Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country? – Ach, why no?

It’s a hell of a time in old Caledonia with farcical scare stories sprouting like mushrooms in the night, a fresh batch eerily appearing only to be dispelled each morning by a smidgen of reason. To mention just some of the more plausible recent cringing unionist lies we’ve been told: it is ‘illegal’ for us to decide our own future like a ‘real’ country; our beloved pandas will be on overnight rendition flights south following independence; anyone on a Spanish holiday at the stroke of midnight on independence day will be forcibly deported, or more likely shot; and my own personal favourite – we will have to pay the removal costs for WMDs that were unlawfully sited in our country against our will. 

Today the big news was Salmond having the cheek to use Edinburgh Castle for an event of great national and, going by the large assembly of foreign press, international significance.  Apparently an iconic building that predates the union by centuries is not a suitable place to discuss Scottish democracy.  Despite this the dastardly Salmond announced that it is the Scottish Government’s intention to hold a referendum on whether Scotland should regain its status as an independent nation. 

The cat is out the bag.  The unionists did not see that one coming.  Perhaps that is why they have not been able to come up with a clear or cohesive argument in defence of their cherished union, or propose with any sincerity their vision of how the current constitutional situation can be improved, short of independence. 

The SNP have announced quite clearly that they wish to see a one question, Yes/No referendum asking the following question: 'Do you agree that Scotland should be an independent country?"  Seems straightforward enough though even this may well be branded ‘too ambiguous’ by the brand of unionist who deliberately fails to grasp the concept of independence, even though they understand it perfectly when applied to any other country.

If opinion polls are to be believed there does seem to be a growing interest in full fiscal autonomy, or some form of ‘devo max’ yet curiously no party is offering this.  I am mildly surprised that this is not causing more of an outcry than it seems to be.  The SNP are sticking to independence, which as their raison d’etre is forgivable, and they have significant electoral support for this stance. 

Support for the status quo is less yet we have three parties representing that antiquated model when only one would suffice and none of them acknowledging what the people actually want.  The party that comes up with a credible implementation of fiscal autonomy may well win the day yet the unionists are too busy currying for London favour to care even for their own political survival.  The electorate do not reward such stale indecision – just ask the remaining lib dems, assuming you can find one.  If majority opinion wants ‘devo max’ then that is precisely what we should get.  Its time someone thought about offering it. 

Be careful what you vote for however.  Thrilling as devo max may sound for a lot of people it carries some big drawbacks that independence simply does not.  We would still be in a situation where London decides what is best for London and imposes it unilaterally on us in key matters such as defence and foreign policy.  Essentially, we would send a Barnet-style block grant to Westminster to fund Tory wars and pay for William Hague’s whisky-free excursions to promote the RUKs interests.  That would be a curious settlement indeed but still far less ludicrous than our current arrangements.