UNIT IX. A. SCOTTISH INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM

B. WEST LOTHIAN QUESTION (EVEL)

A. Text 1. Q&A: Scottish independence referendum BBC Scotland

Next autumn, the people of Scotland will vote on whether the nation should become an independent country.

The deal to hold the referendum has been done and the date has been set - now it's up to the campaigners to put their case.

When is the referendum happening?

After much teasing - Scottish First Minister and Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond named the day as Thursday, 18 September, 2014.

Why this date? Practical matters like October holidays, the UK party conference season and Scotland's famed wintry weather were all potential obstacles.

Incidentally, 2014 also happens to be the year two prestigious sporting events - the Ryder Cup golf tournament and the Commonwealth Games - are being held in Scotland.

And for the more romantically-minded, next year is also the 700th anniversary of the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, which saw the English army defeated by the forces of King of Scots Robert the Bruce, during the wars of independence.

Who gets to vote?

Essentially, everyone over the age of 16 who lives in Scotland.

The voter "franchise", as it's known, is largely the same as for a Scottish Parliament and council elections, with the addition of lowering the voting age from 18.

That means the 800,000 Scots who live in other parts of the UK don't get a vote, while the 400,000 people from elsewhere in Britain who live in Scotland do.

All the main players on both sides of the debate agree this is the fairest way to do things.

1

Eligibility to take part in the referendum also includes members of the armed services serving overseas who are registered to vote in Scotland.

What will be on the ballot paper?

Voters will be asked the yes/no question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

The Scottish government's original version of the question, "Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?", was dropped after the Electoral Commission raised concerns it could lead people into voting "yes".

Past incarnations of the referendum question have proved far more wordy.

The SNP previously said people could be asked to vote "Yes I agree" or "No I disagree" to the statement: "The Scottish Parliament should negotiate a new

2

settlement with the British government, based on the proposals set out in the white paper, so that Scotland becomes a sovereign and independent state."

Who is in charge of the referendum?

MSPs have approved the terms of the vote in the SNP government's Scottish Independence Referendum Bill.This followed the signing of what became known as the Edinburgh Agreement, by Mr Salmond and UK Prime Minister David Cameron - a measure to ensure the referendum could be "made in Scotland" and held on a fully legal basis.

There is no turnout requirement for this referendum - that means a "Yes" vote of "50% plus one" would be enough to gain independence.

The Scottish government says the bill will make sure that:

The referendum itself is preceded by a 16-week formal campaign period, during which limits will apply to the amount of money registered campaigners can spend, to ensure a level playing field for both sides of the debate.

The vote is overseen by the independent Electoral Commission watchdog, which is responsible for regulating campaign rules and informing the public about the referendum.

The ballot is conducted under the direction of a "chief counting officer", who will be responsible for appointing local counting officers.

The UK government agreed to give temporary powers to the Scottish Parliament to hold a legal referendum, under Section 30 of the 1998 Scotland Act - the piece of legislation which set up the Scottish Parliament.

This is because constitutional matters are reserved to Westminster.

The Edinburgh Agreement also commits both governments to working together constructively in the best interests of the people of Scotland, whatever the outcome of the referendum - possibly easier said than done.

The SNP's parliamentary majority at Holyrood will ensure the bill is passed.

Who will be campaigning?

Yes Scotland is the official campaign for independence, while Better Together is the group arguing to keep the Union.

Various political parties have given their support to the two campaigns, depending on their constitutional persuasion, although they are also running their own campaigns, as are the Scottish and UK governments.

3

The Scottish Greens also back independence, as does independent MSP Margo MacDonald, while Labour, the Tories and the Liberal Democrats are opposed.

It's likely that other campaign groups will spring up as the campaign goes on.

How far back does Scotland's modern independence movement go?

The campaign for Scottish home rule began in earnest almost as soon as the unification with England took place, in 1707.At the time, the view was that Scotland was desperate for cash, but opponents of the move were outraged by claims that the Scots who put their names to the Act of Union were bribed.

The episode moved Scotland's Bard, Robert Burns, to write: "We are bought and sold for English gold. Such a parcel of rogues in a nation."

Fast forward many years to 1934, and the establishment of the Scottish National Party, created through the amalgamation of the Scottish Party and the National Party of Scotland.

After decades of ups and downs, the nationalists won their first election in 2007, forming a minority government, before becoming the first party to win an overall majority at Holyrood in the 2011 poll - securing a mandate for an independence referendum.

Has devolution helped the independence campaign?

The creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 presented a significant opportunity for the SNP, which at the time had a handful of MPs who were struggling to make the case for independence at Westminster.

The prime minister who delivered devolution, Tony Blair, was aware of the potential opportunity a Scottish Parliament could give the SNP.So, the Scottish Parliament's part first-past-the-post, part PR voting system was intended to prevent any one party (ie the SNP) gaining an overall majority.

This was the case initially - up to the 2011 election there had been two terms of a Labour/Lib Dem coalition and one of an SNP minority government.

The 2011 result blew out of the water the claim once made by Labour veteran Lord Robertson that devolution would "kill nationalism stone dead".

Could the situation now be more akin to comments by another Labour stalwart, Tam Dalyell, who described devolution as "a motorway to independence with no U-turns and no exits?"

4

Does Scotland want independence?

Hard to say with any great certainty at the moment.

There is no shortage of polling data on the issue of independence, putting support at various levels.Polling expert John Curtice says the British Social Attitudes survey is the only exercise of its kind which has asked the same question about constitutional preferences going back to the foundation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.He says support for independence has tended to oscillate between about a quarter and a third, with an instalment of the survey published in January, suggesting the figure was at its lowest level since the creation of the Holyrood parliament in 1999.

A total of 23% of the 1,229 people questioned between July and November last year said they favoured the proposition that, "Scotland should become independent, separate from the rest of the UK".

In response, the SNP say the period of time in which the field work was carried out has been overtaken by events.

Prof Curtice, co-author of the survey, also warns: "In truth, there isn't any clear evidence that either one side or the other, over the whole period of devolution, has made significant progress either in reducing support for independence or succeeding in increasing it."

Another factor is the number of people who vote SNP, but are not necessarily convinced that independence is the way to go.

Prof Curtice adds: "The SNP undoubtedly has succeeded in providing Scotland with what people regard as effective government - but there isn't any clear evidence of any long-term increase in support for independence since 2007."

In the Scottish Parliament elections of 1999 and 2003, Labour's plan to essentially scare people out of support for independence worked.

Now it seems the public are much less afraid, and, whether or not it's the case that majority support for independence exists, seem much more willing to put it to the test in a referendum.

There are many other factors which could affect support for independence - the state of the economy for one thing, and of course every politician's worst nightmare - unforeseen events, or "unknown unknowns", as former US defence secretary Donald Rumsfeld once put it.

The SNP has an overall majority in Scotland - why does it not simply declare independence?

5

The SNP has always taken the view that, on an issue of such significance, it would first need the backing of the Scottish people in a referendum.

It also needs this mandate to negotiate an independence settlement with the UK government.

What happens in the event of a 'Yes' Vote?

Alex Salmond wants to declare "Independence Day" in March 2016, with the first elections to an independent parliament in May.

Before that happens though, a constitutional settlement would need to be agreed with the UK government, involving weighty issues which may take a long time to resolve.

Defence is one - especially since the SNP want rid of Britain's nuclear weapons, based at the Faslane naval base on the Clyde. (Although Scottish Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon recently said Trident would remain temporarily at Faslane while an independent Scotland's Naval HQ was being established there.)

On the financial front, agreement in areas like Scotland's share of the national debt and its continued use of the pound - at least initially - would also be needed.

Even after independence is achieved there are other hurdles to clear - European Union and Nato membership to name but two.

What happens if there is a 'No' Vote? Would there be another referendum?

Alex Salmond has described the independence referendum as a once-in-a-generation event.

All the parties - unionist and pro-independence - are keen to avoid the situation which has unfolded in the Canadian province of Quebec, where debate over multiple independence referendums over the years has been dubbed the "neverendum".

A "No" result in the referendum could spell the end for the SNP as a mainstream political force.

It's also likely that focus would shift back to the debate over more powers for Holyrood - with full fiscal autonomy, as opposed to relying on the Treasury block grant, possibly becoming a more serious option.

The opposition parties are already working on offers along those lines, ahead of the referendum.

6

The Liberal Democrats are furthest down the road here with their dream of Scottish home rule and significant new financial and other powers devolved from Westminster.

A commission set up by Scottish Labour has suggested there is a "strong case" for Holyrood gaining full income tax powers.

The Conservatives - which previously opposed devolution itself - have had the most significant shift in thinking.

Their leader Ruth Davidson - who once said she wished to draw "a line in the sand" over new powers for Holyrood - has now supported increased financial responsibility for the Edinburgh parliament.

7

Text 2. The English make the case for the break-up of Britain

Where is the admission that England has something to lose from Scotland’s departure?

February 6, 2014

To understand why Scotland might soon vote for independence one has only to listen to the way the English talk about the 307-year-old union at the heart of the United Kingdom. The dominant strand of English opinion says that Scotland would drown in the attempt to go it alone. Instead of seeking separation, Scotland should count its blessings for England’s unbounded generosity.

