Letter: A May Day message

Dear Editor

In the 1920s and 1930s people in the UK were suffering widespread poverty, imposed on them by a Conservative Government and their allies.

Following the end of the 1939 – 1945 war it was the returning servicemen and women, mainly in the age group 20 – 40 – and allied to the older generations – that determined there would be no going back to pre-war conditions, and that radical changes would be made. The war had devastated the UK financially and the main basic structures – railways, coal mines, power stations and gas works – were worn out and failing. A brief reading of those times will give an idea of the colossal tasks faced, but they were backed by serving the interests of all people, taking those main basic industries out of private hands and control, thus introducing a whole series f social welfare services – of which the NHS is the most important.

Starting with the Thatcher government and continued by the Conservative government and it’s allies of today, the process of returning industries and social welfare services to private ownership has been stepped up. Despite their protestations to the contrary their first interest us to make money; why otherwise would they be willing to take over?

With regard to the NHS, the privateers know that people at large recognise it’s importance and are prepared to defend it. So instead of outright privatisation the Government is dismantling it piece by piece, allowing private companies to tender for NHS services amongst other ways.

This, almost the last of the universal public services, must be protected from those whose aim in life is to make a profit. As in the period after World War Two, men and women in their twenties, thirties and forties – again allied to the older generations – must make sure that the wealth produced by the nation is used for the benefit of all, not the few.

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

The gloves are off: Osborne and Swinney in fight over money

In the latest of what promises to be a long series of cross-border skirmishes two political heavyweights squared up to each other over Scotland’s future currency yesterday. In the red (white and blue) corner we had Westminster’s George Osborne while in the blue (and white) we had Holyrood’s John Swinney.

Old Etonian ‘Gentleman George’ Osborne is well versed in the Marquis of Queensberry Rules but ‘Slugger’ Swinney is a capable street scrapper; in a bruising contest of contrasting styles neither fighter landed a knock out blow, so there’s sure to be a rematch soon. And it’s no clearer whether we’ll be spending pounds, euros or even dollars here in Scotland after next year’s referendum

Scotland_currency_IG

The clash came following the publication of a report on Scotland’s currency and monetary policy, helpfully produced by the Westminster government to ‘inform the debate on Scotland’s constitutional future’, launched by Chancellor of the Exchequer, George Osborne, and Chief Secretary to the Treasury Danny Alexander in Glasgow yesterday.

The report reviews how the current UK currency and monetary policy arrangements work and examines the options in the event of independence. The analysis sets out in detail the advantages and disadvantages of the potential currency options open to an independent Scotland, including: a formal sterling currency union with the continuing United Kingdom; using sterling unilaterally, with no formal agreement; joining the euro; or introducing a new Scottish currency.

The paper concludes that none of the options under independence would serve Scotland as well as the current arrangements in the United Kingdom, which is one of the most successful monetary, fiscal and political unions in history.

All of the alternative currency arrangements would be likely to be less economically suitable for both Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

Speaking during his Glasgow visit Chancellor George Osborne (pictured above) said it would be a “very deep dive into uncharted waters” if an independent Scotland kept the pound in a currency pact with the UK, and added that there was no guarantee that the UK and Scotland would be able to come to an agreement on a currency union. That would mean a separate Scotland was left with three options – unilaterally keeping the pound, creating a Scottish currency or joining the euro.

Mr Osborne said: “All of these alternative currency arrangements are less suitable economically than we have now for both Scotland and the rest of the UK. The fundamental political question this analysis provokes is this – why would 58 million citizens give away some of their sovereignty over monetary and potentially other economic policy to five million people in another state?

He added: “Let’s be clear – abandoning current arrangements would represent a very deep dive indeed into uncharted waters. Would a newly independent Scottish state be prepared to accept significant limits on it’s economic sovereignty? To submit it’s economic plans to Westminster before Holyrood? The only way to be sure of keeping the pound as Scotland’s currency is to stay in the UK.”

However the Scottish Government has commissioned it’s own study and believes that a Sterling zone monetary union is the best option for an independent Scotland.

The Scottish Government’s currency paper, also published yesterday, fully endorses the findings of the Fiscal Commission Working Group’s expert report that as an independent country in a Sterling zone Scotland would have the powers needed to exploit areas of comparative advantage and also tackle those areas where we need to improve performance.

