Referendum sees Scotland stay

WHILE Scottish unionists plan for the future after defeat over independence Prime Minister David Cameron has promised an English parliament along with devolution.

The result was called after the No lead became unassailable, despite not all of the 32 Scottish councils having called their results. 

With approximately 55 per cent of people voting in favour of remaining part of the United Kingdom, against 45 per cent in favour of independence, the vote was not as close as many had predicted based upon recent polls.  

Scotland's First Minister, and leader of the pro-independence Yes campaign, Alex Salmond, has acknowledged the defeat: "It is important to say that our referendum was an agreed and consented process and Scotland has by a majority decided not at this stage to become an independent country.

"I accept that verdict of the people and I call on all of Scotland to follow suit in accepting the democratic verdict of the people of Scotland."

Meanwhile his former opponent, leader of the No Campaign Alistair Darling, hailed the victory and called upon Scots to work together to heal the divisions in the country.

"It is a momentous result for Scotland and also for the United Kingdom as a whole," he said.

Adding that the result "reaffirmed all that we have in common and the bonds that tie us together", adding: "Let them never be broken."

With the result still a lot closer than many in Westminster would have preferred Mr Cameron will be under pressure to keep to his promises of further devolution of powers to Scotland. 

The proposals made in the dying days of the No Campaign have caused widespread concern among English, Welsh and Irish voters who feel that too much has been sacrificed to keep the union together. Amongst the fears that many have is that Scotland will have too much control over England while being able to deal with their own affairs. 

Mr Salmond has made it clear that despite his side losing the fight has not ended and he wants to ensure that Mr Cameron doesn't back away from his devolution promises.

He told supporters: "The unionist parties made vows late in the campaign to devolve more powers to Scotland.

"Scotland will expect these to be honoured in rapid course - as a reminder, we have been promised a second reading of a Scotland Bill by March 27 next year.

"Not just the 1.6 million Scots who voted for independence will demand that timetable is followed but all Scots who participated in this referendum will demand that timetable is followed."

"Today of all days as we bring Scotland together, let us not dwell on the distance we have fallen short, let us dwell on the distance we have travelled and have confidence the movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward and we shall go forward as one nation."

Mr Darling appeared to back Mr Salmond's calls for devolution to be pushed forward. During his victory speech the former chancellor said: "More than 85% of the Scottish population has voted. People who were disengaged from politics have turned out in large numbers.

"While they have voted on the constitution, that was not the only or perhaps the major issue that drove them to the polls.

"Every political party must listen to their cry for change, which could be echoed in every part of our United Kingdom but had this opportunity to express itself in Scotland."

Speaking shortly after 7am this morning Mr Cameron spoke of how he was passionate about the country staying together and that what was important now was doing what was right for all countries in the union.

During the course of his speech Mr Cameron made it clear that he would look at creating an English parliament to decide English laws in an shake up of the entire political structure of the union.

Making it clear that he felt the debate for independence had been settled for now Mr Cameron said: "The people of Scotland have spoken and it is a clear result. They have kept our country of four nations together and like millions of other people I am delighted." Adding that now what was needed was a new and fair settlement" for not just Scotland, but also England, Wales and Northern Ireland.

While the battle to keep Scotland in the Union may have ended for now the fight for further Scottish powers begins. With Scotland likely to get substantial new autonomy it is the 'English question' which could turn out to be the bloodier battle for Mr Cameron. 

The floodgates of independence

AS MONTHS of campaigning finally reach a close it can be easy to forget that the Scottish referendum has been a peaceful affair compared to other struggles for independence taking place at the moment.

Both sides of the debate have worked hard to sway voters to their cause. Both have used words rather than violence and that is what truly marks the battle for independence.

For months Ukraine has been rocked by bloodshed as separatists fought to be allowed self determination. They didn't choose reasoned debate. There were no televised discussions about which currency they should use. Instead there were tanks and guns. Blood in the street has marked this battle not shouting from the podiums.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko put forward proposals to devolve more powers to Eastern regions. During the Scottish independence campaign British Prime Minister David Cameron offered a similar option to voters if they voted no to leaving the Union. Mr Cameron made the offer to keep Britain together Mr Poroshenko made it to save lives.

Meanwhile Spain is facing a similar threat to its unity as Catalonian politicians push to break away on its own. On Monday the Catalonian regional parliament began setting out the groundwork to allow it to pass a law giving it independence from Spain.

