caltonjock

Real Dangers For The NHS In The Trans-Atlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP)

The TTIP agreement will be signed off this year. It will be an all encompassing agreement without exemptions except where opt-outs are in place at the time of signing. Mr Cameron and the Westminster government will represent the UK (including Scotland) and as such any commitment by Westminster will be binding upon Scotland, including areas presently devolved to Scotland. The NHS in Scotland will be up for grabs by private healthcare except that it is made clear the TTIP does not apply to areas proscribed by the Scottish parliament and this is not clear at the time of writing. Time is not on Scotlands side.

September 25 2006; Stolen Bones from dead US bodies parts used in NHS operations

Health watchdogs have named 25 UK hospitals which have bought potentially contaminated body parts allegedly stolen in the US. In one case a bone from New York was used in a hip replacement operation at the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital, in Stanmore, Middlesex. It has also emerged that some patients have not been told about concerns surrounding implanted bones. In total 82 bone parts were used in so called allograft operations involving potentially dozens of UK patients. The source of these bones are dead bodies in the US. There are concerns that some of them may have been stolen.

Police in New York are investigating claims that the managers of a company called Biomedical Tissue Services took body parts without the consent of next of kin. They have also been accused of falsifying safety records which might otherwise have shown if the tissue or bone was infected with diseases such as HIV or hepatitis. The bones were eventually bought by a Swindon-based company which sold them on to hospitals in the UK. Following the US investigation the company recalled all the unused bones in October 2005.

In the US the regulatory authority the FDA has advised doctors to offer patients testing to check if they have contracted any diseases from possibly infected bones and tissue. In the UK the Medicines and Healthcare Regulatory Authority has concluded that the possibility of infection is low and has left it up to individual hospitals to decide whether to tell patients what has happened.

The BBC has learnt that patients treated at the Royal London Hospital, Guys Hospital, and the Royal National Orthopaedic Hospital have not been told about the recall of bones or offered follow up tests. Other hospitals such as Mayday University Hospital in South London and Airedale General Hospital in Keighley have been told about concerns surrounding the source of their bone implants.

Other hospitals returned bones they had bought before they were implanted. The Northern General Hospital in Sheffield says it returned a whole arm bone costing over £700. The MHRA has sent out a letter to the NHS Trusts affected by the recall advising that follow up tests are unnecessary. A spokesman said it was up to doctors to decide whether to tell their patients about the bone recall. The full list of hospitals, uncovered by the BBC, is:

Airedale General Hospital, KeighleyBUPA Hartswood Hospital, BrentwoodBUPA Hospital, CardiffDerriford Hospital, PlymouthDoncaster Royal Infirmary, DoncasterGuy’s Hospital, LondonLlandough Hospital, LlandoughMayday University Hospital, CroydonNorth London Nuffield Hospital, EnfieldNorth Staffordshire Royal Infirmary, Stoke-on-TrentNorthern General Hospital, SheffieldNorthwick Park and St Marks Hospital, HarrowParkside Hospital, WimbledonRoyal London HospitalRoyal National Orthopaedic Hospital, StanmoreScunthorpe General HospitalSomerset Nuffield Hospital, TauntonSouthend HospitalSt George’s Hospital, LondonTaunton & Somerset Hospital, TauntonTorbay HospitalUniversity Hospital of Wales, CardiffWarrington Hospital Wellington Hospital, LondonWessex Nuffield Hospital, Eastleigh http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/5364242.stm

NHS privatisation/TTIP covered in 4 minutes

this is one area of competition we can do without. Health care is too important to give it away to the private money making sector. Regulations like this are allowing corporations to sue governments for not allowing them to exploit their resources! This is shockingly evil! this must be stopped immediately! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E2AMNmigWzQ&feature=youtu.be

War on Want comments

War on Want Executive Director, John Hilary, said: “The European Commission can no longer be in any doubt as to the strength of public feeling against this transfer of power to big business. Record numbers have said no to the prospect of corporate courts in Europe, yet the EU is still pressing ahead regardless. The TTIP negotiations should be abandoned rather than risk an end to our national democracy.”

Hilary continued: “The UK government has a particular case to answer, in that it has led the group of 14 EU governments demanding to keep these new anti-democratic powers in TTIP. David Cameron and Vince Cable are selling us down the river, and they should be held to account.”http://www.waronwant.org/news/press-releases/18263-eu-condemned-for-supporting-corporate-courts-

More Consultation

The vast majority of these agreements do not include the kind of guarantees that the EU would like to see. This will also have to be an important element of our reflection when considering how to best deal with the question of investment protection in EU agreements, as failure to replace them by more advanced provisions will mean they remain in force – with all the legitimate concerns they have been raising over the last months”, the Commissioner highlighted.
http://trade.ec.europa.eu/doclib/press/index.cfm?id=1234

Europe Releases its TTIP Proposals on Intellectual Property

Secrecy is trade negotiators’ stock-in-trade, and it has allowed them to sneak through rules on topics such as copyright and patents that would never pass muster under public scrutiny. EFF has not hesitated to call them out over this, whether the trade agreement in question is the Trans-Pacific Partnership, the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) between Europe and the United States, or the Trade in Services Agreement (TISA).

But we also gave credit last year to Europe for committing to make some incremental changes to improve the transparency of the TTIP neogtiations, by releasing its negotiating texts and giving access to all TTIP texts to members of the European Parliament. We weren’t alone, being joined by 47 other civil society groups and experts from around the world in calling on the TPP negotiators to follow Europe’s lead on transparency. https://www.eff.org/deeplinks/2015/01/europe-releases-its-ttip-proposals-intellectual-property

There Is an Urgent Need To Introduce an Independent BBC Authority To Investigate & Decide The Outcome Of Level 2 Complaints The BBC Should Not Be Investigating Themselves

1. April 16 2012; BBC presentations lead news website to question impartiality of BBC presenters around Scottish Independence

a. A Scottish news website is carrying videos that have been released on YouTube which it claims …“have appeared to cast significant doubt on the willingness and ability of the BBC to cover the [Scottish] independence referendum in an impartial manner”.

b. The leaked videos feature in-house presentations by four senior BBC presenters giving explanatory background briefings on the referendum question.

c. Newsnet Scotland says the target of the videos … “is believed to be an audience of junior BBC staff.”

d. Newsnet Scotland, which admits strong nationalist leanings is part of its editorial policy and seeks full fiscal autonomy or independence, alleges: “The presenters, including BBC Scotland’s political editor Brian Taylor, are shown attacking the fairness of the SNP’s proposed referendum question and claiming that Alex Salmond is ‘not impregnable’.

e. “The First Minister is also accused of wanting a devo-max option on the ballot paper in order to give him a ‘parachute’ should Scots fail to back independence.

f. “In the presentations, Scotland is described as being in financial deficit and requiring subsidy. Claims are also made that the SNP are ‘changing policy in order not to frighten the horses’.

g. “Brian Taylor is shown claiming that Alex Salmond wants to delay the referendum in order to ‘sow dissent’ amongst Unionist parties, and says: ‘He [Salmond] wants a contest as close as possible to the next UK general election because he believes that by then his Unionist opponents will be fighting each other rather than fighting independence and Alex Salmond. He wants to sow dissent among them’.

h. “Mr Taylor also claimed that the Scottish government’s proposed referendum question was not straightforward and simple. The BBC Scotland man suggested it was designed to elicit a positive response.

i. “On the proposed question: ‘Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?’ Mr Taylor says: ‘Straightforward, simple – except it’s not.

j. “’The word ‘agree’ according to psephologists is a welcoming word, it draws people in. People like to agree, they don’t like to disagree so the word there is good.”

k. “Mr Taylor added: ‘Why does Alex Salmond favour a second question, devo max, and devo plus, why not just go for independence, which is the one he has the mandate for?

l. “’He wants a fall-back, he wants a parachute should independence fail to win’.”

m. Also featured on the videos is BBC TV political commentator, Andrew Neil, a former editor of The Scotsman and the Sunday Times, BBC TV’s UK political editor, Nick Robinson, and BBC TV’s economics editor, Stephanie Flande http://www.thedrum.com/news/2012/04/16/leaked-bbc-presetations-lead-news-website-question-impartiality-bbc-presenters

n. presentations from senior BBC presenters on the independence referendum debate. Some views expressed call into question the ability of the BBC to provide impartial coverage.

2. Comments:

a. Now we are in to 2014 if proof be needed, read Newsnet Scotland articles on BBC bias against Scottish Independence.

b. How can we find out who ordered this presentation to be made in the first place and were Taylor,Neil et al given direction on the content ? Furthermore, who was in the audience listening to this ‘propaganda’ and are they now responsible for the production, editing and presentation of programmes we are now watching ?

c. The BBC says they are even handed this proves otherwise.

d. I find this to be genuinely disturbing. If you have any doubt that the staff of the BBC are past-masters in deception and double-speak watch this video and learn! The sole message of the seminar, never openly expressed, is “Scottish nationalists are our enemies. This is how we will misrepresent them.”

e. I am delighted that this is being picked up by the wider media community, having found this and other material including the Andrew Neil briefing while searching for BBC footage on other issues, I was struck by the impression that this event was nothing short of a Ministry of Propaganda meeting to discuss the State TV strategy to be adopted in the run up to Scotland’s vote.

f. Brian Taylor isn’t anti-Scottish, he’s just really dependent on the union. Neil is an exiled Scot with little ties to Scotland. He supports the union so that he can keep pretending London is the same country as Scotland. The current settlement works for him and he wants to retain it for personal reasons. They’re not anti-Scottish, but they are selfish. They want to use their positions to push the vote in they’re favour and the problem is that they are part of the BBC and meant to be Un-biased.

g. the usual BBC propoganda and scots sellouts trying to save thiere High salary low effort jobs. when we win our freedom I hope the new Scottish Broadcasting Corp sacks every one These guys are really worried about their jobs aren’t they?

h. Interesting that most of the facts here a positive for an Independent Scotland, the econemy for example. Almost like ok guys how do we make all this stuff look bad. Also the UK can’t exist with the KINGDOM of Scotland. Wales and Ireland (Northern) didn’t join the UK they where already part of the Kingdom of England.

i. Where is the part where they tell the audience of journalists from the BBC how to be impartial when dealing with the facts? I must have missed that bit. He does get it spot on but totally wrong on other points, Can you imagine some of the other meetings which take place well behind closed doors.

j. The “How to Stop the Scots” seminar.

k. The BBC shows its true red white and blue colours and its inablity to provide the impartial reporting its own charter declares is its foundation principle. Basically when it comes to anything anti British establishment the BBC are full of shite.

l. At 30:00 a really key admission. For UK it’s a ‘deficit’ (which nearly all countries big and small are dealing with), however.. For Scotland it’s a ‘subsidy’ (which we generously recieve from London- even though the English are sick of paying it). Ladies and gentlemen of the BBC, there’s yer bias.

m. Nobody said: ‘ok guys how do we make all this stuff look bad’. But we all know that the questions posed will have to be answered. Or are pro-independence voters happy to ignore the unknowns? I think not.

n. What I want to know is, who attended this presentation? Are we now to assume that all BBC presenters, producers & editorial staff will follow the lead of Brian Taylor & Andrew Neil?

o. The BBC Trust have just censored Newsnight Scotland over their report on the Irish Minister’s views over EU membership after NS refused to investigate the issue of malpractise.

p. Has Newsnight Scotland received an apology from Ian Davidson after his totally unfounded claims when he accused them of bias live on air? This video clip is proof that Davidson was wrong in his accusations and until an apology is forthcoming he should be excluded from any further BBC programmes.

q. ‘Westminster is being nice to Scotland, but if we leave the Union, that’s when the gloves come off’ What is England going to do, invade us?

r. Andrew Neil has been Westminster based since the 80’s, he probably won’t even be eligible to vote ( assuming he doesn’t have a well used Scottish residence). Remember, we pay for this ex Rupert Murdoch mouthpiece and his oversized friend.

s.Hey if Scotland isn’t a successor state to the UK we don’t have to inherit their debt. Yay for us.

t. They close down comments perhaps to conceal the real tenor of public opinion. Perhaps the upcoming vote is going to be jiggered with fake votes. In Quebec in 1995, our unconstitutional and illegal referendum was NOT about “secession” or “independence” but was an attempt to blackmail Canadians into accepting the EU system for ALL of Canada, as the basis of North American Union. Some quarter million FAKE citizenship ID’s were created in the half-decade prior: 217,000+ people ALL now UNTRACEABLE.

u. “BBC Scotland has decided to correct the errors contained in an online article it published on Saturday,Fully two days after one of the most blatant pieces of politically motivated articles ever published by the state broadcaster appeared as the number one story in Scotland, the corporation quietly removed the offending fiction and replaced it with fact..” comment on how the BBC used headlines claiming the Deputy F.M made statements when she did not say anything that the headlines claimed

v. My response to this… I’m not paying your license tax for this pravda shite! Stick your BBC up your backside! As for Andrew Neil…

w. I’m not sure whether to like this, ’cause it shows how biased the BBC is, or dislike it, because of the content.

x. Brian Taylor gets paid too much by the BBC and he spends his wages on steaks and chips. What a waste of our TV license fee!

y. BBC Scotland’s online department are coming under increasing pressure to explain their decision to suspend comments from political blogs.Alone amongst BBC broadcast regions, the blogs of veteran editor Brian Taylor and Douglas Fraser have been closed down to comments from the general public for months, media watchdog programme ‘Newswatch’ highlighted the decision to remove the comment facility from the Scottish online blogs Youtube search “Newswatch exposes BBC Scotland censorship.avi ”

z. The Union of the UK is between two countries Scotland and England, Scotland leaving ends that UK and it creates two new states If Scotland has to E.U re-apply then so must England/rUK. Shengen and the Euro are not preconditions of membership E.U law states both are members now and will continue to be Neil lies on this and this video shows the BBC Bias not just as an institution but individual presenters and the reveal a group mindset that is almost overwhelmingly Unionist in its logic and conclusions.