Scottish Government – Currency

Commenting on the paper, Finance Secretary John Swinney (pictured below) said: “A Sterling zone, with the pound as a shared currency will provide the full flexibility to set tax and spending decisions to target key opportunities and challenges in Scotland.

“The sharing of the pound between an independent Scotland and the rest of the UK is the common sense position supported by the Fiscal Commission. A sterling zone is also in the overwhelming economic interests of the rest of the UK every bit as much as it is in the interests of Scotland. An independent Scotland using the pound will mean Sterling’s balance of payments will be massively supported by Scotland’s huge assets, including North Sea oil and gas – which alone swelled the UK’s balance of payments by £40 billion in 2011-12.

“The Fiscal Commission Working Group includes two Nobel Laureates, and their expert report – having examined several possible currency options – concluded that sharing Sterling with the rest of the UK is the best option, offering freedom and flexibility for Scotland to develop our own taxation and spending policies to boost growth and address inequality. At present, the Scottish Parliament controls just seven per cent of Scotland’s revenue base, and that would only increase to 15 per cent under the terms of the Scotland Act. With independence, Scotland will control 100 per cent of our revenues, which is what it needs to be to build a stronger economy and fairer society.‪

“The combination – which only comes with independence – of keeping the pound, accessing Scotland’s abundant resources, and taking decisions on tax and other economic policies that are right for Scotland, is the best way to boost jobs and growth.

‪“Scotland’s finances are consistently stronger than the UK’s – generating more revenue per head than the rest of the UK in each one of the past 30 years – and Scotland has had a lower fiscal deficit than the UK over the past five years. With the additional economic levers that independence will provide, and the up to £1.5 trillion asset base provided by Scotland’s oil and gas reserves, an independent Scotland will stand on a strong financial footing.

“Next year’s vote is the choice between unlocking the opportunities independence will open up or continuing to allow economic and welfare policy to be set by a Westminster system that isn’t working for Scotland.”

A deep dive into uncharted waters, or unlocking opportunities? Ultimately, you’ll decide next autumn.

Lararowicz: ‘Good employers have no interest in Government attack on rights at work’

Mark Lazarowicz MP has strongly criticised Government plans for employees to trade in basic rights at work such as statutory redundancy pay in return for shares in the business they work for.

In a Westminster speech yesterday the North and Leith MP (pictured below) said: “I am a strong supporter of employee share schemes to enable them to benefit from the growth of their company and participate in the way it is run. However, these Government plans would produce exactly the opposite result since employees would lose basic employment protection in return for shares that can always go down as well as up in value. A number of leading businesses have already said they want nothing to do with the scheme – good employers realise there are much better ways to motivate their workforce than a bribe to give up basic employment rights.”

The Government proposes that in return for shares in the company they work for, employees would lose the right to statutory redundancy pay, request flexible working and training, challenge unfair dismissal (apart from where this relates to anti-discrimination law) or be required to give longer notice to return from maternity or adoption leave.

Mr. Lazarowicz was the author of the Employee Share Schemes Bill which became law in 2002. That sought to encourage employee share ownership and long term involvement by them in the running of the business, but he believes these latest plans would make it easier to sack them.

The House of Lords initially voted to delete this part of the The Enterprise and Regulatory Reform Bill, with several former Conservative Ministers voting against the Government. However the Government reinserted the proposals for the Bill to be debated in the House of Commons and won yesterday’s vote. The Bill will now return to the Lords for further discussion.

Greens urge government to ensure school leavers can cook

Green MSP Alison Johnstone has urged the government to respond to a survey which shows a strong appetite among Scots for the Government to set a target to ensure all school leavers are able to cook a basic meal from scratch.

By contrast the major supermarkets, who already control three-quarters of our grocery spending, are encouraging the growth of the ready meals sector through advertising campaigns, broadcasts and billboards. The UK ready meal market, which has been at the centre of the horsemeat scandal, continues to grow at five per cent a year and is now worth £1 billion a year.

The Panelbase survey for the Scottish Greens shows 79 per cent of 1,000 Scots agreed with the need for a target for school leavers, while only 7 per cent disagreed.

