Scotland & the UK: better together or better apart?

‘The No campaign’ may have been a more obvious and honest title but eschewing that negative connotation, “Better Together” became the name of the campaign opposing “Yes Scotland”

Better Together must be mindful of negative arguments and those that the Scottish people see as playing down our country’s ability to survive on her own. Indeed, on the Better Together website, their article ‘The +ve case’ starts by declaring “We love Scotland,” then getting to the crux of their argument: “Our case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate country - it is that there's a better choice for our future.”

This is an incredibly interesting argument. A look at the history of sovereign states around the world would therefore say: Scotland and the UK are wholly unique in being “Better Together”

Over the last century or so, the vast majority* of people who have held independence referenda have voted ‘Yes’. Countries including Norway, Iceland, Ukraine and Croatia have decided that they would be better governed in an independent state.

Looking at nations who have won their independence, it seems impossible to find one who has later reverted to their previous union. Countries who have made this decision have universally gone on to better governance. These countries have not regretted voting ‘Yes’.

How unique our Union would prove to be if we decided that we are the exception. Alex Salmond once famously said “The fundamental reason for being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they govern themselves.”

Voters in countries around the world have shared this belief in taking action to win their independence. In deciding that Scotland would be better off governed not by ourselves but by a government in a foreign country, we would be a lone voice in the crowd of world politics. What confidence we would need to have in the UK; what little faith in Scotland.

There is no doubt that this decision is monumental, the most important that Scottish voters will ever be asked to make at the polls. Collectively, we must make sure that we make the right choice so that as a nation, we are not left with regret.

Of course, the argument that Scotland will be “Better Together” should surely be backed by a look at our history together. Unfortunately for the Better Together campaign, there are many examples throughout the lifetime of Scottish voters where our country would have fared better governed by our own parliament.

In the 1970s, oil was discovered in the North Sea. While the money generated from this benefits the UK as a whole, as much as 90% is thought to be Scotland’s.

Norway has built a ‘rainy day’ fund with their oil revenue, a model that has allowed them to ride out the worst of the financial crisis. The fund began in 1996 with an initial investment of around $300 million, but reports in August placed its value at $600 billion. It now owns one percent of all equities across the globe. Experts now believe the fund could last a century or more.

According to the Guardian Economics article, ‘Britain has squandered golden opportunity North Sea oil promised’, “The UK has used its oil and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and current government spending.”

An independent Scotland could have followed Norway’s lead in placing its oil and gas riches in a huge pension fund, which it in turn invests in international stocks and bonds. Instead, the money has been squandered by a UK government who lead us into a recession. Thatcher’s deregulation of the banks and later, Gordon Brown’s decision to hand supervision of individual banks to the Financial Services Authority, lead us into an economic crisis.

One beneficiary of North Sea oil thrives; the other suffers a massive recession.

Scotland would have been better apart.

Tomorrow (Sunday 7^th October) marks eleven years of the war in Afghanistan. During this time, 430 Britons have lost their lives amid a total allied loss exceeding 3,000.

The UK’s expenditure is heading towards £20 billion; the same amount that the government is planning to cut from the country's National Health Service, one of just 10 good reasons to end the war which are laid out in Stop War’s article.

During this time, we have also invaded Iraq. In 2003, a rebel amendment was tabled against the war in Iraq by figures including the SNP defence spokesman, Angus Robertson. At the time, the Conservatives had only 1 seat in Scotland. Almost all of their 166 MPs voted to support Tony Blair.

By contrast, only 34 out of the 72 Scottish MPs voted to support the Government’s position.

What little say we had in the decision to invade Iraq. The war resulted in the deaths of 179 UK soldiers, 15 of whom were from Scotland.

Scotland would have been better apart.

The most baffling thing I find in the debate on independence is the huge number of people who see devolution as a massive success, but are unsure about voting ‘Yes’. Devolution has been a success precisely because nations work best when governed by their own people.

Consider this: since 1997, what are the main political decisions that have hurt the people of Scotland most? The decision to enter Iraq, entering Afghanistan and the decisions that lead to the recession were all catastrophic errors. Where Holyrood has made decisions we have generally fared well; warfare, the economy, things Westminster control, these are the decisions made for Scotland in the last fifteen years that have gone horribly wrong.

