually identical to that of the SNP's, why did the former's vote collapse?
In fact, if you look at the opinion polls leading up to the election, Scottish Labour and SNP were neck-and-neck, until Labour panicked and "re-launched" its campaign in mid-stream.
They first tried to make it an Independence Referendum (Salmond was far too cute to fall for that), then brought "the Two Eds" up from London to lecture their Scottish supporters of the need to send a message to the Coalition Government in Westminster etc.
Unsurprisingly, Scottish voters resented being told how to vote by English "blow-ins" and defected to the SNP in droves during the last few days of the campaign.

... why should smaller nations be afraid to go it alone?

Er, Portugal? Greece? Iceland? Irish Republic, even? 

... especially as Scotland would presumably still be a member of the EU and be able to avail of it's considerable support in weaning it off it's Public Sector dependence.

Jeez, that belongs to the "Lynchbhoy Graduate School of Wishful Thinking"! 

When the 2004 EU entrants (Easter Europe, Baltic etc) found "the cupboard was bare", never mind Bulgaria and Romania in 2007, what on earth makes you think that the Germans, French and, ahem, British are going to pump money into a newly-admitted Scotland? Especially when in order to achieve independence from the UK, the SNP will have to persuade the people of Scotland that the newly-independent Scottish nation will be able to stand on its own two feet economically.

They can't boast Wealth in Westminster, then Poverty in Brussels...

You've tried to make that look like you've picked apart an argument, by answering a few things that didn't really require an answer.  Using Previous Electoral results as evidence is fine and dandy and you can produce Westminister results till your blue in the face - as I'd imagine you'd be hard pressed to produce previous results of Referenda on Scottish Independence which in context of the discussion would be sort of useful, therefore your Electoral evidence is surely moot as you're not comparing apples with apples.

Smaller nations - you mention 4 that have failed, what about the others that have coped as well as their larger neighbours throughout the Economic downturn?  Good Governance has got nothing to do with size.  Pitiful argument

Ultimately I doubt a Referendum would get a Yes vote in the near future, but there's a better chance of Scotland ceding from the union than NI & ROI 'uniting'.  One thing's for certain it will be decided in the future not in your historical electoral stats and no one knows what the future holds, the trends are debatable but looking at the SNP 15/20 years ago and today should send a shudder down the spine of any unionist IMO.

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

When the now inevitable vote for Scottish independence comes inexorably around (given the SNP's outright Scottish Parliament majority), the OWC contingent could be left lamentably behind! 

[dillinger]

Seen Alex Salmond on TV this morning and he was talking about a Refereredum in 8 or 9 years for independance. I wonder why, is it because of the recession? Scotland can't do without GBs money at this time. Will they be able too?

[Fear ón Srath Bán]

Seen Alex Salmond on TV this morning and he was talking about a Refereredum in 8 or 9 years for independance. I wonder why, is it because of the recession? Scotland can't do without GBs money at this time. Will they be able too?

Sorry dillinger, but to say "Scotland can't do without GB's money" and therefore can't seek independence from?...., is nonsensical, since Scotland is a component part of Britain. Did you mean England?

If the SNP have an outright majority they can call a referendum whenever they bally well like, though whether they actually would is another matter.