Speaking to the Catalonian regional parliament on Monday Catalan leader Artur Mass said: "This would mean that Spain would effectively bury the 'old Spain' and rediscover that it is a country made up of several nations.

"In an instant, Spain would emerge as a country with an impressive level of democracy, tolerance and one that is capable of listening and resolving what is, above all, a democratic challenge."

In France the Corsicans have watched the Scottish independence referendum with eager eyes. Likewise Flemish speakers in Belgium hungrily wait for their opportunity. 

Greeks in the Epirus region in Albania, Lezigstan, amongst others, in Azerbaijan, throw in groups from Denmark, Croatia, Finland, Georgia, Germany, Czech Republic, Italy, Latvia, Netherlands, Norway, Moldova, Poland, Romania, Sweden, Russia, Slovakia, Switzerland, Latvia, Bosnia and Herzegovina. This doesn't take into account the threats to Turkey by Kurdish separatists or the multitude of campaigns and wars outside continental Europe. 

Even when, after the hard fought battles, people are able to declare their independence it may not be enough. The Turkish Republic of Northern Cyprus is still trying to gain international recognition despite having been an independent state for forty years. In Kosovo independence, recognised by many in the international community, is still a daily struggle.

The debate over Scottish independence has overshadowed these other campaigns but more than that it has invigorated them. In his burning desire to seperate from the Union and proclaim the independent state of SNP Alex Salmond may have unwittingly led the charge for the greatest shifting of borders since World War Two. What must be hoped now is that as with the Scottish referendum it is done without the bloodshed which has traditionally precipitated the creation of independent states. 

Scots debate turns into brawling debacle

ON MONDAY the leaders of the Scottish referendum campaigns went head to head and showed that the debate has taken a nasty turn.

Rather than holding to a well moderated back and forth of the views Alex Salmond and Alistair Darling's combative styles made it seem more like a drunken brawl in a Glasgow pub.

As has been seen many times in other countries the issue of independence is always going to be a contentious issue. Despite being forty years since the North and South separated there is still a deep rooted feeling of bad blood between some in Cyprus on both sides of the divide. Long after the separation negotiations have still dragged on with promises of resolute being given and then broken.

Despite both leaders claiming they would respect the will of the people based on the tensions on Monday Scotland may be running down a similar road, albeit in this case with less blood shed but also less reason.

Once again which currency an independent Scotland would use was high on the list of topics. Once again no clear answer was provided by Mr Salmond other than that he had three plan B's but didn't want to share them yet. Yes campaigners were vocal in their support of this move on social media, complaining that the No Campaign was too focused on currency and avoiding other key issues. 

As one pro-independence supporter wrote on social media site twitter: @macrae85: "There's a 'Plan A,B,C,D & probably E,but u lot are too thick to even think of that...why dampen u'r powder b4 the talks?"

While another said: @antyjan: "Omg! What is this obsession with currency!? We don't need a plan B! Jeeeez! Is that all the NOs have?"

It was during the cross examination phase, however, that the real passions behind the debate came out as Mr Salmond bludgeoned Mr Darling repeatedly with speeches about the "mandate" of the people. Without effective moderation it quickly dissolved into a shouting match with nobody making any helpful or substantive points.

By the time the moderator finally did step in both men looked bloodied but Alex Salmond had definitely regained his confidence after their last engagement and knew that he had won that nights bare knuckle drag out. A snap ICM poll after the debate bore this out with 71 per cent of those asked saying they thought he had won the debate.

It was in the final moments of the debate that the reality of what may happen in the future took hold for many as both leaders spoke of how they would respect the outcome of the referendum. Mr Salmond even going so far as to say he would ask Mr Darling to join him in the negotiations. From the reactions on social media though it seems that these two men will be in the minority of those shaking hands and making amends. The issue has split families and awakened old tensions, something not easily forgotten nor forgiven. Mr Salmond knows this and knows that his passionate rhetoric does not lend itself to peaceful reconciliation later. As Fevzi Hussein of TRNC human rights group Embargoed tweeted: "He is dying for his William Wallace moment..." The risk now is that he gets it.

The games are over but Scotland's race goes on

As the cheers subsided and the music went quiet the 2014 Commonwealth Games were brought to a close.