It makes sense that we have a university system the envy of many when we control education, or an NHS regarded stronger than elsewhere in the UK when health is another devolved matter. Decisions are made in Holyrood by MPs representing all of Scotland. Where in Westminster our views only make up a tiny 10% of the vote on any issue, why should we ever expect to be heard but on the few issues where Scotland and the rest of the UK have similar needs and views?

To me, that does not sound like a Union of nations who are better together. Agreeing with the success of devolution but choosing to leave Westminster in charge of such massive decisions makes no sense whatosever.

If you think devolution has worked, vote ‘Yes’ to take full control over decisions made for Scotland.

Devolution works because Scotland would not be Better Together, but better apart.

*Only the people of Quebec (by an incredibly narrow margin), Bermuda and Puerto Rico have voted no. Successful independence referenda are listed below:

1905 Norway 

1944 Iceland 

1958 Guinea 

1990 Slovenia 

1991 Croatia 

1991 Macedonia 

1991 Ukraine 

1991 Georgia 

1991 Transnistrian 

1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina  

1992 South Ossetia

1993 Eritrea  

1994 Moldova 

1999 East Timor 

2006 Montenegro 

2006 South Ossetia (retention of independence) 

2006 Transnistria 

2011 Southern Sudan 

Going cap in hand to George Osborne

Unionist and Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, presented some ready-made arguments for independence in her recent Herald article 'Achieve success by working with Westminster'

Much of it revolves around highlighting the good that the Union is doing for Scotland; however, many of these arguments prove only that the status quo is decent, not that independence would fail to make our country better. If you were happy with your salary but your employer offered you a wage rise, you would take it. If a better means of governance is offered to our country, we should not hesitate to accept it simply because Scotland achieves a great deal inside the Union.

In the article, she starts by highlighting some of the recent successes in Scottish business. 7,000 new jobs created or safeguarded thanks to funding from Scottish Enterprise. Welcome news from a business attractiveness survey that finds Scotland the most likely area of the UK for foreign companies to invest in. Less of a decline in economic output north of the border than in the rest of the UK over the last six months.

Davidson then says: "Only last Friday Chancellor George Osborne announced major tax breaks for mature North Sea oil and gas fields, shielding around £500 million of income from charges to leave more cash to invest into current operations in the north-east."

Consider this point in the context of the independence debate. It is undoubtedly good news, but what if we were independent? What if our country had full governance over these matters in the first place? With independence, these policies could have been tailor-made for our economy and brought in by our own government. The Union doesn't provide this benefit where independence couldn't; the Union simply prevents us from taking control of the matter in the first place. Is being dependent on George Osborne's goodwill a good thing?

Davidson continues: "Earlier this year, after I raised the issue repeatedly with Mr Osborne, a consultation was launched with the aim of giving tax breaks to computer games firms in hubs such as Edinburgh and Dundee to enhance competitiveness in global markets."

Again, anyone on the fence should consider this with regards our independence. Miss Davidson thinks the fact that our computer games industry could be granted tax breaks - but only after her relentless badgering of Mr Osborne - is a good thing. Again, it's the sort of policy that the Scottish Government in an independent Scotland could implement with impunity.

In both these instances I am reminded of the classic Proclaimers lyric, "But I can't understand why we let someone else rule our land, cap in hand."

These may be good policies but they are initiatives that our elected representatives in an independent Scotland could do without the say-so of any London politician. These decisions could be better-made in Scotland, for the sake of the Scottish economy, by Scottish politicians chosen by Scottish people. Around 90% of politicians in Westminster are from other parts of the UK; what sense does it make for them to have a say in our business? Our country's people have no say whatsoever in the election of these political voices, many quite disparate in their ideals from the average Scottish voter.

Ruth Davidson finishes her article with the usual unionist assertions that the Union brings security and stability where independence brings only uncertainty, but nowhere in her article has she made any reasonable argument against independence. In my eyes, she has only strengthened the case, highlighting how little control we have over certain issues. We may have benefited from these Westminster decisions - in some cases after issues have been raised "repeatedly" - but nowhere does she explain why these could not have been made by an independent Scottish Government.