Other research suggests the majority of 18-25 year olds leave home without the ability to cook a simple recipe such as Spaghetti Bolognese, with many relying on ready meals and takeaways.

Alison Johnstone, Green MSP for Lothian and spokesperson on food and education for the Scottish Greens (pictured below), said: “We have a growing problem with obesity and ready meals are nutritionally haphazard. It’s time the Scottish Government challenged the big manufacturers and retailers. The inconvenient truth about many convenience foods is they make big firms big profits while public health pays dearly.

“Curriculum for Excellence has great potential and I would urge the government to recognise the appetite there is for ensuring school leavers are able to cook. As more people question what’s in the food they’re buying due to the horsemeat scandal it’s important we establish a balanced food culture from the start.”

The survey, carried out online by Panelbase in March, asked:

How much do you agree or disagree with the following statement? The Scottish Government should set a target to ensure all school leavers are able to cook a basic meal from scratch.

The results were:

Agree Strongly 48%
Agree Slightly 31%
Neither Agree/Disagree 15%
Disagree Slightly 4%
Disagree Strongly 3%

Letter: the ideology of greed

Dear Editor

The Tory Party is known a the rich people’s party; it is motivated by the belief that private ownership of industry, business, energy supplies and land, etc. is the right and only way. Their every policy action is geared to maintaining and extending that control, as the continuing break-up and privatisations of national organisations and social services over the last three years shows.

The very act of privatisation puts the interests of the few above the majority; they believe their money creates all wealth – some honesty about their real intentions would be illuminating. Opponents of the Tories so not hide their intentions: they say and want the wealth produced by the majority to be distributed fairly to the majority, and if it needs national organisations and social welfare in all forms to do it, then that is how it will be done, This is open and honest, the Tories have difficulty in being so by the very nature of investors’ interests having priority over everyone by having the power to close down an industry or business and move their investment, irrespective of the colossal damage to the employees and their families.

It is a very backward, selfish and greedy ideology; how otherwise can it be described?

A. Delahoy

Silverknowes Gardens

Independence? Posing the question through drama

Stuck in the Middle Poster

That referendum – made your mind up yet? If leaflets, TV debates and party political broadcasts leave you unmoved, maybe a drama performance will spark some interest and generate debate? Inverleith CLD worker Callum McLeod is certainly enthusiastic about a forthcoming event:

I’ve attached a poster advertising performances by Inverleith Youth Theatre which will take place in Broughton High School and North Edinburgh Arts theatres of in two weeks time (details in the poster).

The ‘Stuck In The Middle’ storyline concerns a teenage male’s journey and his subsequent thoughts towards becoming “Independent”. However, I’m sure the audience will find various other messages and subplots – and perhaps even a wider social issue for them to explore through the watching the performance!

We’re also planning the event so that there’ll be space at the end for discussion and so folk will have time to discuss the piece further, and share their thoughts with other audience members – and we do imagine that the subject matter will carry over for some time!

Without doubt, I’m slightly biased towards Inverleith Youth Theatre’s performances but they are usually of a good standard and so I can honestly say that I’m sure this will be a fab performance and well worth attending!

The main aim of the performance is to get as many people as possible talking and thinking about the actual issues raised, so we’ve made the event free. We’ll still be taking donations though as this youth group are trying to take it’s members – and the performance – to a youth drama camp over the summer, so any contributions towards this will be welcomed!

Inverleith Youth Theatre’s ‘Stuck In The Middle’ performance dates:

Tuesday 16 April 7pm Broughton High School

and

Thursday 18 April 7pm North Edinburgh Arts

Callum McLeod

Inverleith CLD, Broughton High School

MP calls for action to halt bee decline

Local MP Mark Lazarowicz is calling for a precautionary moratorium on three pesticides – imidacloprid, clothianidin and TMX – linked to the decline of the UK’s bee populations. The North and Leith MP is a longstanding member of the House of Commons Environmental Audit Committee and its new hard-hitting report on Pollinators and Pesticides is published today.

