The general Alt-Kike/Alt-Right attitude towards Scottish "Independence" was that:
  • It is what Scots want
  • If Scots vote against it, that could only be because the referendum is "fixed", "rigged", and they have been somehow brainwashed by the BBC and English media and English scaremongering (because, apparently, Scots do whatever the London elites tell them to, out of their traditional and well-noted deference to Home County toffs; and because the English are for some strange reason so desperate to hang on to Scotland that they'll go and switch around hundreds of thousands of votes in Clackmannanshire and Dumfries)
  • It can only be A Good Thing because it would weaken the United Kingdom, which is good because that'll show the Yanks!

By the same token, should NATO states Spain, Italy, and Germany be destroyed, weakened, dismantled? (NATO, of which Turkey has the second largest and most powerful army.) And that wold be good because it would hurt the Pentagon in 2014?

The Alt-Kike attitude towards Europe seems to be based on the example of that scumbag Bobby Sands, who destroyed the British Army and united Ireland by starving himself to death.

Such paltry Alt-Kike arguments appeal to pathetic defeatists, who have already abandoned Europe to Kikes, Niggers, Muslims and Globalists. It doesn't occur to such people that one solution to Europe's problems would be to empower European nations and states, and urge Europeans to have independent foreign and domestic policies, without regard to the wishes or "needs" of Americans, Kikes, Europeans or Asians.


Colin Liddell, Alternative Right, 17 September 2014

[Illustrated with stupid Braveheart photo of charging blue-faced Hollyjewed Scots.]


The secession of Scotland will take the British state down a several vital notches, pushing it from major secondary power status with a significant global profile to general irrelevance. With Britain serving as a conduit of American influence, this will also have a negative impact on that country’s slowly deteriorating global position.

Britain’s power is essentially relational and based on its position as a kind of lynchpin for US transatlantic projection to Europe. By being America’s closest ally (not necessarily reciprocal) and by being one of the three key European powers, along with Germany and France, the UK effectively melds the two together, serving as a locus of the transatlantic alliance that has been the dominant global power since 1945. It makes Europe seem more Anglo to America and America seem more European to the Continent. It facilitates the myth of a common mission and interests between two areas of the world that are now quite distinct.

To serve this function the UK needs to remain at least as important as France and Germany. But because these two nations form the inside track of the Greater European Union, the UK has to overcompensate with a combination of military, financial, and diplomatic overreach. Being militarily close to America (“the poodle position”), a major player in the EU, the centre of the Commonwealth, and having the City of London all help to give the UK a degree of global relevance. The various factors behind the UK’s power and importance, of course, interrelate and cross support each other, but this strength is not essence. It is relational and relative, and is therefore extremely fragile.


Scottish independence means:

- The UK noticeably and dramatically shrinking in perceived size
- A loss of military status
- A major dilution of its global brand and image


Take away Scotland, and the UKsuddenly shrivels to the point where Germany and France will only takeit as seriously as they do Poland or Spain, a position from which italso becomes useless as a conduit of American power to Europe. This willhave a knock-on effect on the importance of the City of London, whichwill immediately start to leak prestige and position as one of the keyglobal financial centres.


In short, with Scottish independence the UK loses its magic and its mojo, and becomes just another nation of around 50 million people (Italy, Burma, the Ukraine, etc.) that has to get by on its own merits. This, of course, is a good thing for most people in the UK.


A Europe where the diminished rump of the UK is critically less important than before will be one that has moved out of the shadow of WWII and the Allied “liberation” and ideological subjugation of Europe. It will represent an ebbing of the liberal Anglosphere and – with other developments around the world – a great weakening of American power.

In many ways, the UK is the canary in the coalmine.



Me • So the UK must be destroyed in order to weaken the already declining ZOGUSA? Got ya. × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Me • Re "the UK is the canary in the coalmine" : Isn't Kikestan-in-Palestine supposed to be "the canary in the coalmine", according to the Steyns and the Frums and the Kagans and the Kiko-Con collective? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Timothy Adams • My ancestors are from the Isle of Skye, but I'm conflicted on this breakup. On the one hand, it could be great for Scotland to rid itself of debt-based currency and secure its borders from mass immigration. On the other, there are consequences, but London long ago left caring about the people of Britain and does the bidding of their banker masters.