Why I believe in Scottish independence

Being as passionate as I am on the subject of independence, I'm often asked why I want to see Scotland win its freedom - quite apart from the simple fact that the people of Scotland never voted for the union and deserve to finally have a say on whether it's something we want. I realise that doesn't wash with everyone!

I thought it might help to lay out some of my main reasons. I have felt that Scotland should be its own country with its own government for as long as I can remember, since childhood when I first became aware of politics. Over the years, the facts I have read on the subject have simply augmented that position; but simply, it's an innate belief that I cannot help but hold. That is a hard position to explain to someone, but I have given it my best shot, whilst quoting from some excellent nationalists who are far more eloquent and better-educated on the subject than I would ever claim to be.

Firstly, I think it's vitally important that in our devolved government (which I think has been an excellent success, and I'll discuss more later), we don't currently have control of the following (according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia):

abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system

Some massive issues in there.

Defence. Scottish soldiers sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan when the majority of Scottish people were dead against it. In 2003, when millions around the world took to the streets to protest Iraq, it's estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people aired their views in Glasgow; the biggest protest that I've witnessed in Scotland in my 25 years.

There's no way to know if we would have been involved in the War in Iraq if we were independent. However, the vote was helped in large part by the 139 Conversative MPs, of whom 90% voted 'For'. Scottish people have shown again and again at the polls that this is a party we do not want in power, whose policies we don't support.

I don't see why English politicians should have a say in whether Scottish soldiers should fight wars, when the vast, vast majority of Westminster MPs were not elected by the Scottish people, and are of different political mind. 
(Incidentally of the 5 SNP MPs in Westminster at the time, all 5 voted against the war in Iraq)

Trident. Again massively controversial and against the will of many of the country's people. We should be in control of these decisions.

Coal. We have an abundance of the stuff but we are still sitting on it thanks to Thatcher closing loads of perfectly viable mines. Someone on another site I read had an excellent summary of the relevance of this: "To see the future, look at the past. Imagine we had got independence 30 years ago, what would have changed. Would we still have steel and coal industries? Would we still have manufacturing industry? Would we have suffered the levels of totally unnecessary unemployment that resulted from nothing more than political dogma?

"Look around and think about what has happened over the last 20/50/100 years and ask what happened because we were not in control of our own destiny and what would have happened anyway."

The past is totally relevant in all of this debate because a 'No' vote condemns us and future generations to decades and decades of Tory rule and more of the same decisions that hurt Scotland. Steel and textile industries laid to waste; the crushing of the unions; the financial deregulation that is at the root of the problems we now face. How many more damaging decisions will we face from Westminster and the Tories?

Look at matters at the table of the UN and the EU. The UK voting against the interests of, say, Scotland's fishing or agricultural industries. Scotland and England are two very different countries with different priorities; it's madness to be jointly making decisions.

Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, on Twitter: "I can't recall the UK casting a vote in the EU to defend a Scottish interest when that interest didn't co-incide with the rest of the UK?!"

Time and time again decisions are taken in London, for London. This is an argument I'd put against the union; Scottish politicians having a vote in English affairs, and vice versa.

Ian Hamilton QC, the man who nicked the Stone of Destiny, in his excellent article on his 86 years in the union, put it so; "We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education."

How much of our tax goes to things like the Olympics, the £32 billion (completely unnecessary) high speed train that they're building between Birmingham and London, and all the other London spending that Scottish voters never benefit from?

The taxes raised from Scottish people should go solely to things that benefit our country. Our economy should be based on what is best for Scotland, not for London, the south of England or anywhere else.

The success of devolution for me is a sign of hope, that independence can and will work. Since 1997 I think we've seen great improvements taken in the areas of policy that we do now manage, as they were decisions made by Scottish politicians for Scottish people. We've had the odd misstep along the way (trams!) but that's politicians for you.

The public smoking ban (which we implemented before the rest of the UK), free prescriptions and the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee (which directly affected me, saving us £2,000 as my wife had just finished uni) are the sort of positives that affect your day to day life that I just don't remember coming from Westminster.