Eight months ahead of a referendum that could presage the break-up of the UK, opinion polls say most Scots may indeed decide to play it safe. The headline figures suggest only a third are committed to independence. Closer examination of public sentiment, however, indicates that among those who say they are certain to vote in September about 40 per cent back independence; and the trend has been in the direction of the nationalists.

Tune in from Edinburgh or Glasgow to the conversation in London and it is not difficult to see why Alex Salmond, Scotland’s first minister and leader of the Scottish National party, still hopes to lead his country to independence. From the Labour left to the Conservative right, self-proclaimed English unionists hum the same insulting tune: outside the union Scotland’s future would be one of impoverished irrelevance.

The UK Treasury has led the charge with a stream of purportedly objective studies suggesting that the Scottish economy would be brought to its knees were it to turn its back on the union. Public spending would have to be slashed and taxes raised to make up for the loss of fiscal transfers from London. The financial services industry would take fright and flee southwards. The Scottish economy would become less competitive and less efficient, cutting living standards

8

and discouraging investment. And, in case the Scots have not got the message, the rest of the UK might refuse the currency union promised by Mr Salmond.

The Ministry of Defence has weighed in with a warning that Scotland would be stripped of its security in an ever more dangerous world. The Foreign Office pipes up that other EU nations would certainly delay and might block Scottish membership of the European club. Even Mark Carney, the Canadian governor of the Bank of England, has been conscripted to the cause, journeying north to warn that if Scotland wanted to keep sterling it would have to surrender sovereignty over fiscal policy.

There is merit in many of these arguments. Mr Salmond is the big beast of British politics – the most accomplished retail politician anywhere on the island. His stirring oratory and formidable presence are not invariably matched by attention to important detail. He is untroubled by contradictions. Confronted with the complexities of, say, a banking union, he offers a careless shrug that says “trust me ... we can sort all that out after the vote”.

FT series

If Scotland goes

What the impact will be on finance, business and the economy should the Scots vote for independence

Measured against the effort to frighten the Scots into voting No, however, Mr Salmond’s optimism is beguiling. The SNP has discarded narrow, anti-English nationalism in favour of an expansive view of Scotland’s role as a small and open European nation. This brand of nationalism does not demand rupture with England, but asks for a relationship of equals between good neighbours.

Many Scots will have noticed the contrast with an England turning in on itself – a nation gripped by moral panic over immigration, lashed to the mast of perpetual austerity and, if David Cameron’s Conservatives have their way, quite likely to turn its back on the wider world by pulling out of the EU. This England veers between patronising Scotland and saying good riddance.

With the Tories in the ascendant, English politics collides with the broadly social democratic consensus in Edinburgh. The SNP wants to attract more smart students and skilled workers from overseas; the UK government is locking them out. Mr Salmond spies opportunity in Europe, the English see conspiracies.

It is no accident that Mr Cameron has absented himself from the campaign. Mr Salmond views the prime minister as his best recruiting sergeant. What do the Tories promise for a second term? More cuts in public services, a bar on immigrants and a vote on leaving the EU. This is not Scotland’s agenda.

As someone born in London of Irish, Welsh and Scottish ancestry, I earnestly hope that Scotland decides to stay in the union. Both nations are enriched – culturally, politically and socially as

9

well as economically – by the marriage. In a world of disappearing borders and of waning European influence, it makes sense to stick together.

The case for Scotland remaining part of the UK is not much different from that of British membership of the EU. Much of what passes among nationalists as precious national sovereignty is notional.

Where, though, in all the Whitehall propaganda is the admission that England has something to lose from Scotland’s departure? Where is the tribute to the Scots who have played a disproportionately important role in UK politics and public policy, in the armed forces and diplomatic and intelligence services and in the economic and cultural life of England? Or is it simply too obvious that England’s voice in the world would be greatly diminished by the break-up of the union?

Whatever the vote in September, Scotland cannot indefinitely be cowed. The long-term answer is a looser partnership – a federation, for want of a better word – that respects the wish of the Scots to hold sway over their domestic affairs yet embraces the reciprocal gains from the union. In the absence of such an offer, were I a Scot I would cast my vote for Mr Salmond.

The Financial Times

Text 3.

Scottish independence: David Cameron in plea to keep union

February 7, 2014

David Cameron on Friday launched a personal campaign to save the UK, warning that the country would be “deeply diminished” if Scotland votes to secede in this year’s independence referendum.

In a dramatic intervention the UK prime minister claimed there are just “seven months to save the most extraordinary country in history” and made an impassioned plea to Scots: “We want you to stay.”

The speech at the Olympic Stadium in London marks a change of tack for Mr Cameron, who is planning to take a much more visible approach in the run-up to the September referendum.

He admitted last month that interventions by a southern English Conservative prime minister might antagonise Scots and be counterproductive: “My appeal doesn’t stretch to every part,” he joked to MPs.

But senior Tories have been urging Mr Cameron to get more involved and the prime minister is now planning several visits to Scotland including holding a cabinet meeting there this month.

10

His move comes amid private Tory criticism last year of the “comatose” pro-union Better Together campaign led by Alistair Darling, the former Labour chancellor, and a realisation in Number 10 that the result could be closer than originally thought.

A poll by TNS-BMRB this month found support for the Yes campaign on 29 per cent – reflecting a gradual creeping up of support for independence – with supporters of the 307-year-old union on 41 per cent.

Mr Darling has shrugged off the criticism, insisting in an interview with the Financial Times that the campaign was a “marathon not a sprint”. He said there was “a lot to play for” with as many as 1m out of 4m voters undecided, but insisted that support for the union remained strong and stable.

“Being attacked by the Tories in Scotland is not exactly a bad thing,” Mr Darling said, but added that he wanted Mr Cameron to campaign in Scotland. “He’s the prime minister of the United Kingdom. All this stuff about him costing us support is nationalist claptrap.”

Mr Cameron’s speech on Friday in the centre of the Olympic velodrome, made an undisguised effort to revive the patriotism inspired by “Team GB” in the 2012 Olympic Games, which saw passionate crowds in London cheering on Scottish athletes such as Sir Chris Hoy, the cyclist, and tennis player Andy Murray.

Your opinion

Will Cameron’s appeal to Scottish hearts, rather than heads, help or hinder the No campaign? (Poll Closed)

Help  54.76%  (69 votes)  

 

Hinder  45.24%  (57 votes)  

 

 

Total Votes: 126

 

“For me, the best thing about the Olympics was the red, the white, and the blue . . . it was the summer that patriotism came out of the shadows and into the sunshine,” Mr Cameron said.

11

“If we lost Scotland – if the UK changed – we would rip the rug from under our own reputation,” Mr Cameron said. “The plain fact is we matter more in the world together. There can be no complacency about the result of this referendum.”

Responding to previews of the speech, Nicola Sturgeon, Scotland’s deputy first minister said: “This is a cowardly speech from a prime minister who uses the Olympic Park in London to give high-handed lectures against Scotland’s independence but hasn’t got the guts to come to Scotland or anywhere else to make his case in a head to head debate.

FT series

If Scotland goes

What the impact will be on finance, business and the economy should the Scots vote for independence

“David Cameron, as the Tory prime minister, is the very embodiment of the democratic case for a Yes vote for an independent Scotland – and he knows it.

“A Yes vote will put Scotland’s future in Scotland’s hands, and will mean we will never again have to endure Tory governments, prime ministers and policies we didn’t vote for.”

Ms Sturgeon added: “As for using the Olympic Stadium on the day the Winter Olympics begin and seeking to invoke the successes of London 2012 as an argument against Scotland taking its future into its own hands, it betrays the extent of the jitters now running through the No campaign.”

Mr Cameron, who spoke out against a UK-wide referendum on the issue, pointed pitched his plea at residents of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, arguing that while they might not have a vote in September’s referendum, they do have a voice, and can help persuade friends and family to vote no.

Mr Cameron’s strategy echoes that of Canadian unionists in 1995, who staged a huge rally in Montreal just three days ahead of the Québécois vote on independence to show their support for a united Canada.

12

That rally – attended by 100,000 Canadians from outside the province – was credited with helping to trigger a late swing towards the pro-union side, which won the poll with only just over 50 per cent of the vote.

The Financial Times

13

Text 4.

14

15

16

Text 5. Scotland’s fateful choiceThe case for union is overwhelming. The path of separation is a fool’s errand

September 10, 2014

The United Kingdom ranks as one of the most successful marriages in history. England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland have survived ancient hatreds, tribal rivalry and war. Each nation has been enriched by a journey of enlightenment, empire, shared energy and enterprise.

In eight days’ time, this splendid mess of a union, to quote Simon Schama, the British historian, risks being separated into its national parts. Scotland will vote in a referendum to decide whether to stay in the UK or sunder bonds stretching back to 1707. Opinion polls suggest the result is too close to call, a prospect which has alarmed financial markets, wrongfooted allies and sent a complacent coalition government scrambling to find a last-minute sweetener to win over the Scots.

Empires and nation states are not immune to break-up, but there is little precedent for a hitherto stable modern democracy splitting apart in peacetime, in the middle of an economic recovery. This is not the time for recrimination. For the moment, it is enough for this newspaper to declare that the path of separation is a fool’s errand, one fraught with danger and uncertainty.

