I'm told there is a poll in today's Daily Mail that shows 51% of Scots support Scottish Independence but also 48% of the English support Independence for England.
The ICM survey of attitudes on the Union and nationality was commissioned by the Daily Mail in advance of next week's 300th anniversary of the ratification of the treaty which bound Scotland and England together. It shows that nearly half of those polled think the arrangement is unlikely to survive more than 25 years. Two out of three English voters want an end to the subsidies paid to Scotland, and a majority want to end the anomaly that gives Scots MPs at Westminster a say over legislation which affects only England. Just 31 per cent of people in England say they are British first, and only 15 per cent in Scotland. And despite a decade of constitutional tinkering by Labour, the survey fails to record a significant level of enthusiasm for devolution in Scotland. Fewer than 40 per cent of Scots say it has been a good thing, while the level of approval in England is even lower.
With recent polls showing the Scottish National Party building a lead against Labour in the race for power at Holyrood, the Mail's survey confirms that pressure for Scottish independence is building inexorably. It shows that more than half of Scots - 51 per cent - want Scotland to break away. So do 48 per cent of English respondents, again a clear majority of those who expressed an opinion one way or the other. There is even stronger support for an English parliament, with 51 per cent backing the move in England and 58 per cent in Scotland. And there was solid backing for England to have its own Prime Minister or First Minister - 54 per cent in England and 62 per cent in Scotland. Among the English, 53 per cent want Scots MPs at Westminster to be barred from voting on issues that affect England only, such as health and education. A majority of Scots who expressed a view also want to see Scots MPs' voting rights restricted. Nearly two out of three voters want Mr Brown to call an election within a year of taking over.
The full story is HERE.
32 comments:
Oh God! We are doomed to fulfil the old Chinese curse and live in interesting times. Scotland gave our ancestors a great deal of trouble, but they eventually sorted it out with (1) the Act of Union and (2) the Battle of Culloden. Why couldn't we just leave things there? Labour's tinkering with the constitution has done nothing but harm and will end in tears.
We used to be proud of our Scottish heritage. Now we have grown peevish and have started to scrutinise the profit and loss account. When you do that, Scotland begins to look like a heavily subsidised branch office which is costing a fortune and is probably ripe for a management buyout.
next week's 300th anniversary of the ratification of the treaty.
Wow ! So we get to have wild parties celebrating both the Treaty of Scottish Subsidy 1707 AND the Treaty of Rome 1957 ALL in the same Year !!!!
Our cup runneth over.
How is so much joy and enthusiasm to be contained among our joyous multi-cultural peoples on this wonderful little island ?
Is it possible that the English can celebrate being raped and pillaged by the Scots AND the EU in the same year ?
Cameron had better start deciding on a policy in this area because the English have at last woken up to the problem.
If some solutions to the Barnett Formula and the West Midlothian question are not forthcoming it will lead to a split.
What happens to our seat on the Security Council?? Just think about it.
The fact that both the English AND Scots want an English Parliament and restricted voting shows that people's changing opinions are considered and balanced. There has been no recall to high emotions, no rhetoric, no propaganda, no patriotism - people in other countries have looked at the situation and decided on a reasonable course of action.
"Two out of three English voters want an end to the subsidies paid to Scotland"
Great, now what if there is no mythical subsidy to the Scots?
As others have already tried to point out in the past, much of the wealth contributed by Scotland is not included in the calculation, bit like Gordon Brown's inflation figures.
But still the myth that Scotland is some how being supported by other parts of the country seems to be a hobby for some.
The SNP should do very well in the Scottish Parliament elections. Labour are floundering, the Lib Dems are seen as either irrelevant or part of the Coalition problem, and the Tories are nowhere on the radar.
I hope the SNP do form the largest party although I am an instinctive Tory turned Lib Dem over Iraq. The reason for this hope is that we have constitutional problems that need resolution. There is widespread disappointment in the Scottish Parliament, in Westminster and in politics in general. Anomalies such as the West Lothian Question and abuses of power such as political party whipping and the unrestrained exercise of unaccountable prerogative powers need urgent address.