This country has been better, stronger, fairer since devolution. Why would we not want to be in control of the other areas affecting our lives?

Alex Robertson, in his great piece outlining 'What independence means to me' - "Now we have a chain and ball attached to our ankle, and as we look at the future, and dream of things that might be, we are reminded that the choice is not ours, but is made for us, by a Parliament 500 miles away in another country, in which we represent barely 10% of the membership."

Incidentally, when I praise devolution, I absolutely include Scottish Labour in that (despite being an SNP member). Scottish Labour did a far better job in Holyrood than any government in Westminster, in my lifetime, has done. Look at the health service. The Scottish government have done a far better job of managing the NHS than they have down south; an opinion backed by this major study where the Scottish NHS is described as a "leading-edge example", and by General Practitioners Committee chairman Dr Laurence Buckman.

I maintain that the subject of independence is not party political for me, again despite my SNP roots. I would happily see Labour in power here in an independent country. I don't think we'd see the massive SNP majorities we currently see in a pro-independent Scotland. They'd probably disband, and we'd see votes go to the parties that form in their wake, to Labour, and I think we'd see some Green, some Socialist parties, independents, too - parties far more in line with the views of the Scottish people, and not some joke of a Con-Dem coalition that noone voted for. Why continue to subject ourselves to Tory governments when Scotland is about as anti-Tory as it's possible to be?

In an independent Scotland we'd see a lot more socialist policies the likes of prescriptions charges - this kind of thing is where Scotland and Westminster are just radically different politically.

Another argument for independence is that Scotland has typically paid more in to Westminster than it has taken. Only the pro-union media continue this subsidy myth.

Quote from SNP MSP Paul Wheelhouse: “Taking all Scottish revenues and all spending in Scotland into account – including the financial sector interventions – the official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures show that Scotland has run a current budget surplus in four of the five years to 2009/10, while the UK was in current budget deficit in each of these years, and hasn’t run a current budget surplus since 2001/02.

“The latest GERS figures show that Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population - the equivalent of 1,000 pounds extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.”

Historically that is the case, too. Between 1979 and 1997, when the UK had a Tory government that people in Scotland did not vote for, Scotland contributed (net) £27 billion to the UK exchequer.

So in my lifetime, and long before, Scotland would have been better off as an independent country.

This was accidentally backed by Michael Moore recently when he tried to suggest we would have been worse off, but hadn't studied the figures closely enough. From Newsnet Scotland...

"Scotland would have been almost £20 billion better off had it been independent for the last thirty years, figures released by the Scotland Office have revealed.

"A press release from Secretary of State Michael Moore claimed that an independent Scotland would have been £41 billion in the red.  However official figures from the Scotland Office have left the gaffe prone MP red faced after it emerged that Scotland’s debt from being part of the Union is greater, running at £60 billion."
We have a strong economy, the sixth largest GDP in the world, so we can lay to rest this concern that we wouldn't survive on our own. An independent Scotland would flourish.

Citigroup: "ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]" 

Consider our oil. We should have been building up a rainy day fund the same way Norway have; you only have to contrast the two countries since the discovery of oil in the North Sea to see who is better off. Oil is a massive resource for us and we should be benefiting from it far more than we are.

A concern we hear again and again from the 'No' camp - because what do we nationalists hear from them but rebuttals of our positive points? - is that oil won't last forever and not to put all our eggs in one basket.

Two points on that.

From a Telegraph article: "The north sea will continue to provide oil for another 100 years, twice as long as previous estimates, according to industry analysts."

Since the discovery of Scottish oil, scaremongerers have tried to tell us it had x, y or z years left, and it's proven wrong again and again. The truth is that it's hard to predict exactly how much remains, but if it's even close to 100 years, we have a fantastic basis to kick-start the independent Scottish economy; and that's exactly what it is, a kick-start.

Noone is suggesting we rely on oil. For the short to mid term future, it gives us a platform on which to build our own economy. An economy based on growth industries like green energy, whisky, fishing, agriculture, video games development, film.