3. June 14 2014; BBC Scotland facing questions for allowing pro-union Better Together group to use crew and film ad at Glasgow HQ

a. BBC Scotland is facing claims that it breached its editorial and commercial guidelines by allow pro-union campaign group Better Together to use the broadcaster’s Glasgow HQ and an in-house crew to film a cinema ad.

b. The BBC has denied there was any breach of its guidelines and said that political parties can use facilities on a commercial basis, but concerns have been raised by former BBC broadcaster Derek Batemen that the BBC is operating in a “grey zone”.

c. Better Together commissioned creative agency BD Network to make the ad, The Scotsman newspaper reported. The agency sub-contracted work to production firm Early, which the Scotsman reports was co-founded by former executive producer at BBC Entertainment Martyn Smith.

d. The advert was shown in cinemas last month, but cinema chains including Odeon, Cineworld and Vue later decided to ban all referendum advertising from outlets.

e. BBC guidelines state: “Any activity involving a third party that could potentially undermine the BBC’s editorial integrity must be referred, in advance to the editorial policy department. Examples of such organisations include: political parties, government departments and foreign government; lobbying organisations…”

f. Guidelines also state that the “value and reputation of the BBC brand may be damaged if any part of the BBC is seen to be associated with inappropriate third parties”.

g. The revelations will fuel speculation over the state broadcaster’s impartiality in Scotland ahead of the independence referendum. BBC Scotland was forced to defend its position earlier this year after a report from academic Professor John Robertson suggested that coverage had been damaging to the Yes campaign.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/06/14/bbc-scotland-facing-questions-allowing-pro-union-better-together-group-use-crew-and

4. June 29 2014; Over 2000 people attend a peaceful demonstration against BBC anti-independence bias.

a. Hundreds of people gathered outside BBC Scotland’s Pacific Quay headquarters in Glasgow at the weekend for a demonstration highlighting alleged ‘BBC bias’ in Scottish independence referendum coverage favouring the No campaign.

b. The protest shone a spotlight on claims of bias that have spiralled since the publication at the beginning of the year of research by University of the West of Scotland media politics professor John Robertson, which showed an apparent pro-No weight in broadcast coverage in Scotland ahead of the referendum.

c. According to Professor Robertson’s research, between September 2012 and September 2013, BBC Scotland broadcast 272 news items considered favourable for the No campaign against 171 favourable to Yes. The study also found that statements which made use of academic, scientific or independent evidence favoured the No campaign on 22 occasions compared to four for the Yes side.

d. Furthermore, the research claimed BBC Scotland had finished broadcasts with unchallenged anti-independence claims 28 times, while unchallenged pro-Yes statements came at the end of a broadcast only eight times.

e. The research showed a similar alleged bias in broadcast reports from STV, although critics’ anger has been directed largely towards the taxpayer funded BBC.

f. According to Scottish politics website Newsnet Scotland, people travelled from as far afield as Shetland to attend the protest. The BBC cited Police Scotland as saying there was a “maximum of 350 protesters” at the event, although video footage and images appear to show a larger crowd. Organisers quoted a figure closer to 2,000.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/06/30/hundreds-protesters-gather-over-ongoing-bbc-bias-row-scottish-independence https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AGlRL0A8tAU

5. June 30 2014; I was bullied by BBC over academic report on indyref bias – the Scottish media blackout must end

a. Professor John Robertson, media politics professor at the University of the West of Scotland and author of an academic study that claimed Scottish news broadcasts leaned more favourably towards the No campaign on Scottish independence, recounts the aftermath of his report and the implications for Scottish democracy.

b. When I published academic research at the beginning of the year examining the impartiality of broadcast news reporting ahead of the Scottish independence referendum, I didn’t expect one of the subjects of my report – BBC Scotland, no less – to take such a strong reaction to the findings..

c. Senior BBC figures reported me to senior staff at my university and colleagues of mine were even warned to ‘stay away’ from me. I see this as a clear form of bullying by a powerful corporation. The great crime I’d committed was in publishing the results of a study which indicated that BBC Scotland’s coverage of the Scottish independence referendum between September 2012 and September 2013 noticeably favoured the No campaign.

d. The Fairness in the First Year? Study was a year-long content analysis using fairly objective measures of fairness and balance to assess mainstream TV coverage of the Scottish independence referendum. The imbalance the research identified was more marked in the BBC/Reporting Scotland coverage than in the ITV/STV coverage, although both broadcasters fell significantly more towards favourable coverage for No than Yes statements.

e. The study found that, overall, there was a greater total number of ‘No statements’ compared to Yes; a tendency for expert advice against independence to be more common; a tendency for reports to begin and end with statements favouring the No campaign; and a very strong pattern of associating the Yes campaign arguments and evidence with the personal wishes of Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond. Taken together, the coverage was considered to be more favourable for the No campaign.

f. Though absent in mainstream media reporting, the research received massive interest online, especially – and somewhat predictably – in Yes campaign blogs. Newsnet Scotland reported 10,000 hits on the day it reported the findings, and I received more than 100 personal emails of support.

g. One email I hadn’t been expecting came directly from BBC Scotland’s head of policy and corporate affairs on 21 January 2014. He expressed serious concerns about the methodology, accuracy and language used in the report, and felt so strongly that he by-passed my head of school and dean of faculty and went straight to the university principal.

h. What triggered the head of policy and corporate affairs to write in such aggressive terms and to report me to my own employer over an academic study has never been explained to me, but needless to say I have received full support at all levels on my academic right to ask questions of power.

i. The first study prompted the commissioning of a second. Pro-independence website Newsnet Scotland crowdsourced enough funds to sponsor a study into the impartiality of BBC Radio Scotland’s flagship politics show, Good Morning Scotland. The research was carried out by staff in the Creative Futures Research Institute at the University of the West of Scotland in Ayr, and it again indicated a problem in the balance of news reporting.

j. The broadcasts were balanced in crude, numerical terms, but in every other aspect were unfair to the Yes campaign and sat more favourably towards Better Together. Broadcasts began too often with bad news for Yes and featured heavy repetition of such messages over several hours in a manner conducive to unconscious absorption of warnings.

k. Statements from the Yes perspective were often reactive while those favouring Better Together were commonly initiating. Interviewers tended, too often, to adopt aggressive techniques with Yes supporters while only doing so on two recorded occasions with Better Together supporters.

l. Finally, in the selection and use of expert witness of dubious credibility and of evidence from partisan sources, the broadcasts were clearly unfair to the Yes campaign.

m. With only months to go until the independence referendum, the BBC clearly needs a system of monitoring and balancing its content to limit the admittedly unavoidable intrusion of bias to a minimum. It is worrying that research of this kind is required in a democracy, and it is similarly worrying that this report has been largely ignored by the BBC and mainstream media.

n. I fear we have witnessed the collusion of broadsheet, radio and TV journalists in their refusal to criticise each other’s ethical behaviour. Until this point, I naively though Scotland was rather more equipped to expose elite collusions.

o. As for the BBC, the private attempts to quieten this research and their public policy of ignoring it are at odds. Indeed, when I was summoned in March to give evidence to the Scottish parliament’s education and culture committee on broadcasting, the BBC remained silent despite being present at the committee and attempts by callers and audience members to raise ‘the UWS study’.

p. The BBC’s contradictory behaviour has helped fuel the eruption of protests outside BBC Scotland’s Glasgow headquarters, but whether public distrust is enough to force the introduction of balance checks in time for the independence referendum remains to be seen.

q. Professor John Robertson has taught and researched in higher education for 30 years. He is especially interested in the relationship between media and other elites and in Western coverage of conflict in the Middle East and Central Asia. His interest in mainstream media coverage of the Scottish independence referendum began in 2012.
http://www.thedrum.com/opinion/2014/06/30/i-was-bullied-bbc-over-academic-report-indyref-bias-scottish-media-blackout-must

6. September 11 2014; Conference attended primarily by foreign journalists hijacked by Nick Robinson

a. Nick Robinson BBC reporter was provided with fully comprehensive answers to a number of rambling questions by an always patient Alex Salmond. Robinson acknowledges answers by nodding his head in agreement at the end. Video length 6 mins 52 seconds. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jp8gYWUnKCc

7. September 11 2014; Same conference different approach by “Better Together supporting media” – Alex Salmond goes to war with BBC over RBS ‘leak’

a. Daily Telegraph article accompanied by a heavily edited video, (2 min 02 secs). An irate Alex Salmond today declared war on the BBC after the Corporation disclosed Royal Bank of Scotland’s decision to move its headquarters to England if there is a Yes vote. The First Minster accuses Nick Robinson of heckling him and demands the Corporation cooperate with a leaks inquiry over RBS’s announcement. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11089702/Alex-Salmond-goes-to-war-with-BBC-over-RBS-leak.html

8. September 11 2014; Same conference Robinson’s take on events – BBC bias and propaganda at it’s finest

a. Nick Robinson caught Lying about Alex Salmond not answering a question https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K_XhTALHQzI

9. Comments:

a. You made a bit of a boob by editing out Alex Salmond inviting Nick to ask a question in the first place, then going on to fully answer his question. You just gave idiots the opportunity to say “he didn’t answer his question”. No matter, people can see in other videos that he answered it, and answered it very comprehensively. Nick is just another Government lickspittle, the people of Scotland however, have an uncanny ability to see through people like that.

b. I am absolutely disgusted. Disgusted by the actions of not only the bbc journalists but of the obvious bbc editorial line that has, for 2 years plus, stymied and belittled a democratically elected campaign that looks only for the chance to be given a level forum and an equal oportunity to put across its case for the independence debate. To do that, it is the right of the people of scotland to be given an honest & unbiased, unedited and wholly accurate version of events for them to be able to use that information and their own free will to decide their opinion. The question of self determination for every man woman and child on this earth is of the utmost importance and is not to be taken lightly, which is why I think that only a transparent and open conversation with no bias or self imposed connotations whatsoever by either side is the only way that a fair and just conclusion can be reached. Emancipation through education. This is clearly not happening and something must be done!!

c. The vote was fixed by the paedophiles in westminister, the British Bias Corporation are a disgrace and everybody should stop paying their licence fee as I have done and refuse to listen to their news which has been put together by the english scum, look at the way they portray old cow liz and the rest of the dole scroungers in its family, that shows the level of bias they truly have.

d. ‘Paxman for example always says “You’ve not answered the question”‘ – but viewers can decide for themselves if they agree with Paxman or not, as they are allowed to witness the reply. In this instance Nick Robinson took it upon himself to make the decision for us.

e. I thought Nick Robinson was a good honest reporter now I know he must have worked for a newspaper like the News of the World perhaps he should seek a similar post based on the accuracy of his comments. Perhaps reporters for the BBC have their own agenda, ie London is always right and is in fact the centre of the universe

f. Well done Alex you ripped him a new one, Nick is a Tory supporter.

g. As an American, I look forward to welcoming Scotland to the club of ”formerly ruled by Westminster” and will make a special trip to Scotland for a job well done. Britain was a fine idea, but it is time to move on.

h. Ever tried the BBC complaints procedure its designed to put you off anyway done it and called robinson and the BBC liars waiting on a answer i won’t hold my breath

i. I am sure this has already been posted, but just in case you missed it. The blatant laying of BBC’s Nick Robinson that Alex Salmond refused to answer a question, when in fact, he did answer the question…twice. SHAME ON THE BBC.

10. September 12 2014; Balance failure in BBC Scottish independence referendum coverage ‘wrong and not acceptable’ says Channel 4’s Stuart Cosgrove

a. Channel 4’s director of creative diversity, Stuart Cosgrove, has slammed the lack of journalistic scrutiny of Scottish independence referendum ‘scare headlines’ and called for a re-think at the BBC on the nature of balance and due impartiality.

b. Speaking on BBC Radio Scotland, Cosgrove said misreporting over claims the Royal Bank of Scotland would move jobs to England in the event of a Yes vote had been shown to be lacking substance and scrutiny after RBS issued a clarification to the media confirming any move would be relevant to “operations, not people”.

c. He told BBC presenter John Beattie: “I think elsewhere in the media and elsewhere within this organisation, the last 24 hours have allowed people to assume that this is about job losses in Scotland and the loss of great, significant investment.

d. “It’s clearly now is not, and yet another story when investigated the day after is proved to not have anything like the substance [it seemed].”

e. “The lack of scrutiny of this and the idea that people just wanted scare headlines I think is an outrage, particularly at this stage in the referendum when there’s so much to talk about and where journalism should be coming alive.

f. “Let’s just take the BP example; we are being told that BP are moving to London. Really? What exactly are they going to do given the £200m they’ve recently invested in offshore drilling technology – where are they going to be drilling? Hemel Hempstead? Of course they’re not.”

g. The comments came amid a media storm when Scotland’s First Minister Alex Salmond challenged the BBC’s Nick Robinson in a heated press conference exchange, and accused the Treasury of leaking sensitive financial information regarding RBS to the BBC.

h. Cosgrove added that following the referendum there should be an examination of how the BBC measured balance and impartiality in its coverage, saying that applying election coverage models to the referendum when the main parties are unionist could limit time given to voices from the Yes side.

i. “One of the things I’d like to challenge, and I think it’s something we’ll need to talk about once the referendum’s over – and I think it has a significant impact on this institution, the BBC – is the nature of balance and due impartiality,” he said.

j. “Yesterday, I was watching the rolling BBC News very closely and it was clear that notions of balance were being predicated on a party political basis. It would go from Cameron to Miliband to Clegg and back.

k. “If you look at it as a different premise – it’s a yes/no question – then Patrick Harvie of the Greens, who is not the leader but is a significant political person within the Yes campaign, should have had exactly the same coverage as Ed Miliband.

l. “Do you think for a second he got that? Of course he didn’t. I think there’s been a failure of the understanding of the nature of balance and due impartiality. It’s simply wrong and not acceptable.” http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/12/balance-failure-bbc-scottish-independence-referendum-coverage-wrong-and-not

11. September 14 2014; “The Drum”, picks up the story – BBC claims Scottish independence campaign coverage ‘rigorously impartial’ as campaigners protest outside Pacific Quay offices

a. As a crowd of Yes campaigners demonstrated outside of the headquarters of BBC Scotland on the afternoon of Sunday 13 September, with a banner being used to call for the sacking of the corporation’s political editor, Nick Robinson, the BBC released a statement to deny the accusations that its coverage was biased.

b. A BBC spokesperson told The Drum: “We believe our coverage of the referendum has been rigorously impartial and in line with our guidelines on fairness and impartiality.”

c. The Yes campaign has reacted following a clash between Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond and Robinson earlier in the week during a press conference where Salmond demanded an inquiry into who leaked the decision by the Royal Bank of Scotland to relocate its headquarters to England in the event of Scottish independence.

d. Robinson had attempted to push Salmond for a response on the economic significance of such a decision by the bank, which led to Salmond accusing him of ‘heckling’. Speaking afterwards to BBC Radio Scotland, Salmond said of the leak: “What concerned me is not the impact on jobs because there will be none…what really concerns me is how this

information was released to the BBC.” Meanwhile, BBC reporters have faced further accusations of bias in their reporting directly through social media. http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/14/bbc-claims-scottish-independence-campaign-coverage-rigorously-impartial-campaigners

12. Comment:

a. My understanding is that Nick Robinson, was not singled out by protestors because he asked difficult questions but because the he is responsible for the BBC One news’ brutal edit of Salmond’s response at the press conference on Thursday. The two questions and answers can be viewed online and was broadcast live on BBC News channel. The BBC Political Editor SHOULD be asking politicians questions that affect us. Nick Robinson’s report, however, stated that Scotland’s First minister “did not answer”.

b. Robinson does not work for Fox News yet, he is paid by our BBC. Because of broadcasters like him and recent cover ups, the BBC is now seen as a self-serving state-funded agenda network. He is helping to destroy the corporation.

13. September 26 2014; Scottish news website Bella Caledonia launches ‘buycott’ plan to redirect BBC licence fee funds amid bias row

a. Scottish politics site Bella Caledonia has announced plans to launch a ‘buycott’ – a request for readers in Scotland disillusioned with the Scottish mainstream media to redirect licence fee or newspaper subscription payments into funding Scotland’s alternative media scene.

b. Mike Small, editor and founder of the website – which launched in 2007 and has already raised six-figure sums from public donations to fund content – announced the plans on the BBC’s Scotland 2014 programme during a debate about alleged pro-union bias of the mainstream media during the referendum campaign.

c. He told the programme: “Tomorrow we’ll be launching a buycott to re-channel energy for people who want to give up their licence fee to the BBC or their commitment to newspapers and pay instead to online services, and that’s going to happen in a huge way.”

d. During the studio debate with BBC editorial policies chief adviser Rick Bailey and John McLellan of the Scottish Newspaper Society, Small warned that “complacency” from the BBC in their response to accusations of bias would drive people further towards alternative online media services, and said the website’s coming plans would “completely transform” Scotland’s media.

e. “Some people call it the fifth estate, where people are enabled citizens who are empowered to know how to translate media and create content, and that’s what we’re doing,” he said. “There’ll be podcasts, video, blogs, all sorts of content that will completely transform the media landscape in Scotland, and that’s about to happen.”

f. At its best, Bella Caledonia attracted more than 500,000 unique users a month in the run up to Scottish independence referendum, peaking at one million in August, and it has branched its investment out into creating a print product, ‘Closer’, in a bid to reach readers who are not online.

g. A more comprehensive outline of Bella Caledonia’s plans will be published later today on its website.

h. Before the referendum, The Drum spoke to Mike Small of Bella Caledonia and the editors of similar alternative sites Wings Over Scotland and Newsnet Scotland to find out more about the rise of Scotland’s new media http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/09/26/scottish-news-website-bella-caledonia-launches-buycott-plan-redirect-bbc-licence-fee

14. October 17 2014; Social media more influential information source than newspapers in Scottish independence referendum

a. Mainstream media coverage assisted only 28 per cent of voters in Scotland when making a decision on the issues they considered most important in the Scottish independence referendum last month, according to YouGov research commissioned by News UK.

b. The figures showed that despite 71 per cent of respondents saying they had gathered general information on referendum issues from TV and radio and 60 per cent from newspapers and their websites, more than two thirds (68 per cent) of voters said that mainstream media coverage of the issues concerning them most in the referendum debate had not helped them reach a decision.