If the SNP form the largest party this coming May then this will not mean the end of the Union. It will open up the constitutional debate. The SNP will be expected to show their hand in terms of detailed policies. Some will be welcomed enthusiastically (such as their opposition to the Iraq war) and many will be viewed with suspicion. I would be inclined to vote SNP to see this debate happen and to send a clear message that Bliar's legacy could well be the disintegration of the Union thanks to widespread contempt for unaccountable politicians.
How can anyone in England comment on whether or not the Scottish parliament is a good thing? if you live in England and read only English edition of papers and watch BBC/ITV/SKY you would know NOTHING about what is happening in Scotland. The SP has put through lots of useful legislation.
By the way the Daily Mail's leader in its Scottish edition today is a disgrace. If people in Scotland want to vote for the SNP that's their business and it's not the job of a newspaper to try to subvert democracy.
No personal comment on this Iain?
Tragically, the Conservative Party has no policies in place to reflect this groundswell of opinion except to propose income tax cuts for Scottish tax payers!
I read as far as the bit which said 'Daily Mail'...
@Trumpeter
'the Battle of Culloden' was a British civil war, a lot of Jocks got involved because they had no choice and a lot didn't get involved because their particular masters declined to join the quarrel. There were Scots on both sides and some of the lowlanders were very keen on helping to pursure Milosovich-style policies in the Highlands in the aftermath.
Interesting though to think what might had happened if Bonnie Charlie had had the bottle to go to London (just a few more days from Derby), it was rumoured that a lot of others were considering joining his cause the moment he made it to the capital.
management buyout - I agree, let's end the whole miserable affair and start off on a new foot, a chance too for England to be England.
I wonder what the Welsh really want however?
The tide is slowly...but surely turning against the Union. And it's all Labour and devolution's fault.
The best bit about creating a new state is that under international law you get the option to re-negotiate any international contracts you don't like.
The EU agreements are so patchy that we would be able to pick and choose the ones we want to keep.
If the Daily Mail told me the sun set in the west I'd feel it worthwhile to check! They're only marginally more believable than Tony Bliar. No actually at least Bliar gets peoples names correct. Considering the Mail is traditionally read mostly by women (who's husbands read The Telegraph or The Times), if they really support Scottish and English independance it makes me wonder if it was a good idea for women to have the vote!
Voyager, you don't think there's a little hyperbole there? I can't say I feel especially "raped" by Scotland...
The elephant in the room, when it comes to considering an end to the Union, is who gets Northern Ireland?
I can't see NI being viable as an independent statelet, and one would hope that even the "loyalist/unionists" of NI ought to get the hint that if the union that they're loyal to is dead and gone then they should seek an accomodation with the rest of Ireland.
But they're pretty stubborn, and if they insist on staying connected to one of the successor states then there are plenty of historical and cultural reasons to argue that it should be Scotland, not England. I can't see the Scots wanting this though!
Oh, come on, if there were Scottish Independence Kirsty Wark would be off to do a Scottish version of Newsnight, and then where would we be eh, ?
I don't want our seat on the UN anyway. It costs a fortune and we end up in lots of other people's wars.
Let the EU have, then withdraw from the EU too.
To the anonymous who said the myth is thet England pays for Scotland -where is your evidence for this?
Chew on this fact: only 160,000 Scottish people made a net payment to the HMRC last year.
Are you Alex Salmond?
If the UK does break up into separate entities, what will the status of the Monarchy be? Will England have Elizabeth 111?
This would be the formal ending of the United Kingdom.
Would Scotland or England be the successor state, retaining treaty rights, membership of EU and seat on UN Security Council?
I think that the Union has restrained England over the years to the benefit of mankind. Scotland owes it to the world to retain the Union. Who knows what the English would do left to their own devices?
Since the Traitor Heath, Thatcher and Major signed away our freedoms on behalf of the British Government, does that mean that an incoming English Government can abrogate any international agreement not made in it's (our) name?
An incoming Conservative administration in England could start by tearing up the European Communities Act. It will never happen with the boy Dave, William Hague et al in charge, though.
Methinks regaining our freedom from the Evil Empire will only be achieved by a revolution in which the blood of the entire political/media elite overflows the sewers and turns the Thames red.