Me to Timothy Adams • Re "great for Scotland to rid itself of debt-based currency" : By replacing it with the very same debt-based currency, over which it would then have zero control? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Me to Timothy Adams • Re "great for Scotland to...secure its borders from mass immigration" : By implimenting the SNP's grand "We Shall Increase Immigration!" strategy, and by having an open border with the UK? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Me to Timothy Adams • Re "London long ago left caring about the people of Britain and does the bidding of their banker masters." : And Indie-Scotland would be different? Like the great-and-powerful and "independent" Republic of Ireland? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Charles_Dilkes • "Scotland voting NO is the equivalent of the small boy blurtingout that the Emperor is indeed naked. Take away Scotland, and the UKsuddenly shrivels to the point where Germany and France will only takeit as seriously as they do Poland or Spain, a position from which italso becomes useless as a conduit of American power to Europe. This willhave a knock-on effect on the importance of the City of London, whichwill immediately start to leak prestige and position as one of the keyglobal financial centres." -- wtf are you talking about mate? The UK economy will be moderately weaker without Scotland. You're just throwing around opinions as though they're incontrovertible facts.

Me to Charles_Dilkes • No way! Without the hard-working and crafty-as-kikes Scots, The City of London will simply fall to pieces, and Somali Niggers will use its Gold-Bar City Walls to build outhouses for their mud-huts. × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Henry Berry • I've been wondering what your verdict on the referendum was Mr. Liddell. What part of Scotland are you from may I ask?

Liddell to Henry Berry • Ayrshire - birthplace of William Wallace and Robert the Bruce.

Me to Liddell • So are you, like, related to Mel Gibson!? Wow, you've breathed the same air as The Wallace and The Bruce. That'll impress the Septics! × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Alexander to Liddell • Liddell: "This interesting surname, with variant spellings Liddall, Liddel, Liddell, Lidell, Liddle and Lydall, is of Anglo-Saxon origin, and is a locational name from any of the various places called Liddel in Cumberland and the Scottish Borders, deriving from the Olde English pre 7th Century river name "Hlyde", meaning "loud", and the Olde English "doel", valley. The surname dates back to the early 13th Century, and other early recordings include: Galfridus Liddal, from Roxburghshire, who was recorded in the 1266 Exchequer Rolls of Scotland, and Nicholas Lyddal, burgess of Aberdeen, who had a grant of charter in 1321, and who was provost in 1327. The first recorded spelling of the family name is shown to be that of Richard de Lidel, witnessed a charter of the church of Largs, which was dated circa 1202, in "Carta Monialium de Northberwic", Edinburgh, Scotland, during the reign of King William "The Lion" of Scotland, 1165 - 1214".

Me to Alexander • Uh-oh! You've stuck a pin in Liddell's "I am of Wallace-the-Bruce! and Scottier-than-the-Mightiest-and-Scottiest-Scot!" posturing. × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Liddell to Alexander • Yes, I do know that. Thanks for sharing it. There is also Liddel Water, a river flowing into the Esk, that forms part of the border between Scotland and England.

Logan Smith to Liddell • I didn't realize this was your handle. I love your articles; my apologies if I've ever argued with you.

Jötun Dovregubben to Logan Smith • Argument on Alt Right is good. We're a pack of vicious, hungry wolves, that's why we'll win.

Me to Jötun Dovregubben • Not when you're all too scared to Name The Kike, and keep yapping about "Eskimos" and "a certain people we...uh...won't...uh...name ... giggle giggle" in your boring circle-jerk podcasts. × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

S E Pearson • Let it be duly noted I called this one right, a boast few around these parts can make. But what's important here is what Cameron has pulled off. Not only has he managed to keep the Trident bases and the oil and the clout lent by Scotland thus preventing the UK becoming a officially second rate Euro power but he has utterly shagged the entire British "official" left for the indefinite future.Now he can resolve the West Lothian Question by excluding Scots and Welsh MPs from voting on English matters. That puts Labour down sixty six MPs on current form in an English Parliament, SIXTY SIX! Instead these clowns will be left administering fourth rate Euro nations meanwhile the Tories will have a giant "natural majority" in the English parliament (they'd have a current majority of 63 over the Lib Dems and Labour combined). The only powers left to the UK Parliament will be defence and foreign relations which even if Labour control they can do nothing with. As a nice little touch Britain's old school left, the SNP, are burned to the ground with no hope for decades to come. Labour HQ must be a scene of stupefied desolation right now. You gotta give it to Dave, he's pulled a move Metternick or Bismark would have been proud of, It was almost Putinesque. Of course that's a catastrophe for the right in the UK, Miliband is our best friend.