c. More than half of respondents (54 per cent) said they got general information on social media and other websites, and 44 per cent said they took information directly from the Yes and No campaigns.

d. However, when asked about information that did influence decisions, more people said they’d used information from social media and other websites (39 per cent) than newspapers (34 per cent), although TV and radio was the strongest source (42 per cent), and nearly a third (30 per cent) said they used information from the Yes and No campaigns when deciding how to vote.

e. The figures were unveiled by News UK chief executive Mike Darcey at Press Gazette’s News On The Move event in London on Thursday. The poll had 1,268 respondents.

f. Darcey said the referendum campaign highlighted the role newspapers play in political polls.

g. “A great example of how newspapers can really foster a debate is the recent independence referendum in Scotland,” he said.

h. “It was the Sunday Times poll, for better or worse, showing the Yes camp ahead, that threw the No campaign into turmoil and sparked an entirely new debate about the sort of powers that would be devolved if Scotland voted to retain the union.”

i. The Scottish independence referendum debate sparked media controversy when protests erupted outside the BBC’s Scotland HQ in Glasgow amid accusations from voters that there was a pro-union bias in mainstream media coverage.

j. Of the mainstream newspapers, weekly title the Sunday Herald was the only publication to back Yes, while the Scotsman, Daily Record and Guardian and all the other dailies declared in favour of a No vote with the exeption of the Scottish Sun which did not take a stated position.

k. During the week of the referendum, The Drum investigated the rise of Scotland’s new media and spoke to the editors of alternative news websites Bella Caledonia, Newsnet Scotland and Wings Over Scotland, and gathered views from mainstream titles including the Sunday Herald, Scotsman and STV.
http://www.thedrum.com/news/2014/10/17/social-media-more-influential-information-source-newspapers-scottish-independence includes 16 min video

15. October 16 2014; Survey reveals voters turn to newspapers for information on Scottish Independence Newspapers central to healthy political debate News UK CEO tells Press Gazette conference

a. A new survey suggests that newspapers played a greater role in determining how people voted in the Scottish Independence referendum last month than either social media or the campaigns themselves. The research conducted by YouGov for News UK revealed that 60% of voters said they relied on newspapers (and their websites) for the majority of their information on the independence debate.

b. This compared to 54% who said they obtained their information from social media and 44% from the ‘Yes’ or ‘No’ camps directly.

c. The research results were unveiled by Mike Darcey, CEO of News UK, at Press Gazette’s third annual “News on the Move” conference today. In the wake of the research he said:

d. Just think about that for a minute. In the recent Scottish referendum, held at a time when the digital revolution was in full flow, newspapers played a more significant role than either social media or the political campaigns themselves. Newspapers remain central to healthy political debate and the Scottish referendum just proved it.

e. Mr Darcey highlighted the Sunday Times YouGov survey published on 7th September 2014 as a key moment in the debate. He said:

f. It was the Sunday Times poll, showing the ‘yes’ camp ahead, that threw the ‘no’ campaign into turmoil and sparked an entirely new debate about the sort of powers that would be devolved if Scotland voted to retain the Union.

g. The latest ABC figures show that people also turned strongly towards The Times, as the paper of record, for politics during the week of the vote. An extra 70,000 copies were sold across the UK including 10,000 extra copies of the Scottish edition between Wednesday and Saturday. At the weekend following the vote, The Sunday Times also sold an additional 20,000 copies.

h. With the general election just months away Mike Darcey used his speech to stress the importance of professional journalism to political debate and the democratic process.
http://www.news.co.uk/2014/10/survey-reveals-voters-turn-to-newspapers-for-information-on-scottish-independence/ Includes a 21 min video of the conference

Menzies Campbell and Gordon Brown Planned to Usurp Scots By Any Means Preventing The SNP From Formng a Government

March 2008: Sir Menzies Campbell And Gordon Brown’s Secret Talks On Pact To Deny SNP The Right To Govern Scotland

Brown held two secret meetings with Sir Menzies Campbell during the 2007 Scottish election campaign in an attempt to forge a new Labour-Liberal Democrat coalition and keep the SNP out of power.

Brown, the then Chancellor tried to get the agreement of the former Lib Dem leader for an anti-SNP coalition – even though neither had the authority to make such an agreement.

The secret meetings, held behind the backs of their respective Scottish parties and leaders, were disclosed in Sir Menzies’ recently released autobiography.

In Menzies Campbell: My Autobiography, Sir Ming described how he met Brown twice in Edinburgh during the election campaign – once on Easter Sunday and on election day itself, when it was clear that the SNP was ahead in the polls and heading for victory.

On both occasions, Brown asked for a new Labour-Lib Dem coalition as he did not want the SNP to control the Scottish Executive and its 30 billion budget.

Sir Ming told Brown that, although he was also against an SNP-led devolved administration, he could not decide coalition policy, as that was in the hands of the party’s Scottish leader, Nicol Stephen.

Jack McConnell, the then Scottish Labour leader, was not invited to the meetings.

Brown was operating without the knowledge or approval of the Scottish Labour leadership.

News that Brown was working behind the scenes to forge an anti-SNP coalition infuriated Nationalists and embarrassed Scottish Labour leaders, particularly as McConnell made it clear after the SNP won last year’s election that Alex Salmond would be given the chance to form a government.

Sir Ming wrote that Brown first called him at home on Easter Sunday last year to ask for a discreet meeting.

He stated: “Like me, he was anxious about the possibility of the SNP governing in Scotland, our own backyard. Was there common ground between Labour and the Lib Dems to tackle the SNP together?

He made a number of suggestions. I told him I would have to discuss them with Nicol Stephen. “He then raised possibilities for a new coalition between the Lib Dems and Labour on the assumption that the two parties had enough seats jointly to form a government. ”

Sir Ming wrote that this was difficult for him as such decisions were for Mr Stephen.”

As the election campaign drew to a close, Brown got in touch again.

Sir Ming wrote:

“We met at the same discreet place as before. Throughout the campaign, the polls had put the SNP ahead of Labour. Was there scope for an arrangement between our parties? What would be the consequences for Scotland and our parties if the SNP used the 30 billion Scottish Executive budget to build support for independence over the next few years?”

Sir Ming also explained how the Scottish Lib Dem leadership team met at his Edinburgh home the night after the SNP’s victory to eat pizza and decide what to do. “After two hours, we packed away our pizza boxes and any possibility of a coalition deal with the SNP.”

Sir Ming also revealed that both he and Tavish Scott, the Lib Dems’ election campaign manager, were against an SNP-Lib Dem coalition, but a deal with Labour was still a possibility.

Brown contacted Sir Ming the next day. Sir Ming wrote that he had to be “circumspect” as he was not supposed to “muscle in” on Scottish party affairs.

By the time Scott went on BBC Scotland’s Politics Show the following day, all forms of coalition had been ruled out for the Lib Dems, which is what he then announced.

Brown was so desperate to keep Alex Salmond from being First Minister he tried to cut a deal to keep him out of power.

The 2007 Scottish General Election

The SNP won the Scottish General Election with 47 MSP’s to Labour’s 46.

Despite all the odds being stacked against them the SNP formed a minority Government and retained power for the full term of the parliament.

But Brown, assisted by his network of spies, the Civil Service and rumour mongers continued with his vindictive attacks on Alex Salmond and his government making life extremely difficult for the newly elected SNP government turning down meetings delaying and denying Scotland effective governance.

But due to the dogged and unstinting efforts of Alex Salmond a way forward was finally agreed through the establishment of a new “Joint Ministerial Committee” comprising the leaders of devolved administrations and representatives of the Westminster government.

Adding insult Brown insisted that the First minister of Wales should undertake responsibilty for agreeing the format and chairing the body at the first plenary session after which Jack Straw would take the chair at meetings.

What a control freak. No Gordon Brown Alex Salmond meetings.

The 2015 General Election

Brown departed the scene but his legacy lived on in the newly elected leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.

Murphy had a history of doing deals within deals, (the referendum campaign gave truth to this). He would deal with the devil if needed to get a result.

But of note and some encouragement for Scots was the scale of his leadership victory.

Despite the unqualified backing of Miliband, the Labour Party Executive and all of the Scottish group of MP’s in Westminster he only managed to gain about 50% of the total vote.

With 50% of the labour Party in Scotland against him, including all Trades Unions Murphy will not find rich pickings on the left leaning membership of the party.

Noteworthy also was that the Cooperative sponsors who supported a number of Scottish MP’s. did not support Murphy’s election which was very damaging for Murpht and the labour Party.

The SNP sustains a Trades Union support group and many Labour supporters transferred their allegience to the SNP.

Systematic Abuse Of The Scottish Electorate By The BBC And Other National Media Organisations Urgent Remedial Action Required

Systematic Abuse Of The Scottish Electorate By The BBC And Other National Media Organisations

In some places it was estimated in the two months run up to the 2010 referendum that approximately 80% of the Scottish electorate had tuned into national television (BBC, ITV Channels, 4 and 5) for their election coverage. Post election research identified complaints from viewers primarily centred around a lack of adequate coverage of important Scottish issues, the bulk of prime time reporting and or discussion being aimed at UK matters. Biased programme presentation and interviewer, in favour of the Labour party also attracted many voters and political party candidates and leaders concerns.

The 2014 referendum produced the highest electoral turnout since WW2, many constituencies reporting figures in excess of 85%. But television coverage of the various campaigns was appallingly bad. Lessons from the 2010 election had not been addressed. In fact the matter of bias in favour of the “Better Together” campaign became the most discussed issue of the referendum. A university professor and other eminent persons produced reports providing undisputed evidence that the BBC, (singled out) in particular broadcast television and radio programmes so weighted in favour of the Better Together campaign that many viewers turned away from old “Auntie” preferring to be advised of referendum matters through mass media outlets. eg. the internet. By the time of the referendum in September 2014 the estimated audience figure for the BBC and other national broadcasters had reduced to approximately 50% of the electorate. A damming indictment of presentation policies forced upon the Scot’s by a biased media.

The Scottish Electorate Deserves A Balanced Informed Television/Radio Coverage Of Politics. But How Is This To Be Achieved? A cross party alliance should be formed, comprising media reformists and other informed persons. Their mission to insist upon a fair election coverage on Scottish television/radio. Meetings to be held, attended by representatives from television broadcasters in Scotland. The purpose of said meetings to be for broadcasters to agree operational standards. At times of elections and/or referendum a commitment to broadcast a minimum of two hours each week of political party – or specific subject discussion during prime viewing hours in the four week period before elections. Coverage, evenly balanced, to be monitored by Alliance members so that public interest would be protected.

The Downing Street memos Revealed

Pressure is being applied by MP’s insisting that the Chilcott Report be published in full before the end of February. It might be further delaying tactics will be put in place with the purpose of burying the report until after the GE in May.

In terms of actions taken or not by a number of persons of note there is a definitive record available for study from which it is possible to apportion events and authority. Ignore the hype, check the facts. Go to:

http://www.downingstreetmemo.com/memos.html

UK Energy Policy The Next Ten Years – Industry mandarins Provide a Clear Vision – NOT A Chance

UK Energy Policy The Next Ten Years -Industry mandarins Provide a Clear Vision – NOT A Chance

The UK Government has spent years putting its UK-wide subsidy framework for energy in place, so is not about to abandon it, for all the reasons set out in the ‘no’ campaign. Yet critics of the wind industry say that is exactly what should happen. But even if such calls go unheeded there could be less drastic changes. “We would note that there is still a risk that certain areas of energy policy could be included in the further powers that are to be devolved from Westminster to the Scottish Parliament,” analysts at Citigroup said.

Niall Stuart, Chief Executive, Scottish Renewables: “it is important that both governments return to working together to meet the incredibly important challenges facing our country, such as tackling climate change and growing the economy. Renewables can make a significant contribution to both. “Scottish Renewables is calling for a new joint Scottish and UK Government energy policy that balances the interests of Scotland within a single GB energy market; a more open and accountable energy regulator; our islands connected up to the grid and coordinated investment by the UK and Scottish Governments to support our flourishing marine energy sector.”

John Constable, director of Renewable Energy Foundation (REF): “English and Welsh consumers cannot now be expected to go on propping up the freeloaders of the Scottish renewables industry through income support and the socialisation of grid and system management costs, for example the now notorious constraint payments. “We have alternative and competitive low carbon energy sources, including high load factor offshore wind, a major build of combined cycle gas generation, and, provided that it is not subsidised through Contracts for Difference, nuclear. The current situation is not sustainable and a new balance will have to be struck.”

Infinis Energy: Preservation of an integrated UK energy market and the UK-wide applicability of the RO-legislative framework in support of continued investment in renewable energy is necessary.”

Tony Ward, Head of Power & Utilities at EY UK & Ireland: The established dynamic in the energy markets needs to continue its current course. “The UK markets have developed ever-closer and more integrated systems and ways of operating that serve to reduce, then smooth, the cost burden across all users. This also enables investment choices to be made on system-wide merit and help achieve a degree of energy security that can often be taken for granted.

Emily Gosden, Energy Editor: While proposals for further devolution are as yet unclear, Holyrood appears unlikely to be handed complete control of energy matters. However, there are already calls from Scottish renewables groups for Holyrood to have a greater say in determining energy policy, while critics of renewables say Scotland should be forced to pick up more of the costs of the costs and liabilities that are currently shared across the entire UK market in it’s drive for wind farms.

Sir Ian Wood: Made it very clear substantial reforms and more tax breaks were needed to help the industry. It is expected his suggestions will be taken up by the UK government in next year’s Budget. The Government will want to prove its stewardship credentials and hope to secure investments in a number of North Sea projects that are currently on hold amid concerns about rising costs. The “Wood Report” which examined and pronounced upon the remaining potential of the North Sea, identified that the true scale of untapped reserves would be very limited and insufficient for long term planning. Funds would need to be put in place soon to meet the signifcant cost of tax relief for decommissioning the North Sea

Ian McLelland, Edison Investment Research: “Much needed capital injections to some of the smaller cap North Sea oil and gas explorers will move a step closer – via mergers and acquisitions or capital raising on public markets,”

Ben van Beurden, Chief Executive, Royal Dutch Shell: “Shell will continue to work closely with both the UK and Scottish governments to help the industry deliver vital energy supplies through investment in the UK’s oil and gas resources. We look forward to continuing our proud association with Scotland.”

BP: “The North Sea is important to BP and we expect to be an active participant in the oil and gas industry in Scotland for years to come. BP will continue to work closely with both the UK and Scottish Governments to realise our shared ambition of maximising economic recovery from the North Sea.”

Malcolm Webb, chief executive, Oil & Gas UK: “To safeguard the industry’s future, it is particularly important that that the government presses swiftly ahead with fiscal reform as well as the implementation of Sir Ian Wood’s recommendations to maximise the economic recovery of our oil and gas resource.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/energy/11108541/Scottish-no-vote-what-next-for-the-energy-sector.html

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10177219/SNP-energy-pledge-would-not-stop-power-bills-increasing.html

http://www.scottishenergynews.com/lords-axe-holyroods-power-over-scottish-renewables/

http://yes2014.net/2014/08/05/westminster-rolls-back-devolved-power-to-frack-scotland/

Renewable energy ambitions of the Scottish Ministers “trounce the law of the land”

The Aftermath Of The Referendum Press Statements To Be Retained For future reference.

The aftermath of the referendum brought with it a number of press statements which need to be retained ready to hand for future reference.

BBC biased coverage of the Scottish Independence Referendum criticised.

With no exit poll isn’t there a democratic deficit?
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/18/scottish-vote-no-exit-poll-democratic-deficit

I feel for all those for whom the yes campaign brought hope.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/19/scotland-lost-opportunity

This glorious failure could yet be Scotland’s finest hour. Forget Bannockburn, the Scots reinvented and re-established the idea of true democracy.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/sep/20/irvine-welsh-scottish-independence-glorious-failure

The lifestyle of top executives like Brian have become more luxurious, while ordinary people like Brenda have found it harder and harder to make ends meet.
http://highpaycentre.org/blog/explaining-the-data-the-background-to-our-new-animation

The UK is one of the most unequal countries in the developed world. The gap between pay at the top and bottom is huge. Living standards for everyone – apart from those at the very top – remain squeezed. But we argue, it doesn’t have to be like this.

