NICOLA'S STATEMENT ON THE OUTCOME OF THE EU REFERENDUM

Nicola Sturgeon gave a statement on the outcome of the EU referendum. She set out what action the Scottish Government will now take to safeguard our future in Europe, following the unequivocal vote for Scotland to remain in the EU.

Here’s what you need to know.

1. Scotland being taken out of the EU against our will is a significant and material change in the circumstances that prevailed in 2014.

During the 2014 referendum we were told that only a No vote would guarantee that Scotland would remain in the EU - this has proved not to be the case. We believe this is a democratically unacceptable situation.

2. We will take all possible steps and explore all options to secure Scotland’s continuing place in the EU and in the single market in particular.

We are clear that the Scottish Government must be fully involved in all decisions about the next steps the UK Government takes. The Scottish Government will also seek discussions with the EU institutions and its member states, including the earliest possible meeting with the President of the European Commission.

3. The Scottish Government will begin to prepare the required legislation to enable a new independence referendum - if and when Parliament so decides.

When the process for the UK to leave the EU begins in three months time, it is expected to take two years to leave. If the Scottish Parliament decides that a second referendum is the best or only way to protect our place in Europe, it must have the option to hold one within that timescale.

The need to act decisively will be tempered with the need to build consensus. While many people who voted No in 2014 are reassessing their decision, we will not simply assume their support - we will be straight and honest with them.

4. For citizens of other EU countries living here in Scotland - you remain welcome here, Scotland is your home and your contribution is valued.

The Remain vote in Scotland was won by a campaign that was positive about the EU and about the benefits of migration. Scotland has voted to renew its reputation as an outward looking, open and inclusive country.

5. Our business community can be reassured that as of now we remain firmly in the EU.

Trade and business should continue as normal - we are determined that Scotland will continue to be an attractive and stable place to do business.

The survey Nicola referred to is available HERE

Indyref2: The Four Way Split

BY MUNGUIN

In light of all the comments and discussions recently regarding a rerunning of the Independence Referendum and whether this should be included in the SNP’s 2016 manifesto, Munguin thought it would be interesting to air his thoughts on how most boxes could be ticked for supporters of both “yes” and “no” and how this could be included in the SNP manifesto and be almost impossible for the Westminster Government to withhold its approval.

Instead of just re-running the simple Yes/No vote. Why not restructure it as a Redefinition of Scotland’s Place in (or out of) the UK, and to that end have a multiple choice four way split where people are asked to choose between the following four options:

1.      Full Independence

2.      Devo Max

3.      The Status Quo

4.      Return to direct London Rule

Full Independence: This speaks for itself, essentially what we would have got had “yes” succeeded last September.

Devo Max: This time the term would be pre-defined by the Scottish Government in advance of the vote, and not some woolly vow cobbled together in desperation at the eleventh hour, where nobody knew what it meant and it was easy for tricky politicians to swindle us out of after the fact. As a definition, Munguin would suggest full fiscal autonomy and control of everything except Foreign Affairs and Defence.

The Status Quo: That’s simply what it says. Things stay as they are now.

Return to Direct London Rule: We abolish the Scottish Parliament and return its powers to Westminster and a beefed up Scotland/Scottish Office reporting to Westminster.

In order to make things totally fair we could run the referendum on a PR basis similar to the way London Mayors are elected, where everyone ranks their choices for a first round of voting. If no candidate receives over 50% at the first round, then the two with the least support are eliminated and their second choices re-apportioned until one of the remaining candidates gets over 50%.

Munguin doesn’t imagine the above scenario will appeal to everyone but it’s a fair compromise, allowing a choice of all four possible outcomes. It could easily be included in the SNP manifesto and it would be hard for the Westminster Government to say no to as it’s not a rerun of the first independence referendum but a redefinition of Scotland’s future.

In view of the fact that even on the “Yes” side of this debate there is division on the ‘ifs and whens’ of running a second referendum, it might be the best compromise possible.

Munguin personally does not want to wait till yes is guaranteed to win, as seems to be the view of Lallands Peat Worrier.

When is that going to be? When “yes” is at 75% in the polls?

It is a perfectly understandable view that running a second referendum and losing it could spell the death knell of the whole independence movement.

But there is attraction for  Scot Goes Pop’s  proposals that we strike while the iron is hot, and the SNP is on a roll, and go for the second referendum sooner rather than later.

Stalling for a protracted period of time might squander the momentum we have, and who is to say the SNP will continue to form majority administrations at Holyrood given that the system is stacked against that outcome?

Clearly in the above scenario the Devo Max option is probably the most likely to triumph. And naturally that is not to the taste of those who want independence. But it is Devo Max on Scotland’s terms and it can be viewed as another step on the road to independence.

Once Scotland has control of almost everything, and has proved that it can run efficient democratic  government for all its people, not just the few,  we could look at the possibilities of  referenda  on individual matters…for example to make Scotland nuclear free,  or to not send Scottish troops to fight in wars unsanctioned by the UN.

Eventually in the fullness of time, it would seem natural for there to be another referendum in which people would be given the opportunity to cede from the union altogether and take responsibility for foreign affairs and defence.