We are already a leader in inward investment. In control of our own tax, we could lower corporation tax to be equal with - or even better than - that of the Republic of Ireland, which has attracted some of the top businesses in the world and convinced them to base their European operations there. 

As a proud Scotsman, what I like about the nationalist argument is that it is positive. That's not to suggest that there aren't some proud, passionate Scottish unionists out there; just that in my experience, those for independence feel the way they do because they see Scotland in a positive light. Invariably, the unionists I've spoken to see the country in a negative light, one who can't cope standing on its own.

It seems clear that all nationalists want what is best for Scotland; a pro-independence stance simply has to be borne from the belief that that is what is best for our country. The same is not necessarily true of unionists. It stands to reason that there will be some unionists, both north and south of the border, who want us to remain in the UK for their own self-serving reasons. Not because it is best for Scotland, but because it is best for them.

Why are we seeing the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all sing from the exact same hymn sheet on this issue? When have they ever been in agreement on, well, anything? We are constantly told by them how Scotland is not strong enough to survive independently; is it in fact the case that the UK would be weaker without us, and Westminster knows as much?

We have already seen that Scotland contributes more to the coffers than it takes. We know about the vast oil resources we bring to the table. Westminster do not truly care about what is best for Scotland. Their position does not stem from a desire that Scotland flourishes; simply that the UK does not lose a valuable asset, i.e. us!

If we accept, for a moment, the hypothesis that independence IS best for Scotland; then there will still be unionists who do not want it, for whom independence does not serve their best interests.

As I alluded to at the beginning, I also don't see what's wrong with arguing for independence for independence sake. I think it's something that can be reasoned and argued, but (for me) there's also part of it that you just feel. Pride, maybe. Why would we not want to join the other 200+ nations in the world who have their independence? Why would we continue to be the diddy nation attached to a country whose rule has hurt us again and again? Why remain dependent?

How many independent countries are begging for a bigger neighbour to govern their nation? Zero.

I would like to hear from unionists on what makes Scotland unique in supposedly not being able to do a better job of governing our own affairs? We hear from unionists again and again that Scotland is stronger since devolution, but would somehow be weaker with more control over our own lives; how does that work exactly?!

Alex Salmond summed it up well when he said: “The fundamental reason for being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they govern themselves.”

There's another fantastic quote, I think originally from Peter Bell:

"I am a nationalist, not because I regard Scotland as superior to other nations, but because I refuse to accept that we are inferior."

One thing that does sadden me in all of this is looking into the various independent countries around the world and how they won their freedom. There isn't really another in the world where so many have tried to fight against it or make it an argument about money. The vast majority of countries would have bit your hand off to win their freedom. Sad that we are hearing that if the average Scot was £500 a year better off they would vote 'Yes'. I can argue why a Scotland in control of its own destiny would be better off until the cows home home, but the truth is that I would happily be £500 a year worse off to live in an independent Scotland.

Before I finish, I wonder if any unionists will read this and if so would like to ask; what it is that unionists, or those on the fence, see in the union? What do you think we currently gain from it that we wouldn't have, or be able to improve upon, in an independent Scotland?

I don't consider myself British, but I do enjoy life in Scotland/the UK. If I didn't, I'd move elsewhere. I don't think the union is awful, or a complete failure. I think we enjoy a great many benefits from living in this country; I just believe that things would be better still in an independent Scotland.

The UK media - can they be trusted?!

I want to follow the independence debate, but where to turn for news? As I said in the Paxman article, every day it seems that 'The Day Today' becomes more and more our reality. This was Sky News, yesterday:



A worrying sign of the times when the news makes me laugh! You can just picture Chris Morris now: "Those are the headlines. God, I wish they weren't."

The Sun, never famed for being the most impartial, level-headed or mature newspaper, has recently tried to add a subtle touch of class with a daily philosophical musing; apparently from the mouth of the day's Page 3 babe!



Ridiculous.

I'm sure that's exactly what Sam (25, Manchester) said, somewhere been stripping off and having her nipples tweaked.

This is now a daily feature, so even more so than before, The Sun is worth buying for Page 3 alone. After a quick swatch at the boobs on offer, it's guaranteed to give you a laugh.

This next one was from the Sunday Mail, the day after Kilmarnock had been horsed 3-6 by Inverness Caley Thistle. I was down in England and had (thankfully) missed the game, so wanted to catch up on what I'd missed.

Their Man of the Match choice was interesting to say the least:



A "Great bit of chat" this most certainly is not, but it gave us a good chuckle on the drive home.

This last one isn't an article, but an advert for one of the many PPI companies that hound our every waking moment, insisting that we've been mis-sold payment protection that we didn't want, need or even know about.

Now, as far as celebrity endorsement of a product like this is concerned, I'd think you would want someone famous for managing money - Martin Lewis, the 'money-saving expert' perhaps? Or someone who has done well for themselves - a Duncan Bannatyne, or one of the UK's other famous entrepreneurs?

This company decided the obvious choice was Catchphrase's Roy Walker.



It's good, but it's not right.

I hear Mr. Chips is a debt consolidation expert, mind.

Last but not least, I have to mention the most ridiculous headline of recent times, from that bastion of impartial, top-notch journalism, the Daily Mail. I don't have a screenshot, but I see they've ran with more or less the same headline on their website.

"It's OK to call Susan Boyle a mong"

Fantastic.

"If you've got a history book at home, take it out, throw it in the bin..."

Email to MPs in support of lowering voting age

I have emailed the following regarding their previous support of lowering the voting age to 16.

Those names not in bold have yet to respond. For those who have got back to me, I have marked a 'YES' or 'NO' next to their name to clarify their stance. I will update this post with any responses I receive.

Scottish Lib Dems supporting Votes at 16:
Jo Swinson MP, Deputy Leader Scottish Liberal Democrats - YES
Mike Crockart MP Jim Hume MSP, Scottish Liberal Democrats MSP for South Scotland
Alison McInnes MSP, Liberal Democrat MSP for North East Scotland

Scottish Labour support for Votes at 16:
Anas Sarwar, Deputy Leader of Scottish Labour
Margaret Curran, Shadow Scottish Secretary
Douglas Alexander, Shadow Foreign Secretary
Willie Bain, Shadow Scotland minister - YES
Jim Murphy, Shadow Defence Secretary
Gordon Banks MP, Labour MP for Ochil and South Perthshire
Anne Begg MP, Labour MP for Aberdeen South
Russell Brown MP, Labour MP for Dumfries and Galloway
Katy Clark MP, Labour MP for North Ayrshire and Arran - YES
Tom Clarke MP, Labour MP for Coatbridge, Chryston and Bellshill
Ian Davidson MP, Labour/Co-operative MP for Glasgow South West
Thomas Docherty MP, Labour MP for Dunfermline and West Fife
Brian Donohoe MP, Labour MP for Central Ayrshire - YES
Sheila Gilmore MP, Labour MP for Edinburgh East
Eric Joyce MP, Labour MP for Falkirk
Mark Lazarowicz MP, Labour/Co-operative MP for Edinburgh North and Leith
Michael McCann MP, Labour MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven and Lesmahagow - NO
Gregg McClymont MP, Labour MP for Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East
Ian Murray MP, Labour MP for Edinburgh South - YES
Pamela Nash MP, Labour MP for Airdrie and Shotts
John Robertson MP, Labour MP for Glasgow North West MSPs
Claudia Beamish MSP, Scottish Labour MSP for South Scotland
Kezia Dugdale MSP, Scottish Labour and Co-op MSP for Lothian region- YES
Neil Findlay MSP, Scottish Labour MSP for Lothian - YES
John Park MSP, Scottish Labour MSP for Mid Scotland and Fife - YES

Email as follows:

Good afternoon,

I'm getting in touch with you regarding the recent debate in the news regarding lowering the voting age to 16, in light of the forthcoming independence referendum.

I note that you have previously given your support to this idea when it was debated at length with regards the AV referendum.

This is an issue that is very close to my heart as for the past five years I have worked throughout my constituency with hundreds of young people, in projects that encourage youth participation and active citizenship. I have done a lot of work towards empowering young people to become involved in decision-making, management and shaping their future. This is something that is very important to me, and lowering the voting age to 16 is something I feel very strongly about.