Scotland is a proud and vibrant nation. Scots have contributed disproportionately to the union. They have played a leading role in arts, commerce, literature, the military, politics and sport. But a vote in favour of secession would be an irreversible act with profound consequences, not merely for 5m Scots but also for the other 58m citizens of England, Wales and Northern Ireland (including 750,000 Scots living and working outside Scotland who under the terms of the referendum have no say on the future of their country).

The act of separation would diminish the UK in every international body, notably the EU. It would raise complex – and still unanswered – questions about the common defence of the British

17

Isles, the future of the currency and political arrangements for the rest of the UK. Above all, a Yes vote would ignore the lessons of the 20th century, a chapter in European history indelibly scarred by narrow nationalism.

A union born of a now-lost empire is one entirely suited to the world of the 21st century. The nation states that prosper in the age of globalisation are ones that bind themselves together in mutual endeavour. The experience of small states in the wake of the financial crisis is far from happy. Iceland and Ireland were left cruelly exposed. Further east, the Baltic states, brave and resourceful as the Scots, are members of the EU and Nato but still feel vulnerable to the bear’s paw of a revanchist Russia.

The case against secession cannot rest on nostalgia, though the Better Together campaign has been lamentably short of passion compared with the energetic, well-funded Yes effort run by Alex Salmond, the beguiling first minister of Scotland. It must rest first on an understanding of the political forces which have made independence a tempting prospect for Scots, as well as a hard-nosed assessment of the risks involved for all concerned.

The debate about devolving power to Scotland goes back more than a century. Keir Hardie, the Scottish Labour leader, proposed home rule in 1888 but his call carried little resonance. Scots were playing a leading role in ruling one-quarter of the world’s population. Glasgow was famed as the “second city of the empire”.

The ties that bind have loosened over the past 70 years. The empire is gone, and the workshop of the world is no more. Scotland’s transition to a post-industrialised economy has been painful, though its overall economic performance over recent decades has been strong.

England and Scotland have grown apart politically. In the 1950s, the Conservative and Unionist party – to remind David Cameron’s party of its proper name – had an absolute majority of parliamentary seats in Scotland. Today, the Tory party’s representation has shrunk to a single MP, partly a legacy of Margaret Thatcher’s ill-judged poll tax and the benign neglect of a strong pound which devastated manufacturing north and south of the border. The discovery of North Sea oil in the 1960s further reinforced Scottish nationalism.

Tony Blair believed he could stymie the nationalist movement with more devolution of powers. His Labour government established a Scottish parliament at Holyrood. In retrospect, devolution did nothing to halt the secular decline of Labour in Scotland. Too many of the party’s heavyweights treated Scotland as a rotten borough to help them to power in London. Devolution may have encouraged further divergence on policies such as pensions, social care or university education from those in England.

Mr Salmond, a seasoned operator, has exploited the populist mood. Voters are angry about austerity caused by the financial crisis and alienated from the political establishment. Mr Salmond casts himself as an insurgent representing a new brand of civic nationalism in which the Scots will have control over their fate in a fresh young democracy.

Mr Salmond can tug on the emotions of his fellow countrymen but he has given few credible answers about the challenges – economic, social and international – which would face Scotland. His Panglossian pitch is that the Scots can have the best of all possible worlds: independence, the monarchy and the pound, and that a Scotland which retreats into a narrower nationalist identity will somehow be better equipped to prosper in a world of globalisation.

18

His argument contains glaring inconsistencies. A currency union demands a political union. The eurozone’s travails show us as much. Mark Carney, governor of the Bank of England, made clear again this week that political independence is incompatible with maintaining sterling as the currency of choice. Mr Salmond insists the English establishment is bluffing. This is no bluff. The currency uncertainty will blight every aspect of the Scottish economy, from commercial lending to mortgages. Without total clarity, every Scottish citizen is left exposed.

Mr Salmond claims that separation is the best guarantee of future prosperity. His calculations are based on much wishful thinking covering vital matters such as the future oil price and how much of the UK’s debt would be assumed by the Scots. He presumes that it serves no one’s interest to be unreasonable about the terms of divorce, but he underestimates the psychological shock. No one can predict the consequences.

Nor is it obvious why Scotland will gain early and automatic entry into the EU. Other European states with their own separatist movements – notably Spain – have little incentive to agree to a quick deal. The only certainty is uncertainty, at a high cost to Scotland and the UK. The shift of deposits and money out of Scotland this week is a harbinger.

There must be a better way. Britain needs a new political settlement that implements at home what it preaches in Europe: subsidiarity. For too long, the British government has imposed a “Whitehall-knows-best” policy on the nations and regions. More devolution is the answer, but not at any price. Mr Cameron and his London-based colleagues should tread carefully in the coming days. It is far from clear how England, the preponderant power, would fit into a federalised union in which Scotland enjoyed all political gifts short of independence.

Everything turns on the vote on September 18. It is not too late to remind the Scots and the rest of the UK how much they have benefited from being British. Great Britain stands for an expansive and inclusive view of the world. The union is something precious, not a bauble to be cast aside. In a week’s time, the Scots can vote with a sense of ambition to build on those successes. Rather than retreat into tribalism, they can continue to be part of a nation rooted not just in history and culture but a common destiny which over three centuries has served all so well.

FT.com

19

Text 6. Cameron and the case for the union

Premier right to stress costs of break-up for whole of UK

February 7, 2014

Since 1707 and the Act of Union, England and Scotland have been joined together in a single state. Were this marriage to break up, the impact on both Scotland and the “rump UK” would be immense. The question of whether an independent Scotland would be better off economically is one that has been vigorously debated. But what is not in doubt – and has been too little discussed – is that the rest of the UK would be weakened too. In London on Friday, David Cameron addressed this head-on for the first time. 

True, there has not been a groundswell of support for independence. In spite of volatility over the past year, the latest poll shows the Yes vote at 34 per cent and the No at 52 per cent – almost unchanged since the beginning of last year. The nationalist leader Alex Salmond may have been the most visible figure in the debate. But this has not yet translated into votes for independence.

Nonetheless, there are understandable signs of nervousness in the unionist ranks. Mr Salmond’s almost Gandalf-like ability to turn the political tables on opponents is widely feared. Worried unionists point to how he turned round a large deficit at the polls to give the nationalists an absolute majority in Holyrood at the 2011 election.

The question is what role Mr Cameron and other Westminster politicians should play. The best course would be for the three main party leaders to join forces and make the case collectively. It is unfortunate that the referendum comes in the run-up to a general election campaign when the parties are keener on drawing dividing lines than emphasising areas of agreement. But with the UK’s future at stake, partisanship must be set aside.

Britain is at an extraordinary moment in its history. Few countries would allow a constituent region to redraw the boundaries of the nation for everybody else. It is also a moment of truth for one of the most successful political marriages in modern history. The 307-year-old union between England and Scotland is worth fighting for. What is needed is for politicians across the UK to come together and make its case.

The Financial Times

20

Text 7.

Scotland's vote on independence: What you need to knowBy Laura Smith-Spark, CNN

September 18, 2014

21

22

Scotland holds a referendum on independence on September 18

A "yes" vote would mean the break-up of its 307-year-old union with England and Wales

Opinion polls suggest the momentum may have shifted to the Yes campaign

Prime Minister David Cameron could face resignation calls if Scotland breaks away

(CNN) -- On September 18, Scots go to the polls to vote on the future of their country.

It's a vote that could end Scotland's 307-year union with England and Wales as Great Britain -- and see it launch into the world as an independent nation of some 5.3 million people.

When campaigning began, that seemed a far-fetched prospect. But the most recent polls suggest that what many Britons consider unthinkable could happen -- and the United Kingdom as we know it could be torn asunder.

Here's what you need to know about the landmark referendum.

What are the Scottish voting on, and why?

Voters will be presented with a simple yes/no question: Should Scotland be an independent country?

23

The Scottish government, led by the Scottish National Party, says this is a "once in a generation opportunity" for Scotland's people to take control of the decisions that affect them most. A "yes" vote means that "Scotland's future will be in Scotland's hands," it says, and that life will be better and fairer for its people.

British Prime Minister David Cameron wants Scotland to remain part of an undivided United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. He says that it is a decision solely for the Scottish people -- but that remaining part of the United Kingdom will give them security and strength. "There will be no going back," he warns.

Because the United Kingdom has no written constitution, there's no established law to govern the process. So these are truly uncharted waters.

Why is this significant to the rest of the world?

The question mark over Scotland's future is already having an impact on domestic and international business. Some worry that the breakup of the United Kingdom could undermine London's standing as an international financial capital.

Last month, 130 business leaders published an open letter in which they warned of the impact of uncertainty over issues including currency, regulation, tax, pensions, EU membership and support for Scottish exports. A day later, more than 200 other business leaders signed an open letter backing an independent Scotland.

What currency would Scotland use? 24

Expert: 'Yes' would humiliate Cameron

The British pound sank Monday after the first poll that showed the "yes" vote in the lead, with CNN Money reporting that it reflected uncertainty over the outcome of the referendum and an increased risk of a "messy divorce."

The UK's defense capability could be affected. The Scottish government says it wants to remove nuclear weapons from Scotland as soon as possible -- namely, the UK Trident nuclear submarine fleet based at Faslane. The Scottish government says, "It is our firm position that an independent Scotland should not host nuclear weapons and we would only join NATO on that basis."

