UK and EU; should we stay or should we go (*)

(* - with a hat-tip to 'The Clash')

Tomorrow 5th May we will be having elections of one kind or another in every part of the UK - regional parliamentary or assembly elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and local elections in England, plus of course the mayoral election in London, not forgetting also a bumper crop of elections to select 41 Police & Crime Commissioners across England and Wales - and by Friday we will know what the immediate fallout is. The BBC has a dedicated 'homepage' for all of these elections here. I've written several blog articles recently about the Scottish parliamentary elections in my immediate area; please scroll down if you wish to refresh your memory.

However, not much more than a month from now, the UK will hold a referendum which is arguably at least as important if not more; whether to remain a member of the European Union, or not. There are two 'official' campaign groups, supporting the 'remain' and 'leave' sides respectively and you can visit their website here (for 'remain') and here (for 'leave').

Over coming weeks in the run-up to the referendum, I shall undoubtedly be writing more on this topic in this blog, but meantime I have started the ball rolling by writing brief news updates in my own personal website here in the 'homepage', with a slightly more detailed (but also completely neutral) brief section in its dedicated EU page here (nb/ this page has existed in my personal website more or less since I began the website in its current form in 2002). In that latter page I have included a couple of relevant links which I repeat here, because they will undoubtedly be mentioned regularly in passing in media reporting as the referendum date of 23rd June 2016 draws closer:
- Lisbon Treaty Article 50;
- HM Government official EU Referendum website.

The referendum question will be:
"Should the United Kingdom remain a member of the European Union or leave the European Union?"

The only other remark I wish to make at this stage is that whilst HM Government's official position is to recommend that the UK remains a member of the EU and its website linked to above reflects this, the level of 'objectivity' of the arguments advanced for this position is hotly disputed by some and I myself tend to share some of that scepticism, although I have not yet made up my mind finally how I will vote.

Referendum on Scottish Independence - 18th September 2014 - the result

The referendum held yesterday to decide whether Scotland would remain a part of the United Kingdom, or whether it would become a separate/independent country has now concluded with the final result being announced officially earlier today. In brief the "Yes" campaign has been defeated and therefore Scotland will remain a part of the United Kingdom, a decision that pleases me greatly. The results for the "no" vote were 2,001,926 votes (55.3%), with the "yes" side of the debate receiving 1,617,989 votes (44.7%). However, there are going to be significant constitutional changes both in Scotland and in other parts of the UK (specially as they affect England) that if successful are likely to ensure that this ugly problem does not rear its head again anytime soon and that people's reasonable democratic expectations are addressed throughout the whole country. The "Devolution settlement" concocted by the last Labour government in 1997/8 was defective and has in my opinion led us directly to this impasse and its current efforts to deny English voters sole say in domestic English matters, for purely partisan political reasons, must be resisted at all costs, otherwise the amended settlement currently being negotiated is unlikely to be very durable. Whatever else may be said about this referendum exercise, it has on the whole been conducted in a civlised manner, with only the 'aggressive' tactics of some of the "yes" supporters marring this; it seems clear that many countries around the world have looked on with some amazement both that such a referendum for a part of a country to 'secede' was ever held in the first place, specially in a country that has existed for so long and been as stable as the United Kingdom, but that it was actually permitted in the first place, not to mention that it was mostly carried out in a peaceful, civilised manner. It was also completely honest and transparent, as all elections have been in this country for a very long time, so the pre-referendum agreement of all to accept the result will be honoured without question. What this really shows is that the home of modern democracy, the UK, has demonstrated once more how secure and self-confident we are in our democratic beliefs and credentials. Full results of the referendum can be found in the dedicated BBC website page here.

On the eve of Scotland's referendum, my earnest plea is that you vote "NO"

For those residents of Scotland who have not already voted by post (as I have), tomorrow will be your opportunity to vote in the Referendum to decide whether Scotland will remain as an independent and free component of the United Kingdom or whether it will become a separate or "independent" country.

I have never been in any doubt myself. I voted "NO" and I urge you to do likewise if you will be voting tomorrow. Why? I am British and Scottish, or Scottish and British if you prefer - for me there is almost no difference. I am not remotely 'aggrieved', as so many supporters of the SNP and the "YES" camp generally seem to be, by the fact that Scotland represents less than 10% of the UK population - anyone who has given a cursory glance at public, commercial and political life will have observed that Scotland has performed way above what the raw population data might suggest. Anyone who thinks that Scots are, within the United Kingdom, in any way 'oppressed' or 'put upon' is, not to put too fine a point on it, completely deluded! To be totally honest, the 'Scottish cringe' and the 'chip on shoulder' mentality of so many SNP supporters or supporters of the "YES" campaign generally (and despite their protestations they are almost one and the same thing, to all intents and purposes, with the Greens and SSP being miniscule and maverick components), disgusts and appals me. The idea that Scots are 'oppressed' or ignored within the UK is ridiculous and absurd - the Scots are no more an homogeneous people than are the English; someone from the Highlands of Scotland, the Outer Hebrides or Orkney or Shetland is just as different from people in the Glasgow-Edinburgh area of Scotland as people in Cornwall, the North-east of England or indeed the North-west are from the people in London or the South-east of England. But none of us are so very different in any important sense. There are lots of Scots throughout the rest of the UK, specially in London and the South-east, just as there are significant numbers of English people or people from Wales and Northern Ireland in Scotland - and long may it continue! We are all citizens of one country (comprising four nations) and long may that continue, too.