The gap between rich and poor is the widest in 30 years. Inequality is still rising. If current trends continue, we will have reached Victorian levels of inequality in 20 years.

Inequality and the top 10% getting Richer and Richer by the year will Destroy the UK Economy, Democracy and even the NHS.
http://worldinnovationfoundation.blogspot.co.uk/2014/08/inequality-and-top-10-getting-richer.html

Three main Unionist party leaders signed up to a historic joint statement
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/david-cameron-ed-miliband-nick-4265992

Democracy in the Dark – the Decline of the Scottish Press.

Newspapers don’t just sell news; in fact, that has been an increasingly small part of their function in the last century. Newspapers have been cultural curators, critically evaluating artistic and literary trends, providing a showcase for good writing, informing readers on important developments in science and society. They have provided a forum for informed debate, & promoted their own vigorous opinions on affairs of state, forcing politicians to take note.

But the financial problems of the press are making it harder and harder for them to provide this essential cultural service. Scottish papers, reports the National Union of Journalists, have lost half their journalists in the last decade or so. UK papers with nominally Scottish editions now dominate the Scottish market.

This is becoming a constitutional issue because the Scottish and UK newspapers are almost exclusively unionists – often militantly so. It is right that newspapers have strong editorial views, but it is not healthy when they all have the same editorial views. Iain Macwhirter (political commentator for The Herald and Sunday Herald newspapers).

COMMENTS:

1. That single phrase, about it being right for newspapers to have strong views “but not when they all have the same views”, goes to the heart of a wider debate about the relationship between ownership and editorial content. It also touches on the fact that a large proportion of the Scottish press is Scottish in name only. With the exception of DC Thomson’s operation, the major newspapers are published by companies based in London (and, in The Herald’s case, ultimately in the USA). Now I happen to be agnostic on the Scottish independence debate or, arguably, conflicted. I understand why, even in the 21st century, there remains an insistent pressure for independence from nations that have been colonised or incorporated by other nations. Reality impinges, however. I realise distinct societies that, for one reason or another, have failed to hold on to their nation state status (or never even had one) do need to regain it or achieve it. http://www.saltiresociety.org.uk/news/2014/04/23/iain-macwhirters-democracy-in-the-dark-saltire-series-5-pamphlet-launch-event http://www.allmediascotland.com/press/63999/iain-macwhirter-xxx/

2. They must assert their nationhood as a stage on the road to the eventual dismantling of all such geopolitical boundaries. I’m glad I’m not confronted by a yes-no voting form. But I am, like Macwhirter, concerned that a fake “Scottish national press” has adopted a single view on the matter. http://www.theguardian.com/media/greenslade/2014/apr/25/scottish-independence-newspapers

3. From my point of view, the Scottish press is not serving its audience (the thinking people of Scotland) and that is very sad. However I must say, people have been getting up of their asses and actually doing something about. There is an online scene of bloggers and news sites that are starting to provide an opposing view to the hideously one side unionist pro-UK press. I would like to think that new models for news and opinion will grow out of this. For sure they will be needed , irrespective of the referendum result, to hold politicians accountable, when the traditional newspaper and TV fail to do so, because they become too comfortably close, and because of commercial interest. Thomas William Dunlop reader.

The Referendum – The Queen – Her Think Carefully Slip- The Government- The Hypocrisy – The Reaction of 1000 Scots

One of the most controversial events in the course of the referendum campaign was the intervention of the Queen on the eve of the vote. Her unwelcome involvement had been carefully orchestrated by the Government and partners in the Better Together team comprising the Unionist parties who were concerned that the Scottish electorate were indeed ready to vote for independence which would end the gravy train for all those feeding on the wealth of Scots.

This is the feedback from Scots who were only advised of the true nature of the involvement of the queen through a leaked email released by a horrified whistleblower close to the ACTION.

So she’s not neutral then. She willingly took part in a PR campaign to influence a democratic vote. I would have some respect if she had just come out and said it, but the way it was stage-managed, to make it look as if she just happened to say it as she was meeting a member of the public, leaves a bad taste in the mouth.

The Queen’s neutrality is a bit of a con, really. She gets time with the PM every week to provide ‘guidance’ – in effect, she’s the only lobbyist with a codified constitutional position.

I find it depressing we’ll end up seeing more monarchical interventions.

So she’s not neutral then. Only fools ever thought she was. Ever heard of a monarch in favour of breaking up their kingdom? The ‘No’s’ were shafted, fooled by their ‘betters’ and conned by the lying Unionist politicians. We warned you. but you fell for it anyway.

You can tell by her expression in that photo what a lowlife cretin she thinks Dave is. She probably envies her predecessor, of the same christian name, who could (and very probably would) have ordered him taken to the tower to be beheaded.

If I were a Scot I’d want another ballot. Pronto!

A Constitutional Monarch? Lying bastards.

Next time we include an independent Republic on the manifesto – ditch the anachronism and make a modern state for the 21st century.

I agree. Constitutionally this is a game-changer. The Queen intervened in politics at the behest of the ruling party. Republic of Scotland, anyone?

As the queen represents Wales, leeks are obligatory.

So the snivelling toerag Cameron got the Queen, Gordon Brown and Alastair Darling to save his ungrateful butt – Then he repaid them by revealing private conversations with the Queen and immiediately screwing over Brown and Darling in order to advance his feeble position. The bloke is devoid of a moral compass.

I look at Cameron and I see a walking void, not just sans morality, but sans vision, sans hope, sans thought. He’s a grasping, hungry nothing clad in a suit. There’s not even a will to power there, he lacks the blood-lust of a true Tory that at least marks them out as living creatures.

The final execrable product of the machine-production of politicans for the media age. A hologram reading lines scripted by committee. A golem running on tabloid instructions. A focus-grouped ghost.

I thought it was a moral compass and then the fog cleared and there was just a middle digit pointing north.

One of the (many) advantages of an independent Scotland is we could choose to ditch the Windsor benefit fraudsters and forge ahead as a new republic.
That would be a grown-up country for the 21st century.

errmmm – Salmond wanted to keep this anachronism.

Only because he feared ditching them would be unpopular, for sentimental reasons. I would have gone for Yes with ditching the royals. I would have left NATO too, and established a Scottish currency or joined the euro. But then I wasn’t in charge of the campaign, Alex Salmond was. Maybe next time we will get it right. 2016?

Y’mean he was bein’ dishonest ! Next you’ll be telling me his plans for Scotland’s economy was based on Scotch mist ! A Scottish currency – good idea if Scotland wanted true independence. Who’d have backed it though ? Join the Euro ? thought you wanted independence ?

I wonder what the result would be of a referendum now

I think there has been a moral victory for the yes, nationalists. The establishment is holding this country back

I wonder what the result would be of a referendum now

At least now the truth is coming out, kudos to the guardian for that, what little difference it makes now.

Now repeat after me – “Oil revenue was always seen as a bonus….”

Wow, who would have thought it? You mean a ‘well-wisher’ did not just happen to ask the queen that question and it wasn’t just coincidentally overheard by a
reporter and it didn’t get reported on national news by accident? Well I never. What a great day for democracy.

Buckingham Palace issued a statement which read: “The sovereign’s constitutional impartiality is an established principle of our democracy and one which the Queen has demonstrated throughout her reign. “As such, the monarch is above politics and those in political office have a duty to ensure this remains the case. “Any suggestion that the Queen would wish to influence the outcome of the current referendum campaign is categorically wrong. Her Majesty is simply of the view this is a matter for the people of Scotland.” So …. the Palace lied……………….. http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-29200359

I was definitely on the side of no, but the fact the Queen’s neutrality was publicly breached was one of those moments where I genuinely questioned what the fuck this country is even about. It just goes to show what a fustercluck this government is. I see that Cameron’s been trying to position his party as competent and Labour as inviting chaos. What an absolute killer of a joke after the past five years of car-crashes, trainwrecks, blatant mismanagement and unforced errors. The irony of it is so thick and multilayered it’s like a gateaux of whipped double-fat bullshit and thick, moist slices of naked hypocrisy. Christ. It’s getting to the point where I look at our unelected, octogenarian hereditary monarch and go “could she really do a worse job than the clownshow we’ve got running things at the moment?”

They are there to preserve their rule, as they are ‘superior’ to us oiks who actually make this country work.

It’s obvious that the Queen & the rest of her family are right wing Tories, this article is wrong, she has not been “Scrupulous” about getting involved in political issues, in 1977 she spoke out against Scottish independence as well. Funny how she never spoke up for the miners, unemployed or homeless in the Eighties, only when it affects her selfish family. (Independence affects them, due to the vast amount of land they own in Scotland).

Charles wanted to join the Labour party when he was at college, but was told he couldn’t.

Yeah, too patronising…

It’s not difficult to imagine which side of the referendum the Queen was on, really.

Well it’d be a bit embarrassing to be the monarch who presided over the break up of one’s own country.

She’s compromised now. The lid has been lifted on our so-called ‘benign’ monarchy. They still rule this country. This isn’t a democracy.

All those ballot boxes are just a sham then?

Most of them were – mainly the tampered ones..

No actually. The crooked leeches in the City of London bought our Political Class. The Self Proclaimed Talent. The biggest spongers of all. Royal Family is sideshow nowadays. Rather boring one in my book.

You should think very carefully before lending credence to information provided by unattributable whitehall sources.

Quite right, that’s Malcolm Rifkind’s job.

There should be no ‘Queen’ in a modern democracy – anywhere, including those lauded elsewhere in Europe, imho.

Your statement might be correct but for one point. There is NO modern democracy in the UK. So until there is, I’d prefer Elizabeth remain where she is.

errmmm… if push came to shove how far do you think she would go to preserve any sort of democracy ? Not very – she must keep ‘the firm’ in business. I can see why, though.

Another vow broken then. As if we didn’t know what side she was on. Protecting her real estate methinks!

Amazing. Idiots ruin the country then ask the one person who is expected to shut up and not air her own opinion, to intervene. I bet she’s well impressed with her current prime minister.

I admire the Queen but I am very disappointed if she allowed herself to be used in this way, There needs to be another vote in Scotland. Polling already shows Yes ahead, if there was to be a rerun now.

Im a yes voter and Scotland does not deserve another referendum. The scots must now face the full onslaught of the austerity agenda that is coming their way maybe then in 10 years theyll finally maken the right choice. Im am deeply ashamed of scotland. I live here and I really wish didn’t at the moment.

Are you being too harsh on yourself and others? Remember the propaganda and fear that Scotland was bombed with. To say ‘does not deserve’ fulfills that awful old saying that ‘the Scots are half in love with failure’. But only half were in love with that. And their regrets are coming out now. It won’t be 10 years.

Here’s how it was reported at the time: A Buckingham Palace spokeswoman said: “We never comment on private exchanges or conversations. We just reiterate what the Queen has always said: she maintains her constitutional impartiality. As the Queen has always said, this is a matter for the people of Scotland.” Except, of course, she did not. In fact she plotted with the government, PM and civil servants to do exactly the opposite and hoodwink the Scottish electorate into favouring a particular choice. All with the connivance and complicity of the media. Failing to remain constitutionally impartial surely forfeits the position of the monarchy as head of state. Republic now! If I were a Scot I’d want a second vote – they’ve been duped.

It also shows the BBC complicit in the charade.

Don’t worry Liz we are definitely listening carefully now, just check the polls….

As a druid, I can’t see why asking voters to “think very carefully” is controversial. Her Madge was basically asking them not to vote frivolously – a trait well-known in the happy-go-lucky Scottish psyche.

I reckon The Queen would still quite enjoy being the Queen of the two existing kingdoms of Great Britain, even if Scotland were an independent/separate place (delete independent/separate according to one´s preferred thoughts on Scotland´s constitutional debate). On 24 June 1953, following her coronation at Westminster Abbey, the crown was carried before Queen Elizabeth II in a procession from the Palace of Holyroodhouse to the High Kirk of St Giles, Edinburgh, where the Honours of Scotland, including the crown, were presented to The Queen during a National Service of Thanksgiving. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown_of_Scotland This Pathé News reel footage of the St Giles ceremony is quite remarkable as the Honours of Scotland are handed over and the Scottish Crown is offered to the Queen: http://www.britishpathe.com/video/scotland-welcomes-the-queen-1. Certainly reminds people the United Kindom isn´t quite a “United Kingdom” as it sometimes seemed before the recent debate. And I´m sure the Queen knows this more than most since the crown has been present and represented at the Official Opening ceremonies of sessions of the Scottish Parliament since 1999.

The Pathé reel is also interesting because the Queen, at the advice of the then government, wasn’t dressed for a coronation — lest it inflame nationalist sentiment.

Now you mention him – should we tell him that Princess Margarita of Romania is 93rd in line to the throne? He’d do his nut.

I am somehow bemused by the moral high ground the Guardian takes now. The Guardian made very clear that it opposes the separation. The Guardian threw down the gauntlet. It should have known that others did as well. So why the outrage that they did? The Guardian is equally responsible for the fact that the Scots were taken for a ride.

As a Londoner, I no longer have any belief in the United Kingdom anymore. I’m for a united island but the political paradigm that currently holds it together is inherently right wing and malignant. This latest stunt by the Conservative Party is utter cowardice, as they refrained from such a bellicose vernacular over English sovereignty in the period running up to the referendum, because they knew it would serve to confirm the hatred that the Scots quite rightly have for the Tories. What Cameron wants to preserve England as a matriarchal state that would effectively negate and weaken any form of Left Wing Coalition that decided to form a government. It’s good ol fashioned gerrymandering , the same they used in Northern Ireland.

Well said and entirely correct.It’s just a pity that they are being allowed to get away with this betrayal of Labour after saving Camerons political hide by campaigning to keep the Union intact. It just shows the Tories do not deserve any support by fair minded people.English votes for English people, a ruse to keep the Tories in, that’s what it’s all about. By announcing it against all advice to the contrary Cameron has fueled nationalism even more and guaranteed another referendum in the future just to get his rotten stinking Government another flip of the coin.

Once a dictator, always a dictator. I always thought the Monarchy would save us from Presidents and Dictators who could do what they want, but unfortunately this current Coalition has changed my mind. Bring on the revolution.

Given the Guardian’s pursuit of the publication of Prince Charles’ letters, I look forward to your editorial condemning the monarch’s intervention in party politics. We deserve an apology, not “no comment”.

Reading the article, I think the Queen has intervened in Tory party political matters more than she should.

“This is purely a matter for the Scots” said Cameron. …………And the Queen and the Treasury and the BBC and the MSM and every World Leader that Westminster could rope-in and some of their Lordships who stated that Independence would lead to the “forces of darkness” taking over the World and causing more children to die in the Third World/Africa and even Saint Bob Geldof giving his tuppence-worth. Yep……a matter “purely for the Scots”, right enough!
I think the one that annoyed me the most, well aside from the prat who sprouted that Scottish Independence would mean the terrorists will win, was that fud Obama. Bet that particular fud couldn’t even find Scotland on a map, if we didn’t have the Nuke Boats here.

The Queen didn’t need to voice her opinion on the referendum – she has the entire establishment in Britain, powerful allies and friends abroad and a not inconsiderable band of obsequious, subservient subjects at her disposal. Nonetheless, independence I feel will come in the next 10 years – I think we needed a kind of dress rehearsal to build up our confidence – but that is growing and consolidating gradually. And in time getting rid of the monarchy and all the inequality and elitism that it represents would please me a great deal.
the ‘think carefully’ remark was carefully planned and thought about and not just an off the cuff remark.

So the monarch did the one thing they are expressly forbidden to do. Become politically active.

Wow, so the queen was part of a thing, a conspi.., no, a thing where powerful people agreed to try to stop Scots voting for the right to self-determination?
It’s incredible. Next, someone will say that the media consp.., no, agreed to help spread fear and stifle the debate.

Just relieved that Severin Carrell is there to keep us informed, the intrepid, investigative sort that he is! I have a queasy feeling that this is all heading to a Tory/UKIP coalition to coincide with the coronation of King Charles.