Scotland would have to renegotiate its entry to both NATO and the European Union if it votes for independence. EU leaders have signaled they would take a hard line and make Scotland apply to join like any other independent nation. However, the "yes" campaign says it could easily be done through amendments to existing treaties.

If Scotland chooses to split from Britain, it could give other people ideas.

The debate is being closely watched by independence movements in Spain's Catalonia province, Canada's Quebec province and France's Mediterranean island of Corsica.

If Scotland votes to leave, the British Prime Minister will likely come under pressure to resign -- although he has told UK media "emphatically" he will not do

25

so. The major Westminster parties have promised to devolve more powers to Scotland if it chooses to stay in the union.

Who can vote?

Thanks to a bill passed last year extending the vote to 16- and 17-year-olds, almost everyone living in Scotland who is 16 or older on the day of the referendum will be able to vote.

This means English or Welsh citizens who reside in Scotland can take part. But Scots who are living elsewhere in the United Kingdom or overseas will not be entitled to cast a ballot.

It also means that the residents of England, Wales and Northern Ireland get no say on a historic change to the makeup of the United Kingdom.

What's the history behind the vote?

Scotland has long had a testy relationship with its more populous neighbor. The Act of Union in 1707 joined the kingdom of Scotland with England and Wales, but many Scots were unhappy at being yoked to their longtime rival south of the border.

Since 1999, Scotland has had a devolved government, meaning many, but not all, decisions are made at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh. In May 2011 the nationalist Scottish National Party, which had campaigned on a promise to hold an independence referendum, surprised many by winning an outright majority in the Scottish Parliament.

In October 2012, the UK and Scottish governments agreed that the referendum would be held, and the question to be put to voters was agreed on early last year.

Dauvit Broun, a professor of Scottish history at the University of Glasgow, said one driving force for the vote was the widening gulf between the policies pursued by the coalition UK government in Westminster, led by the Conservative Party under Cameron since 2010, and what the Scottish people want.

Many Scots are strongly opposed to the current Westminster government's attempts to reform -- or in their eyes dismantle -- the welfare state and say it was not elected by them. Illustrating that sentiment, there's only one Conservative MP in Scotland at present, leading humorists to point out that even giant pandas are better represented (Edinburgh Zoo has two.)

"Since the period of Margaret Thatcher, there has been a growing divide, and a sense that what Scotland feels consensus about ... has become more and more different to England," Broun said.

26

Looking further back, Scotland and England have been growing apart since the demise of the British Empire, Broun says. The decline of the Presbyterian church in Scotland, which provided a sense of self-government and Scottish identity, has also played a part in fueling the desire for independence, he said.

Who are the main players?

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond is the ebullient leader of the pro-independence campaign. Labour MP Alistair Darling, who represents an Edinburgh constituency, heads the pro-union Better Together campaign.

The pair have taken part in two TV debates, with Darling widely judged to have come out on top in the first, by a narrow margin, and Salmond to have done significantly better in the second.

David Cameron has also spoken strongly in favor of Scotland remaining part of the United Kingdom.

It's not just UK politicians who are getting involved. Singer David Bowie, in a Brit Awards acceptance speech delivered by supermodel Kate Moss, pleaded, "Scotland, stay with us."

Former Manchester United football club manager Alex Ferguson also opposes a split and has backed the "Better Together" campaign. "800,000 Scots, like me, live and work in other parts of the United Kingdom. We don't live in a foreign country; we are just in another part of the family of the UK," he is quoted as saying.

Harry Potter author J.K. Rowling, who lives in Scotland, made a hefty donation to the Better Together campaign, and Beatles star Paul McCartney has signed a letter urging Scottish voters to stick with Britain.

The Yes campaign has its own celebrity backers -- including former James Bond star Sean Connery, actor Brian Cox, and comedian Frankie Boyle.

Even U.S President Barack Obama has gotten in on the act. He acknowledged it was a decision for the people of Scotland, but added: "We obviously have a deep interest in making sure that one of the closest allies we will ever have remains a strong, robust, united and effective partner."

What are the key issues?

Questions over the economy have dominated the debate.

The Scottish government argues the country would be better off after independence, largely based on its taking control of revenues from North Sea oil and gas found in Scottish waters. It says it would manage the energy industry better, invest to boost production, and create a wealth fund, similar to Norway's oil fund, to benefit future generations.

27

But not everyone agrees with the Scottish government's rosy assessment. A report by the Institute for Fiscal Studies in March said the latest figures showed Scotland's budget deficit had worsened relative to the rest of the United Kingdom, thanks to falling North Sea revenues and higher public spending north of the border. It also warned of the dangers of relying too heavily on a volatile and ultimately finite income source.

The Scottish government says the economy is diverse, with other key elements including food and drink, tourism, creative industries, universities, financial services and manufacturing.

Another big issue is what currency an independent Scotland would have.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond has said he wants Scotland to continue to use the pound in a currency union with the rest of the United Kingdom, and that it has the right to do so.

But the three main parties in Westminster -- David Cameron's Conservatives, their coalition partners the Liberal Democrats, and Labour -- have all said this won't be an option. The Scottish government responded that this was "bullying" from Westminster.

It's unclear what would happen to Scotland's share of UK debt if it's not part of a currency union.

What's the mood?

A series of opinion polls in past months has given the pro-union camp a lead. However, the most recent polls have shown that shrinking or disappearing altogether.

A YouGov poll conducted for The Sunday Times and released on September 7 caused waves when it showed the "yes" vote narrowly in the lead for the first time, excluding undecided voters. YouGov President Peter Kellner said it indicated support for the Better Together campaign had fallen "at an astonishing rate."

Of course, it's just one poll among many.

The latest poll of polls by ScotCen, an independent research center, shows the "no" camp hanging on to a narrow lead over the "yes" camp, excluding undecided voters.

Many in the Yes campaign feel they have a momentum of support that has built toward the September 18 vote.

But the No campaigners are confident they represent the silent majority who, after considering all the factors involved, will decide against independence.

28

What would happen if Scotland votes Yes?

Should Scots defy Westminster's expectation and vote "yes," there will be a flurry of activity to ensure everything is in place for Salmond's projected independence date of 24 March, 2016.

Upon confirmation of a victory, the Yes Scotland leader will put together his "Team Scotland" negotiating team. It is expected to include his deputy, Nicola Sturgeon, alongside a broad, cross-party group.

Cameron -- if he hasn't been forced to resign after presiding over the breakup of the UK's 300-year-old union -- will need to form his own negotiating side.

Chief among the matters up for negotiation are the currency union and Scotland's share of the UK's national debt, the relocation of the Trident fleet and even potential border controls. The "yes" campaign has said it intends for Scotland to remain part of the Common Travel Area, which allows free movement for citizens of the United Kingdom, the Republic of Ireland, the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands.

Cameron will have to move quickly to avoid financial instability by giving a definitive answer to the currency question, and there has been suggestion that the next UK general election -- scheduled for May 2015 -- might be postponed until after Scotland has exited the union.

The Scottish government would have to set in motion a process to produce a written constitution. Queen Elizabeth II would remain head of state.

An independent Scotland would also have to negotiate paths to membership for both NATO and the European Union, two international organizations that the "yes" campaign says are in Scotland's future.

Text 8.

Results of Scotland independence referendum: 'No' campaign victoriousBy Euan McKirdy, Laura Smith-Spark and Nic Robertson, CNN

September 19, 201429

Glasgow, Scotland (CNN) -- [Breaking news alert, 6:23 a.m. GMT]

Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom -- along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland -- following a historic referendum vote. A majority of voters rejected the possibility of Scotland breaking away and becoming an independent nation.

With 31 of 32 councils declared, the "No" campaign has won the referendum on Scottish independence.

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond admitted defeat in Scotland's independence referendum Friday -- and urged the rest of Scotland to do the same.

In a televised statement, he thanked Scotland "for 1.6 million votes for Scottish independence."A turnout of 86% is one of the highest in the democratic world for any such vote, he said.

Voters in Scotland made their choice Thursday -- remain part of the United Kingdom, or form their own independent nation. They chose to remain.

With 31 of 32 of councils reporting, the "No" campaign had garnered enough votes to secure their victory, and with it Scotland's continued place within the union.

The first councils to declare all went to the "No" campaign, as did the capital, Edinburgh, which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the union with 123,927 for

30

"Yes" and 194,628 "No" votes. Argyll and Bute and Aberdeenshire also voted "No."

Glasgow delivered a solid win for the independence camp with 194,779 votes for "Yes," and 169,347 for "No," but lead was not big enough to overturn the "No" camp's overall majority so far, which maintains a 8% (54% to 46%) lead over pro-independence camp.

The majority of the early results have been going the anti-independence camp's way. The "No" campaign extended lead with Angus and East Dunbartonshire council results, alongside a landslide in Dumfries and Galloway. The oil-rich city of Aberdeen also strongly voted for the unionist camp.

The city of Dundee was the first big gain for the independence campaign, voting "Yes" with 53,620 votes for, 39,880 against.

The individual counts by local authorities are ultimately immaterial as it is the total number of votes countrywide that will determine the outcome.

Polls at more than 5,500 stations across all districts, from the remote highlands and islands to the big cities of Edinburgh and Glasgow, closed at 10 p.m. local time (5 p.m. ET). People still in line to vote at that time were allowed to cast ballots.