Your thoughts on this would be much appreciated.

THINGS JUST GET BETTER...POOLING AND SHARING

Thank goodness we voted to stay in the UK, pooling and sharing our resources,
while they cut our pocket money.

Bona sort a Catalunya

Aye Aye, we're all votin' Aye!

Post by Andy Clark.

Give it a moment to load....

My mate, Andy, from Arabs for Yes... and one of the guys behind the brilliant fundraiser that got two YES billboards at Dens and Tannadice in Dundee. 

What a man! Daft as a brush, but a real gent and a fantastic sense of humour. No mean guitarist and singer too!

The song re recorded with backing instrument and singers, can now be purchased on Bankcamp with receipts going to Blairgowrie charities.

Proud of you Andy!

**********

I DON'T THINK THIS NEEDS ANY COMMENT...

But, for what it's worth I'll make one or two. 

The last debate was a pretty 'touch and go' thing in my opinion. I see no problem in admitting that. Darling, for some unknown reason, possibly the weeks of training, was far better than anyone had expected him to be, and, frankly, Alex Salmond, also for some unknown reason, wasn't nearly as good as we expected him to be.

The Press had already built up our expectations of Darling being slaughtered, and when he wasn't they portrayed it as huge victory for Flipper, although actually, among undecideds there was a small (perhaps statistically insignificant) move to YES.

Still that didn't get in the way of a good news story for the unionists. The press, STV (who were accused of "fixing" the audience), and the BBC, who trumpet Better Together, No Thanks, Nob Orders, U Kok, BritNat propaganda at every turn, just loved it...not thinking for a second about the debate to come.

It was, though, the kind of thing that wasn't ever going to happen twice. Darling couldn't be expected to keep the relatively high level of performance and Alex was bound to be back on form. 

And so it was.

With polls at the end of the debate showing in the range of 70:30 to Salmond, it's hard to see how Darling or Labour or the Tories or whatever it is we are up against could possibly call it a victory.

But of course you can always depend on Miliband to say something stupid and invite a knocking down. But what more humiliating knock down could you possibly get as a Labour leader, than from the great great grandson of the founder of the party that Ed Miliband supposedly leads?  Just to rub salt into the wound Ross Hardie's Twitter picture includes a Yes emblem.

Seriously I'm ashamed to say that I was an Ed Miliband supporter in the race for the leadership. Red Ed, I thought, might bring some sense back to a Labour party that had become so purple it was almost blue. How wrong was I?

What the debate showed was that their man had no answers. The best they could offer was "more of the same, only not quite so good because there is all that debt to pay off so austerity in the union, whichever way you vote". 

Darling wasn't only bettered by Alex Salmond. He was bettered by the audience. Of course there was that magic woman who put Darling right in his place over Health, hoping that next time he got a fat cheque for speaking to healthcare companies he could feel Bevan sitting on his shoulder, followed the man who asked "If we are 'better together' with the UK, why aren't we 'better together' now? 

And of course that encapsulates what we feel. 

Isn't that the question everyone should be asking?

But they tell us "don't aspire to anything very much because you couldn't manage it... You alone, among all nations, are too wee, too poor and too stupid to be independent, despite your educated population, energy rich seas and wind power, your manufacturing, fishing, food and drink, farming and tourism industries." 

What a bloody joke.

So, instead what they want us to do is to pour our money into the stinking pit of corruption, manipulation and deviance that is Westminster and get back less and less every year to run the things that we are allowed to run in this "best of both worlds" crap that they tell us we have. 

That is their idea of BETTER together. It is easily seen that their main proponents don't live and work in Scotland, and have access to massive salaries, expenses and speaking fees of tens of thousands of pounds a day.

Well, it's not my idea of Better.

Anyway, for something that needed no comment, it got a lot of my hot air...

So, I'll stop there. 

Just take this thought with you today: Keir Hardie would have been embarrassed by Labour and by Miliband. God knows what he'd think of Lamont, Baillie and Stairheid.

RANDOM THOUGHTS...

Why is it that the No campaign don't want their arguments for unionism recorded and disseminated?

Are they ashamed of them? Are they ashamed of the performers?

Are they worried that they will lose the argument?

Or do they think that in the cold light of day, watched on Youtube by thousands, the so-called benefits of the union will be shown, as the guy on the video indicates, to be a pile of Blethers Together?
**********
My leaflet from the UK government came through the door this morning, and will be going back this afternoon.

It is a mixture of generalisation, meaningless platitude and downright lies.
**********

Still, I look forward to Mr Salmond and Mr Darling debating with one another live on STV.

Of course there are those who have suggested that Salmond has backed down. 

And it does indeed look like that. He wanted to debate with the prime minister and has found himself instead being relegated to debating with a part time, opposition backbencher who used to hold of "one of the great offices of state" as Britain likes to call the people at the top of their governments. 

But Cameron won't debate for various reasons, depending on who you ask. 

Some say it's because he knows his unpopularity in Scotland would result in more people supporting Salmond out of sheer hatred of the Tories and the Eton Toff himself.