16 December 2014; The hoo-haw is around the fact that it only needed to swing the minds of 1% of the voters in the Scottish referendum, because the vote was that close. And although it is being officially admitted today, “the intervention” was effectively declared on Radio 4 on the day after the election. I remember one particular interviewee, I can’t remember his office, but in a very Toff accent, he was overjoyed at the Scottish Referendum “No” vote, and he was boasting about how wonderfully tactful had been the Queen’s finely delivered plea at that Sunday Church service. There was no question that this man was a monarchist and a unionist and that he thought the world had been saved from a fate worse than nuclear armageddon. The manner of his boasting was so suggestive that political intervention had been manipulated! Well, the Queen doesn’t care. She’s practically retired anyway, and just more interested in collecting her pension. But if I had been part of the Scottish “Yes” campaign, I would be pissed at her Government.
The Scots were cheated and I wish the Queen hadn’t been stained by this crap.
The Scots were conned into voting ‘No’ by the British establishment, (including the monarchy), with the connivance of the Labour Party. They should be given another chance to decide their own destiny without interference, and be offered another referendum.

We will have another referendum and this time we start with a support base of 45%+ not the 25% we did last time. I have spoken to dozens of No voters that regret their choice. Plus we know where our political classes went wrong last time and won’t make the same mistakes.

The Queen should have absolutely no influence over politics – constitutional or otherwise, full stop. That sleazy politicians were prepared to grovel for help just further illustrates their depravity.

Cameron and George Osborne were so nervous about a yes vote, which would have thrown his premiership into a potentially fatal crisis’ thus says it all Britain. … they don’t give a toss about scotland or the union just their own brass necks.

he Scots make a really bad decision, I’m sure they regret it now, its not just this government all the parties are corrupt to the very core. No one in their right minds would want to be part of the UK.

The point is , the queen, and every governmental force (including covert forces) were at work to ensure Scotland voted the right way. So the vote went the right way. Of course. …surprised?

We all know that when someone uses the phrase “you should think very carefully” it is often used as a somewhat aggressive warning. It can also just mean exactly what it says. We don’t know how it was meant and can only guess. But what is quite clear is that the remark to a “well wisher” was not “off the cuff” at all but was a carefully planted comment designed to be reported widely by the media. I am truly shocked and horrified that the queen conspired to fool the Scottish voters in this way.

I can imagine Cameron crying down the phone to his wife: “Why doesn’t anybody like me? I’m doing the best I caaaaaan *sobs*”.

So this is supposed to be a 21st century democracy.

Makes you want to fking weep.

Fucking vermin, the lot of them.

cabinet secretary and monarch’s private secretary crafted words that voters should ‘think very carefully’

Not to worry next time they won’t have to.

I’m not familiar with the Constitutional law but I imagined that since the Union of the Crowns preceded the Union of the Parliaments, then it would be perfectly feasible to unwind the parliamentary union without destroying the place of the Queen.

Yep, but then even if there hadn’t been the union of the crowns, there’s an argument in the form of Australia, Canada, New Zealand and much of the Commonwealth, that the queen’s position was as safe as she could have liked.

Quite disgraceful of the politicians and civil service to involve the Queen, and for Cameroon’s comments afterwards.

This acrd the triumphalism afterwards has meant that Scottish independence is now but a matter of time.

That any part of the United Kingdom should end up having so many of its people so very fed up with central government acts and attitudes with regard to their daily lives, and feel so thwarted in democratic opportunity to improve things, is simply damning of central government. And beyond my comprehension.

I don’t know to what extent the press can be used as a reliable source of information. Clearly in times of crisis someone has to have credibility…yet the press spend most of their time decredibilizing the world of politics and politicians by name and in intimate detail; subjects are handled, or not following relatively clear propaganda lines … leading sheep by the nose and leaving others without any credible source of information.

so many of its people so very fed up with central government acts and attitudes with regard to their daily lives, and feel so thwarted in democratic opportunity to improve things, is simply damning of central government. And beyond my comprehension.

Millions of people in Scotland can answer the question posed in your last paragraph – the press cannot be trusted at all, the referendum campaign has opened many eyes to the misleading propaganda in the media(not only on the subject of Scottish independence) and I believe they’d be as horrified as I was if they’d taken the time to read some of the things written about Alex Salmond, in particular, in English newspapers.

Ah kent it wis a fuckin stitch up all along

And the MI6 and the BBC, and every knighthood chasing careerist politician in the world. We will only find out what happened to our freedom when the oil runs out. As per.

So some of the finest political minds of the British establishment got together and came up with the queen casually saying to a “well-wisher” at Balmoral: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.” And if that hadn’t worked they would have had Bruce Forsythe on every channel at once making a four-hour long, Chavez-style broadcast. Goodness, those clever boffins in Whitehall.

Quite- the sad thing is that people were ever in any doubt about her views on this If this “intervention” actually had impact on the result then God help the poor Scots, they’ll never be free.

Britain’s most senior civil servant and the Queen’s private secretary crafted a carefully worded intervention by the monarch, as No 10 experienced what one senior official described as “meltdown” in the closing stages of the campaign after polls showed growing support for a yes vote. …

The Queen, who has been scrupulous during her 62-year reign in observing the impartiality expected of a constitutional monarch, intervened publicly on 14 September. Speaking after Sunday service outside Crathie Kirk near her Balmoral estate in Aberdeenshire, the Queen told a wellwisher: “Well, I hope people will think very carefully about the future.”

There is no other way to easily put this. If this is true, it was outrageously dishonest deceit, intended to mislead and influence the public in an election.

This was spun to the public, as if the Queen had made an ad lib comment to a well wisher, when all along this was a carefully planned political intervention, contrived by Downing Street and Buckingham Palace

What’s more if this is true, Buckingham Palace deliberately lied to mislead the public. This is what it said in the Telegraph at the time.

Buckingham Palace insiders insisted her remarks were politically neutral but on Sunday night they were being viewed as the clearest sign yet she hopes for a No vote on Thursday. Henry Bellingham, a Tory MP, said Royal observers would be “in no doubt about her views.” http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095715/Queen-warns-Scots-to-think-very-carefully-about-referendum-vote.html

Self-evidently it wasn’t politically neutral if it was carefully drafted by Downing Street “spin doctors”. This would mean that Buckingham Palace definitely lied. There is no other way to put it.

Apparently even the Police were in on this carefully crafted deceit and ruse.

In an extremely rare move, police invited press to observe the exchanges after she and other members of the Royal Family left a service that had included a prayer asking God “to save us from false choices”. http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scottish-independence/11095715/Queen-warns-Scots-to-think-very-carefully-about-referendum-vote.html

This is the type of thing you expect in a tinpot dictatorship.

Surely such high level deceit, and collusion involving Buckingham Palace, No.10, and the Police, to mislead the public like this during an election, was in breach of electoral rules.

This raises serious questions about all elections if the Establishment colludes to fix the results.

What it does tell us is that we shouldn’t believe a word of what the Establishment and media tells us.

Here’s Prince Charles doing a sword dance in Saudi Arabia all dressed up in national costume waving his sword about. Do you think he visited chop chop square? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2014/02/19/prince-charles-sword-dance-pictures_n_4814227.html

This is why we dont want the English monarchy. Actually, it is probably the most minor of the reasons why we dont want them.

Yep. This is fairly minor in the inbred, idle sponger scheme of things. But still one for the list. Purrrrrrr….. Isn’t that what she said?!

Don’t think it’s all over. It’s not. The inevitable independence is yet to come.

Aye and a 2.8% swing is all that’s needed.

I’m appalled that even now in this day and age we have to endure party cronies and peerage buyers in an unelected House of Lords,and frankly would welcome a referendum on the monarchy.

If being manipulated does not ruffle your feathers then you should ask yourself one question…. Am I really alive?

It’s the travesty that followed the No vote that was and continues to be a disgrace. Cameron wss shedding his crocodile tears over the “effin’ Tories” then as soon as it was in the bag he stuck a massive two fingers up at the country and sought to spin it so hard to his party’s private political advantage that it made our eyes water.

And the Queen endorsed that too. She said: “I hope people feel very stupid for having fallen for my David’s shitty tricks. Weep cretins and know your place. I AM the fucking establishment!” More fools us, eh.

Cameron you said it. Are you going to break another of your statements of English votes on English issues? THOUGHT SO. That’s why nobody can trust the Tories.

I think I will join the anti-monarchy protests the next time the old cow comes to Scotland.

Good idea! I wonder if anti-monarchy protests are allowed in England and Wales? I’ve never seen or heard of any, isn’t that strange?

Read the full story: insiders reveal the full story of how the union was won. Except it isn’t the full story, dear Guardian is it? For a start it conveniently omits the role of this very newspaper in disseminating fear amongst their Scottish readers. I learnt to read – age four – by deciphering the headlines in my parents’ print edition, and it was “my” newspaper for over fifty years, but I cancelled my daily delivery in protest, several days before the referendum. It feels odd after almost a lifetime not to do the Guardian crossword over breakfast! But before other posters rush to accuse me of sour grapes, that simply isn’t true. I respect the majority decision of my fellow Scots and will live with the result, even though I believe a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity was lost. However, I do object to brazen attempts at influencing my vote. By drip-feeding intelligent Scots voters with highly tendentious journalism pre-referendum, The Guardian has quite simply forfeited my trust!

So many organisations and treasured media outlets revealed themselves to be mouthpieces for the empirical elite during the referendum,that many of us have become sadder and wiser. The BBC/mi6 connection genuinely shocked me. I cannot listen even to the Archers now without trying to guess the agenda. Sad but true. I watch Russian news now.

So Cameron is on the verge of seeing the union disintegrate on his watch ,he then shits his pants ,so calls in the supposedly non-political Mr’s Saxe-Bats-Coburg -Windsor and Eton ( “I ahm above it awl” as Liz probably says in private ..to fits of laughter ) to make an obviously biased statement which probably persuaded wavering ,Scottish anti monarchists to vote for independence . These corpulent toffs are shifty ,annoying and sadly very lucky at the same time..i e Cameron’s contribution to the Better Together campaign was merely to convince people that they might be better apart from him and his party .So Cameron the day after the victory announces that we need Tory votes for English voters or whatever thus knifing those politicians in the back who had saved his career as an oily ,nasty ,third rate PM .

I bet there will be a film about this one day called “The Queens Speech “where Liz is shown saving the union from savages ..Gordon Brown will be a minor character despite his contribution to the No campaign being bigger than that of the toffs. In this film Gordon Brown will be Irish.

The ‘deep state’. Says it all. “Every day its a getting closer Just like a roller coaster”. Scotties will be free of Tory, Elitist South East of England.One day yes. Labour first next May though.

If we ever decide to opt for true democracy in the UK, we first have to rid ourselves of this parasitic infestation at the top of our political system.

The only other time the Queen let her true personality come to the fore was just after the death of Princess Diana. She was found lacking then, and her interference in Scotland’s bid for independence shows that she’s prepared to prostitute her position for the status quo.

Sell her and her dysfunctional family to the United States, they still believe in fairy tales. We know it’s more a case of no longer Snow White, more like the Wicked Witch of the Woods!

Aye well, Scotland is planning to keep all of her crown estate earnings as part of the Smith commission resolution, so hahahahaha, Lizzy!

Old trick. But always works. Maybe next generation, Scotland.

This dreadful woman doesn’t have the guts, the courage, the common decency to stand up in front of her “subjects” and address them directly, face to face. Instead she demeans herself and her office by mouthing hints and riddles concocted by unelected, unaccountable civil servants to planted stooges within earshot of the complicit media.

This whole episode demonstrates in the clearest possible way what a sham so-called English democracy really is. Brenda, her tribe, and her acolytes between them have betrayed the people of Scotland, England and the rest of the UK by attempting to subvert proper democratic process.

The sooner we rid ourselves of the feudal anachronism of monarchy, the sooner the whole shabby edifice of heredity power and privilege that controls all of our lives can be torn down.

“Think well upon it” said the 1st Charlie who ultimately interfered his head off!

The Guardian lost all creditability under Rushbridger and the Tory cheerleader political editor Wintour. Let us hope new leadership will change the organisation otherwise the Guardian is heading to bankruptcy.

I must confess that when making difficult decisions myself I don’t think it’s once occured to me to wonder what the Queen’s opinion might be.

Funny, I always think “what would the Queen do?” Then do the opposite.

Well this has pushed me towards republicanism much more than previously. I used to think the royal family were OK. Not so much now, I think they should be gotten rid of. Or they can donate all their money to the food bank charities.

This is a PM who has today used the tragic events in Sydney to try to instil fear into the electorate and play on the same fears that the EDL exploit. Who has used the memory of his son to vow never to privatise the NHS his government is currently privatising on the sly. Nothing is beneath him. He makes Tony Blair look like a pretty straight sort of guy. I wonder what job awaits Dave when he’s quite finished wrecking the country and being the queen’s chief tummy tickler.

I was quite appalled at the time by the blatant wheeling in of HM to bolster the No campaign… but I’m even more angry now to read that the supposedly neutral Civil Service orchestrated all this. Civil servants (especially in London!) shouldn’t have been biased towards particular outcomes of the Scottish referendum.

Just as I was ‘angry’ that the civil servants in Scotland were crafting Yes propaganda.

Yes it would seem that for many, a naive respect for ‘democracy’ ended with this farce of a rigged referendum.

I don’t care what the queen thinks of Cameron. I don’t care about their porridge. Her taking sides in a democratic process is A SCANDAL.

I think you need to learn about crown neutrality and what constitutional monarchy means. Did you even read the article? The Queen, who has been scrupulous during her 62-year reign in observing the impartiality expected of a constitutional monarch,

No she is not. As a constitutional monarch of the UK she is obliged to be impartial on all political matters.

It’s actually only customary that she is impartial, she’s not obliged to do anything.

Not even a pathetic attempt to hint at an answer to your factually incorrect statement about her being entitled to stick her oar in. Dont worry no one spotted you seamlessly diverting attention away from your error.

Well thank Queenie for that! Seen the price of oil lately? We don’t want to end up like Russia after all…

Just what has the Queen done for Britain considering that her role is largely ceremonial within the British political system? I suppose you you could praise her role as a tourist draw card bringing in the foreign dollar (especially during royal weddings, jubilees etc.), but praising her role as an exemplar of capitalism seems a bit tawdry…..

Who ever listened to this old Queen? The referendum was a fix from beginning to end. Scotland will have it’s freedom from the Westminster clique whether they like or not. Bye bye!

Why would she want Scotland to go independent? That would mean 10% of her minions & 10% of her guaranteed income would be lost.

Politics is the entertainment division of the industrial military complex.-Frank Zappa.

This is why we aren’t giving up

The Monarchy, all of Westminster, Presidents, the EU and big business were against us YES voters.

We done brilliantly to get to 45%.

45% was good. At least you live in a country that respects you enough to give you the option to have a say on your future — most of us don’t have that around the world.

The Queen is for me beyond reproach, however the politicians are just gob shites.

Hear, hear.. I could never forgive the three amigos. And as for that f**kwit Murphy. **”*”**.

Sure the Queen might have discreetly campaigned for the No vote with a choice remark or two but in the end it was the Scottish voters that gave into the fear and chose to remain with a decaying second rate nation….

Second rate is right Shane. No natural resources since Thatcher closed the mines. That’s why the whole thing was engineered by the BBC/mi6. Democracy lost. The vote was a sham.

A “good day” to bury this one, then. Beneath contempt. cobra meeting about some shit in the morning.

Why does it not surprise me that Cameron was panicking? Everything I’ve read about him leads me to believe that the man is a politician who sees everything in terms of the short term benefit of the Tory party. He has no long-term vision whatsoever, other than to try and cling on to power until the literal last moment.

Don’t really mind that the old relic fought to save her lot, but I am concerned to think that there are still people who would base their vote on something so important on what she has to say.

What we are saying is that the whole thing was decided by the vote counters beforehand. The involvement of Lizzy, just proved that they were going to stop at nothing to prevent England losing out on oil, and it’s nuclear dump.