No, I don't think the SNP is full of homophobes, although it does have some (as do most political parties), but it does trouble me greatly that one of the greatest financial backers of the SNP and the "YES" campaign is arch-homophobe Brian Souter. It is possible his support is purely because of his considerable business interests in the transport sector and his hope that a separate/independent Scotland will be more favourable to him (perhaps because of tax breaks), but it is not a risk I wish to take. So far as I am concerned he is an odious man and is one of the principal reasons why I resigned from the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party in 2001, because of his 'Keep the Clause' campaign and the support given to it then by the Conservatives. The Conservative Party has changed a lot since then and indeed the leader of the Scottish party Ruth Davidson, quite apart from the fact that she is a proud lesbian woman, has been a beacon of sanity and rationality in the campaign leading up to tomorrow's referendum. Although same-sex marriage has already been legislated for in the Scottish Parliament last February, the first marriage is not expected to take place until October - why the delay? Although the equivalent legislation for England and Wales was passed somewhat earlier (with no adequate or convincing reason why it was passed later in Scotland), during the first three months of the legislation in England and Wales, 1,409 same-sex marriages were carried out there. So far there have been none in Scotland. I recall that when civil partnerships were legislated for, the then Scottish Executive (Labour-dominated, and anyone who has ever read my blog will know I am no supporter of Labour) agreed that legislation passed in Westminster on this important new extension of civil rights would extend simultaneously to Scotland. The SNP Scottish Government has decided that the legislation for Scotland on this even more important aspect of civil rights equality should be later in Scotland than in England and Wales - the reasons for this one can only guess at, but I am quite frankly suspicious, given the financial input of arch-homophobe Brian Souter.


As I mentioned above, I am British and Scottish and I like being a citizen of both; I have no desire whatsoever to join the parochialists of the SNP or "YES" campaign by separating Scotland from the rest of our country, the UK. We are one country and I want us to remain one country. I hope you will vote "NO" tomorrow, as I have done already. To do otherwise will only bring damage to us all and to those who come after us, all for the sake of some illusory 'independence', frankly a chimera in our globalised world. Don't be swayed by the cheap and empty promises of Alex Salmond, Nicola Sturgeon and John Swinney and their SNP/"YES" accomplices. Please, please vote "NO".

"Stay!" - an open letter to my fellow Scottish voters

This is an open letter I have earlier this afternoon sent to The Spectator magazine for potential publication; it is quite short, as the request for submissions in a tweet from the Editor suggested that they be limited to 250 words and I have done my best to comply:

Stay! Dear fellow Scottish voter, Because I am resident in Scotland I am lucky to be one of the approx 10% of the UK population to have a vote in the Referendum. I am mainly Scottish. I have used my postal vote to vote "no" and below I explain why. For me it is mainly about emotion and only partly about financial, security or other issues; I am British and Scottish and always felt at home wherever I lived in the UK (various parts of Scotland, the Isle of Man, and London for several years) and in the 9 or so other countries around the world I have lived in I have always felt British, too. My British friends have come from all parts of the UK and now that I live back in Scotland, many of my friends and neighbours are English, Welsh and Irish (both parts), as well as Scottish of course. I want to remain British and Scottish. The UK has generally been a force for good in the world and I don't want it to fade into history. I wrote above that I am “mainly” Scottish, because one grandparent was Irish (from what is now the Republic) and the bitterness of him being disowned by most of his family because he fought in the British army in WWI is still a scar. Scotland has largely avoided violence luckily, but "yes" voters delude themselves if they think nothing will change in their cross-UK family relationships, sadly. Please stay! William Cameron Nairn

I have no idea whether my letter will be chosen for publication by The Spectator, but in case it is not it will at least be viewable by visitors to my blog, or via my Twitter or Facebook feeds.

Obviously I could (and have in the past) written at greater length on my firmly held conviction that not only is the UK generally a "good thing" and been a positive force in the world during the more than 300 years of its existence, but that in the longer term its continuation is good for both Scots and people who consider other parts of the UK "home"; for many of us Britons it is difficult to define exactly what we are, because our family backgrounds are often varied and intermingled, not only with people from all over these islands (the "British Isles", that archipelago of islands off the north-west coast of Europe), but in many cases with people from diverse countries around the world. Many people have family backgrounds from outside the UK, but have integrated within our wider British society and later generations born here mostly have little difficulty in identifying themselves as "British", plus whatever is the country of their family backgrounds - but we are all "British"; funnily enough, as I write this I am watching a repeat episode on the Yesterday TV channel of the "Who Do You Think You Are" programme, which is about the former athlete Colin Jackson - he seems to have no more difficulty reconciling Jamaican-Welsh-British roots than I do my Scottish-Irish-British roots; many millions of our fellow Britons have similarly or more complex backgrounds and, on the whole, we have all rubbed along together pretty well over the centuries.