Me to S E Pearson • Cameron and Miliband are first and foremost KIKES. Re "Let it be duly noted I called this one right, a boast few around these parts can make. But what's important here is what Cameron has pulled off. Not only has he managed..." -  Most "around these parts" are delusional idiots, who confuse adoescent wishes and flawed percepetions with reality. The Kike Cameron pulled nothing off. He almost succeeded in helping to break up the UK, but his lethargic connivance became so transparent to the public that he was pushed to do try to be seen to be doing something at the last minute. However, Scots voted NO in spite of kike-scum like Cameron and Miliband lording it over the UK. × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Liddell to S E Pearson • He hasn't shagged the Left. He has ensured that England will be ruled by Labour governments and made the UK Parliament unworkable as a mechanism for running the country. In other words, there will be less democracy, less representation, and Britain will effectively be ruled by political quangos. We will end up getting more tied into Europe. The UK will die, but merely in slower and more gruesome way. Scotland becoming independent offered hope to England, but now they are both doomed until there is a catastrophe. The next time Scotland holds a referendum the oil will be gone, so not much hope there either.

Me to Liddell • And how do you feel about The Orkneys and Shetlands splitting from Scotland and taking their oil and gas with them, and possibly reuniting with the UK? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Me to Liddell • Re "The next time Scotland holds a referendum the oil will be gone, so not much hope there either." : So you are conceding that Scots are cheap, materialist bastards, who don't really want to be independent? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×

Me to Liddell • So, basically you welcome the decline of European nations because in your world that will somehow put an end to "American" power. Is "American power" Kike power? × You have been blocked by Alternative Right. ×



Why I Support Scottish Independence—ANY Devolution Better Than Globalist Status Quo

By James Kirkpatrick, V-Dare, September 17, 2014

Scottish Nationalism Flawed, But ANY Devolution Better Than Rule By Globalists

Yes, Scottish “nationalism” is less an expression of cultural pride than a Leftist power grab. Yes, yes, it’s supported by hypocritical, unreconstructed socialists who support mass immigration, the European Union, and hatred of the English. Despite all of that, and even though it distresses VDARE.com Editor Peter Brimelow, I believe that immigration patriots in America and abroad should support a “Yes” vote—because our biggest enemy is not “the Left,” but the status quo.

First, the bad news. Although the great Pat Buchanan hailed the Scottish bid for independence as a testament to the enduring strength of ethnonationalism, Alex Salmond’s Scottish National Party, the driving force behind the independence referendum (#indyref), could better be called traitors to Scotland than authentic patriots. Salmond explicitly and enthusiastically favors more immigration, even claiming that an independent Scotland will be a contrast to a United Kingdom which he claims (ludicrously) is too restrictive. Under the SNP, the expression “no true Scotsman” may change its meaning from a logical fallacy into a real question of identity.


Scottish secession would empower other movements across the Continent.

[So has the vote against secession "unempowered other movements"? Catalans and Northern Leaguers and so on can't make up their own minds and work for "independence" without inspiration from very divided Scots? That's pathetic.]


Scottish-born Gavin McInnes may well be right when he charges that Scottish nationalism is driven by “hate” of England—and is, as he puts it, “crap.” [Scottish Independence is Crap, Takimag, September 12, 2014]

But so is the system that they have now—and the system that rules the rest of Britain and all of Europe.

The British Union is no longer about Empire but subsidizing decadence. The Death of the West is happening and we are out of time to slow the decay through cautious conservatism.

If devolution and secession is the wave of the future, immigration patriots should ride the tide and embrace the new possibilities it offers.

[Even if all these microstate INCREASE immigration, because they mostly join the EU, with less power, and are easier to bribe and infiltrate, one by one?]