So, after 62 years of “impeccable service” shes buggered it up in the final straight by getting involved at the (Tory led) govts behest. Shameless.

The dopey son writes secret letters to ministers. She takes sides.

The rest of them spend OUR money like water whilst their “subjects” live off food banks to feed childern that live in damp squalid dumps. Will the British people ever wake up to the shame of this democratic monarchy ? Vile, just vile.

All the while mind you while children live in appalling poverty in Scotland with existing tax raising powers gathering dust and real spending on the NHS going down in comparison to what “the evil Tories” in Westminster are spending!

The shame of a bourgeois democracy which ‘allows’ us to elect government ‘over’ us to control the waged slaves.Turkeys voting for xmas is the equivalent. Abolish the wages system. Elect yourselves .Win the world. The philosophers have interpreted the world in various ways, our task is to change it.

how the hell is people should think very carefully rare intervention? lols people need to think very carefully how much they over revere a very old rich person.

I’m trying to reconcile “scrupulous impartiality” with making a clear intervention. “in language which, while broadly neutral, would leave nobody in any doubt about her support for the union”

I suppose, did anyone doubt the Queen would be pro-Union? The fact she had to do this shows what an idiot Cameron was made to look by this whole debacle.

Well, what a surprise. Establishment suggests voting for the Establishment. Who’d have thought it? Her comment was read by many as patronising drivel supporting Project Fear. And this proves them right. Lies, lies and more lies….

I voted YES, but 100% trust the queen, it’s the hangers on I mistrust. The hangers on being her family?

No mention of this on BBC website.

It is extraordinary that she is now looking like George III.

If she is so clued up and always exercises such remarkable statecraft why did she even respond to the question ? Did she think her response would be ignored, tossed aside as opposed to being poured over, analysed and forensically examined ? If she believed her comments would be disregarded the by opening her trap she confirmed what we previously only suspected – she is dim.

So, a government that derives its legitimacy from democracy decided to flout its duty to the electorate and centuries of constitutional history to invite an unelected dynast to drop a cryptic comment in order to sway a democratic event. APPALLING.

When are the People of these islands going to wake up and establish the democratic republic they deserve?

the options are not the Queen or George W Bush but between an unelected hereditary linage or a democratic decision of the people.

If she’d chuntered on about the forces of darkness being unleashed, she might have made the top ten.

Didn’t he lose the American colonies…Her Majesty came pretty close with just a 2.8% swing needed

Perhaps, but the monarch was not faced with the dissolution of her kingdom, since an independent Scotland would have retained the Queen as head of state – she would still have been Queen of Scotland and the rest of the UK.

I dont happen to support that, I think having a royal family in the 21st centure is ridiculous and immoral.

Union of crowns was around before the United Kingdom, It is concerning that people don’t know this. The United Kingdom was as is now, based on the politics of the time. Nothing more.

The party that went against the YES voters the most was until 2007 , the main party of Scotland. If in power, the Labour party would not even have given Scotland a referendum. Why they are now royally screwed.

and so cameron says to her maj…..my queen, your maj…..i am but a vaj…all is not serene…in this pitiful scottish scene…perhaps i could i ask you to intervene…after some delightful fish soup…which i shall serve you from this tureen…honk honk!

Scotland Should have another Referendum on their Independence from United kingdom which is just a Satellite state of USSA. and go their own way to get freedom back because are losing it now.

The only way to keep the monarchy out of politics is to dump it. Seize the royals’ wealth, which they first took from the people, and send them packing.

Medieval Lives. Wake me up in 20 years’ time…..zzzzzzzzz

That’s why an unelected head of state is dangerous, no matter how much they shun their power. They can always be used as a prop.

In Ireland we thought very carefully and decided

No established church No unelected upper house of govt No monarchy No proscriptions on the religion of the head of state or partner thereof No hereditary privilege No nuclear weapons No fantasies about “punching above our weight” on the world stage No membership of any military alliance and we have proportional representation and are very fond of it. In addition, we have influence in Europe that the Scots can only dream of (a seat at the table and a veto). Better luck next time Scotland.

‘Scrupulous in observing the impartiality expected of a constitutional monarch’. Apparently not the case with respect to Australia in 1975. Jenny Hocking in her book on Gough Whitlam indicates that the Queen was made aware in September 1975 – 2 months before the event – that Kerr intended to sack Whitlam. Through her Private Secretary she appears to have, at the very least, done nothing to disabuse Kerr of his plans. She was therefore failed to carry out one of her most important roles as monarch which, according to Bagehot, is to ‘advise and to warn’. She apparently neither advised Kerr on the repugnance of his planned actions nor warned Whitlam about the coming coup.

The remark was presented by the queen as a casual off-the-cuff one but was not. It was also presented by the media like that. That is not honest and straightforward even as reporting nor an open and transparent decision-making process from a state within a state no-one knows about. It is a myth like a fairy-tale that the queen is independent of politics.

And how do you know this who back room talk even happened? You believe Cameron? More fool you. Well you can ask Sir Christopher Geidt yourself if you like. But the Palace says:
“We won’t comment on the questions relating to Sir Christopher’s work before joining the royal household.” I’m treading carefully here… the Guardian article on tbis person some have without foundation previously alleged to be a spy begins ‘This article was amended on 31 May 2013 to remove a number of inaccuracies regarding Sir Christopher Geidt in the article, which overstated his role as the Queen’s private secretary in relation to the royal charter for the press. We have also clarified aspects of his legal action against John Pilger and Central Television. We apologise for the errors. Read the PCC adjudication…’ So I’m sure you’re right nothing at all to worry about everything hunky-dory no probs. I agree with both the Palace and Downing Street who are in agreement and say no comment and so should we all God save the queen and all her advisers, and all of us!

The way this was reported in our media (Guardian included) was ridiculous. It was reported as if the Queen was “overheard” saying it. Anyone with half a brain knew it was simply a PR stunt, and yet our so-called journalists reported it as them having overheard it, without question at all. This is just one of many, many examples of this type of gutter journalism that popped up during the indyref campaign. This was to be expected from rags like The Sun and Daily Record, but the Guardian “journalists” were at it too, clearly trying to influence the outcome of a democratic vote in any way they could. Some “fair fight” the indyref turned out to be.

Cameron’s a walking disaster zone with a misplaced superiority complex. Both dim and devious all at the same time.

This whole episode sums him up. He very nearly lost what should have been an unlosable referendum due to his own arrogance and cluelessness. And he then put pressure on the queen to rescue him despite the conflict of interest facing her, or the personal embarrassment caused.

He is a Libra male – that speaks to your 1st para’ [read Cainer]. As to Cameron being ‘alone’ in gettng QE2 to put her ha’penny’s worth in? It took all 3 major political chumps to do that – her Maj is not that stoopid as to align herself to the whims of one [Tory] party leader – that would not be eitable to her Subjects, on the hole… it took all three Amigos to tango and elicit that bone-shaking-comment out of Buck House Inc. damaged and finished future for royals for good as a non-political and neutral body.

Not really a big surprise, you can’t get more London establishment than the Queen.

Keep an eye on the honours lists for the next couple of years and see how many businessmen and bankers that made helpful predictions of doom for the No campaign get their payoff.

Ah the Queenie and Cameron; very much in words popularised by Auden ‘the old gang’. Waning relevance. The ironic thing is that the people of Scotland did not ultimately ‘think very carefully’, but fearfully. Big difference.

Its been here a wee while, Mr Smith -think about it. Its jut taking longer than anticipated as bailiffs are dawdling in issuing eviction orders to some very stubborn tenants who have defaulted on rent for 1000 years 🙂

http://www.parliament.uk/about/how/role/parliament-crown/ Alongside this system, the UK is also a constitutional monarchy. This is a situation where there is an established monarch (currently Queen Elizabeth II), who remains politically impartial and with limited powers. Best tell parliament then that they are wrong and you are right get rid off all these anachronistic vampires and repatriate all the money they have squeezed out of Britain

One needs to think very carefully about the future if Mr Salmond and the referendum ghost return to haunt the corridors of Westminster next year. I’d watch my back Alex if I

Alright I’m stumped, I’m not sure what the monarchy actually does. Brits will have to explain to me why this antiquated figurehead institution is actually supposed to mean anything, and how it somehow is part of a “Democracy”.

As illuminating as these revelations are, it’s all a bit shabby considering the mindless and regressive British nationalism that you were peddling at the time.

How different the outcome would have been if the well wisher outside Crathie had kept off the subject of politics. Damned commoners, but for that the referendum was lost. Not the conniving Establishment and it’s evil henchmen after all then, just some damned peasant who did not know better than to discuss politics in public, begad. Well, finally we know.

Nothing about this scandal on BBC website, I wonder why not?

No doubt 44% of Scottish people thought very carefully about the future and voted YES. Sometime in the future perhaps more Scots will think carefully about the future, and of

the past, and vote YES.

Scotland won’t have another ‘chance’ to go-it-alone. They are part of the Union. Imagine California wanting to declare unilateral declaration of independence? Civil War. Arnie

“I’ll be back” Schwarzeneger may have swung it. Anyway, its not on the cards ref. Haig today blocking future renegade moves up North. Its better together – and why is there so

much antipathy – mainly from North o’ the Border – to the United Kingdom remaining as a viable unit? Cutting off one’s nose to spite one’s face has never made sense to me?

unless one is masochistically inclined with sociopathic leanings. Hi Alex, how’s the weather in Brigadoon laddie?

It was common knowledge it was ‘the talk’ of the aristocracy at all the dinner parties. Darling and Brown were already made fools of by Cameron without the living dead making an

appearance.

We Scots must be very important to the English, so why are we less prosperous than the S.E of England. These people blew up an effigy of our First Minister in celebration of

what ? Perhaps their wealth comes from us ?

So who the hell is this ‘Queen’ person? And why does everyone answer to her? What century do we live in?

The break up is coming, we know who are our enemies now… Scotland will be a republic, just like Ireland.. And I for one will be glad of it… Its time for a breath of fresh

air, and an end to the English caste system.. It will do us all good, to break from the degenerate English establishment, their day is done..

Winning the battle doesn’t win the war. It still amazes me that the head of a church can impose the will of the church on everyone so freely. The church should never be involved

in making policies of the state, IMHO.

Isn’t she German ??? or from Germanic Stock ??? Cameron could get laid in a brothel, The UK is a joke of a nation, no wonder why you guys produce the best comedians you have to

so as to laugh at yourselves as there isn’t much left in Great Britain now is there? The only thing is you guys need to work out is the rest of the globe laughing with you or at

you? The English seem to need Wales/ Scotland and Northern Ireland more than those guys need the English or want the English, Why if the English are so superior why don’t they

go it alone hey do the reverse themselves become Great England and see what they can do?

Video Record Exposing Murphy’s Role in The Betrayal of The Dunfermline Building Society–Be Warned He Is A Snake in The Grass

March 28 2009; Dunfermline Building Society collapse

Jim “Spud” Murphy Spins the lie. Sews the seeds of doubt about the society’s viability. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rv7wMpb1H1s

March 29, 2009 Labour, (Jim “Spud” Murphy) Spins and Lies Against The Dunfermline Building Society

Jim Spud Murphy: I find it difficult to express my disgust for Quisling Murphy. In every situation he takes the smarmy anti Scottish line. Have people like this no pride? Do they ever tell the truth? Is their personal career all that matters? How exactly do they differ from the bankers?

Alistair Darling: He was determined to force through the shotgun sale of Scotland’s largest building society despite an unprecedented backlash from its board and the Scottish Government. His decision meant the Dunfermline Building Society was broken up, its savings business taken over by the highest bidder and the taxpayer footing the bill for losses on its loans. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nU3qUt2Xb6k

March 30 2009; Dunfermline Building Society Scandal Unravels, Murphy Lies Exposed

Claims by Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, about Dunfermline Building Society’s financial position have been contradicted by the government’s own appointed administrators KPMG, it emerged yesterday. Speaking last week, Murphy claimed that the society had invested in “reckless” sub-prime investments in the United States, and implied that it was actively involved in buying risky packages of US mortgage debt.

However, the government-appointed administrators, KPMG, have now identified that there were no such investments. Last night a KPMG insider confirmed that Dunfermline Building Society (DBS) was not exposed to American toxic debts and that it was solely commercial property problems in the UK that led to the society’s collapse.

Westminster has taken the so called bad parts. Nationwide have taken the good loan book. So why have they been given £1.6bn. Even if Darling was correct that the society would require £100m that’s a small percentage of the money given to the Nationwide. Isn’t it strange that unionists are so keen to blame the management rather than show concern that Scotland is losing another head office.

Evidence that the chairman is to blame? He has only been in post for 6 months. The Labour Government claimed the DBS needed £60m-£100m & that they had sub-primes debts, when in actual fact they had no sub-prime debt and they only needed 26m. The Scottish government offered 25m and there were loads of other offers. All ignored by Labour.

Labour Took full advantage of the banking situation to bring down the Scottish banking system. Third one in a row! Who do you believe the Uk Labour government or the chairman of the Dunfermline Building Society?? I know who I’d trust! https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZR3SICn4Z58

Apr 5 2009; Dunfermline Building Society & Team GB – Interview Jim Murphy

More waffle from Murphy. What a chancer!!! Quoting the Sunday Herald: “CLAIMS BY Jim Murphy, the Scottish Secretary, about Dunfermline Building Society’s financial position have been contradicted by the government’s own appointed administrators KPMG, it emerged yesterday. Speaking last week, Murphy claimed that the society had invested in “reckless” sub-prime investments in the US,… …However, the Sunday Herald understands that the government-appointed administrators, KPMG, have now identified that there were no such investments. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GktJWbstod8

Aug 24, 2010 Jim Murphy Tries The hard Sell Seeking to Justify The Unnecessary Takeover Of The Dunfermline Building Society

The Nationwide Building Society has been handed the vast bulk of the core business of the Dunfermline Building Society. So called toxic loans of £22M have been taken on by the government in Westminster. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ThK0pEWz5Lg

Sep 1, 2010 Gordon Brown and The Sell-Out of The Dunfermline Building Society

Brown doing his Thatcher act Closing down any form of independent banking in Scotland. Disgraceful centralisation of power emasculating Scotland. Concerns are now raised at the future of Dunfermline’s 530 staff members https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GboWulxaEh4

Scotland Within The UK Debate Westminster – The First Debate After The Referendum

13 Oct 2014 Scotland within the UK Debate Westminster Scottish Affairs

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr Alistair Carmichael): With permission, Mr Speaker, I wish to make a statement to the House about the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

As hon. Members will know, on 18 September the people of Scotland voted in a referendum on independence. I am pleased to report to the House that, by a margin of 10.6%, or by 55.3% to 44.7%, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom.

The referendum was underpinned by the Edinburgh agreement, signed between the United Kingdom Government and the Scottish Government in October 2012. That agreement ensured that the referendum would have a clear legal base, that it would be conducted in a way that commanded the confidence of both Parliaments, Governments and people, and, most importantly, that it would deliver a fair, legal and decisive expression of the views of people in Scotland—a result that everyone would respect.

More than 2 million people made a positive choice for Scotland to remain part of the United Kingdom. The franchise for the referendum included, for the first time ever in this country, 16 and 17-year-olds. At a time when our elections have suffered from declining participation, the turnout across Scotland was nearly 85%—something that I am sure all across the House would welcome. Politics works best when people take an active interest in supporting the things that matter to them most. It also adds emphasis to the democratic result.

The decision of the people of Scotland was clear: they voted to continue to be part of this family of nations; they voted to continue to work alongside people in England, Wales and Northern Ireland; and they voted for all of us to remain together as a United Kingdom. It is important that everyone now accepts that result. We should all move on from being part of the 55% or the 45% to working for 100% of the people of Scotland.

That is what we are doing. The vow made by the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during the referendum campaign is already being put into practice. The Smith commission, chaired by Lord Smith of Kelvin, was up and running on 19 September. He will convene cross-party talks to reach agreement on the proposals for further devolution to Scotland. His terms of reference make it clear that the recommendations will deliver more financial, welfare and taxation powers, strengthening the Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom. But that process is not just about the parties; the referendum opened up civic engagement in Scotland across sectors, communities and organisations, and Lord Smith has made it clear that he wants to hear from all those groups to ensure that the recommendations he produces are informed by views from right across Scottish society.