The positon of Wales would be most interesting if England and Scotland went their own ways.There is no similar clamour for independence and devolution seems to have worked rather better than in Scotland-perhaps because the public had a lower expectation of it.Labour's position in Westminster without its Scottish MP's would be difficult.Deduct its Welsh MP's and Labour will be in power every fifth election.Whilst Wales will stay in the Union initially,if Scottish independence is perceived to be a success then it will follow.Blair's legacy will be the collapse of the Union and the permanent hobbling of his own party.This should have been thought through before devolution.I don't think the politicians ever realised that mid term devolved assembly elections are like by-elections for the public-perfect for a protest vote.
Anonymous said...9:39 AM
"if you live in England ... you would know NOTHING about what is happening in Scotland."
Who cares what's happening in Scotland? I know what Scottish politicians have done and are doing to England. Cullodenise the lot of them.
My original post referred to a question asked in the survey.
Brilliantly argued response from "anonymous 2".........
"Who cares what's happening in Scotland"--is this part of the Union Dividend that New Labour is currently punting?.
Slim Jim said...
If the UK does break up into separate entities, what will the status of the Monarchy be? Will England have Elizabeth 111?
11:55 AM
If she does live to be 111 we won't have her prat of a son inheriting. He'll be dead by then.
"very keen on helping to pursure Milosovich-style policies in the Highlands"
Blogfan I think you mean Tudjman/Clinton style (in Krajina), Izetbegovic style (in Bosnia) or KLA/NATO style (in Kosovo). By comparison under the "Butcher of Belgrade" the 200,000 Moslems including 50,000 Albanians living in that city are still there.
"Will England have Elizabeth 111?"
When did England have the other 108 Elizabeths?
"What happens to our seat on the Security Council?? Just think about it."
Had a thought about it?
Does it help pay the mortgage?
Does it keep fuel bills low?
Does it grow business?
Is anyone paying any attention to who sits in that seat since the UK was ignored during the Lebanon melee?
"What happens to our seat on the Security Council?? Just think about it."
Absolutely nothing. The Russian Federation left the USSR and kept its Security Council seat.
Treaties are signed by The Crown and the Crown resides in London
I have nothing against the Scots whatsoever. In fact I would raise a glass in good spirits if they were to finally gain independence.
I really don’t mind Alex Salmond. He at least comes over as a friendly chap, unlike Brown, who I believe should be treated with the same mistrust as you would show to a pit bull terrier wielding baby sitter.
And I must admit that my primary consideration for scrapping the union is solely to ensure that the likes of Brown and Blair are never allowed to darken this countries future again. If Scotland wants socialism then let them have it. Personally I think Browns first visit to London has PM should be to Smithfield Market behind a horse.
Has for this idea that England could not survive without Scottish oil and gas. I truly believe that is cobblers. The largest loss that would be felt in my opinion would be to our armed forces that have benefited greatly from the Scots in many conflicts. The Scots do make excellent soldiers.
All this arse about Scotland taking more cash than it gives, who cares? I'm English, but I call myself British, and I could'nt give a turd if they take from us or vise versa. We've done well enough together haven't we. This English votes for English laws is also a matter of supreme indifference, all the laws are crap anyway. Remember how much we've achieved as a union, crass account balancing in too American for my tastes.
Presumably the UK Labour Party politicians are against some form of English parliament because they would probably be in a minority.
Suspect that is why under Prescott they came up with the idea of regional governments in England - no unified opposition to the UK government. Divide and conquer etc...Fortunately the smart folk of the North East saw through that one.
Problem is that having English, Scottish and Welsh parliaments/assemblies adds more bureaucracy and more costs. Do the citizens of the UK really want to end up being administered to death by an ever increasing bunch of public 'servants'?
Two questions that I have:
What would we get rid of to offset/avoid the costs of all this extra government?
What tangible benefits would be realised?
An alternaive might be the Australian Federal model - replace the Lords with an elected Senate that has equal representation for Wales, Scotland, England and N Ireland (as long as it is in the Union) - and the Commons covering the whole UK without additional parliaments. That way the Senate would ensure that the rights and benefits of the smaller (by population) countries of the UK were not ridden rough shod by England but there would be some national cohesion and we'd get rid of the unelected Lords.
The debate seems at present to be focusing on nationalistic lines not on what the benefits are of devoltion or of other changes.
Post a Comment