In the context of the forthcoming Referendum in Scotland, whose franchise has nothing to do with ethnicity and everything to do with who is actually resident in Scotland, whatever their ethnic or cultural backgrounds, my fervent hope is that the result will be for Scotland to remain an integral part of the United Kingdom; we are already as 'independent' as any people are likely to be in a globalised world and we are one with our brothers/sisters/fathers/mothers in other parts of the UK - becoming a 'separate' country is not going to enhance our notional 'independence' in any meaningful way in my opinion. All it is likely to do is add another costly level of bureaucracy, which frankly we don't need - all modern societies do of course require some kind of structured government, but we already have a pretty democratic, fair system in place. As a Highlander in Scotland, our current central government in London is no more remote in organisational terms than a similar administration is or would become in Edinburgh, but being a part of the UK gives us some of the advantages of economies of scale. As for lack of representation, I personally voted for none of the governments/executives which have run the Scottish Parliament since it came into being in 1999 any more than I voted for the UK governments which managed the affairs of the UK from 1974 to 1979, or from 1997 to 2010. It is called "democracy".

This is why it is my fervent hope that my fellow voters in Scotland will by majority vote for Scotland to remain part of the UK in the Referendum on 18th September 2014. Let it not be the demise of probably the greatest and most beneficial period in the history of these islands and in truth the demise of what has in practice been an overwhelming force for good in the world.

Salmond stretching the truth

Ahead of this evening's debate between Alex Salmond (for the SNP) and Alistair Darling (for Better Together) here's an amusing video-clip which illustrates pretty clearly the lies and distortions that flow freely from Salmond's lips and his hench-men or hench-women in and out of the Scottish Parliament in their aim to dismember our country, the United Kingdom:



Don't let the SNP succeed with their separatist and insular agenda - vote NO on 18th September, I urge you!

Hateful bigotry from Nairn's SNP Councillor on Highland Council

(Please see UPDATES at end)

Nairn has four Councillors on Highland Council and one of these is Councillor Liz MacDonald, who represents the SNP. The article below appeared in our local [weekly] newspaper yesterday:

Councillor MacDonald (SNP) stands by her "butcher's apron" remark to Labour man - article appearing in "Nairnshire Telegraph" 19th August 2014 (Unfortunately our local weekly newspaper in Nairn does not have an on-line presence.) - Hateful bigotry from Nairn SNP Councillor Liz MacDonald - Click here to see an enlargement. Click here to see an enlargement.

Whilst I find her "chip-on-shoulder" and plain nasty views deplorable, it is at least good that these have been exposed in our local newspaper. I think that all her comments deserve a good 'fisking', but I think this particular extract from the article above of one of her quoted remarks illustrates perfectly the kind of person she is:

"I was surprised that he had gone to the press about it because it was a tweet between us."

How naïve does someone have to be to make such a comment? Presumably if she had wished it to remain private she would not have tweeted publicly about it (but see below), but perhaps sent a 'direct message' instead, nor would she then have spoken about it to a reporter from "The Nairnshire". However, this particular remark says something more about Councillor Liz; this person, an elected Councillor, has a habit of blocking people from viewing her Twitter feed who have criticised anything she has tweeted in support of the SNP. For example, I am myself blocked from viewing her tweets because a couple of months ago I responded to a tweet from her suggesting, in response to one of my tweets, that I should get a copy of "Scotland's Future" to enable me to comment knowledgeably. This is a document put out by the Scottish Government (which currently is SNP led). I responded that I had indeed ordered this document soon after it was published and that I had subsequently read it cover to cover. I also commented that I found it merely a propaganda document (a 'manifesto' if you will) for the SNP and that it is vague on detail and provides no real factual information to allow people to make an educated and considered decision on how to vote in the forthcoming referendum. It is really just a very lengthy list of forecasts and wishful thinking. I realised some time later that Councillor Liz had blocked me as a result and I am aware that others locally have been blocked by her too, for having had the temerity to dissent from SNP 'dogma'. To be clear, I was never rude to her, but it is equally clear that she is unwilling to engage in meaningful debate and frankly doubt she merits holding public office with such a closed-minded attitude toward free debate. Our local newspaper "The Nairnshire" has performed a valuable public service by revealing the attitudes of our SNP Councillor when it comes to open debate.

Finally, it is unsurprising to me that the "The Nairnshire" article has gone unmentioned so far in another well-known Nairn blog; the writer is a supporter of the SNP cause and is usually very quick to comment on important articles appearing in our local 'rag'. Perhaps realising the devastating 'own goal' which the remarks and tweets made by Councillor Liz represent, he has preferred to draw a veil over it? She may regret that someone has decided to publicise her noisome tweets, but Twitter is part of social media and she will have to get used to it - or alternatively she might care to go into a sound-proofed room where she would be able to spew out her hateful rhetoric to her heart's content and not risk others becoming aware of her bigotry.

This article expands upon my tweet on this topic earlier today, here.

UPDATE (Wednesday 20AUG2014 16.45 BST) I have just noticed that our local councillor Liz MacDonald has unblocked me on Twitter; I can't say precisely when or why this has happened, but perhaps it is as a result of this blog article and my tweet earlier today. In any case I wanted to record this fact and that I am pleased about it.