James Kirkpatrick is a Beltway veteran and a refugee from Conservatism Inc.


Scots were tricked into voting ‘No’ – Salmond

RT, September 21, 2014

London politicians gulled Scottish voters out of independence by making a false “vow” to grant Glasgow extra powers, First Minister Alex Salmond has said. He also raised the prospect of another referendum, saying the break-up is inevitable.

Alex Salmond, leader of the 'Yes' campaign and the outgoing head of the Scottish National Party (SNP), told the BBC's Sunday Politics program that the UK government won last Thursday's referendum vote by 55-45 percent by deceiving the people ahead the referendum and promising to rapidly expand Scottish autonomy.

"I think the vow was something cooked up in desperation for the last few days of the campaign and I think everyone in Scotland now realizes that," said Salmond.

"It is the people who were persuaded to vote no, who were misled, who were gulled, who were tricked effectively," he added. "They are the ones who are really angry."

Just over a week before the historic referendum, Britain’s major political parties promised Scots more autonomy over tax and welfare spending if they chose to stay in the UK.

Following the referendum results and Scotland’s decision to stay in the union, British Prime Minister David Cameron said that constitutional reforms, including in Scotland, would not be delivered until after the general election, and the changes would be linked with those in Britain.

Salmond said he was “surprised by the speed” in which the UK authorities started breaking their vow, adding that they are “totally shameless in these matters.”

"Within 24 hours they started to tear up the commitments," he said.

On Sunday, Downing Street dismissed Salmond’s claims that Britain's three major political parities are continuing to disagree over handling the process of devolution.

The spokesman for David Cameron said the government is still committed to move forward with the new powers over tax, spending, and welfare, stating the issues are to be agreed on by November and the legislation is to be drafted by January.

Salmond raised the prospect of a future referendum, which could be justified if the UK parties fail to honor their pledge. He said that in his “personal view,” a referendum could only be staged around once in every 20 years. However, “there are always things can change circumstances.”

In another interview with Sky News’ Murnaghan program on Sunday, Salmond elaborated on the issue, saying the break-up of the UK is inevitable and is only a matter of time.

“I mean when you have a situation where the majority of a country up to the age of 55 is already voting for independence then I think the writing’s on the wall for Westminster. I think the destination is pretty certain, we are only now debating the timescale and the method,” he said.

“I think Scots of my generation and above should really be looking at themselves in the mirror and wonder if we by majority, as a result of our decision, have actually impeded progress for the next generation which is something no generation should do.”

He argued that there might be other ways to break ties with the UK, including Scotland's parliament gaining more leverage and then declaring independence. However, he stressed that a referendum still remains “the best route.”

Salmond, who announced his resignation on Friday, told BBC that he will still “be part of the political process,” but he wants to give a chance to others after serving as leader of the SNP for two ten-year stretches.

Liddell's Predictable Update on how NO is YES, WAR is PEACE, BLACK is WHITE, 2+2=5

His thesis is the old, "OUR DEFEAT WAS A VICTORY!" psy-ops. Such logic applies when one is a weak force crushed by a bully (witnessed worldwide) such as Gaza/Palestine/Hamas, and yet one manages to survive. It has no relevance to the referendum about Scotland.

Here's Liddell:


[Kikey agit-propaganda for (mostly dumb-as-fuck Merkun/Kwan/Alt-Kike) retards: As if the evil English/Redcoats denied Scots their "FREEEEEDOM", and the poor downtrodden Highlanders/Scots all voted for "Indipendence".]

By Colin Liddell, Alternative-Right, 21 September 2014

Yes, the battle fought at the ballot boxes on the 18th of September resulted in an apparent decision in favour of NO and the status quo, but this was a Pyrrhic victory. [So it was "a Phyrric defeat" for the SNP?] The NO campaign may be straddling the winner’s podium, like a victorious redcoat after the battle of Culloden, but its guts are hanging round its ankles in the manner of an Anglo-Norman knight after the battle of Bannockburn.

[= we lost but actually won!]

Why did NO get more votes?

Scottish independence is natural because Scotland is a different country to England, and thinks of itself as such. It really is as simple as that!

