First Minister's United Kingdom claims branded 'daft'
Alex Salmond has claimed an independent Scotland would not mean the break-up of the United Kingdom.
- By David Clegg, political editor
- Published in the Courier : 30.01.12
- Published online : 30.01.12 @ 09.50am
The First Minister made the assertion — branded ''ridiculous'' by Scottish Labour — as the debate over the wording of the question to be asked in the referendum planned for autumn 2014 continues to cause controversy.
Critics claim the SNP's preferred phrasing — Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? — is skewed in favour of a positive response.
But questioned if voters should instead be asked if they want to leave the UK, Mr Salmond denied this would happen under his plans.
''It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state,'' he said. ''That union — that United Kingdom if you like — would be maintained after Scottish political independence.
''I think that's a real stumbling block about putting forward a question on the United Kingdom.''
The First Minister added: ''I don't think it's a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we're talking about is political independence.''
Mr Salmond unveiled his proposed question last Wednesday at the launch of the Scottish Government consultation on the referendum in Edinburgh. As well as setting a straight yes/no question on independence, the public is also being asked if they want another question on the ballot paper about more powers for the Scottish Parliament.
That option — sometimes dubbed Devo Max — is thought to have support among elements of civic Scottish society, but reports at the weekend suggest David Cameron will not allow the proposal to be considered in the referendum.
Sources close to the Prime Minister were quoted as saying that the increase in powers would be ''inconsistent'' with remaining in the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond said: ''What I would advise the Prime Minister to do is this: it's to do what I'm going to do. Listen to the voices of civic Scotland that come forward to see if there's a real demand for having a question on fiscal autonomy, on financial powers, on the ballot paper.
''If that demand is there, I think it would only be inclusive and democratic to allow that voice to be heard.''
However, Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie, who supports home rule for Scotland, said Mr Salmond is trying to offer ''false hope'' to those who want greater powers within the union.
He added: ''Alex Salmond is trying to drive a wedge between those who reject independence but want more powers for Scotland within the UK.
''Far from a high-minded offer to let the people decide, it is an SNP campaign tactic, the object of which is to get people arguing over process, rather than expose the SNP's policy of independence to proper, detailed and forensic scrutiny.''
And deputy leader of Scottish Labour Anas Sarwar said it is ''ridiculous'' to suggest that Scotland would remain part of a ''united kingdom'' after political independence.
He added: ''The Queen is head of state in countries around the world, but that doesn't make them part of the United Kingdom. It would be like the Bahamas, Barbados or Belize suddenly waking tomorrow and claiming to be part of the United Kingdom. It is just daft.''
Mr Sarwar also insisted that the Electoral Commission must ensure the referendum question does not favour one side.
''Alex Salmond and I want different answers to the question, because I want Scotland to be a strong part of the UK and he doesn't,'' he said. ''But that is why neither of us should have the final say.
''The Electoral Commission must have a formal role to test the question and reword it so no one side has an advantage.''
Photo by Andrew Milligan/PA Wire
10.17am - 30.01.2012 Muscleguy - Broughty Ferry, Scotland Report This
Mr Sarwar needs a history lesson. The Treaty of Union unified the crowns, it was another 50 years before the Parliaments were combined. We would simply go back to that period. Scotland is not a Commonwealth territory, it is a founding member of the UK.
10.47am - 30.01.2012 Charles Addison - Glasgow, Scotland Report This
The question is whether "leave the UK" is open to missunderstanding and any less loaded than the question proposed by the Scottish government. This question could lead people to believe they were leaving the crown. It is worse than the question it seeks to replace.
11.41am - 30.01.2012 Ian MacGilp - Edinburgh, United Kingdom Report This
If you're citing history, get it right. The Treaty of Union unified the two parliaments, but also brought two 'kingdoms' (England and Scotland) together as a unified kingdom (Great Britain). Keeping the Queen won't require us to stay in any 'United Kingdom'. Salmond's objections are baseless.
12.21pm - 30.01.2012 John Jones - Dundee, Scotland Report This
Muscleguy: Your historical grasp (like Salmond's) is shaky. The 1603 Union of the Crowns brought one monarch for two kingdoms, the 1707 Treaty of Union then unifying the two kingdoms (and their parliaments) as GB. The UK only began in 1801 on the union of the GB and Irish parliaments.
01.11pm - 30.01.2012 ianmc - Arbroath, Scotland Report This
Actually the union of Crowns occured when James the VI took over the English throne one hundred years before, so yeah indeed, get it right MacGlip. Incidentally where was the democratic legitemacy of the original Act of Union. Who voted, everyone, common man and woman who?
01.19pm - 30.01.2012 John - Montrose, Scotland Report This
The United Kingdom was only created by the Act of Union 1801 - and as long as part of Ireland is part of the UK, the UK will continue to exist. If Scotland wants independence they will be leaving behind the United Kingdom.
02.00pm - 30.01.2012 RJ - Fife, Scotland Report This
Look up the meaning of the word "Kingdom" Since the UK gov wants it to be kept "legal" then the term "UK" should be kept off the ballot paper & they [UK] know it.
03.25pm - 30.01.2012 John Campbell - Dundee, Scotland Report This
The United Kingdom started life in 1603 with union of the crowns. The United Kingdoms of Great Britain and Northern Ireland formed in 1801 as a revision, not a replacement. The Union of Parliaments occurred in 1707, making Westminster the parliament for the UK and NI. No Scotland means no UK.
04.56pm - 30.01.2012 John Jones - Dundee, Scotland Report This
John Campbell: thrice wrong. The "UK" was created in 1801 by the GB-Irish union, not in 1603. The "UK" then involved all of Ireland (until 1922, thereafter only Northern). In 1707 Westminster became the GB Parliament, not the Irish, which existed separately in Dublin until 1801.
10.55pm - 30.01.2012 Tam - Dundee, Scotland Report This
I almost felt embarrassed for Alex Salmond. Almost. To suggest Scotland separate from the UK could still be in, the UK, takes blethers to a new low.
Add a comment