2nd UPDATE (Tuesday 30DEC2014 21.18 GMT) As a result of visits to this article over the past couple of days and the last few weeks from some major media organisations (e.g. BBC and BSkyB amongst others), I decided to [try and] visit Ms MacDonald's twitter feed (@Liz_Nairn) this evening and discovered that I have once more been blocked from viewing it or following it; I have no idea how soon after I mentioned above that I had been 'unblocked' I was 'reblocked' as I don't follow her tweets and have not attempted to visit her Twitter feed since I last wrote here about it. Undoubtedly my article, entirely accurate and factual as it is of course, is acutely embarrassing to this person, but quite frankly it was/is no more than she deserved/deserves. I read a few days ago that it is now SNP policy to block 'dissenters' from their 'dogma' systematically and although I have no idea of the accuracy of the comment I read about this (in Facebook, as it so happens, in one of the pages I follow there) it does seem to have the ring of truth, for the SNP does seem to be a deeply 'paranoid' and closed-minded organisation.

One month today, Scotland will vote to remain in the UK!

I remain convinced, but not complacent, that the vast majority of Scots voters will choose to vote on 18th September in the referendum for Scotland to remain a part of the UK. This is obviously my preferred outcome, but I think my cautious optimism is solidly-based, both on almost every opinion poll and of course on the performance of First Minister Alex Salmond's (SNP) rather lacklustre performance in the debate with Alistair Darling, leader of the Better Together campaign on 5th August - I wrote about that here.

The "Yes" campaign regularly accuses the "No" side for being "negative" (whatever that means!), but it is really up to those who favour separation/independence to provide convincing arguments for how and why they think it a good idea, it is not enough simply to provide us with pie-in-the-sky wishful thinking and expect a majority of voters to follow them blindly. Why are the "Yes" campaigners, including Mr Salmond, so "negative" about Scotland remaining part of the UK? Scotland's partnership with England and Wales and later with Ireland (now Northern Ireland only, regrettably) for over 300 years has been one of the most successful amalgamations of nations into a country in history and, in my opinion, remains very successful to this day.

Democracy means having to accept what is the majority wish - I have accepted that a Scottish Parliament now exists, because that is what was voted for in the referendum held in 1998, just as I had to live with a Labour government from 1997 to 2010, although I certainly voted for neither. Equally obviously I did not vote for our current SNP Scottish Government in 2007 or 2011 and indeed nor did the majority of voters vote for the SNP either (the 2011 Scottish Parliament election results are here), but the vagaries of our electoral system gave the SNP a comfortable working majority. However uncomfortable I am with this, it is democracy and I therefore accept it. But of course, the real reason the SNP, with its 'beggar-thy-neighbour', 'chip-on-shoulder' attitudes (and I make absolutely no apology for slipping into cliché) does not really accept democracy at all, which is why it seeks to sow division between Scots and our fellow British citizens - I really do not believe your average Highlander in Scotland (me, in other words) is so very different from people in the lowlands of Scotland, the north-east of England or Devon or Cornwall, just to take some random examples - we all have to accept democratic outcomes which means that sometimes we get governments we don't wish for personally. The SNP only want a democratic arrangement which will favour them - hence their wish for Scotland to swim in its own little political pond, rather than to be part of (remain part of) one of the foremost economies of the world.

And speaking of 'economies', SNP plans give no certainty of what currency we might use should they prevail on 18th September, nor what entity will be responsible for acting as 'lender of last resort' or for setting interest rates. It is not "negative" to ask hard questions of these fantasists, indeed it would be negligent not to.

I shall be voting "No" on 18th September and I urge you to do so too. However, beyond that, I would like as many people to exercise their right to vote as possible, however you vote - this is a really important decision for all of us. Please don't miss your chance to participate in deciding our future. Finally, I hope the result is decisive one way or the other and both winners and losers will accept the result gracefully, as I intend to. Hopefully the SNP and its supporters will similarly accept the result if (as I hope happens) they lose their bid to split our country asunder. We will all have to live together once this is all over, so triumphalism by the winners is certainly to be avoided.

My verdict on "Salmond and Darling - the Debate"

A Scottish friend, who lives outside Scotland and therefore cannot vote in the upcoming referendum on separation/independence of Scotland from the UK, emailed me this morning about other matters, but wanted to hear a report on last night's "debate". A number of my Twitter friends had remarked that the STV on-line feed of the event seemed to crash or buffer almost continuously, perhaps because there was nowhere near enough bandwidth to cope with the demand (apparently from around the world) to watch it.

Luckily, though, it is going to be re-broadcast tonight on the BBC Parliament channel so at least most viewers throughout the rest of the UK should be able to watch it if they wish to.

As for the debate last night, well I both watched it and and recorded it. My overall impressions:
- was that there was nothing much new. Salmond certainly had no killer punch and Darling was only marginally less dull than usual, although I think he had the better evening;
- I doubt if anyone will have been persuaded against their previously held views or that many if any 'undecideds' will be any nearer to reaching a decision on how to vote;
- having said that, my view is that most 'undecideds' know perfectly well how they are going to vote, but they simply don't want to reveal it, possibly to avoid complications in their personal and professional lives if their real views don't 'fit' (they may also think it makes them interesting, perhaps, when instead it simply reveals how boring they are; not cynical at all, eh?).

Now onto some comments about what I saw and heard. Both participants mostly regurgitated their well-known positions and although it was mostly 'civilised' on both sides, it did descend into a Yah-boo shout-match on a couple of occasions.