By St Andrew’s day, Lord Smith will publish “Heads of Agreement”. The Government are committed to turning those recommendations into draft clauses by Burns night 2015. The timetable is demanding, but that is because the demand is there in Scotland to see change delivered, and it is a demand we shall meet. On Friday 10 October, all five main Scottish parties submitted their proposals to the commission. In the case of the Labour, Conservative and Liberal Democrat parties, the

proposals reflect the positions published by the parties prior to the referendum campaign. The Scottish National party and the Green party agreed to join the cross-party talks after the referendum, and they too submitted proposals on Friday—a development that we welcome.

Today I can confirm that the Government are meeting the first step in the further devolution process by publishing a Command Paper. The Command Paper we are presenting today provides a clear, factual summary of the proposals for further devolution in Scotland published by each of the three pro-UK parties, as we committed to do during the referendum campaign. Those plans encompass a broad, complex and often interlinked range of topics, from taxation to borrowing and from welfare to regulation. To inform and assist consideration of each of those proposals, the Command Paper also sets out factual information about the current situation in the key policy areas, as well as presenting some background information about devolution in Scotland to date. The publication is wholly without prejudice to the work of the Smith commission, which will look at proposals from all the parties and others and seek to establish the ground for consensus. This will be the first time in the development of Scotland’s constitutional future that all its main parties are participating in a process to consider further devolution. It is a truly historic moment, and one that I very much welcome.

With all five main Scottish parties working together in collaboration, I am confident that we will reach an agreement that will provide the enhanced powers to the people of Scotland and accountability for the Scottish Parliament while retaining the strength and benefits of being part of the United Kingdom. That was the message heard loud and clear during the referendum campaign, and it is one that this Government, and all Scotland’s political parties, are committed to supporting.

Margaret Curran (Glasgow East) (Lab): I thank the Secretary of State for advance sight of his statement.

Only three weeks ago, in unprecedented numbers, the people of Scotland voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. It was an historic decision, and the result was emphatically clear: the Scottish people voted for pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom; they voted to continue with devolution; and they voted for a stronger Scottish Parliament. I wish today to pay particular tribute to my right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown), who put the case with so much passion throughout the campaign.

Following the referendum, we can say with confidence that devolution is the settled will of the Scottish people and that we shall have a stronger Scottish Parliament. A vital part of the campaign was the commitment made by the Leader of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister to have a strengthened and empowered Scottish Parliament. Led by my right hon. Friend the Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath, we guaranteed a clear and definitive timetable for further powers, and I am pleased that the Secretary of State has published the Command Paper ahead of time today. Can the Secretary of State confirm that a motion now appears on the Order Paper detailing that timetable?

The process now ongoing under the leadership of Lord Smith of Kelvin will guarantee that more powers will come to the Scottish Parliament. The Labour party will enter the talks this week in a spirit of partnership and co-operation with the other parties. We will apply a simple test to reaching a conclusion: what outcome respects the result of the referendum and will make the people of Scotland better off? The people of Scotland have voted for pooling, sharing of resources and greater prosperity, and that should guide the commission’s discussions.

The referendum attracted the highest level of participation of any national poll ever held in Scotland. It is important that, as we develop this next stage of devolution, we reflect that. The Secretary of State has mentioned how voluntary organisations can participate. Will he lay out how individual members of the public can contribute to that process too and tell the House how Lord Smith intends to engage with people across every area of Scotland?

We debated the agreement for the referendum two years ago, as the Secretary of State said. At that time, I said that we would spend the campaign vigorously defending devolution from those who would seek to bring it to an end. Over these last two years, that is exactly what the Labour party has done. Not only does this campaign conclude with the devolution settlement secured; that settlement will be strengthened. We will continue to argue that the best future for Scottish people comes from pooling and sharing resources inside the United Kingdom and from a powerhouse Parliament that can again change the lives of people across Scotland. That is what the people of Scotland want, and it is what the Labour party will fight for.

Mr Carmichael: I thank the hon. Lady for the very constructive tone of her response. Working with people across parties has been an interesting experience, as it always is in Scotland, and it is clear that the process of cross-party working will have to continue if the will of the Scottish people expressed on 18 September is to be honoured. That will become all the more challenging, although I still believe it will be more effective as a result, for having members of the Scottish National party and Scottish Green party on board. A high price will be paid by any political party that does not enter the Smith commission and the process that follows in good faith.

I echo the hon. Lady’s comments about her right hon. Friends the Members for Edinburgh South West (Mr Darling) and for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath (Mr Brown). All Members from Scotland, and a number from beyond it, played their role in giving leadership across the referendum campaign, but her two right hon. Friends indeed played a particularly important and significant role.

The motion on the Order Paper honouring the timetable has indeed been tabled. On the approach of the Labour party and the Government, I should remind the House that under the Scotland Act 2012 any proposal should have cross-party support, should be based on evidence and should not be to the detriment of other parts of the UK. It is the Government’s view, as expressed in the Command Paper today, that that should also be the guiding principle in relation to the current process.

Dr Liam Fox (North Somerset) (Con): Does the Secretary of State accept that throughout the House many believe that further devolution to Scotland can occur only if there is a rebalancing of the entire constitutional settlement, with English votes on English issues? Does he agree that those who say that that would create two classes of MP are being disingenuous? The House has had an imbalance since devolution; many Members have been able to vote on issues such as health and education in England without having to answer to a single voter for those decisions.

Mr Carmichael: I have said many times that the completion of the job of devolution in Scotland and the process we are now undertaking would unlock the door to further constitutional change across the whole of the United Kingdom, and I believe that to be the case. Let me be clear, however, that the timetable we have set out here will be honoured. If other parts of the United Kingdom are able to take advantage and to move along in our slipstream, so to speak, that will be to their advantage, but we will not delay the implementation of the proposals in Scotland for other parts of the UK.

Anas Sarwar (Glasgow Central) (Lab): Scotland has decided and spoken, and it is now the accepted sovereign will of the Scottish people to work in partnership with the rest of the United Kingdom and support it through devolution. One of the lessons from the referendum campaign, though, is that although our country may not be broken, people believe that our political, social and economic model is broken and does not work for ordinary people. That is why I urge the Secretary of State and, indeed, the entire Government not to fall into the trap of thinking that we can just talk about which politician has what power in what building; more important is what politicians choose to do with the powers they have to make a genuine difference to people’s lives. Will the Secretary of State confirm that the process being talked about is separate from the process being mentioned by others—that of English votes for English laws?

Mr Carmichael: On the hon. Gentleman’s latter point, I think I have already made that clear. I very much hope that once we have done this piece of work, we will in Scotland at last be able to move on to using the powers of the Parliament rather than just talking about them.

Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD) rose—

Sir Menzies Campbell (North East Fife) (LD) rose—

Mr Speaker: Ah! Two distinguished Liberal Democrat knights in heated competition—what a delicious choice! I call Sir Menzies Campbell.

Sir Menzies Campbell: Does my right hon. Friend understand the general welcome there has been in Scotland for the fact that change in Scotland should not be held up to enable England to catch up? Having agreed that position, is it not right for the Government, and indeed for him today, to say that, although not in lockstep, there will undoubtedly be progress on constitutional change for the other nations that form the United Kingdom? Particularly with regard to any possible change in the role of Scottish MPs, does he agree that however superficially attractive it might appear, changes to the Standing Orders would be inappropriate, and that such a change to the role of Scottish MPs should undoubtedly be enshrined in primary legislation?

Mr Carmichael: My right hon. and learned Friend is entirely correct about that. This should be something that does more than just affect just the Standing Orders of this House. Indeed, even if it were to be done in that very narrow way, he would, I suspect, be one of the first to remind me that the House guards very jealously, through your office, Mr Speaker, its right to determine its Standing Orders for itself. It has never normally been the practice for Government to lead on these matters.

Mr William Bain (Glasgow North East) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State agree that the Smith commission process will require compromise and good faith from all political parties in Scotland? Does he also agree that in the agreement that comes we must see the sharing of resources across the United Kingdom? Is not that in keeping with the spirit of the way in which the Scottish people voted on 18 September?

Mr Carmichael: I think Lord Smith has already made it clear that he is not going to deliver independence by the back door. Whatever proposals he comes up with on St Andrew’s night in relation to further devolution, they will be in the context of there continuing to be a United Kingdom, and the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom will be respected.

Mr Bernard Jenkin (Harwich and North Essex) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that we ought to learn some lessons from this near-death experience of the United Kingdom and the fact that we did not intend the winning margin to be as narrow as 10%? Does he also agree that if we are to avoid another referendum, Westminster politics and Westminster politicians must raise the tone of debate with our Scottish counterparts in order to ensure that we develop more of a relationship of mutual respect, with less opportunity for the nationalists to make mischief?

Mr Carmichael: There are indeed many lessons to be learned from this, and their full extent will probably not be apparent for some time to come. This statement is an important part of the process, because it is very important that the Government, with the official Opposition as well, are able to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that we are making good the commitment that we made in the course of the referendum campaign. Politicians doing what they say they will do in that way is probably the most important thing we can do to restore faith in politics.

Pete Wishart (Perth and North Perthshire) (SNP): The Secretary of State is, of course, right: the referendum was an incredible, transformational event that gripped and energised our whole nation. I am sure he will want to join me in congratulating the Scottish people on the way in which they went about that business. He is also right to say that Scotland is moving on. According to one opinion poll, two thirds of the Scottish people want devolution maximum—everything devolved, other than foreign affairs and defence. Three quarters have said that they want all taxation devolved to Scotland. This is the thing, isn’t it? There might be a Command Paper, but the people in charge of this process are the Scottish people themselves and we will be judged by their good judgment on what they want for their future.

Mr Carmichael: May I say again that I welcome the participation of the hon. Gentleman’s party in the Smith process? I very much hope—in fact, I believe—that that is being done in good faith. However, perhaps the hon. Gentleman should take heed of the 60.19% of the people in his own area who voted to remain part of the United Kingdom. If he tries to subvert the Smith process by getting independence through the back door, as others have said, he will pay a heavy price.

Sir Malcolm Rifkind (Kensington) (Con): Should we not all be grateful to the Scottish National party for having called the referendum? Has it not in fact provided an opportunity for the Scottish people in the 21st century to show that they have come to the same conclusion as their ancestors in 1707 that the best interests of all the peoples of this island are to have a British citizenship in a United Kingdom?

Mr Carmichael: There are, indeed, occasions when we should be grateful to the Scottish National party; they are few and far between, but this may, in the way the right hon. and learned Gentleman describes it, be one of them. It was not, of course, the Scottish National party that called the referendum; it was an agreement between Her Majesty’s Government here and the Scottish Government in Edinburgh—the Edinburgh agreement—that gave the basis for it to happen. It would be helpful for the SNP leadership to now make it clear that we have met the terms of the Edinburgh agreement, that the decision was fair, legal and decisive, and that, accordingly, we will not revisit the process.

Gregg McClymont (Cumbernauld, Kilsyth and Kirkintilloch East) (Lab): As a Labour nominee to the Smith commission, may I welcome the Secretary of State’s constructive comments? In that spirit of constructive dialogue, as we approach the debate about further devolution will he consider bringing forward the public information campaign on the raft of tax powers that are to be transferred to the Scottish Parliament by 2016?

Mr Carmichael: I wish the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues well on the Smith commission; he has a job of work to do, but he is very well qualified to do it. I will give consideration to his question about our public information campaign on the powers already coming from the 2012 Act.

Sir Hugh Robertson (Faversham and Mid Kent) (Con): The Secretary of State is to be commended for introducing the Command Paper in such a timely fashion. Has any thought been given to the lessons learned from this campaign, particularly whether a simple majority of 50% plus one is sufficient for a matter of such far-reaching constitutional implications?

Mr Carmichael: I have thought of little else in the past few weeks. I know that when referendum processes are undertaken in other parts of the world a debate often takes places on the point raised by the right hon. Gentleman. My view continues to be that 50% plus one should be the threshold for any referendum in a democracy.

Mr John Denham (Southampton, Itchen) (Lab): It is clear that Scotland will now get what Scotland wants, and so England must get what England wants. The Secretary of State has outlined a process through which the debate about Scotland’s future reached every corner of Scottish society. Does he agree that, in determining our future, England must have that same opportunity and that to push changes through a narrow Cabinet Committee on an artificially short time scale would be absolutely unacceptable?

Mr Carmichael: In relation to the work of the Cabinet Committee, there is not of course a time scale, except that we are looking towards the next general election in May 2015. I would say to the right hon. Gentleman that we are perhaps more familiar with the process in Scotland than in the rest of the United Kingdom. We have been round this course at least twice: first with the constitutional convention, and then with the Calman commission in 2008. On each occasion, we brought together political parties and the voices of business, trade unions, churches, local authorities and others to build consensus, and then we implemented it. That is the way that people are best guaranteed to get the constitutional change they want.

Mrs Cheryl Gillan (Chesham and Amersham) (Con): The Secretary of State knows that, with the advent of devolution under the previous Labour Government, the number of seats for Scotland in this House was reduced from 72 to 59. With further devolution, will he support a reduction in the number of seats for Scotland in this House?

Mr Carmichael: No.

Tom Greatrex (Rutherglen and Hamilton West) (Lab/Co-op): Further to that question, I note that the Secretary of State has made it clear that implications for other parts of the United Kingdom will follow from this process, and some of those points are set out in the Command Paper. Will he clarify that? On page 43 of the Command Paper, it states that the Liberal Democrat commission’s view is that

“the present level of Scottish representation at Westminster should be retained until a federal structure for the UK has been delivered”. Does that remain his position and that of his Front-Bench colleagues?

Mr Carmichael: That remains the position of my party.

Sir Malcolm Bruce (Gordon) (LD): May I first welcome my right hon. Friend’s Command Paper? As somebody who led our party in the constitutional convention, I welcome the fact that the Scottish Parliament will now get proper tax-raising powers. Does he agree that anything more than 50% looks a lot like home rule and a shared partnership? To those who want devolution within England, may I say, “You have our support, but it is quite difficult to support something that is unclear”? We need a constitutional convention. I suggest that devolution has in every case been accompanied by electoral reform and proportionality, and that should also be a condition in England.

Mr Carmichael: It is an important point that devolution has in every case been accompanied by electoral reform, and that institutions to which power is devolved are always elected proportionately. I cannot add a great deal to my answer to the right hon. Member for Southampton, Itchen (Mr Denham) on the need to build consensus in whichever way people in England choose. In Scotland, we have done it in a way that has worked for us twice, and will I believe now work for us a third time. It could work for people in England, but it is for them to make up their own minds about that.

Ian Paisley (North Antrim) (DUP): I welcome the Secretary of State’s statement. I welcome more the resounding result of our Scottish kith and kin choosing to stay within the Union, and I welcome the way in which the debate was fought and won. The implications go well beyond the Scottish highlands and islands or the borders: where Scotland goes with devolution, Northern Ireland invariably follows. What engagement will the Smith commission and Lord Smith have with parties in Northern Ireland to ensure that the outcome reflects the needs of all the United Kingdom in all its diversity, especially the needs of Northern Ireland?

Mr Carmichael: Lord Smith has been charged with building a consensus in relation to further powers for the Scottish Parliament. I am sure that if the hon. Gentleman has a view informed by his experience of devolution in Northern Ireland, Lord Smith will certainly be interested to hear it. Given the remit that we have given Lord Smith, however, I do not expect him to say anything in relation to changes for Northern Ireland.

Iain Stewart (Milton Keynes South) (Con): Will my right hon. Friend assure me that the business community on both sides of the border will be fully consulted on the further devolution of powers over personal taxation, because they shoulder much of the administrative burden? Much as further devolution might be desirable, it must not increase the regulatory burden on wealth and job creators on both sides of the border.

Mr Carmichael: Indeed, the voice of business is very important in this process, as it was throughout the referendum campaign. I know from my discussions with the CBI, the chambers of commerce and others that they are working on their proposals. I urge all collective organisations, individual businesses and individual citizens who have something to say to come forward and say it—this is their time.