Some say that it's because he thinks himself, and his great office, as being above debates with mere regional functionaries.

Some say that he simply isn't knowledgeable enough to debate on the subject and knows he would be roundly beaten.

He, on the other hand, says it's because it's nothing to do with him...he's not Scottish and he doesn't live in the country... which is strange considering the fact that he is Scotland's prime minister, not to mention the number of times that he has intervened in the topic when he was not face to face with the first minister, and how he has persuaded world statesmen including the American and Chinese presidents to get involved.

Actually, I'm not sure why Mr Darling agreed to playing substitute to Cameron. It seems almost like he's been set up to take the blame if, or when, it all goes wrong. Cameron knows that having someone else do the dirty work will mean that he can pass the blame. 

Despite his once being a lawyer and an advocate, I don't honestly think that Darling is equal to taking Salmond on in a debate, at least on on this subject. Labour appears to think that he is a superb debater absolutely on top of his brief. But I'm dubious. Under pressure, he speaks too fast, stutters, says "you know" over and over again and he contradicts himself.

Salmond, like him or loathe him, is a pretty neat debater. He never seems to get flustered and remains always polite even when up against people like Lamont and Baillie, who would try the patience of a saint with their stupidity and their lies. Above all, whilst Alistair is relatively new to the independence debate, for Alex, it is a life's work. There's not a lot he doesn't know about it.

Added to that, and perhaps most importantly, Alex is the leader of the government that will be in power on the 19th of September, and whatever way the referendum goes, he will have a leading voice in the way that negotiations with the UK go.

Alistair is a back bench opposition MP. He won't be in power anywhere. Alex will be able to use that in the debate.

Following had on the heels of the referendum UK general election campaign, where, in a tight contest *between an incredibly unpopular Tory government and a Labour party led by a man that his own side think is weird, and which has very few discernibly different policies from the government, every little point scored will count. 

It will not be in Cameron's interests to abide by promises made in the heat of a live tv debate, by a member of the party that he is trying to defeat.

*I suppose, in the interests of equality, I should add, "and a Liberal party..." whose members are deserting them in droves.

SNAPS ON SUNDAY

SOME GREAT POSITIVES IN OUR CAMPAIGN FOR INDEPENDENCE

No Alistair, it's not all going to run out in 2017
Otherwise they wouldn't have just invested all that money

Surely not...?

From the Unionist Courier

The Chamber of Commerce in Dundee

A Lewis welcome

A Stornoway welcome

Good figures, eh Alistair?

And we have these guys

Yes City

OF COURSE THERE ARE THINGS THAT WE NEED TO GET AWAY FROM...

Seriously...You couldn't make that up

Translated into a language we understand

Lest you forget we pay for Dave's photographer
and his botox injector

But only because it is good for them

Dr Foul Death and Nurse Repugnant McVile

A dismal future if we vote no

Yes, including Labour's own WMD

And this tube

Oh yeah, I was forgetting about the 10 years he was chancellor
and the 3 years he was prime monster

That's the world he encouraged...

He doesn't usually waste time with questions when
there's money to be made selling his dreary book

And no bloody wonder

Still they are paying London's best PR firm, by appointment
to the Rusty Ladyboy to make them look better.
 It's such a pity that all that so-called Scottish money
that they are grass rooting, is being spent with Mr Saatchi and Saatchi
when he manages to get his grubby hand away from Nigel's neck

Ah, yes. I thought I should probably put something
 in about the Liberals as this was a special week for them,
getting the worst result in a by-election since the war.
So, does anyone know who's side he's on? Does anyone care?
Does he know what side he's on?
Who is he anyway?

I have removed the offending picture of iain Duncan Smith on the basis that its use was tasteless. Nonetheless, I think he is the singularly most vile character in Cameron's government of vile creatures.  When you look at the competition, that is really some feat Iain.

FOTOS ON FRIDAY

True true

Single, all the way please

You see, that's how we'd pay for stuff!

OK, posh boy, what's your answer to that?

Too poor?

Phone a friend Dave. Mr Obama will know the answer.

Hmmm. No wonder they are having a crisis meeting!
"Why won't the stupid plebs believe us Johann?
You said they always swallowed any crap Labour announced,
no matter how stupid.

There's another unanswerable question.

Hmm... because their boss, an ex Tory minister, told them?

Just when you thought Labour was stupid, along comes a Class A Tory eejit.

Makes you proud...  Of course they are only there because there's free food.

Nice living there, Lord Darling

Arrange the following words into a well known phrase or saying:
Bastards lying.

He should stick to being a pink cat. It was, I felt, his forte

Welcome... every week a new one. or two

Wings is more popular than the Labour Party.

We should rename it the WoS Metro

Now, there's a thing.
Is there any board he's not on?
Still he did have Johann and their kids to support.
And she's only on £80,000 a year.
Not a lot really.

"Damn...forgot about that.
Still, well send a patronising reply to Wings, written by Attila the Harris
 in his usual sneering superior right wing, poor people hating tone.
That will quieten the unwashed plebs....won't it?
Well, if it doesn't, we'll just stop their benefits"