While it may be the final for the athletes it seems like it may have been just the reinvigorating starting pistol the pro-independence movement was looking for ahead of September's referendum. After the incredible displays of athleticism, the pomp and ceremony and the demonstration that amid much concern otherwise they could pull it off Scottish Nationalism is riding high. 

This has been the problem with the Scottish National Party's campaign from the start though. It has been about flash in the pan soundbites, putting on a good show for the spectators, without really thinking too much about what will happen in the long term.

Now the games are over the future of the new arenas and stadiums is far from certain. Plans have been made and promises given but experience has taught us that until the deal is done there is still much which can go wrong.

The same applies for Alex Salmond's campaign. Hitting out at the Better Together Campaign as being too negative makes for a brilliant spectacle, and may just be right. Without being able to give a positive long term argument to counter it though Mr Salmond is left floundering.

A key debate has been about whether staying in, or leaving, the Union will make the Scots better off. It is a complex debate which relies on numerous economic factors. What proportion of the United Kingdom debt will Scotland be responsible for? Will it be based on per capita income, proportion of funds allocated from Westminster or one of a number of other ways which are being debated? 

Neither side can categorically say and this means that no-one will truly know until long after the votes have been counted which side will come out on top.

Another bone of contention has been the pound. On one side there is Mr Salmond claiming that no matter what politicians in Westminster say Scotland will remain in the sterling union. On the other hand there are Prime Minister and leader of the Conservatives David Cameron, Deputy Prime Minister and leader of the Liberal Democrats Nick Clegg, Labour leader Ed Milliband, Chancellor of the Exchequer George Osbourne, Shadow Chancellor Ed Balls and a multitude of Bank of England and City economists saying it will never happen. 

If Mr Salmond is to succeed in his quest he is going to have to do more than rely on vague promises and forcing to people to watch Braveheart and listen to Flower of Scotland until their ears pop.

As has been evidenced in Cyprus and Crimea amongst others the right to self determination is both a strong motivator and a complex issue. It takes serious debate and a clear recognition of all the arguments. That hasn't really started to happen in Scotland and time is running out for it to do so. 

The Commonwealth games have shown that the country can pull of something spectacular when required. What is yet to be seen is if it can handle the more time consuming and necessary day to day mundanity of being an independent state.

More haste less speed for Ukrainian referendum

AS TENSIONS continue to run high following yesterday's referendums in Eastern Ukraine international observers have warned of the potential for civil war in the country.
With reports this morning of Ukrainian military forces preparing to resume operations in the city of Slavyansk this may not be so far fetched. Governments across Europe have joined with America to condemn the referrendum as illegal and pledged to support authorities in Kiev. Even the pro-seperatists greatest ally, the government of Russian President Vladimir Putin, called for the vote to be postponed to allow the situation to de-escalate.
While the West has continued to threaten further sanctions against Russia it is possible that it may have been the only one suggesting a sensible solution.
The issue is not that regions of Eastern Ukraine may split away from the country, nor even that they may wish to join Russia. The crucial factor is the speed at which they are doing it.
In the United Kingdom the thorny issue of Scottish independence is set to be resolved on September 18th. Groups on both sides of the debate have had months to put forward their opinions.Even the most ardent Scottish nationalists accept that there are complex issues involved in creating a seperate country. The economic implications alone are enough to baffle some of the most educated in the debate and need careful analysis.
In Donetsk, and other Eastern regions, there has not been time for the electorate to fully understand what a call for independence may mean. There has not even been enough time to ensure that the system for voting was set up to be impartial and effective.
Yesterday's referendum highlighted how disorganised the pro-seperatist movement is. Queues outside hastily contructed polling stations feared that they would not have an opportunity to submit their ballot. Security was compromised as results were intercepted and released before voting had been completed. This is completely aside from the obvious implications of bias, which have been so roundly condemned by the West.
What was needed was time. If, as in Scotland, a true referendum had been arranged for a suitable time in the future the West would have little defence to condemn the decison. Even the counting was conducted at speed, with results released showing 89.07 per cent of the turnout voting in favour of leaving Ukraine.
The pro-seperatists aknowledge that the vote will not be recognised by the international community so its purpose is still in question. With a little more time they may have been able to make a case, and in so doing garnered much needed support outside their own borders and diminished the threat of armed conflict.

Posted via Blogaway