[What a fucking moron! Scotland has ALWAYS been a different country to England, and still is, and has always known it is different, as have the English]

To prevent something this natural, you have to use undue pressures, sinister methods, and bribery. This is exactly what the NO campaign did, relying on overwhelming media bias, economic threat, and some incentives.

First media bias: here is a list of daily newspapers that supported the NO campaign, with their Scottish circulations:

[Ahh. So here we see that the owners and editors of virtually the entire Scottish mainstream media favoured the Union (over what the SNP lying scumbags had on offer), and openly stated their opinion. And that is called "bias".]

Now here is a 'list' of national newspapers that supported the YES campaign

Notice anything?

[Yes, the Gannett press supported fake "independence" for Scotland.]

[Liddell doesn't seem to understand the basics of marketing. If most Scots were separatists, then they'd stop buying all those rags and start buyng the "patriotic" Herald (which is owned by Newsquest, (in England), which is owned by Gannet (in Virginia) - both run by Kikes).]

In addition to media bias, a rather large economic gun [i.e., The Economic Facts of Life] was pointed at Scotland’s head [where thought occurs] for several months, with constant threats [i.e., statements of facts, and expressions of opinions -- the sort of things that are supposed to be debated about in the run-up to a referendum] that major companies would pull out of Scotland [yes, indeed they would have, though it could have been exaggerated - such is "the cut and thrust of politics"] in the event of a yes vote. One scare story in the Daily Mail [that nobody was forced to read or believe] said that over a third of big businesses would pull out in the event of a YES vote.

[Re illustration: Yes, that's Democracy. People make arguments. Politicians spread Hope or Fear. You listen, or you don't. Then you vote.]

But it wasn't only big business that made economic threats. Both the UK government and the EU effectively promised economic sanctions against a newly independent Scotland. [No they didn't. Such threats would be counter-productive, since they would drive voters into the YES camp. In fact many pig-ignorant UK politicians (including, of course, Scots, said stupid things, or said sensible things in stupid way -- that's why the YES campaign got more support in the last couple of weeks.]

The UK government refused to say how it would deal with Scotland’s request to use the pound after independence, pretending that it would not countenance such a move in order to create an atmosphere of fear and uncertainty.

[Lies and nonsense. And there was no "pretence".]

Prompted by member states keen to keep a lid on their own secessionist movements, José Manuel Barroso, President of the European Commission, said enough to imply that an independent Scotland would also be excluded from membership of the EU and might face a veto from existing members if it applied to join. This created great uncertainty, especially in agricultural areas.

[So what? That's a fact. If Scots wanted independence then they wouldn't care.]

Along with this came a little bribery [yes, it's pathetic - the Kikes in Westminster went and groveled ; anyway, it's called POLITICS, HORSE-TRADING] – government jobs to be protected and expanded, higher public expenditure in Scotland ensured, and additional powers for the Scottish Parliament. But this has now owned up a can of worms with English voters, who feel they are being treated unfairly. [GOOD! Great to see the English show some backbone for a change.] In the aftermath of the Scottish Referendum there have been demands for an English Parliament [and Liddell the "New Right" "White Nationalist" opposes English people having more control over English affairs?], regional assemblies, and the exclusion of Scottish MPs voting on so-called "English issues," [repeat: Liddell's a moron] something that can only add to the growing rift between the two nations.

Who was NO and who was YES?

When we look at the actual voters themselves, things get even more interesting. [No they don't.] The most striking one is that the NO vote was overwhelmingly dependent on Boomers and old age pensioners. Here is how the voting went according to age groups:

NO vote living on borrowed time.

[What does this prove? Those young voters will also age, and become, one hopes, wiser, and will probably also tend towards favouring Union.]

YES won every age group up to 54 (with the interesting minor exception of those of university age), so it would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that in 20 years or so half the NO voters will be dead!

[This reminds me of the White Privilege crowd and the media types like Oprah, who visibly relish the thought of White people dying off.]

Many pensioners seemed to have had the idea that their pension money was actually stored somewhere, as in a vault under the bank of England, and feared that independence would threaten their access to it, even though many UK pensioners live overseas.