One of the major topics of the evening was what currency Scotland would use post-separation/independence, should that eventuate. Salmond was asked what his back-up plan is should a 'currency union' with rUK not be agreed, as the UK government has repeatedly said this would not happen. Basically he said it would happen, because it would be in the interests both of Scotland and rUK; no evidence was offered, although eventually after much to and fro he did slip in that the UK Treasury "gained £40 billion from being able to include oil revenues, which it would not be able to do without a currency union" and that the current refusal to contemplate currency union by the UK government (and the Labour opposition, too) was mere bluff and bluster that would change quickly in the event of a 'yes' vote. My remarks - either you believe this or you don't as little real substance was offered to support his contention. This was really what both Darling and sceptics/opponents in the audience quizzed Salmond about most exhaustively. Salmond and his advisers really do need to develop a more credible position on this important topic.

As for Darling, his major stumbling block was when he was asked repeatedly by Salmond whether "you agree with David Cameron that an independent Scotland could flourish" to which he refused to give any clear response. The basic difficulty for Darling is that as a staunch Labour supporter he seemed incapable of putting aside his dislike of all things Conservative in a seeming determination not be be heard saying anything that might be taken to be support for a view expressed by the Prime Minister and leader of a political party he opposes viscerally, even at the expense of not achieving his aim of keeping Scotland part of the UK. In other words, the 'Better Together' campaign's main flaw is that its principal components (Labour, Conservative, LibDems) basically loathe each other and seem unable to put this loathing to one side in order to advance their joint desire to maintain Scotland within the UK. Darling and his Labour advisers and 'Better Together' partners really do need to develop a more credible position to enable them to answer Salmond's jibe (for that's all it was) with conviction - that of course Scotland could flourish as a separate country, but that they simply want to remain British. In other words, that the separation/independence debate should not solely be about economic and fiscal matters, but about emotion, too.

Apart from these two topics, which showed up glaringly the defects of both sides of this debate, there was nothing much more said that was not trivial or petty. Some of the audience participation on both sides was reasonably sensible, without in any way being anything other than naked propaganda for their chosen standpoints. The stand-out silly, unpleasant comment/question came from an independence supporter though. There is a thread (actually a dirty-great ship's traditional jute rope!) running through much separatist/independence rhetoric and that is that anyone who is not a supporter of their position is not a true Scot and is somehow a traitor. The stand-out comment which illustrated this attitude perfectly was from a lady who asked Darling in an aggressive and argumentative manner if he had an address in Scotland, seemingly expecting him to say no. Now, anyone who knows anything about me knows that I have absolutely no love for Labour, but have always thought that Darling is, for a Labour person, a reasonably decent and honest man and that he is so self-evidently Scottish that I don't think any rational person could seriously have posed the question that lady did, unless blinded by nationalist rhetoric; it is perfectly easy to establish that he has a home in Edinburgh and is of course the MP for a constituency in that city.

That's really all that needs to be said about last night's programme I think; I don't care for Bernard Ponsonby's presenting style, but he did a competent enough job in all fairness.

The general verdict of most commentators is I think that Darling won 'on points':
- Herald;
- Scottish Daily Record;
- Daily Telegraph;
- Guardian.

Flying of St Andrew Saltire at Nairn cricket pitch

(Please see UPDATES at end)

I have earlier this evening written a message to the Highland Council (whose website is here) on the above-mentioned subject. I repeat the text below:

QUOTE
I have noticed for the past few years that a St Andrew Saltire flag has been flown permanently from a flagpole at the southern side of Nairn cricket pitch. By my recollection this practice started [only] a few years ago, during the period an SNP councillor was briefly Provost of Nairn, until “ousted” from this role by "Independent" colleagues; my home overlooks this venue, so I have been observing it closely for many years. Again by my recollection, prior to this time, no flag was flown over the cricket pitch except during the weeks immediately prior to the Nairn Highland Games (held during mid-Agusut), when it was a Union Flag. Please clarify why this policy has changed in very recent years?

In the run up to the referendum on Scottish "independence"/separation from the rest of the UK, to be held on 18th September 2014, I am sure that Highland Council would wish to appear strictly non-partisan in this important decision affecting all our futures. Or am I wrong? Is Highland Council strictly non-Partisan?

Or is it some other body that has authorised this change of flag-flying practice at Nairn cricket pitch in very recent years? Who might that be? I think I and some other Nairn residents would be interested to know.

(Note: as a proud Scot, I like to see our St Andrew Saltire flying from time to time and if year-round raising of this flag had been the normal practice at Nairn cricket pitch over the past several decades I probably would not have even remarked on it, but the fact is that its year-round flying is a very recent change.)

I am not even going to pretend I am neutral on this topic; I want Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland (UK for short), but probably even now would not raise a query had the new practice of flying a St Andrew Saltire year-round been restricted only to the immediate weeks around the Nairn Highland Games. But it is obvious that this recent change of practice represents something different; why is our national flag the Union flag not also being flown?

I am posting this message simultaneously in my personal weblog:
http://billcameron.blogspot.com/ (i.e. this blog)
UNQUOTE

I shall be interested to observe what response I may receive, if any; naturally I will report on this here.

