http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/6620905.stm

I'm not sure what that means for that parties central theme of Scottish Independence....I know the idea of getting out from under England and the Queen/King has never died in Scotland but I don't know how serious the SNP is on that anymore.

We shall see.

__________________
"We make war that we may live in peace"
"...peace is the highest aspiration of the American People. We will negotiate for it, sacrifice for it, we will never surrender for it, now or ever."
"War critics can no longer credibly argue that we are losing in Iraq, so now they argue the war costs too much."
"Oderint dum metuant"
http://members.cox.net/neddy/bobhope_kerfuffles.wmv
http://youtube.com/watch?v=RnfflRNpwKA
http://youtube.com/watch?v=j-QYIP7o2-A

I saw that they won an unprecedented plurality. I wonder if there is really a chance they'd break away, leaving two tiny countries? But I am not unempathetic with the scots - I DID always have sympathy with Barry Goldwater's comment that the whole country would be better off if someone could take a giant saw and cut down the Hudson River and let the eastern part float out into the atlantic.

__________________
Read this post quick before the mods delete it!

Yes, it was a bad day for Tony and Labour, losing support in Endland, Scotland and Wales. The Scottish result, of course, being the most dramatic decline.

The SNP program for independence is still very much their core policy, but as I understand it they plan to go about it in incremental steps. Ultimately they will hold a referndum, if all goes well, in a few years time.

Mighty Alba - comhgairdeachas do muintir na hAlban uilig a bhaineas sult as an toradh dhilis seo!

__________________
"A man's work is nothing but this slow trek to rediscover, through the detours of art, those two or three great and simple images in whose presence his heart first opened."

The Stuarts were the first kings of the United Kingdom. King James I of England who began the period was also King James VI of Scotland, thus combining the two thrones for the first time.

Then the Hanovarians from the 52nd in line to the throne Duke of Brunswick and Celle
(1714–1727) (div. (under Hanoverian Law) 1692)

Until Victoria married into the Saxe-Coburgs
Duke of Kent of Saxe-Coburg
(d.1820) (d.1861)

Not very English the monarchy more Scottish. When England get independence from Scotland, Scotland will have to take their monarchy with them. The Scots can start paying for the layabouts.

Tony Blair as Bush's poodle was always going to get a drubbing at the poles.

Congradulations and best of luck to the SNP. Fighting for independence when you're already part of a rich and modern country is not an easy thing, especially in today's individualistic, politically-bored world. Most people today have totally forgotten or don't care about their ancestors' struggles, as long as their daily little comforts aren't threatened. This is a shame, people aren't sheep, there's more to a people's future than just to merge into a single bland human blob. Just like there's biodiversity in nature, there's diversity in human people and cultures. There are rarer species, then there are rats, pigeons, etc that thrive so much they would take over the whole ecosystem if they could. Opponents of human diversity argue we should all be the same, like rats or pigeons and let go of our cultural differences. They equate borders with war and intolerance, but would never give up theirs. One of the purposes of independence or for that matter having countries, is to allow differences, protect a certain area on earth for a people to exist and evolve. Borders are not bad things, they're not being close-minded, or anti-neighbors. When John Lennon sang to imagine no countries to kill or die for, he didn't mean to have the smaller countries shut up and merge in the big ones for peace's sake. Erasing all borders is a nice dream but can't be used by one against the other for self-interest. One of the reasons that made Europe thrive in sciences and arts over the centuries was that it had diversity and competition, it wasn't a single faceless blob. Like the saying goes: you can't have a door without walls. I applaud Scottish independence and apologize to Brits who disagree, as it's none of my business, being a foreigner (good thing there are borders!). I'm a Quebecker and vote yes to independence here too.

Last I heard it was about two-thirds in favour of the Union.

Alex Salmond is an uninspiring politician and the current crop of SMPs sitting in Holyrood are distinctly third rate.

__________________
http://www.skoda-forum.com/

Here's my point of view of a very similar process undertaken here in Quebec. Our equivalent to the SNP was first elected in 1976. Its creators had debated previously if the road to independence should be done by passing a vote declaring it in the National Assembly or by first setting up a popular referendum on the question. The leaders opted for this 2nd option and launched the referendum 4 years into power. The result was 40%/60% against. The government was nevertheless liked by the people and re-elected soon after. The question of independence, the basic reason for the party, was partially transferred to demands for greater autonomy and partially awkwardly stored on a shelf. The party then lost the 2 next elections and got back in power in 1994. The political mood had changed and its new leader set up a fresh referendum in 95. This time the vote was 50%/50% (with a revealing 60% support in favor when taking into account only "root Quebeckers", meaning without votes from immigrant communities). Here again, the people liked the party and re-elected it. The party concentrated on "good government", and answered partisans wishing a 3rd referendum that to make sure we got over the 50% this time we had to wait until "winning conditions" were there (broadly meaning a comfortably leading support in the polls). The risks of setting up a 3rd failing referendum were judge too great for the cause. After ten years in power, the popular mood was for change and the party lost the elections. The party has since been split between those who want a 3rd referendum as soon as possible, those who want a 3rd referendum when the polls look promising enough to win, and those who argue the party should consider declaring independence by a vote in the Assembly once elected to a majority government (these argue that the referendum process has demoralized supporters (2 losses in a row, the dirty tricks used by the opponents...) and proven itself defenseless against the counter-measures taken by the Canadian government to discredit its legal value. These 3 split point of views have spurred the creation of 2 small new independence parties. The main party is currently in the process of trying to address their concerns to reunite people behind the cause.

