Mixed reactions to Scottish plan

Published Thursday, 26 January 2012
Comments
Toggle font size
Print

Plans for Scottish independence, unveiled on Wednesday by the country's First Minister Alex Salmond, have met with mixed reactions.

Video available to UK viewers only.
We’re sorry. This video is unavailable from your location.

The SNP leader says the referendum ballot will pose a question to the Scottish people, in less than two years time, requiring the most important decision in 300 years to be made.

"With independence, we can have a new social union with the other nations within these islands," Mr Salmond told the Scottish parliament.

"We will continue to share Her Majesty the Queen as Head of State - but we won't have our young servicemen and women dragged into illegal wars like Iraq and we won't have nuclear weapons based on Scottish soil."

Amid considerable political debate on the issue, the future of the United Kingdom is at stake - meaning major implications for Northern Ireland.

"Politically, it's inconceivable that the disintegration of the core of the union would not cause a whole ripple effect," former Northern Ireland human rights commissioner Christine Bell told UTV.

Now a professor of Constitutional Law at Edinburgh University, she added that such a development would result in "a need to reconstitute and redefine and re-describe the United Kingdom in some shape or form - and that would have implications for Northern Ireland".

On the streets of Edinburgh, some people were of the opinion that independence is inevitable - others were less convinced that the support for Mr Salmond's plans is wide-spread enough to get the result the SNP leader wants.

Editor of The Scotsman, John McLelland, told UTV hard questions over practicalities need asking.

"I don't think there's any doubt that Scotland could survive as an independent country," he said.

"The question is whether or not we would prosper as an independent country - whether we do better than we are just now and whether or not it's a leap worth taking."

Northern Ireland's politicians will be keeping an eye on the independence debate across the water.

While Sinn Féin's Martin McGuinness has already stated that he believes local elected representatives should stay out of Scotland's affairs - but both the DUP leader Peter Robinson and UUP leader Tom Elliott have said their parties should take strong stands in defence of unionism.

© UTV News
Comments Comments
4 Comments
Realist in England wrote (118 days ago):
I disagree with McLelland's analysis on this. To me, this is not about prosperity, it is about doing what is right for the people of Scotland. I, for one, would like to see the Union smashed. Not for petty nationalistic reasons, but for grander internationalistic ones. I believe that the 'UK' is an unhappy patchwork of unequal and unnatural bedfellows. Furthermore, I believe that an independent Scotland, Ireland, etc. could best serve their own people until the day that they choose of their own volition to move into a new confederation of post-nationalist European states. Eventually, I'd see that merge with the USA and other international blocs to form a 'state' that served all the people of the world equally. London's weight of numbers should not be allowed to force Scotland/Wales/part of Ireland into a stronger EU, but neither should it be able to prevent them from democratically choosing to so do. Think about this - just over 1000 years ago England was made up of independent kingdoms. Should some natural disaster have occurred in Winchester - the kings of Mercia and Northumbria, say, were never going to send aid to the king of Wessex. It is much more likely that they'd have taken it as an incentive to invade a weakened enemy. Nowadays England is united and it is natural to assume that London would react equally to a disaster in Winchester, Bristol or Durham. The national paradigm has shifted. One day I'd like to see the end of 'foreign aid budgets' and 'immigration' being kicked around the pitch of political expediency. I'd like to see everyone treated equally in the world. All it takes is another paradigm shift. Imperialistic entities like the 'UK' serve to prevent that ever happening by acting in a supranational but exclusive manner. We should break things down into their natural components and then build them up on better foundations. Maybe then the "them and us" mentality can give way to the much more productive "us" mentality.
joe 90 in belfast wrote (119 days ago):
reg empey said yesterd ay that norn iron had "spent decades overcoming nationalist terrorism and we gradually after years and years and years managed to settle down our community". is he saying that people if the uff, uda, uvf, lvf, etc were all some sort of nationalists too? and so too were udr, ruc and british army who have proven to have carried out terrorist acts. selective memory as usual reg.
Kevin in ireland wrote (119 days ago):
At least an independent Scotland would not have to worry about being governed by Englishmen in hock to those that only care for the well being of traders within the square mile of London totally devoted to currency speculation and bonuses. They will be able to elect a Government with the well being of the population of Scotland as their main focus.
joe 90 in belfast wrote (119 days ago):
there is just a wee bit of irony here - that there were many, many people in scotland who supported loyalist paramilitary groups in their defence of the union.
POST A COMMENT:
Name:  
Email address*:    
Location:  
Validation:
House Rules:  
Your Comment:  
[All comments are moderated and will not appear immediately. Your name, location and comment will be displayed on this page if your post passes moderation.]
MOST POPULAR GALLERIES