High turnout

The first districts to report turnout reported high participation -- well over 80% in most cases -- Mary Pitcaithly, chief counting officer, announced in Edinburgh.

Turnout in Glasgow, one of the Yes campaign's heartlands, was a relatively disappointing 75%.

More than 4.2 million people registered to vote on the question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?"

A vote for independence would mean Scotland, with its population of about 5.3 million, splits from the rest of the United Kingdom, made up of England, Wales and Northern Ireland, in addition to Scotland.

"The people of Scotland have engaged in this conversation," Phil MacHugh, a spokesman for the "Yes" camp, told CNN on Thursday night. "They have really gone out there, found out the information that they wanted to know, and made that choice today."

Prime minister's address

British Prime Minister David Cameron will make an address Friday morning. The content will depend on the outcome of the vote, but in the event that Scottish voters decide to stay in the union, Downing Street says he will refer to plans for

31

further redistribution of powers from the central government to the Scottish Parliament, signed by Westminster leaders earlier this week.

The counting officer for Edinburgh, Sue Bruce, explained just after 10 p.m. that each ballot will be double-checked, to verify each voter's decision.

Addressing dozens of election workers, Bruce added, "I look forward to working with you during the course of the evening to deliver an accurate and transparent Edinburgh count in which you and the voters of Edinburgh can have full confidence."

Voting was brisk at one polling station in Glasgow as the polls opened Thursday, with many people voting on the way to work or before taking their children to school.

Bad weather or the sheer volume of votes cast could slow down the counting process. However, the weather forecast appears good so far -- important when some ballot boxes must be collected by helicopter, plane or boat from polling stations on distant islands.

Allegations of voting fraud were reported by Glasgow City Council, with several instances of people turning up at voting booths in Scotland's largest city to vote, only to be told that they had already voted.

The Council stressed that there was never actually a situation of double voting and the affected ballots are now being searched for and taken away.

Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond, who has led the pro-independence "Yes Scotland" campaign, cast his ballot Thursday morning in the village of Strichen, Aberdeenshire.

Labour lawmaker Alistair Darling, who has headed the pro-union "Better Together" campaign -- backed by the main parties in Westminster -- voted in Edinburgh, while former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, another pro-union campaigner, voted in the town of Kirkcaldy.

For the first time, the vote was extended to 16- and 17-year olds living in Scotland. Nearly 110,000 people younger than 18 have registered to vote.

Voters in the referendum did not have to be British citizens; Commonwealth, Irish and EU citizens who live in Scotland and are registered to vote there can cast a ballot. However, Scots living outside Scotland do not have a say.

Nearly 790,000 people applied for a postal vote -- the largest volume of registration for postal votes ever in Scotland.

After the polls closed, Salmond tweeted, "This has been a remarkable day. Scotland's future truly is in Scotland's hands."

32

People opposed to Scottish independence celebrate the final results of a historic referendum Friday, September 19, in Edinburgh, Scotland. A majority of voters -- 55% to 45% -- rejected the

33

possibility of Scotland breaking away from the United Kingdom and becoming an independent nation.

A supporter of an independent Scotland cries as referendum results are announced September 19 in Edinburgh.

34

A discarded "Yes" sticker lies on cobblestones along Edinburgh's Royal Mile on September 19.

Alistair Darling, leader of the pro-union "Better Together" campaign, addresses supporters in Glasgow, Scotland, after the announcement of the referendum's final results September 19.

35

Ballots cast against Scottish independence get stacked on a table as votes are counted in Edinburgh on September 19.

Ballot boxes are opened as counting begins Thursday, September 18, in Aberdeen, Scotland.

36

Ballot counting was tiring for staffers working through the night at the Royal Highland Centre in Edinburgh.

Ballot papers are counted in Aberdeen after the polls closed on September 18.

37

Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond passes an pro-union campaigner in Ellon, Scotland, on September 18. Salmond, leader of the independence movement, later accepted defeat and urged supporters to do the same.

Campaigners on both sides of Scotland's independence referendum stand outside a polling station in Edinburgh on September 18.

38

A dog wearing a pro-independence bandana walks down a street September 18 in Glasgow.

Salmond chats with reporters after casting his vote September 18 in Strichen, Scotland.

39

A pro-independence campaigner displays his message September 18 in Strichen.

Former British Prime Minister Gordon Brown talks to pro-union campaigners outside a polling station in Queensferry, Scotland, on September 18.

40

Text 9.

Scotland votes on independenceSource: CNN

September 19, 2014

Scotland will remain part of the United Kingdom -- along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland -- following a historic referendum vote.

By 55% to 45%, a majority of voters rejected the possibility of Scotland breaking away and becoming an independent nation.

Shortly afterward, Alex Salmond, the Scottish first minister and leader of the pro-independence Scottish National Party, announced his resignation from both posts, effective in November.

Salmond said he was proud of the campaign for independence, and that now was the time to hold the UK leadership to its promises of shifting more autonomy to Scotland.

"We now have the opportunity to hold Westminster's feet to the fire on the 'vow' that they have made to devolve further meaningful power to Scotland," he said in a statement. "This places Scotland in a very strong position."

UK Prime Minister David Cameron welcomed Scotland's decision in a televised statement outside 10 Downing Street, saying it was a clear result.

41

"Like millions of other people, I am delighted," he said.

Cameron said he would have been heartbroken to see the United Kingdom broken up -- but paid tribute to the efforts of both sides in the campaign.

"We hear you," he said to those who voted for independence, adding this was an opportunity to change the way people in the United Kingdom are governed, and "change it for the better."

His government has delivered on devolution in the past and will deliver on it again, Cameron said.

A "new and fair settlement" will be created for Scotland and for the other countries of the United Kingdom, he said.

Salmond accepted defeat in an earlier televised statement -- and urged the rest of the pro-independence camp to do the same.

He thanked Scotland "for 1.6 million votes for Scottish independence" and said the turnout -- which electoral officials said was 84.6% from an electorate of more than 4.2 million -- was one of the highest in the democratic world for any such vote.

Queen Elizabeth II said the outcome of the vote will be met with a range of emotions, but was hopeful "that these emotions will be tempered by an understanding of the feelings of others."

"Now, as we move forward, we should remember that despite the range of views that have been expressed, we have in common an enduring love of Scotland, which is one of the things that helps to unite us all," the Queen said in a statement.

Sigh of relief

The final result in the referendum was 1,617,989 votes in favor of independence from the United Kingdom to 2,001,926 against.

This means the pro-union camp won by a margin of 55.25% of the vote to 44.65% -- a much wider gap than opinion polls in the final days leading up to the vote had suggested.

The result means the main political parties in Westminster -- and many people across the United Kingdom and Scotland -- can breathe a collective sigh of relief that the threat of a breakup of a centuries-old union is over. However, many on the "Yes" side will be bitterly disappointed. The referendum was closely watched around the world, particularly in nations like Spain, whose Catalonia province is home to a vocal independence movement.

U.S. President Barack Obama welcomed the result and praised the Scots "for their full and energetic exercise of democracy."

42

"Through debate, discussion, and passionate yet peaceful deliberations, they reminded the world of Scotland's enormous contributions to the UK and the world," Obama said in a statement Friday morning. "We have no closer ally than the United Kingdom, and we look forward to continuing our strong and special relationship with all the people of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as we address the challenges facing the world today."

NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen also welcomed the news that the United Kingdom, a key member of the defense bloc, would remain united.

Investors liked what they saw. The pound was firm against the U.S. dollar and the euro, after recovering much of the ground lost earlier this month when surveys suggested Scotland was on the brink of abandoning the union.

Stock markets also rose, with shares in Scottish companies doing particularly well.

Salmond, who heads the governing Scottish National Party, hailed the political engagement seen in Scotland during the campaign and appealed for unity going forward.

"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 traveled and have confidence that a movement is abroad in Scotland that will take this nation forward, and we shall go forward as one nation," he said.

Salmond has previously said that if the "Yes" campaign lost the referendum there would not be another vote on independence in a generation.

Labour lawmaker Alistair Darling, who led the pro-union campaign in the Scottish referendum, hailed the result Friday but said that the message that the people of Scotland want change must be heard.

"The people of Scotland have spoken," he said."We have chosen unity over division and positive change rather than needless separation.

"Today is a momentous result for Scotland and also for the United Kingdom as a whole -- by confirming our place within the union we reaffirm all that we have in common and the bonds that tie us together. Let them never be broken."

He gave a commitment that the political changes promised by the Westminster parties -- involving the devolution of more powers to Scotland -- would be kept.

Darling also called for the country to unify after debate that "has created some fairly deep divisions in our country," and a campaign "that has both energized but at times divided" the Scottish people.

"Those divisions now need to be addressed and that requires leadership," he said, promising to play his part.

43

Deputy Prime Minister Nick Clegg, whose Liberal Democrats are in a coalition government with Cameron's Conservatives, said he was "absolutely delighted" by the result.

"But a vote against independence was clearly not a vote against change and we must now deliver on time and in full the radical package of newly devolved powers to Scotland," he said.

"At the same time, this referendum north of the border has led to demand for constitutional reform across the United Kingdom as people south of the border also want more control and freedom in their own hands rather than power being hoarded in Westminster."

Labour Party leader Ed Miliband also hailed a "historic achievement" in keeping the union together.