UPDATE (Wednesday 30JUL14 14.30 BST) I just had an email acknowledgement of my query, from Highland Council, allocating a case reference number and advising "We aim to deal with this case within 10 working days". Developments awaited.

2nd UPDATE (Monday 18AUG14 12.30 BST) As I have not heard further from Highland Council within the 10 days they mentioned in their acknowledgement to me, I have today emailed them asking them to expedite their response.

Two months tomorrow, Scotland will vote to remain in the UK!

.. or at least such is my fervent hope and, if one is to believe the regularly-published opinion polls, this is indeed likely to be the outcome of the referendum on Scotland's continuance as a component part of the United Kingdom to be held on 18th September 2014.

But it would be very unwise to be complacent. Everyone who is eligible to vote should do so, whichever way you choose to vote. The higher the percentage of eligible voters who exercise their right to vote the more accurate and credible will be the result.

I am very clear where I stand on this issue; I want Scotland to remain a part of the United Kingdom, so I shall be voting "no" in the referendum. I am British and I wish to remain British. Obviously I am also Scottish, but I see no conflict (whatsoever) between being British and Scottish - they are almost if not entirely the same - I expect most of my English, Welsh and Northern Irish co-citizens feel more or less the same. Hopefully on 19th September we can all of us look forward to a continuing future as British citizens.

To be clear - this joker does NOT represent me!

A message that needs to be shouted from the rooftops! This joker may represent some (a minority) of Scots, but in no way does he represent me or most other Scots! A very timely reminder. Not all of us Scots, or even a majority, are in thrall to the SNP ...

Those of us, the majority of Scots, who wish to remain an integral part of the UK need to become more vocal to correct the impression that some of our fellow UK citizens may be beginning to form that we Scots are lukewarm about what we want. Quite apart from practical considerations (currency, taxation, trade, EU membership, etc.) I am VERY emotionally attached to retaining my status as a British (i.e. UK) citizen; this has got nothing to do with me not being very proud to be a Scot, which I am, but I am also proud to be British and wish to remain so.

Don't sit idly by and accept the taunts of biased SNP supporters who try to assert that opposing their views implies that one is somehow "unpatriotic" as a Scot - we have just as much a right to our views as they do.

Apathy won't keep us British - please use your vote in the referendum on 18th September to express your view, whatever it is. Don't wake up on 19th September to find that the vote has been allowed to go by default to those favouring separation/'independence'.

500 days to go until "THE" referendum

As I was reminded today by the "media" and a number of blog articles written to mark the occasion (not that it has any importance in reality other than numeric coincidence), in 500 days (on 18th September 2014) the residents of Scotland who are entitled to vote will be invited to answer the referendum question: "Should Scotland be an independent country?" with a YES/NO response; the date and wording of the referendum was announced only quite recently.

Of course, people like me who wish Scotland to remain a partner within the "United Kingdom" (one of the most successful and long-standing political partnerships in history) believe that Scotland is already "independent", or at least as independent as any country can be in our modern inter-dependent world. It is difficult to advance, plausibly, the theory that we Scots are somehow disadvantaged or "put down" within the UK - one only has to look at the people who have 'managed the country' over the decades to know that it makes not the blindest bit of difference from which part of the UK our political leaders (or their pretty recent forbears) hailed - whether it be the current Prime Minister (who may be English, but is not exactly not Scottish either) or the last two from the other main political party. Of course I don't have the "chip on the shoulder" mindset of most of the SNP-supporters I have ever met or heard speaking, including naturally enough our 'illustrious' First Minister Alex Salmond. I have never doubted, just to be clear, that Scotland could go its own way and run its own affairs, just as England (and Wales and Northern Ireland) could, but I simply do not wish this to happen - I am British and want to remain so. It is nice to see the "Welcome to Scotland" sign when driving across the 'border' into Scotland from England, but beyond a momentary glow it really doesn't mean too much - when I lived in London I felt just as much "at home" as I do in Scotland and the same applies when visiting other parts of the UK outside London.

I'll be returning to the issue of the September 2014 referendum from time to time until it takes place, focussing on different aspects of the non-issue of Scottish "independence", but of course I shall be voting "NO" on 18th September next year, 500 days from today.

Now, as they say, 'Have a nice day'.

Scottish Referendum "Propaganda" begins

I write above that the "Propaganda" efforts with which we will undoubtedly be faced in the many months leading up to the referendum on Scottish "Independence"/"Separation" have begun, because I found in my mail-box this morning a leaflet from the "Yes" campaign - the organisation that published this particular leaflet calls itself "Yes Scotland" and has, according to the leaflet, an address in Glasgow. Although no mention is made of it in the leaflet, this is the organisation supported by the SNP Scottish Government in furtherance of its [the SNP, that is] political aim to take Scotland out of the current political arrangements it has as one of the partners in the United Kingdom, along with England, Wales and Northern Ireland and establish a separate country.

Scottish Referendum "Propaganda" Click here to see enlargements of all these photographs. The "Yes Scotland" campaign (All pages from a one-fold leaflet received today) Front Centre-fold Back Click here to see enlargements of all these photographs.