Graeme Morrice (Livingston) (Lab): Will the Secretary of State confirm that the decisive no vote was not a vote for the status quo, but a vote for continued change, and that we in this House must deliver and be seen to deliver on our commitments to further Scottish devolution quickly, inclusively and decisively, without tying them to any decentralisation plans for south of the border?

Mr Carmichael: I am happy to give the hon. Gentleman that assurance, which I have already given on two or three occasions this afternoon. There are few things that would be worse for the constitutional integrity of the United Kingdom than our not delivering on the promises that we made or not meeting the timetable. It is because I care so much about keeping the United Kingdom together that I am determined that we will meet the timetable that we have laid out.

Sir William Cash (Stone) (Con): Today’s Command Paper does not contain a section dedicated to the supervening question of the position of European law in relation to Scotland. That is a reserved matter under the Scotland Act 1998. Will the Secretary of State give an absolute and categorical assurance that, having saved the Union of the United Kingdom, under no circumstances will we surrender the Scottish functions to the European Union?

Mr Carmichael: I would be more than happy for the hon. Gentleman to engage directly with Lord Smith. Indeed, I will make every effort to explain to Lord Smith what he might expect.

Mr Brian H. Donohoe (Central Ayrshire) (Lab): In his statement, the Secretary of State said: “It is important that everyone now accepts this result”. The $64,000 question is how long it will be before the SNP demands another referendum.

Mr Carmichael: Demands for a further referendum would have an exceptionally damaging effect on Scottish businesses, Scottish jobs and the Scottish economy. We know that because we can see what happened in Quebec in Canada when the separatists did not accept the outcome and came back a second time. We know what happened to the financial services sector in Montreal. I do not want that to happen in Scotland. Unfortunately, I cannot dictate what the Scottish National party will do, but I say to it that if it does not make it clear that it accepts this result and if it does not engage in the Smith commission in good faith, it will suffer.

Crispin Blunt (Reigate) (Con): As my right hon. Friend congratulates the people of Scotland on the 85% turnout in the referendum, I hope that he will reflect on the 85% of people in the United Kingdom who did not get a vote on the Union: namely, the people of England. He has no mandate from me or my constituents to devolve further powers to Scotland, while expecting my constituents to bankroll it and failing to address the issue of English votes for English laws.

Mr Carmichael: I fear that my hon. Friend does not quite reflect the intricacies of the settlement in the United Kingdom. I invite him to reflect on that at some leisure. I understand completely the concerns that he expresses about the position of England within the United Kingdom. Of course that discussion needs to take place. We have had such a discussion for decades in Scotland and I wish the people of England well in having it, but I cannot emphasise too strongly that that discussion cannot and will not hold up the delivery of the powers to the Scottish Parliament.

Cathy Jamieson (Kilmarnock and Loudoun) (Lab/Co-op): A key principle during the referendum debate was the delivery of fairness in Scotland. I was pleased to hear the Secretary of State confirm that the principle of pooling and sharing resources across the United Kingdom will be fundamental. Will he say more about whether Lord Smith will have access to various resources within the Treasury and the Government so that he can produce further analysis of the various proposals that have been put forward by the different political parties, with the principle of the pooling and sharing of resources in mind?

Mr Carmichael: The secretariat for Lord Smith’s commission is already supported by civil servants from the Scotland Office, the Cabinet Office and the Treasury. I met Lord Smith on the Monday following the referendum and I told him then—I am happy to repeat this commitment publicly—that any resources that he felt he needed would be given, such is the importance that we attach to the work with which he has been tasked.

Sir James Paice (South East Cambridgeshire) (Con): Does my right hon. Friend agree that one of the holes in the current devolution settlement, as some of us pointed out at the time, is that effectively the Scottish people have representation without taxation? We must ensure that the Scottish Government have not only the power but the obligation to raise some of their taxes, thus increasing their accountability and enhancing democracy.

Mr Carmichael: My right hon. Friend is absolutely right. The completion of the job of devolution requires the Scottish Parliament to be given control of at least half its budget—preferably more in my view, although we will see what Lord Smith comes forward with on that in the fullness of time. It is important for the rebalancing of the political debate in Scotland that we have a Parliament that debates not only how to spend money, but how to raise it.

Katy Clark (North Ayrshire and Arran) (Lab): Does the Secretary of State agree that the high level of participation among ordinary members of the public in the referendum debate was incredibly important, and a stark contrast to the debate leading up to the Scotland Act 2012, which of course delivered substantial further powers to the Scottish Parliament on the taxation and indeed borrowing that come to it? Does he agree that we must listen to the message of that debate, which was that whether people voted yes or no, they wanted change and we have failed to deliver on social justice? Will he hold a public education campaign and ensure that the Government talk not only about the powers that need to be delivered, but about how those powers can be used by the Scottish Parliament to deliver social justice?

Mr Carmichael: Having a short process such as the one we have outlined allows early delivery of those powers, and that will allow us to get on to talking about how we use those powers, not just where they are. I share the hon. Lady’s commitment to progress and social justice, and one thing that is clear from 18 September is that people in Scotland, and elsewhere, understand that these are often complex and subtle problems that we cannot solve just by drawing a line on the map.

David Mowat (Warrington South) (Con): Does the Secretary of State agree that part of this settlement needs to be a public spending agreement that is fair to all four nations of the UK? On that basis, will he be reviewing the Barnett formula to ensure that it continues to reflect relative need and will do so in the future?

Mr Carmichael: Part of the vow made by the three party leaders was that there would be no change to the Barnett formula, and that remains Government policy.

Jonathan Edwards (Carmarthen East and Dinefwr) (PC): With the Wales Bill about to proceed to the other place, what improvements will the UK Government bring to the Bill to reflect the changing constitutional landscape following events in Scotland?

Mr Carmichael: I am afraid that the answer to that question will have to be delivered by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Wales.

Mike Crockart (Edinburgh West) (LD): I thank my right hon. Friend for his statement, and may I echo his call for all of Scotland, whether part of the 45%, 55%, or indeed 65% of my constituents in Edinburgh West who voted no, to now set aside our differences and party affiliations and ensure that the will of the Scottish people is delivered?

Mr Carmichael: I echo that sentiment, and having campaigned on a number of occasions with my hon. Friend in his constituency during the referendum campaign, I was not in any way surprised that his constituents voted by such a handsome margin; it was almost as good as the decision in Orkney—[Interruption.] Shetland also voted no very heavily. The best way to capitalise on that magnificent result is for us in this House to demonstrate good faith in relation to the vow.

Jim McGovern (Dundee West) (Lab): I am mindful of the previous hon. Member’s contribution. At the risk of sounding partisan, we see the separatists’ turnout here today. Are they really the party that stands up for Scotland? They cannot even turn up for Scotland.

Mr Carmichael: I am sure there are good reasons why hon. Members are here or not, and they can explain that for themselves.

Andrew Percy (Brigg and Goole) (Con): The Secretary of State is absolutely right that the vow must be made good on, but the devolution of considerable additional powers to Scotland has a particular impact on the north of England and we need a long-term solution to our constitution. One thing that could very quickly enhance the voice of the north is to deliver English votes for English laws. Can the Secretary of State confirm that there is absolutely nothing to prevent that happening in tandem with the new powers for Scotland?

Mr Carmichael: To make any change of that sort, it will be necessary for the parties to build consensus and to deliver it through this House. That is something that goes beyond my responsibility.

Mrs Anne McGuire (Stirling) (Lab): Given the enthusiasm of the Scottish electorate during the referendum campaign, how will the Secretary of State maintain the enthusiasm, engagement and transparency of the process, so that on 30 November it does not look as though we have delivered a fix, instead of something that has support among the Scottish people?

Mr Carmichael: I will be more than happy to play my role in the process that the right hon. Lady outlines. There is a duty and an opportunity for all of us, across all the parties, to play a role. The electorate has rebooted politics in Scotland. It is for us now to respond to the initiative that has been taken by the people.

Mr Philip Hollobone (Kettering) (Con): I am told that on all sorts of measures Kettering is the most average borough in England. I would contend that Kettering people are the most fair-minded people in England. I am sure that my constituents would be very happy for Scotland to have lots more powers so that it can decide things for itself. However, what the fair-minded people of Kettering cannot accept—I would like the Secretary of State to try to explain it to them—is the Scottish people receiving premiums for public services, over and above what the average English taxpayer gets in England, unrelated to relative deprivation.

Mr Carmichael: The flow of money between the different parts of the United Kingdom comes and goes at different times over the years. What we have—Scotland has just said that it wishes to continue to be part of this—is a situation in which we all share and pool risks and resources. That is what the people of Scotland have voted for. I hope the hon. Gentleman will sign up to that too.

Sheila Gilmore (Edinburgh East) (Lab): In relation to greater devolution, one proposal that my party made was for the devolution of housing benefit. I appreciate that to some extent that cuts across one of the current Government’s pet projects, universal credit, but will the Secretary of State assure me that his colleagues on the Government Front Bench will be as flexible as possible and willing to see changes that will really help people in Scotland. Incidentally, this proposal might get his Government off one of their uncomfortable hooks—a policy that is not even going to work.

Mr Carmichael: Time will tell exactly what the change to universal credit achieves. On the devolution of housing benefit and other matters, we will wait and see what Lord Smith comes forward with. It is not appropriate at this stage for me, as a Minister, to second-guess what he might come up with, but the Government will respond in good faith when we see his heads of agreement.

Mrs Anne Main (St Albans) (Con): The Secretary of State will be aware that very late in the campaign all three party leaders promised significant extra powers to the people of Scotland. What calculations were done on the costs of implementing any additional powers? I heard the Secretary of State say that all resources would be given in terms of making up the deal, but when will the House see any figures associated with what will happen in the name of giving extra powers to Scotland?

Mr Carmichael: May I gently correct my hon. Friend on one point? The proposals of the three parties that support the continuation of the United Kingdom were published, in some cases, 18 months ahead of the independence referendum, and all certainly were published well before the summer. What was made clear in the latter stages of the referendum campaign was the timetable that would be followed. That was the essence of the new commitment that was made. On the figures that will be available, I am afraid that my hon. Friend will, like the rest of us, have to wait until Lord Smith comes forward with his heads of agreement on 30 November, because we cannot put figures on something that we do not yet know the details of.

Sandra Osborne (Ayr, Carrick and Cumnock) (Lab): These powers are, of course, extremely important, but may I join colleagues on the Opposition Benches in emphasising the need for further devolution to deliver on social justice and equality? That is what the Scottish people voted for, and it is what they want to hear. We are very proud of our young people and the way they conducted themselves and engaged with the campaign, but does the Secretary of State agree that it is illogical to give them a vote for just one election?

Mr Carmichael: I certainly join the hon. Lady in congratulating 16 and 17-year-olds on the enthusiasm and vigour that they brought to the campaign, which was one of the most heartening aspects of the whole process. Although this goes beyond the next general election, I think it would be difficult for any future Government to resist such a change across the whole of the United Kingdom, and, having seen its effect in Scotland, I do not see why anybody would want to.

Michael Connarty (Linlithgow and East Falkirk) (Lab): I commend the Secretary of State for being able to take the heat out of a situation better than almost anyone else in politics. He has taken some heat himself during the campaign. Will he assure me that the people who do not shout the loudest—people who do not gang up on others—will be heard by the Smith commission? I am talking about the quiet people—the 10,000 contacts I had from constituents who said they wanted this to be solved, whether they voted yes or no, and who wanted their group, whether it was a non-governmental organisation or a charity, to be heard by whoever designs the future of Scotland within the Union.

Mr Carmichael: The hon. Gentleman commends me on taking the heat out of the situation. I wonder if that is perhaps an oblique way of saying I am boring if that is what is necessary. I have certainly been accused of an awful lot worse than that during my 13 years as a Member of this House. In terms of engaging the quiet majority who spoke, the hon. Gentleman is absolutely right: it should not just be the squeaky wheel that gets the grease. Anybody who has a view on how Scotland can be better governed should be able to express that view and expect it to be given the respect it will undoubtedly deserve.

Gemma Doyle (West Dunbartonshire) (Lab/Co-op): The people of Scotland have made a positive choice to stay in the UK. There is clearly support for the further devolution proposed by the three parties, and that must now happen and that process must move forward. I understand that there need to be discussions about devolution to other parts of the UK, but will the Secretary of State urge calm among his colleagues? It will be ludicrous if the result of this vote is that we start to rip apart this Parliament because of their ill-thought-out and rushed proposals.

Mr Carmichael: I cannot restate too often the importance of building the broadest possible consensus. It has taken us decades to do that in Scotland, and the Smith commission is just the latest iteration. I believe that parties in England, Wales and Northern Ireland now have to enter into that process with the same good faith we are showing in Scotland. There is no alternative to building that sort of consensus. Reflecting on some of the efforts of this Government, I see no other way of achieving constitutional reform than by building that consensus.

Ms Gisela Stuart (Birmingham, Edgbaston) (Lab): I wish the Secretary of State well in completing the process of devolution to Scotland, but it cannot be denied that that will leave unfinished business in the form of devolution in England to our great cities outside London such as Birmingham. In his capacity as a Cabinet member of the United Kingdom Government, is he talking to his colleagues—particularly the Minister responsible for cities—about how the greater devolution of power to cities in England can take place in tandem with the work that he is doing in Scotland?

Mr Carmichael: I reiterate that I hesitate to use terms such as “in tandem” because they might suggest a link that could cause delay for one process or the other. It is apparent to me that there is an increased appetite for discussing constitutional change, especially in England. I see that among my own family living in England. I think that it is entirely healthy, and I will encourage it in any way I can. The hon. Lady mentioned devolution to cities. I believe that this Government’s record on city deals and on giving opportunities and resources to cities represents one of our biggest successes. It has probably brought more significant change to the way in which England is governed than many people realise.

Wayne David (Caerphilly) (Lab): I strongly support more powers for the Scottish Parliament, but as the Secretary of State has said, there is a growing appetite for more devolution throughout the whole of the United Kingdom, perhaps in different forms. Will he therefore support the sensible suggestion that the way forward might well be to have a constitutional convention?

Mr Carmichael: I have already made it clear that I am something of an enthusiast for that process, having been through it north of the border. I have always thought that there were applicable lessons for the rest of the United Kingdom, but I have to tell the hon. Gentleman that I do not see us resolving that issue this side of the general election.

Mr Iain McKenzie (Inverclyde) (Lab): I do not think that it is lost on the Secretary of State, or on any of the hon. Members in this House who took part in the referendum campaign, that there are now deep divisions among the Scottish people. Does he agree that, if those divisions are to be healed to allow people to come together, a good starting point would be for the leadership of the Scottish National party to acknowledge that the question of Scottish independence is now dead for decades?

Mr Carmichael: I have already made it clear that I expect the leadership of the Scottish National party—in whatever shape or form it eventually emerges—to give that commitment to the Scottish people. That was what the party signed up to in the Edinburgh agreement and that was what it was saying in the week before the referendum. I see no reason why it should not stick to that position.

Chris Bryant (Rhondda) (Lab): I am absolutely certain that the events in Scotland will lead to further devolution in Wales and in England, but what analysis has the Secretary of State made of the proposals on English votes for English laws? Would it not be bizarre if Scottish MPs were barred from voting but Scottish peers were allowed to vote on exactly the same legislation? Such peers could include the ninth Earl of Arran, the 14th Earl of Stair, the 16th Earl of Lindsay and, for that matter, Lord Smith.

Mr Carmichael: Lord Smith is not an hereditary peer. As my right hon. Friend the Member for Yeovil (Mr Laws) has already said, where we have devolved, we have devolved to a legislature, be it a Parliament or an Assembly, that is elected proportionally. That has been an important part of the way in which we have gone about the process of devolution, and I think that the people of England should be entitled to that as well. The essential difficulty that the hon. Gentleman touches on is that it is—[Interruption.] He knows my views on an unelected House of Lords. It is very difficult to devolve within Parliament but not the Executive, and that is something that those who want changes of this sort will have to address and explain.

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this:

Share this: