I still want to be in UK, says Alex Salmond
Alex Salmond on the Andrew Marr Show yesterday. Picture: BBC
ALEX Salmond has said Scotland would still be part of the United Kingdom even after independence, in an effort to allay mounting criticism of his proposed question for the independence referendum.
Critics accused the First Minister of attempting to “muddy and confuse” the referendum debate in a “desperate” move to reassure voters that little would change after breaking away from the rest of the United Kingdom.
Mr Salmond’s comments came as Civic Scotland chiefs prepared to launch a campaign today urging politicians to end the “political boxing match” over the referendum and start discussing issues that matter to ordinary Scots.
The First Minister yesterday defended the question the SNP plans to ask Scots in 2014 after critics argued the wording – “Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?” – is skewed in favour of securing a positive response.
Mr Salmond insisted a different wording that asked voters if they want to leave the UK would “confuse the issue” because the country would retain the Queen as head of state after breaking the political union.
He said: “It is SNP policy to have the Queen as our head of state.
“That union, that United Kingdom if you like, would be maintained after Scottish political independence.
“I think that’s a real stumbling block about putting forward a question of the United Kingdom.”
Asked whether that meant Scotland could still be regarded as being in the UK after independence, Mr Salmond said: “I don’t think it’s a very good idea to confuse the issue by talking about united kingdoms when what we’re talking about is political independence.”
The Scottish and English crowns were united in 1603 by James VI of Scotland. Political union followed in 1707.
Labour’s Anas Sarwar said yesterday: “It is utterly ridiculous to suggest that Scotland would remain part of the United Kingdom if Scotland was to vote for separation.
“The Queen is head of state in countries around the world, but that doesn’t make them part of the United Kingdom. It would be like the Bahamas, Barbados or Belize suddenly waking tomorrow and claiming to be part of the United Kingdom.
“It is just daft.
“Alex Salmond seems determined to muddy and confuse what separation actually means, in a desperate attempt to kid people that nothing would change, but I am confident Scots will see through his fanciful claims.”
Mr Salmond unveiled his proposed question at the launch of the Scottish Government consultation on the referendum last Wednesday.
A spokesman for Mr Salmond issued a statement after his comments yesterday insisting Scotland and England would have a “relationship of equals” after independence.
“People understand that we are putting forward a proposition where we will continue to share a currency and a head of state, but with Scotland as an independent country, standing on our own two feet and making our own way in the world,” he said.
“In other words, a continuation of the social union.”
As well as setting a straight Yes-No question on independence, the door has been left open to another option for maximum devolved powers within the Union.
The “devo-max” option is to be considered as part of a wider look at the constitution in an independent campaign being launched by civic bodies today.
Martin Sime of the Scottish Council of Voluntary Organisations (SCVO) said the coalition would be trying to “open out” the debate.
“We’ve found widespread support from amongst non-government organisations of all kinds, including business leaders and faith groups and student organisations,” Mr Sime said yesterday.
“We’re quite resolute that the debate needs opened up, rather than closed down, so we’re opposed to the proposition that there should be a decision to simply go forward with a Yes/No question.
“It seems incredible to me that we might spend the next two-and-a-half years taking about independence, but not talking about devolution. That just doesn’t seem to make sense.”
Mr Sime said the debate about the future of Scotland should be about the “challenges and aspirations that people have in their own lives – rather than just being a political boxing match”.
And Mr Salmond insisted the door remains open to a second referendum question for Holyrood – despite this being ruled out by sources close to Prime Minister David Cameron over the weekend.
He said: “What I would advise the Prime Minister to do is this: it’s to do what I’m going to do. Listen to the voices of civic Scotland that come forward to see if there’s a real demand for having a question on fiscal autonomy, on financial powers, on the ballot paper. If that demand is there I think it would only be inclusive and democratic to allow that voice to be heard.”
Mr Salmond said any vote on maximum financial powers would not need the endorsement of English voters.
But Labour again stepped up calls for the Electoral Commission to oversee the wording of the question.
Mr Sarwar said: “Every day brings another expert warning that the wording is flawed, and yet the SNP seems unwilling to listen.”
Scottish Liberal Democrat leader Willie Rennie said Mr Salmond is trying to offer “false hope” to those who want greater powers within the Union.
Mr Rennie again warned that a multi-option referendum might become mired in confusion if a slim majority backed independence but a huge majority backed more devolution. The SNP administration has said any majority for independence would take precedence.
Mr Rennie added: “This is not fair, it is not democratic and it is an insult to the majority of Scots who favour more powers.”
Meanwhile, Deputy First Minister Nicola Sturgeon yesterday rejected claims that SNP plans to keep the pound after independence meant Scotland would not have fiscal independence.
She said: “What Scotland lacks just now is the fiscal independence that we need, for example to lower corporation tax, to get our economy growing.
“With independence we get those levers of control and they are really important.
“We’re talking about this from a Scottish perspective, but there are real advantages for the rest of the UK in us remaining within a currency union.
“If you take our oil and gas revenues, for example. The revenues would go to an independent Scottish Government, but about £30 billion of export value would support sterling in terms of the balance of payments.”
Email to a friend
Print this page
Looking for...
Featured advertisers
Jobs
Search for a job
Motors
Search for a car
Property
Search for a house
Weather for Edinburgh
Monday 28 May 2012
Today
Sunny
Temperature: 9 C to 21 C
Wind Speed: 15 mph
Wind direction: North east
Tomorrow
Cloudy
Temperature: 10 C to 16 C
Wind Speed: 12 mph
Wind direction: North east
Comments
There are 678 comments to this article
Page 1 of 46
richardm
Sunday, February 5, 2012 at 12:08 PM677 Cruixer# No it wouldn't, the United Kingdom wouldn't exist in its current legal form. There would be two states holding a common head of state.