People who have read my blog over the years will be under no illusions where I stand on this issue and I make no pretence that I do not have very strong views on it. I oppose the "Yes Scotland" campaign, instead I support the "Better Together" campaign, because I want to see Scotland remain fully integrated into the UK with its partners England, Wales and Northern Ireland. However, just as I am doing today, I will publish here any leaflet I receive through my mail-box in support of either side of the question and shall describe them all as Scottish Referendum "Propaganda", yes even those which support the views I hold, just as I have published all electoral leaflets received through my mail-box in most election campaigns in recent years

If you wish to find out more about the Yes Scotland campaign, you can visit its website here.

If you wish to find out more about the Better Together campaign, you can visit its website here.

Why has the UK Government fallen for the SNP ruse on the Referendum?

We have yet to see the full detail of what the UK Government led by the Prime Minister David Cameron has agreed with the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government'), led by Alex Salmond, about the holding of a referendum to decide on the constitutional future of Scotland in relation to the rest of the United Kingdom - or, in the words of the Clash song from the 1980s Should I Stay or Should I Go? (the link is to a YouTube video-clip)

So far, what seems to have been agreed is that the UK Government will allow the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government'):
- to hold a simple yes/no in/out referendum, with that one question being the only one asked, by agreeing a 'Section 30' order;
- to set the precise terms of the referendum question and precisely when it is held (before the end of 2014);
- extend the franchise for the referendum to those who are at least 16 years old at the time of the referendum (instead of the current age of 18 for all other elections).

I think that this referendum is so important and crucial for the future of Scotland and indeed for the whole United Kingdom that the terms of the referendum question need to be agreed jointly by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') and the UK Government, under the supervision of the Electoral Commission to ensure that it is worded fairly and neutrally and is not partisan with regard to either of the two possible outcomes. However, it appears that the UK Government has conceded this to the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') alone. Why? It seems to me utter madness and a very poor return for the reported 'concession' by the Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') that the referendum should contain only one question, rather than multiple choices which it had earlier indicated it was considering (cynically, not because it wanted this outcome itself, but because it said - with scant evidence - that some wished this according to its 'consultation' on the issue).

On the question of allowing those who have reached the age of 16 to vote in the referendum, but not in other elections either in Scotland or the rest of the UK, this appears to rest on extremely shaky logic and the viability of such an outcome is being questioned by former Scottish Secretary, Lord Forsyth (Conservative); Lord Wallace (Liberal Democrat), who advises the UK Government on Scots Law, says there are no plans to change the law. Now it is being urged upon the UK Government to allow the same voting regime for any referendum on the UK's future relationship with the EU. In short, it seems that this issue is going to result in an enormous divergence of viewpoints about the constitutional validity of this proposed change for one specific purpose, but not for other votes or plebiscite.

Just how cynical and self-serving the SNP Scottish Executive (aka 'Government') is being over this issue can be judged by a comparison with its earlier attempt to raise the current age for buying alcohol from 18 to 21.

It seems to me that many of the rights people acquire as they reach adulthood should be aligned so far as possible, rather than allow a further confusing and hard-to-justify mish-mash of different ages for different things. For instance one can get married at 16, have sex at 16, but vote only at 18. Currently one may buy alcohol at 18, but if this is raised to 21 (or indeed if the 'think 25?' policy of certain retail outlets is given legal force) then you would have the phenomenon of people allowed to vote in elections, but not buy a drink. Maybe people should gain all their rights at 16 because if they are considered old enough then to get married or enter into contracts at that age, then it seems bizarre they cannot vote until two years later. So I have no 'in principle' objection to people who have reached 16 being permitted a vote in the referendum relating to Scotland and the UK, but if they are allowed to vote in that decision-making process, then I can see no good reason to deny them a vote in any other election or referendum. However, I do not think one should play around with voting-age eligibility for what seem to me to be nakedly-partisan political purposes.

I look forward to seeing what form the final mooted 'agreement' to be reached next week will take with great interest and some disquiet at the apparent lack of clear thinking in what we have been told so far.

Job done! Proposal for AV voting system sent to 'central filing'

The proposal to change (euphemistically called a 'reform' of) the UK voting system by introducing the 'Alternative Voting' system for Westminster elections has been soundly defeated and the proposal consigned to the history books as a 'failure', or as I prefer to put it, it has been sent to 'central filing'.

A great result!

(NB/ It is bizarre that I have to go to the Guardian newspaper to get straightforward information about the results, whereas the BBC website waffles on interminably, without giving actual cold, hard figures - why and how has it wasted so much time, effort and money and still manage to avoid giving the results in figures?!)

A further reminder - Vote NO to AV on 5th May!

As I have written here before, I am supporting the "NO to AV" campaign in the referendum to be held on 5th May 2011. The video-clip below is of the campaign broadcast to be transmitted this evening at 6.55pm (BBC ONE), 5.55pm (BBC TWO), 6.25pm (ITV ONE), 7.05pm (CHANNEL 4) and 6.55pm (CHANNEL 5)
(NB/ all timings are UK timings - GMT+1/BST)



The Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives some people more votes than others. It might sound like a small change but the danger is in the detail - it's a politicians' fix.

Governments would be selected through backroom deals and people would have no control over where their vote goes. It should be voters that decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system.

Defend one person, one vote. Vote NO to AV on 5 May.

250 million reasons why the country can't afford the Alternative Vote. Vote NO to AV!