Now that this is said, my own personal opinion on the matter and what the SNP should keep in mind to succeed... It's not a bad thing to be a pro-independence party temporarily governing a province (or a sub-national territory, a "Kingdom" in Scotland's case I guess). You get to set a lot of the groundwork for independence without getting there yet, plus you find your opponents forthcoming in making concessions, as they believe this will satisfy you and settle the matter. Most importantly, as you run the day-to-day business of the government, you gain credibility in the voter's heart, they see that you're a serious, responsible government, a government they can trust enough to give a country to. It removes any unfounded perception of radicalism some voters might interpret in a pro-independence party. The party becomes trusted on a large-scale level, essential for what follows. Now this said, there comes a time when all possible concessions to be obtained have been obtained. There also comes a time when the confidence and credibility a government in power has built starts to fade, elections have cycles, parties alternate as popular mood changes. So when to make a move for independence and how? Unless a referendum is statistically certain to result in a positive outcome, I would argue that it should be avoided. A loss can only demoralize supporters and make them feel helpless enough to make some think the matter is closed, not to mention putting your opponents in a position of strength and self-justification. True another referendum can take place anytime but odds are it would have to wait several years, a decade most probably (it took 15 years here). Apart from true hard-core supporters, most people, even soft nationalist won't see the point in setting up another consultation a year later (unless a major event comes in to change perceptions). Personally, I feel that once a pro-independence party has made its name as a credible governing party, and obtained all concessions possible from its opponents (locally and at the central government), it should adopt the intent of declaration of independence through a vote in parliament, and ideally after a break from power. A freshly elected party has momentum. It can state its intentions clearly in a regular election campaign, people who want this party to pass a vote declaring independence should vote for it, others should be made well aware not to. Since the party will have shown it could govern and govern well before (and obtain concessions), its voters' base will be large and mainstream, whatever the perception some might have of its apparently radical program. Possible opposition to a non-referendum-based road to independence will be minimalized. This said, it is imperative that the party following this intent be elected as a majority government, it must have obtained both a majority of seats and a majority of votes (sometimes these don't follow). This is essential not only to make sure the vote for independence passes in parliament but to make sure the vote has the vested democratic authority of the people. Opponents will try to argue in vain that only a referendum on the question is democratic. This is nonsense. If the party respects the double majority criteria and makes clear to the voters what its intent is, a regular general election has all the democratic weight necessary to legitimize an open parliamentary vote declaring sovereignty. What happens if the party obtains a minority government? I would answer that if the party already has governed in the past with credibility, they should either forfeit government to the runner-up or govern as the best government possible would do until the next election (without compromises, the fall of its minority government being at its advantage). One way or the way it is imperative that it avoids entrenching itself as regular provincial (regional) governing party. Like I explained before, this can lead in the long run to a split between pro-independence supporters and even make the people see the cause as a tired cause that never materializes. Opponents who say the double majority electoral road to independence doesn't take into account the ordinary citizens' wish are wrong. Did someone ask the Scottish people in 1707 if they wanted to join the UK? Apparently not, it was apparently voted in parliament. So you could vote in but could not vote out? I'm open to discuss more on the matter to those who wish so. This stuff is none of my business actually, I'm a Quebecker of mixed French (settled in 1640) and Scottish (settled in 1801) ancestry. I support Quebec independence (voted yes in 95) and I'm naturally inclined to take interest into the Scots' cause. There are undeniable parallels in the process.

Well your "double majority" point is an interesting one - It would depend on whether or not the Independence party that intends to offer a Parlimentary free vote on Independence clearly stated that in their election manifesto, so that on winning the double majority - the vote could proceed. ----- maybe !

Scotland has a "Devolved Parliment" governed by the Scotland Act 1998 and within that act is Schedule 5 Reserved matters

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts1998...046_en_14#sch5

Basically the UK parliament is sovereign and it is for that Parliament to decide whether or not to hold a referendum on any particular issue.

The UK has by and large has an unwritten constitution (it is actually a rag bag of many different documents, precedences and procedures defined over our history)

It would take a large majority and an active Independence movement within Scotland for the UK Parliment to grant a referendum on the issue.

It would be a messy divorce ......


"O flower of Scotland
When will we see
Your like again
That fought and died for
Your wee bit hill and glen
And stood against him
Proud Edward's army
And sent him homeward
Tae think again ....."

__________________
http://www.skoda-forum.com/

Send in the troops team America, lets make another Kosovo - someone wants independence.

__________________
"Fools rush in where angels fear to tread." - Alexander Pope

Do pay attention - why do hate America so?

__________________
http://www.skoda-forum.com/