Cruixer
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 05:49 PM#676, England would not be part of the 'state' called the United Kingdom either, but both countries would still be part of the monarchic United Kingdom. Nothing I have said is incorrect, I wouldnt have used Salmonds words either though and personally I would be more than happy to be shot of the queen and all that entails, but as the Queen would still be Queen of both it would still be a United Kingdom with two seperate parliments - as it was pre 1707
richardm
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 05:37 PM675 Cruixer# You are wrong. The United Kingdom is a state in legal terms not just a union of crowns. So although there might still be a 'united kingdom' in terms of the crowns, Scotland would not be part of the state called the United Kingdom any more. Arguably that state would no longer exist. Salmond is being disingenuous.
Cruixer
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 05:21 PMAnas Sarwar is clearly more stupid than I thought he was, Belize was never part of the United Kingdom so its really a stupid comparison. Sad that an elected MP doesnt understand the difference between the Union of the Crowns and the Union of the Parliments.
mallus12
Saturday, February 4, 2012 at 03:14 PMI have posted on the Daily record website my intention to take a short break-to replenish ammo,check facts etc. When I return to the fray I shall desist in calling people Tammies and adopt the terms Nat(without the g in front) and NOVO-NAT. NAT for that inner core of the SNP who desire an independent Scotland for it's own sake (richer or poorer is not a concern) and NOVO-NAT for that huge majority whose allegience to the SNP's aims is very recent.(covered by striking a shrill and intolerant attitude). So,adherents of both types do not relax too much-I"ll be back. A final thought to ponder in this interlude-It is for the Nats of both types to win -it is also for the Nats to lose -witness the growing number of comments expressing disquiet at the sheer nastiness NATS aim at any who disagree.
sprog
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 11:54 PMRennie, Democracy, if anything, is about governing through consensus. **A multi-option referendum will tell us scots where that consensus lies. We can then coalesce around the preferred option.*** All out independence may , for some, be a step to far. ***On the other hand anything less than Full Fiscal Autonomy, ( Devo-max by another name) would not be far enough.
sprog
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 10:31 PMSorry Alex, I prefer to be a citizen of an independent Scotland rather than a subject of Queen Elizabeth 2nd of England.
cest moi ici
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 01:23 PMSo the referendum is to be held on the 700th anniversary of the battle of bannockburn? Just ponder, for a moment, the list of nationalities whose armed forces have fired in hostility on Scots since the most recent English shot was fired in anger (sometime in the 18th century I believe). They include: Iraqi (Gulf war), Serbian (air war to defend Kosovo in 1999), Argentine (Falklands), North Korean & Chinese (Korean War), Italian, German, Japanese et al (WWsI&II), Russian (Crimean war), French (Napoleonic wars) and the list could go on and on... If only "anachronistic holding of a grudge" were an international sport - Scotland would be ranked #1 year after year after year...
cest moi ici
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 01:05 PMAs a citizen of a commonwealth country that also retains the Queen as head of state I find Alex Salmond's comments offensive in that he seems to suggest that my country is - by his definition - also part of the UK. Salmond appears to have "lost the constitutional plot" - perhaps his "marbles" too?
mallus12
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 10:11 AMAlex Salmond is showing increasing signs that he is determined to snatch defeat from the jaws of Victory. After years of cheap victories against very mediocre opposition he is getting more and more careless! His banal remark that the Union was quote-an aberation -thereby grossly insulting millions of Scots who proudly yes proudly served the Union is just the latest slip-up. The very fact he hasn't been savaged for this is a reflection on just how poor his political oppornates have been.
mallus12
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:59 AMFace15(659) -40 years you say-that's even before the oil started coming ashore! Now that devotion to a cause I can and do respect so unlike the schreeching of the johnnie-come- lately brigade! I assume you and your like,the old guard,have and want Independence for it's own sake-richer or poorer-is not the point. .As you read through the postings of the SNP's VERY new converts -you know those same peple,a few years ago, who jeered people like you and the SNP as eccentric,political cranks? I am English and therefore totally impervious to insults from Scots but may I ask you,as you view their comments,have you no concern how they berate their fellow Scots who happen to disagree. They seem totally unaware that their constant,ill mannered rantings about the Union are in fact a mighty insult to the generations who willingly,and yes with Pride served that greater entity called the UK. Those generations Famous 15 were giants in achievement and spirit-they have been replaced by a mean-spirited generation who almost without exception think it's all going to be GAIN GAIN and no PAIN !.
knapper
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:36 AMIf the Scottish people end up with independence, they only have them selves to blame.
knapper
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:31 AMCorrection.. He has Britain by the knicky knacky knoos.
knapper
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:29 AM#653 Yes I'm English and we are fed up with it. SNP think they run the country,oh sorry, they do. They won the election. Salmond appears to have Scotland by the knicky knacky knoos.
rider000
Friday, February 3, 2012 at 09:01 AM662 Englishman..Who would have believed a few years ago that Salmond would get this far, buut somehow he has - and now he is not far from achieving his great ambition unless you stop him........... Adolf went from prisoner to chancellor in 7 years so it can be achieved by whipping the populous into a frenzy. It's usually the aftermath that get a bit messy.
Page 1 of 46
Your view
Please sign in to be able to comment on this story.