He promised change across the United Kingdom in a speech to supporters in which he looked forward to the general election battle due next May.

The first of the 32 councils to declare all went to the "No" campaign, as did the capital, Edinburgh, which voted overwhelmingly to stay in the union. Fife and Aberdeenshire also voted "No."

Glasgow delivered a solid win for the independence camp but the lead was not big enough to overturn the "No" camp's overall majority. Dundee, North Lanarkshire and West Dunbartonshire were the only other councils to vote "Yes."

Political fallout

Scotland has had a devolved government since 1999, meaning many, but not all, decisions are made at the Scottish Parliament in Holyrood, Edinburgh.

As opinion polls showed the lead held by the "no" vote shrinking fast in the days leading up to the referendum, the leaders of all three main parties in Westminster responded with the promise to give major new powers over tax, spending and social welfare to Scotland if it stuck with the United Kingdom.

Now the party leaders face the challenge of pushing those changes through a possibly rebellious Parliament on a tight timetable.

The process of handing over those new powers will start from Friday, Cameron said in a speech in Aberdeen earlier this week, with draft legislation expected as soon as January. "This is a timetable that is now agreed by all the main political parties and set in stone and I am prepared to work with all the main parties to deliver this during 2015," he said.

Although Scotland has chosen to stick with the union -- staving off potential calls

44

Critics have accused him of complacency during the long months of campaigning when Salmond's "Yes Scotland" campaign was laying the groundwork for its late surge. Cameron's longtime Labour rival, former Prime Minister Gordon Brown, is credited by many with bringing the vital energy that eventually carried a lackluster "No" campaign to victory.

Critics have also accused Cameron and the other main party leaders of giving away too much in a last-ditch effort to keep Scottish voters on board.

It remains to be seen how the promise to give greater powers also to England, Wales and Northern Ireland will be borne out.

Cameron will also likely face difficult questions over his own leadership in the run-up to a general election due to take place next May.

Cameron 'delighted' with Scotland vote

45

First Minister of Scotland concedes

Text 10.

What Scotland's 'No' vote means for David Cameron

September 19, 2014

Final polls showed a narrow race after years of campaigning on either side Failure of "yes" vote saves UK Prime Minister from humiliating defeat Oakley: Cameron will breathe a sigh of relief at a partial reprieve

David Cameron has had the narrowest of political escapes. Success for the "Better Together" campaign has saved him from catastrophe: he will not, after all, live on in history as the Prime Minister on whose watch the Scottish nation chose to leave the United Kingdom. But serious questions will now be asked in his party and in the country about his future.

Cameron will also face an almighty battle in Parliament to deliver the consolation prize of greatly enhanced powers for the Scottish Parliament, the so-called "Devo

46

Max" package, which he was forced to concede in the panicky latter stages of the No campaign.

On Friday morning, the tired but relieved-looking Premier told reporters at 10 Downing Street that it would have broken his heart to see Scotland leave the UK.

"The people of Scotland have spoken," Cameron said. "They have kept our country of four nations together, and like millions of other people, I am delighted."

Cameron called on the country to move forward with a "balanced settlement, fair to the people of Scotland -- and importantly, to everyone in England, Wales and Northern Ireland as well."

But although Scottish voters ultimately rejected independence by a margin of 55% to 45%, this story is far from over for Cameron.

Did Gordon Brown save it?

Cameron and his party were not the only ones to blame for a referendum campaign that so nearly led to the break-up of the United Kingdom. But he is being widely blamed for a variety of tactical and strategic errors. Many members of Parliament (MPs) will say that he and the "Better Together" campaign were only rescued by the campaigning fervor and passion of the former Labour Party leader and Prime Minister Gordon Brown.

Cameron had sought to detach the questions of Scottish independence and his own future. Warning the Scots that what they were walking into was not a trial separation but a final break, he pleaded with them not to throw away the union in a protest vote just because they disliked him and his party. (Of the 59 Scottish seats in the Westminster Parliament only one is held by a Conservative MP).

QUIZ: How Scottish are you?

Insisting on the finality of a constitutional divorce was probably his best card. But in emphasizing that the question on the ballot paper was not his future but the future of the union, Cameron was also acknowledging that he is held to blame by many for boosting the nationalist vote.

Where Cameron went wrong

He is blamed firstly for the terms he agreed on the staging of the referendum. Critics lambast Cameron now for giving Scottish National Party leader Alex Salmond two years to build momentum for his cause, and for opening the vote to 16 year olds. They blame him for agreeing to a ballot paper question which meant that the supporters of independence were the ones campaigning for a "Yes" while their opponents were bound to look negative in seeking a "No."

47

They blame him for agreeing to let one vote decide the issue: when a Labour government in the 1970s agreed to a referendum on setting up a Scottish Parliament it insisted that 40% of those voting must approve the change. There was a majority for the Parliament but the 40% margin was not achieved and the Scots had to wait another 20 years for their own Parliament.

Above all, the critics insist Cameron was wrong to exclude from the ballot paper the compromise option of the so-called "Devo Max" — a huge extension in the tax-raising and spending powers of the Scottish Parliament. This devolution of power from London to Edinburgh appealed to many as an achievable compromise which would have taken the steam out of the separatist case. But Cameron overruled such advice, only to find that he and the other Westminster party leaders were forced to concede Devo Max anyway — win or lose the vote — as the campaign threatened to run away from them.

Even during the lead-up to the vote, when many Conservative MPs kept quiet for fear of making things worse for the Better Together campaign, some were warning that the concessions on Devo Max wrung from Cameron by Gordon Brown might not be deliverable.

What comes next?

Conservative MPs are already vociferously demanding that any concessions to the Scottish Parliament must be balanced by greater powers for the English regions -- namely, by reducing the number of Scottish MPs in the Westminster Parliament and by ending the process whereby Scottish MPs at Westminster can vote on English-only matters while English MPs have no say in matters delegated to the Scottish Parliament.

As a moderate and pragmatic politician, Cameron has had an uneasy tenure already over a right-leaning party growing ever more Euro-skeptic as it faces the rise of the United Kingdom Independence Party (UKIP). The further difficulties he will face in pushing through legislation to honor his commitments to the Scots will do nothing to add to his authority.

But Cameron will breathe a sigh of relief at a partial reprieve: had he seen the Scots depart from the UK he might well have faced a rebellion in his party which could have gone as far as the tabling of a vote of no confidence in his leadership -- a process which requires 15% of his MPs (46 of them) to sign up to the proposition.

For the moment at least he soldiers on. But there is further trouble looming. Opinion polls indicate that next month his party will lose its first Parliament seat to UKIP in a by-election caused by the defection of former Tory MP Douglas Carswell.

48

49

50

51

52

B. The West Lothian Question (Evel)

The West Lothian Question refers to the perceived imbalance between the voting rights in the House of Commons of MPs from Scottish, Welsh and Northern Ireland constituencies and those of MPs from English constituencies following devolution.

It has been so-called since Tam Dalyell, the former MP for West Lothian, famously raised the question in a debate on devolution to Scotland and Wales on 14 November 1977.

Text 1.

What is the West Lothian question and why does it matter?

The question famously posed by Tam Dalyell in 1977 over non-English MPs' role at Westminster remains a tricky one

Friday 19 September 2014 The Guardian

What is the West Lothian question?

Most simply put, it asks why Scottish, Welsh or indeed Northern Irish MPs have the same right to vote at Westminster as any English MP now that large areas of policy are devolved to national parliaments and assemblies in areas such as health, housing, schools and policing.

Often translated as "English votes for English laws", the question also comes up if non-English MPs become UK ministers and push through controversial England-only measures, even as their devolved government rejects them.

The question itself is famously attributed to the then Labour MP for West Lothian, Tam Dalyell, who raised it in 1977 when Jim Callaghan's Labour government proposed a devolved assembly in Edinburgh. An anti-devolutionist, Dalyell argued it would be unfair for Scottish MPs to have equal rights to vote on English-only legislation. Callaghan's plan failed to win a large enough Scottish majority in a referendum, and collapsed.

Has it ever really mattered?

When Scotland and Wales won devolution in 1999, English Tory MPs were aggrieved that Labour could – until its defeat at the 2010 election – rely on scores of Scottish and Welsh MPs to push through unpopular England-only measures at Westminster.

53

It rarely mattered, since Labour's majority in England was usually large enough. There were two incidents when loyal Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs were needed to vote through Labour government policies because so many of their English colleagues rebelled.

In a vote to set up foundation trusts in the English NHS, Blair's majority was cut to 35 because many English Labour MPs rebelled or failed to vote; Blair needed 67 Scottish and Welsh MPs to push the trusts through. Blair needed similar levels of loyalty in January 2004 to introduce tuition fees, a policy firmly rejected in Scotland.

And when John Reid, then MP for Hamilton and North Bellshill, was appointed Blair's health secretary in 2003 when Holyrood had control over nearly all health policy in Scotland, Iain Duncan Smith called it a "democratic monstrosity". But at the time, the Tories had English MPs sitting as shadow Scottish and Welsh secretaries because they had so few MPs there.

What is the answer to the question?

That is the most troubling issue. It is often very difficult to make a clear-cut decision on whether any measure is wholly English since many bills have a financial impact on the UK as a whole, often affecting Treasury grants for the devolved nations. And different devolved governments have power over different policy areas: Holyrood controls fisheries patrols and policing; Cardiff Bay does not.