I have also always believed that Scotland should be an independent country and I understand the argument that says lowering the voting age may increase the likeliness of the referendum's success. I trust, however, that regardless of your stance on the independence debate, you will take a consistent view on this issue and will continue to support lowering the voting age, vitally not just for this referendum, but for future elections and referenda. Politicians who are committed to fighting for this important change should in my opinion put aside political differences and stand by their principles.

I look forward to hearing from you on this.

Regards,
Graeme J





Responses.

NEIL FINDLAY MSP
Graeme of course I support votes at 16 always have done but only if it is for all elections.

-------------------------

WILLIE BAIN MP
Graeme,
I refer you to the press notice I issued on this topic yesterday which you can access via Politics Home:

http://www.politicshome.com/uk/article/44662/william_bain_independence_referendum_should_not_include_second_question_on_devolution.html

He also argued voting for 16 and 17 year olds should be expanded to all elections, not just the referendum ballot:

“We support extending the right to vote to all 16 and 17 year olds for all elections, not just the ones that the SNP choose. That’s why we think it’s important that we work in Westminster to extend the franchise and I would hope Alex Salmond and ourselves can find common course on that issue. But what we can’t do is just pick and choose which election you have and that’s why it’s not right to extend it just for this. You could have a situation where16 and 17 year olds taking part in the referendum of independence but only six months later in the UK general election they would not be allowed to vote. Now I don’t want to treat young people that way. I think we need to treat them with respect, extend the franchise across the board and do it properly.”

Best,
William

-------------------------

MICHAEL MCCANN
I don't agree with lowering the voting age.
Regards
Michael McCann MP

(I have emailed Michael to clarify if he has changed his stance or whether he was never in support of lowering and will update when I hear back)

Update.

Disagreeing has always been my stance.

Most importantly, Salmond’s desire to offer 16 and 17 year olds a vote is another attempt to rig the ballot because he thinks that demographic will vote for Independence.

If he really believed in it why didn’t he introduce votes for 16 and 17 year olds for the this year’s council elections?

He has a majority at Holyrood.

Regards

Michael McCann MP


-------------------------

BRIAN DONOHOE
Mr. Donohoe does believe that 16 year olds should have the right to vote, however he does not have a strong view on having the voting age reduced as there are few people between the age of 18-25 who actually do vote, as most young people do not appear to have an urge to vote.

Regards
Ruth Brown
Constituency Office Manager
Brian H. Donohoe MP

-------------------------

Dear Graeme,

Many thanks for your email.

I agree with what you say in your email. I think we should have the opportunity to have 16 and 17 year olds able to vote but the issue with the separation referendum is that you cannot change a franchise as a one off. This has to be done for every election.

It would be strange for 16 year olds to vote in an Independence referendum and then not be allowed to vote in the Scottish Parliamentary election 16 months later or, indeed, a Westminster election the following May in 2015.

The Scottish Government have chosen not to look at altering the franchises for all other elections. I think it undermines the entire issue for young people.

If you could send me your postal address I will send you some further information I have on hard copy.

I hope that helps.

Ian Murray

-------------------------

Dear Graeme

Thanks for your email. I do support lowering the voting age and my view is certainly consistent – it should be lowered for all elections, not a single one on its own (your information on the AV referendum debates is therefore not accurate). I’m delighted to hear that you are working hard to help empower young people in your area, and I always do the same here in East Dunbartonshire.

I hope you are already involved with the Votes at 16 coalition, if not then I’m sure they’d be happy to hear from you.

Best wishes
Jo

-------------------------

Dear Graeme

I write to thank you for your email sent on 26th January 2011 regarding the Scottish referendum and the voting age.

I understand you are from Irvine and that my office has forwarded you Brian Donohoe’s office contact details. My personal view is that the voting age should be lowered to 16 and that this should apply for all elections including referendums. Given the importance of the referendum on Scottish independence I believe it should be conducted in line with the views of the Scottish public and in accordance with the rules for other elections and referendum. There are two consultations currently taking place on this issue and I attach a link to both. I would recommend that you submit your views to these.