[No they didn't. They feared economic uncertainty, meaning they would be more reliant on British pensions if Scotland's economy wennt bust, which is a very reasonable concern in an "independent" Scotland run by SNP and Labour and Commies and Lefties and Multikultists. And many UK pensioners overseas do often have trouble collecting their pensions, and have to deal with faceless bureaucrats and phone calls to bureacracies in which nobody speaks proper English.]

In addition to old people with a feeble understanding of basic economics [as opposed to all the 15 & 16 year-olds the SNP got on the electoral rolls?], the NO campaign also got massive support from foreigners [doubtful; and if so -- it was the SNP, the YES side that fought for grantingforeigners the right to vote - that may have backfired in many cases, since non-White Commonwealth voters (mostly Africans) had an emotional urge to vote YES, but also knew the status quo favours them already, so why change things; and EU voters were all for "independence" in spirit, but no doubt gave their heads a shake and wondered what effect a non-EU Scotland would have on their futures in Scotland], with opinion polls indicating overwhelming support from the 477,000 voters born in England [most of whom are Scottish] (more than 10% of the electorate), as well as majority support from other foreigners from EU countries, allowed to vote due to EU rules.[No they weren't allowed to vote because of EU rules - it was negotiated bewteen the Scottish parliament and the traitors in Westminster, because the SNP et al wanted foreigners to be able to vote, because they knew most Scots favour Union!]

The NO vote also benefited from public sector employees and rural populations whose incomes are tied to Brussels through agricultural grants. This explains why many rural areas swung towards NO. [So rural citizens should have been disenfranchised, just as non-resident Scots were?] Another component of the NO vote was the diehard protestant Unionist vote, an important factor in Scotland in the past. Today it is represented by the Orange Order and the supporters of Glasgow Rangers football team. Since the [FICTITIOUS] peace agreement in Northern Ireland, however, this group has been withering in importance. [If so, then why bitch about them? And anyway, are they not Scots? Were they also supposed to have been disenfranchised? And why would protestant Unionists be "withering in importance" because Unionists in N.I. succeeded in keeping N.I. in the Union in the face of decades of terror (and treason from London)?]

If you take out old people duped [oy vey! "duped"!] into fearing for their pensions, canny farmers and their dependents sucking at the teat of the EU Agricultural Commission [i.e., typically cheapo Scots], and non-Scots who should have had no right to vote on an issue of Scottish sovereignty [but the SNP fought for them], then, the YES campaign actually won an overwhelming landslide [DEUSIONAL], even in the face of extreme external pressures from the media, big business, the UK government, and the EU.

Not a pensioner and clearly not a foreigner.

[Low-grade and counterproductive propaganda. The face of the stereotypical English-hating jock.]

A previous effort by Scots to challenge the power of London was in 1745, often known simply as “The 45.” Interestingly 45 is also the percentage of voters who voted YES. [Wow! A conspiracy of '45 - also when Hitler killed himself!] But while the Jacobites of the 45 only had patchy support – most of the Lowlanders were against them on religious grounds – the voters of 2014 [what voters of 2014? this moron seems to think "voter" is synomymous with "one who agrees with me"] are a much more substantial body. They constitute the overwhelming majority of Scots under retirement age, and they will not long remain ignorant of the several ways that they have been cheated [oy vey!] into postponing their destiny [so Calvinist!].

Unlike the Jacobite rebels defeated at the Battle of Culloden they are not about to fade into the mists of history. To paraphrase a famous Scot from Kirkcudbrightshire, they have not yet begun to fight. [Right. Now they're all playing video-games, jerking-off or getting drunk.]

The Herpetic Salmond refuses to go away

Salmond: Independence can happen without referendum

Magnus Gardham and Michael Settle
Herald Scotland, 22 September 2014

SCOTLAND could declare ­independence at a future date without the need for a referendum, Alex Salmond has said, as he paved the way for his ­successor to pursue a new strategy for achieving the SNP's goal.

The First Minister said there were many routes to independence after Scots voted to stay in the UK in last week's referendum.

He also accused older Scots, whose votes swung the referendum in favour of No, of impeding progress for younger generations.

His comments provoked a furious reaction from politicians who campaigned for a No vote in last week's historic poll.