Short of a federal UK or an elected second chamber, the political scientists Guy Lodge, Meg Russell and Oonagh Gay describe it as a "question without answer".

The hardline response is to ban non-English MPs from voting on any measure which relates only to England. The UK justice secretary Kenneth Clarke's democracy taskforce proposed allowing only English MPs to sit at the committee stage of an English-only bill until a final vote, when it would return to the full Commons. Sir Malcolm Rifkind, a former Scottish secretary and Edinburgh MP and now Tory MP for Kensington and Chelsea, proposed an English grand committee with similar powers.

What do critics of the West Lothian question say?

They argue that making second-class MPs would undermine the entire purpose of the universal franchise: that everyone's vote is equal. It damages the principle of collective responsibility too: why should a talented Scottish MP not run a UK department?

MPs regularly vote on policies which affect other constituencies and not theirs. They also vote on going to war in a country they don't represent or spending money in countries they never visit. And the Tories only complained because they were losing out, some say.

But one of the most politically charged issues is whether downgrading Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs plays into the hands of nationalists who want to show that Westminster is hostile and England-dominated. The Commons is, after all, the institution which most binds the UK into one. This, in part, is why no one has really wanted to answer the question.

54

Text 2. As Election Looms, Britain Ponders ‘English Question’

DEC. 16, 2014. 

LONDON — To persuade Scottish voters to reject independence in a referendum in September, British politicians offered to give Scotland’s Parliament in Edinburgh more powers and more autonomy.

It worked. But now those same politicians are fretting about the consequences outside Scotland and grappling with what has become known here as the English question Who should have a say on measures that exclusively concern England

On Tuesday, the Conservative-led government of Prime Minister David Cameron laid out some options for answering that question — measures that would either limit the powers of members of the national Parliament from Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, which have their own legislatures, or give expanded powers to members from England, which does not.

Tuesday’s announcement was an opening move in a wrangle that is likely to color the general election in May and occupy British politicians for years to come. It underlines worries about the fragility of the United Kingdom as pressure builds from nationalist parties and many voters seem disenchanted with the political establishment.

No agreement is expected before the election. The opposition Labour Party called on Tuesday, as it has before, for a full constitutional convention to draw up a solution, rather than quickly passing legislation in Parliament.

By contrast, the Conservative Party has embraced the slogan “English votes for English laws” as its electoral battle cry.

Mr. Cameron faces competition from the right-wing U.K. Independence Party, which draws most of its support in England. And he has little to lose in Scotland now; his Conservative Party has just one Scottish member in the national Parliament, while Labour has 41.

Labour has supported greater autonomy for the Scottish Parliament, but the party’s leader, Ed Miliband, wants a longer discussion after the election about what to do for England. He knows that imposing any restrictions on the powers of Scottish lawmakers in the Westminster Parliament could make it harder for him to form a government if Labour prevails at the polls in May.

William Hague, the Conservative leader in the House of Commons, said that the issue of English representation was one that “too many people have avoided for too long, and can no longer be put aside.”

55

Mr. Hague outlined three options. One would bar Scottish lawmakers from having any role in English and Welsh legislation. A less sweeping option would be to give lawmakers from English constituencies a bigger role in shaping and amending laws for England, without entirely excluding lawmakers from other regions from having a say. A third option would be to give English members of Parliament, as a group, the power to veto certain bills.

The Liberal Democrats, who are junior members of Mr. Cameron’s ruling coalition, offered a somewhat different version of the veto approach, proposing a new committee of English lawmakers with the right to block legislation applying only to England. Seats on the committee would be apportioned based on each party’s share of the vote in the general election.

Speaking to the BBC before the announcement, John Prescott, a Labour leader and former deputy prime minister, said the Conservative proposals were just a campaign ploy. “They’re rushing it before the election to make an election claim,” he said.

Britain has no formal written constitution, and has long prided itself on being able to manage without one. But some political figures say the time may have come for that tradition to change.

The first minister of Wales, Carwyn Jones, who belongs to the Labour Party, said that a convention was needed to discuss all of Britain’s constitutional issues, including more powers for Wales, and that the results would have to be “at least partially” a written constitution.

“The tragedy is that this can all be resolved, but the will and the understanding in Whitehall isn’t there,” he told reporters on Monday, referring to the center of administrative power in London. “Resolving the English question is the most difficult part of any constitutional process. There are no easy answers to that.”

NYTimes.com

56

Text 3.

SNP's Westminster leader gives Cameron "Evel" eye at PMQs

Angus Robertson claims English votes for English laws (Evel) proposal will make Scottish MPs second-class citizens

Wednesday 1 July 2015

David Cameron has been asked repeatedly to reassure Scottish constituents that his plans to give English MPs a veto on English-only laws will not make Scottish MPs “second-class citizens”.

Speaking at prime minister’s questions on Wednesday, the day before the government’s English votes for English laws proposals (known as Evel) are expected to be put to parliament, four Scottish National party MPs pushed Cameron to admit that the moves would remove their influence over legislation that affects Scotland indirectly.

The SNP’s leader in Westminster, Angus Robertson, asked Cameron to confirm that the plans would “exclude Scottish MPs from parts of the democratic process in Westminster”.

“Because of the way the United Kingdom is structured, decisions on health, on education, on much English legislation has an impact on the Scottish budget,” said Robertson.

“English MPs are entirely excluded from any discussion of Scottish health or Scottish housing or Scottish education,” replied the prime minister, who argued that the proposals were a “measured and sensible” step to make sure the wishes of English MPs on issues that only affect English could not be overruled.

“That, I think, is only fair in a system when the Scottish parliament and the Welsh parliament and indeed the Northern Irish parliament have increased powers,” he added.

It is understood the proposals for English votes for English laws will be put before parliament on Thursday. The government plans to give English MPs a veto on English-only laws by amending the standing orders of the Commons, meaning it can be passed by parliament with only one vote and without the need for months of scrutiny, something that has angered the SNP.

Robertson criticised the prime minister for ignoring calls from all but one of Scotland’s 59 MPs – 56 of whom are from the SNP – to strengthen the powers that will be devolved to Scotland by the Scotland Bill.

“On overruling MPs, that’s very interesting because on the Scotland Bill, 58 of 59 Scottish MPs have voted for that legislation to be strengthened and they have been outvoted by English MPs,” said Robertson.

“Not content with outvoting Scottish MPs elected on a mandate to strengthen the Scotland Bill, he is now going to introduce second-class status for us as MPs elected from Scotland on issues which can impact on the Scottish budget.”

Cameron retorted: “I notice none of Scotland’s 59 MPs are arguing that the state pension should be devolved. In other words the principle of pooling and sharing our resources and risks across the UK, which I believe in as leader of the UK, is apparently shared by the SNP.”

57

Text 4.

English vote plan to become law despite objections22 October 2015

Plans to introduce "English votes for English laws" for MPs have been voted through in the House of Commons.

The government won the backing of MPs by 312 to 270 votes. A series of amendments by Lib Dem and Labour MPs were also defeated.

Commons leader Chris Grayling dismissed objections to the new law as "nonsense" during a bad-tempered debate.

The SNP's Pete Wishart said the "stupid" plans would make Scottish MPs "second class citizens".

58

Follow the latest developments with BBC Politics Live

How it will work

There will now be a new stage added to the usual law-making process at Westminster allowing MPs for English constituencies to vote on issues deemed to only affect England.

These MPs would be able to veto the legislation before all MPs from across the United Kingdom voted in the bill's final readings.

Speaker John Bercow will decide whether a Bill only affects England, and all MPs in the Commons will still have to pass legislation at other stages of the process.

The Speaker will be able to explain his reason for certifying an issue as English or English and Welsh only and call on two senior MPs to help make the ruling.

What the government says

The idea is to eliminate the anomaly where Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on matters such as health or education in England, but English MPs cannot do likewise on issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament. This is known as the West Lothian question and has tormented MPs for decades.

Mr Grayling told MPs: "These proposed changes enable us to give an answer to the West Lothian question, they enable us to give an answer to our constituents, to say England will have its own piece of our devolution settlement."

59

He rejected as "nonsense" claims that it would create "two classes of MPs" adding that the measures were "fair, sensible and I'm entirely comfortable as a unionist presenting them to this House".

He added: "It can't be in anyone's interest to see English people becoming cynical about the union... it isn't tenable to have devolution for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and for England to have no powers at all."

What the SNP, Labour and other parties said

The SNP's Pete Wishart told MPs: "Scotland is watching this and the mood is darkening. If this is an exercise in saving the Union you could not have contrived of a more inept way to save the Union.

"Support for independence is actually increasing."

Labour's Chris Bryant said Mr Grayling's plans were so complicated that they resembled a "bowl of soggy, overcooked spaghetti" and claimed they would hasten the break up of the United Kingdom.

Labour backs "an English voice in Parliament" but does not want "an English veto," which would set England against Scotland.

DUP leader Nigel Dodds said: "The proposals neither deal with the problem they diagnose" and threatens the "fabric of our union".

Lib Dem Alistair Carmichael said the government "was still inviting" MPs "to do the wrong thing".