With Best Wishes,

Katy Clark

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2012/01/1006
http://www.scotlandoffice.gov.uk/scotlandoffice/16424.html

Complaint to director of BBC News Helen Boaden re Jeremy Paxman

I figured emailing the director of BBC News with my disgust at Paxman's interview of Alex Salmond was a more productive way of venting than shouting at the telly and slamming the TV remote about in a rage.

See below.



Good evening,

I wanted to express my disgust at tonight's episode (24/01/2012) of Newsnight, where Jeremy Paxman was seen to grill Alex Salmond in the most blatantly pro-union, anti-Scotland piece of coverage I have seen since the independence referendum debate started a week or so ago.

Any lucky soul who tuned in having never heard of Jeremy Paxman would have been forgiven for thinking they'd stumbled across some brilliant new Chris Morris satire, where instead of having Noel Edmonds bemoaning the dangers of "made-up drug" Cake (or as it's known on the street, 'Joss Ackland's spunky backpack'), Morris' genius new incaranation drew ludicrous comparisons between Scotland's First Minister Alex Salmond and Zimbabwe's Robert Mugabe.

Unfortunately, I'm well aware of Paxman and the fact that the slabbering, ranting moron was all too serious as he tried to rip Salmond to bits, comparing the SNP leader to the racist and homophobic leader Mugabe but stopping just short, as he foamed at the mouth, of leaping from his chair and simply raining down punches on Salmond's head, as was surely his want.

I understand that the BBC practically encourage this sort of boorish, stupid behaviour from Paxman, but surely any interviewer's job is to delicately straddle the line between both sides of the debate - to give Salmond a platform on which to air his beliefs, while tackling him and taking the SNP leader to task in the holes on his referendum proposal - rather than to be so blatantly esconced in one camp? He would have been as well conducting the interview in nothing but Union Jack -patterned pants and a souvenier t-shirt from last year's royal wedding.

I would trust the BBC could handle their presenter a little better, balancing the viewing figures that his controversial style brings with the quality and fairness of broadcasting that should be expected of Britain's public service broadcaster, but that may be a bit much to ask from the channel who commissioned My Family, So You Think You Can Dance, Don't Scare The Hare, That's Britain, Doctors, The One Show, Film with Claudia Winkleman, Two Pints of Lager and a Packet of Crisps, Tittybangbang, Danny Dyer: I Believe In UFOs, Coming of Age, Britain's Most Embarrassing Pets, Help Me Anthea I'm Infested, Britain's Worst Teeth and My Life As An Animal.

As Paxman continued on his wild-eyed rampage against all things Scotland, shouting Salmond down before he could even answer his questions (really, what was the point of even asking them, rather than simply ranting in Eck's face?) - you really couldn't help but be reminded of Morris and his classic news satire The Day Today. One of the best sketches involved grilling a woman who had organised a Jam Festival where he shouts the immortal line, "You could make more money sitting outside a tube station with your hat on the ground, even if you were twice as ugly as you are which is very ugly indeed!" Would Newsnight viewers really have found it out of keeping with the tone of the rest of the interview if Paxman had shouted this at Salmond as he quizzed him on the finances of an independent Scotland? I doubt it.

Anyway, as I said, I wanted to express my disgust at the episode, but then I thought about how angry it had made me and doubtless many other Scots who had tuned in. Some viewers north of the border who unlike myself, may not yet be so firmly in the 'Yes' camp, but who could be convinced if the BBC continue to waste our TV licence on condescending, borderline racist clowns like Paxman - "certainly the picture of the patronising Englishman" as Mark Hennessy of the Irish Times described his pathetic performance - whilst pitting them against intelligent and reassuringly positive figures from the Scottish nationalist camp. It can do the cause no harm.

So really I just wanted to thank you for what has to be one of the most ludicrous, biased segments of political broadcasting I have ever witnessed from the British Broadcasting Corporation. Programmes like tonight's will help deliver independence faster than any balanced, adult discussion of the issues at hand ever will.

Regards,
Graeme J




I await a response.