Scots Labour leader Johann Lamont accused him of attempting to overthrow the will of the Scottish people just days after voters decisively rejected independence.

Mr Salmond spoke out as Downing Street gave a guarantee that David Cameron will honour his commitment to give Scotland more powers.

A senior No 10 source responded to a claim from Mr Salmond that voters had been tricked by the promise of more powers, which then appeared to be linked to more devolution for England, by making clear one was not conditional on the other.

"This will happen come what may. We are absolutely clear; Mr Cameron is not reneging on his commitment to Scotland," said the source.

However, the pledge from Mr Cameron risks a backlash from Tory right-wingers and he has invited some of his party's most vocal backbench critics to an "English votes for English laws" summit at Chequers today, seeking to head off a potential rebellion.

Mr Salmond earlier raised the possibility of independence without a referendum as the SNP began to consider its future without him at the helm.

He announced his resignation within hours of Thursday night's defeat and looks certain to be replaced by Nicola Sturgeon when he steps down at his party's annual conference in November. Speaking on Sky News yesterday, he said the new leader could abandon the policy he had pursued of seeking a mandate for independence from a referendum.

He said Scotland could declare ­independence after acquiring sufficient power at Holyrood to be independent in all but name, adding: "Many countries have proceeded through that route."

The First Minister also highlighted the parliamentary route to independence, raising the possibility of the SNP reverting to its previous policy of seeking a mandate in a General Election.

Jim Sillars, the former deputy SNP leader, tweeted: "Let Yes assert new indy rule - no more ref - majority votes and seats at Holyrood 2016 enough."

Solidarity leader Tommy Sheridan, meanwhile, urged voters to unify around the SNP at next year's General Election in order to maximise the pro-independence vote. In what he stressed was a personal statement posted on his Facebook page, Mr Sheridan said: "I suggest we in the Yes movement promote continued unity by backing the most likely independence supporting candidate at next May's election. In concrete terms that means advocating an SNP vote to try and unseat as many pro-No party supporters as possible.

"If successful then we should insist all pro-independence candidates in the 2016 Scottish election commit to a March 2020 referendum."

Before 2000, when Mr Salmond first promised a referendum on independence, the SNP said winning a majority at Holyrood, or of Scottish seats at Westminster, would give the party a mandate to negotiate to leave the UK.

The First Minister said yesterday: "The referendum route was one of my choosing, it was my policy, I thought that was the right way to proceed but of course there is a whole range of ways Scotland can improve its position in pursuit of Scottish independence.

"A referendum is only one of a number of routes."

His referendum policy, which was resisted by the so-called "fundamentalists" in the SNP prior to its introduction, has been key to the party's electoral success. The party has won two successive Holyrood elections after telling Scots they could back the SNP even if they did not support independence.

Nationalist MSP Marco Biaigi yesterday called on the party to adopt a gradualist approach to independence by seeking further powers for Holyrood rather than offering a "direct route".

Writing in a Sunday paper he said: "A pledge of another referendum in the next SNP manifesto is now inconceivable."

Others in the party believe it would be possible to hold a second independence referendum in 2017 if Mr Cameron wins next year's UK election and holds his promised vote on the UK's membership of the EU. If the UK votes to leave the EU without majority support in Scotland, some Nationalists believe the result would justify another independence vote.

But Ms Lamont said: "Having decisively lost a democratic referendum on independence, Alex Salmond is now suggesting the Nationalists can ignore the sovereign will of the Scottish people.

"His words are fundamentally undemocratic and an insult to the people of Scotland."

She added: "Alex Salmond lost. It is not for him to try to overthrow the will of the Scottish people in some sort of coup."

l Gordon Brown will not return to a frontline role in British politics, Labour leader Ed Miliband has said. The former Prime Minister played a dramatic role in the Scottish independence referendum debate, galvanising the No campaign with a series of last-minute interventions proposing a timetable for further devolution.

Asked whether he expected Mr Brown to return to the front line, Mr Miliband told BBC1's Andrew Marr Show: "I don't think that's going to happen. He played an important role in the referendum, but he is not going to come back to frontline politics in Britain."

Post a comment

Private comment




Search form
Latest Journals
Latest comments
Monthly archive
Friend Request Form

Want to be friends with this user.