60

The new process in a flow chart

Heather Wheeler, Conservative MP for South Derbyshire, said she was "delighted" the plans are being introduced - telling MPs it is a matter of utmost importance to her constituents who object to MPs from devolved nations voting on England-only matters.

61

Senior Conservative MP John Redwood, who wants an English Parliament, backed the "very mild and moderate" proposals which he said would "start to put right some of the injustice to England".

He said English MPs had "always been at the bottom of the heap" and that it was wrong that Scottish MPs could vote on matters in his constituency, such as hospitals and schools, but that he didn't have the right to vote on these matters in Scotland.

Why it matters

When Scotland voted last year to remain part of the UK, David Cameron promised significantly increased powers for the Scottish Parliament, including the ability to set some tax and benefit levels.

At the same time, he promised English MPs they would get more power too - they would be able to legislate in areas such as health and education without any input from MPs representing Scottish seats.

Getting the balance of power between the different legislative bodies right is seen as important to the future of the UK.

If the Westminster Parliament is going to have any authority, voters from all parts of the country must feel they are being fairly represented.

MPs pass English votes for English Laws plans – politics live

22 Oct 2015

Afternoon summary

MPs have voted in favour of the government’s plans for ‘English votes for English laws’, which will create new stages in the legislative process where the Speaker declares a Bill, or clause within a Bill, is English or English and Welsh only. All MPs will continue to speak and vote on the existing legislative stages but only relevant MPs will be allowed to vote at the new phases. The new system was voted through by 312 to 270, a majority 42, after a four hour debate in which SNP MPs complained that the measures would give them second class status in Westminster. The changes, which will be in place for a year before review, seek to address what is known as the West Lothian question, which refers to the anomaly where Scottish MPs in Westminster can vote on matters such as health or education in England, but English MPs cannot do likewise on issues devolved to the Scottish Parliament.

62

Text 5.

UK parliament passes “English votes for English laws “ (Evel) bill in major change

The new law passed by the UK's parliament has given English lawmakers a veto over legislation that only applies to England. It is the nation's biggest constitutional change in decades.

Lawmakers in the House of Commons voted 312 to 270 on Thursday in favor of the new law 'English votes for English laws' (Evel) which will allow English Members of Parliament (MPs) to control laws deemed just to affect England.

Under the new law, legislation affecting only England will be approved by a committee of lawmakers based in English constituencies before being voted on by all members. It effectively hands the committee the power of veto.

Leader of the House of Commons Chris Grayling of the ruling Conservative Party said: "It cannot be in any of our interests to see English people becoming cynical about the union and perhaps even wishing for its end."

The Conservative government promised ahead of elections in May that it would introduce legislation to address the fact that lawmakers in Scotland can vote on

63

legislation that only affects England. Scotland's pro-independence Scottish National Party (SNP) won 56 of 59 Scottish seats in the 650-seat parliament.

The SNP said the plans were a "dog's breakfast" that would cause divisions between English and Scottish MPs. "They will make Scottish MPs second class in the unitary UK parliament, they will politicise the office of Speaker in forcing him to take the decision to exclude Scottish MPs from bills and they create an unnecessary new level of parliamentary procedure in a very tight parliamentary timetable," the SNP's shadow leader of the Commons, Peter Wishart, said on national radio on Thursday.

During the debate he described the Government's plans as "stupid" and claimed they would fuel demand for Scottish independence.

The SNP claim some legislation which only appears to relate to England - such as the expansion of London's Heathrow Airport - could have a major effect on Scotland.

It is unclear under the legislation what would happen if a new government was to be formed by a party with a majority in the United Kingdom, but not in England. This could happen should the Labour Party make an alliance with the SNP - while the Conservative Party held a majority of English MPs.

The plans are due to be reviewed after a year to assess how they are working.

(Reuters, AP)

64

Text 6.

Government accused of risking 'disunited kingdom' as Commons approves English votes for English lawsThe landmark reform has been agreed in the Commons by 312 votes to 270

Thursday 22 October 2015 The Independent

Labour and the SNP failed to halt the controversial proposal for a new English-only “consent stage” for English-only bills, which was agreed in the Commons by 312 votes to 270, a government majority of 42.

The Government was accused of risking the creation of  a “disunited kingdom” after the Commons approved an historic change to give English MPs a veto over laws which affect only England.

Labour and the Scottish National Party accused the Conservatives of pandering to English nationalists and trying to dilute Ukip’s appeal, warning that the move could hasten the break-up of the United Kingdom. But the opposition parties failed to halt the controversial proposal for a new  English-only “consent stage” for English-only bills. All MPs will take part in the later stages of their passage and the same system will apply for matters affecting only England and Wales. 

MPs pass English votes for English laws after acrimonious debate

The landmark reform has been agreed in the  Commons by 312 votes to 270, a government majority of 42.  Moves by Labour to derail them were rejected.

In a heated debate, ministers insisted the shake-up would finally address the so-called “ West Lothian Question ” under which English MPs do not vote on devolved matters affecting Scotland, including health and education, while Scottish MPs have a say on these issues in England.

65

But Labour claimed that “English votes for English laws” would end the 800-year-tradition under which all MPs were equal. Chris Bryant, the shadow Leader of the House, said: “Of course there should be a distinctive English voice in Parliament, but these government proposals will create two tiers of MPs for the first time, and are a charter to break up the UK.”

SNP MPs claimed the proposal was even more divisive than their own commitment to independence for Scotland. Pete Wishart, SNP MP for Perth and North Perthshire, said the "stupid" plans would make Scottish members "second class citizens". He warned ministers: "Scotland is watching this and the mood is darkening.  If this is an exercise in saving the Union, you could not have contrived of a more inept way to save the Union.”

Denying that the change would create two classes of MP, he said it could be argued that such a system already existed. “If you are a Welsh MP, you can vote on education matters in England, but not in your own constituency. You have an Assembly Member who works alongside you doing that part of the work in Cardiff,” he said.  He dismissed SNP objections as “ siren voices with a different agenda.”

But the Commons Leader sparked concern by suggesting that plans to build a third runway at Heathrow Airport might be considered “English-only” legislation if it were just a planning decision. That would cause a huge row because it would be seen as a strategic matter for the UK as a whole, with a knock-on effect in its three other nations.

The verdict on what will be classed an “English only” law will be given by the Commons Speaker, John Bercow. Labour and the SNP claimed this would politicise the office of Speaker.

66

Text 7.

Telegraph.co.uk

12 Jan 2016

Scottish MPs react with fury as only English and Welsh MPs are allowed to vote on housing billIt is the first time new rules on English votes for English laws have been applied in Parliament and SNP members have criticised the measures

Scottish MPs will be barred from voting on English-only elements of the housing bill 

Scottish MPs have reacted with fury at new rules preventing them from voting on English matters which were used in Parliament for the first time today.

Members from north of the border were barred from voting on English elements of the housing bill during a legislative grand committee, the first time the new measures have been used in the House of Commons since they were proposed by David Cameron's government.

Scotland sets its own housing policy in the Scottish parliament.

67

Pete Wishart, an SNP MP, accused the government of "driving Scotland out of the door" by barring MPs from voting, while Conservative MPs said the measures right a historic wrong which made "second class citizens" out of English members.

There was no formal vote on the session after English and Welsh MPs overwhelmingly approved the changes.

Mr Wishart said: "This is a remarkable day and I think it is worth noting the significance, how historical this is because for the first time in the history of this House, of this parliament, members of parliament will be banned from participating in divisions of this House based on nationality and geographic location of constituency.

"I was elected on the same basis as you where. My constituents expect me to participate in all debates, in all legislation in this House.

"I am now denied that."

Conservative MP Anne Main dismissed suggestions of a new English parliament: "Would you really expect that the taxpayers of this country are supposed to pay for this other parliament you wish to suggest to create simply because your feelings are somehow assaulted?

"I don't know how you can explain that extra layer of bureaucracy and cost to the British taxpayer, but maybe that's how they like to do it in Scotland and spend other people's money?"

A special sitting of the Commons saw MPs debate only the bits of the bill that apply to England in a special committee stage, once the main body of the debate about the housing bill had taken place.

And in a departure from normal practice, signs were posted in the voting lobbies barring MPs from Scotland, while officials were equipped with iPads to ensure nobody slipped through the net.

Labour did not challenge the session, removing the need for a formal vote, but MPs debated the new measures for up to an hour before the House returned to normal for the rest of the sitting.

Chris Bryant, shadow leader of the House of Commons said: “English MPs need a strong voice in parliament, but Grayling’s damp squib EVEL proposals will be historic for all the wrong reasons. Instead of spending time trying to actually do something about the housing problems facing thousands of people across the country, the government will be wasting time on needless bureaucratic procedures.

"Labour won’t be playing their game; we’ll expose EVEL for the procedural nonsense it is by not participating so we can get on and use parliamentary time to

68

deal with people's real concerns about unaffordable rents, rip-off landlords and lack of hope on home ownership.

“Expert after expert warned Chris Grayling that his proposals weren’t the way to give English MPs a stronger voice in parliament, but this almost incomprehensible mess was rammed through anyway. The public expect us to be taking action on the big issues facing the country not wasting time on a procedure that the government’s own expert report rejected.”

Watch the video “Scottish referendum explained for non-brits”!!!!!!

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/video/2014/sep/17/scottish-referendum-explained-for-non-brits-video

69

70