I am supporting the "NO to AV" campaign in the referendum to be held on 5th May 2011. The video-clip below illustrates one of the many reasons why the 'Alternative Vote' is a very bad idea; it will cost a huge additional amount simply to stage this kind of election, quite apart from its inherent unfairness:



The Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives some people more votes than others. It might sound like a small change but the danger is in the detail - it's a politicians' fix.

Governments would be selected through backroom deals and people would have no control over where their vote goes. It should be voters that decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system.

Defend one person, one vote. Vote NO to AV on 5 May.

Vote NO to AV on 5 May

I am supporting the "NO to AV" campaign in the referendum to be held on 5th May 2011. The video-clip below is of the campaign broadcast to be transmitted this evening on BBC 1 at 6.55 p.m., ITV 1 at 6.50 p.m., Channel 5 at 7.25 p.m. or Channel 4 at 7.55 p.m. (all times are UK times - GMT+1):



The Alternative Vote is a complicated, expensive and unfair system that gives some people more votes than others. It might sound like a small change but the danger is in the detail - it's a politicians' fix.

Governments would be selected through backroom deals and people would have no control over where their vote goes. It should be voters that decide who the best candidate is, not the voting system.

Defend one person, one vote. Vote NO to AV on 5 May.

Salmond 'frit'

First Minister of Scotland and 'all round good egg' [not] Alex Salmond thinks so little of the voters of Scotland that be believes they will be confused if they are asked to vote on two matters at the same time. The UK government proposes to hold a referendum on whether the voting system for Westminster elections should be changed from the traditional 'first past the post' (FPTP) to the 'alternative vote' (AV) system on the same date, 5 May 2011, that the next elections will he held for the Scottish Parliament . A subtext to this fear on Salmond's part is that his party, the SNP, did pretty poorly in the recent Westminster elections, managing only to maintain its number of MPs at 6 (out of 59), when it had hope to raise its Westminister representation to 20. Mr Salmond has therefore written a rather laughable letter to David Cameron, the new Prime Minister, pleading his partisan case:

"I believe that your proposals to hold a referendum on the same day undermines the integrity of the elections in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland. "These elections are of profound importance to our citizens and I believe they have the right to make their electoral choices for the respective devolved chambers without the distraction of a parallel referendum campaign on the UK voting system. "When you visited Edinburgh shortly after your election, you placed great emphasis on what you called 'the respect agenda' between the UK government and devolved administrations. "It is not clear how the decision to hold the AV referendum on the same date as our elections, and to do so without any prior consultation, fits into the spirit of that framework."

The Coalition Government's (Lib Dem) Scottish Secretary Michael Moore has rightly dismissed Mr Salmonds's 'mewlings' thus:

"To say that this will confuse voters is to underestimate the intelligence of the Scottish people. "Many countries routinely hold elections and referendums on the same day. I am confident that Scotland can do the same. "There will be ample time in the election campaign to debate all the issues facing Scotland, and for Scots to make their judgment about who is best placed to deal with them."

Of course Mr Salmond knows that relatively few people, whatever they may say in opinion polls, are actually prepared to go into the voting booth and vote for the 'fantasy politics' that the SNP specialises in. At the May 2010 Westminster election the SNP managed only 19.9 per cent of the vote in Scotland (up from 17.6 in the previous election) although it edged past the LibDems into second-place in number of votes. Bizarrely the SNP suffers from the same problem as the Scottish Conservatives in that their support is too thinly-spread around the country to gain very many seats under an FPTP voting system, so it is possible that an AV system would be to its advantage, just as the d'Hondt voting system for the Scottish Parliament has unquestionably benefitted the SNP, even though it has allowed it to operate only as a minority Scottish Executive (aka 'Scottish Government') since the last Scottish parliament elections in 2007.

Salmond knows that his only hope in the forthcoming Scottish Parliament elections in 2011 is to stir-up discontent with Westminster in the hope (probably vain) that he can increase SNP support. The reality, Mr Salmond, is that the vast majority of Scottish people are far to savvy to fall for your brand of 'snake-oil' politics. The referendum on the UK voting system and the 2011 Scottish Parliament election should go ahead on the same date next year; the Scottish people are plenty intelligent enough to decide and quite importantly it will save quite a lot of money to do so. Why does Salmond believe the Scottish people cannot be trusted?

PS/ This is my 3,000th blog-post since I began this blog in April 2002. How long will it take me to get to 6,000 I wonder ...

Irish voters to be asked to think again on Lisbon Treaty?

This is what the Telegraph is speculating at any rate.

Obviously the foolishness of the Irish voters in voting the 'wrong' way last week in their referendum is not 'acceptable'. Read the final paragraph of the linked article to see just how despicable this arm-twisting is going to become:

Under the existing Nice Treaty, the next Commission, due to be appointed in November 2009, must legally be reduced to a size less than its current “college” of 27 members, one for each EU country. The Lisbon EU Treaty also calls for a smaller Commission but, unlike the existing rules, the cut is not legally binding and can be reversed. "If the Irish wanted to keep their commissioner they have done a pretty bad job. At the moment if we were to axe a commissioner it would be easy to guess whose it would be," said a diplomat.

Regular readers of my blog will know that I am strongly pro-EU, but I think the behaviour of most of our politicians across the EU has been quite deplorable in the past few days; a notable exception is Vaclav Klaus, Czech President.