Mark Lazarowicz (pictured above) said: “As part of our inquiry into insects and insecticides we looked at the sharp decline in the number of bees in the UK and there’s growing concern that the use of certain chemicals might be to blame. Bees matter to both gardeners and farmers because of their role in pollinating fruit and vegetables as well as flowers. They are fundamental to our ecology and economy. The scientific evidence points to the need for a precautionary moratorium to be introduced. DEFRA should listen to it and act.”

Two-thirds of wild insect pollinator species – such as bumblebees, hoverflies, butterflies, carrion flies, beetles, midges and moths – have suffered population declines in the UK. Managed honeybees have also experienced unusually high mortality rates, decreased fertility, increased susceptibility to disease and the loss of hives. Similar trends have been observed in the US and other European countries.

Disease, habitat loss and climate change can all affect insect populations, but a growing body of peer-reviewed research suggests that the use of one group of insecticides is having an especially damaging impact on pollinators — neonicotinoids. Applied to seeds, these systemic pesticides are widely used in the UK on oilseed rape, cereals, maize, sugar beet and crops grown in glasshouses.

Authorities in France, Germany, Italy and Slovenia have already suspended the use of some neonicotinoids in certain circumstances. The European Commission has also proposed an EU-wide moratorium on the use of imidacloprid, clothianidin and TMX on crops attractive to bees, following a recent risk warning from the European Food Safety Authority. The UK has refused to take domestic action or to support the EU proposal.

Many of the UK’s largest garden retailers, including B&Q, Wickes and Homebase, have voluntarily withdrawn non-professional plant protection products that contain neonicotinoids. The report recommends a full ban on the sale of neonicotinoids for public domestic use in order to create an urban safe haven for pollinators.

Pesticide manufacturers often claim that studies linking their products to bee decline are flawed or inconclusive and that other factors are primarily to blame, such as the Varroa mite. But although the agrochemical industry has produced many studies on the environmental effect of pesticides, it keeps most of its data secret on grounds of commercial confidentiality.

The report warns that this lack of transparency is preventing a fuller understanding of the problem. The MPs call on the industry to place the results of its trials and studies in the public domain so that they can be subjected to open academic scrutiny. Defra should help companies establish which genuinely commercially sensitive details need to be redacted to make this possible.

‘Bedroom Tax’ – minister demands fair deal for Scotland

Today (1 April) is day one of the Westminster government’s controversial welfare reforms. The Scottish government pre-empted the changes with two statements on the eve of the changes:

If the UK Government proceed to impose their plans for the bedroom tax on Scotland then Scotland must get its fair share of funds to deal with both the human and financial impact, Welfare Minister Margaret Burgess said yesterday.

In a letter to the UK Welfare Reform Minister Lord Freud, Mrs Burgess (picured below) demanded a fair deal for Scotland to address the potentially devastating impact of the bedroom tax, which is set to impoverish families and individuals.

The Scottish Government is completely opposed to the bedroom tax, which will affect 16,000 families with children in Scotland, but if UK Ministers proceed with cuts then Scotland must get its fair share of Discretionary Housing Payment (DHP) funding, says Mrs Burgess.

Despite both Scotland and London having the same number of households hit by the bedroom tax, Lord Freud is set to award London with £56.5 million of DHP compared to only £10 million in Scotland.

Welfare Minister Burgess said: “The bedroom tax is a socially divisive measure that will increase social inequalities across Scotland. It’s a policy that the Scottish Government is totally against as it hits our most vulnerable citizens in these already challenging economic conditions.

“This is a policy devised in London on the basis of housing benefit increases and overcrowding. However, in inflation-adjusted terms, 93 per cent of the housing benefit increase is attributable to the situation in England whilst London has almost two and a half times the level of overcrowded households compared to Scotland.

“We have consistently made that case to UK Government Ministers that we are opposed to these cuts – if they proceed to impose their plans then Scotland must get its fair share of funds to deal with both the human and financial impact.

“The small levels of DHP in Scotland is woefully inadequate and unfair to deal with the impact and scale of this policy.

“Civic Scotland is united in opposition to the bedroom tax and this Government has already taken action to strengthen the protection against eviction for rent arrears in advance of the introduction of the tax. From 1 August 2012 we brought pre-action requirements for rent arrears into force to ensure that proceedings for eviction is always the last resort.

“We are also providing an extra £2.5 million to social landlords for advice services to ensure there is support on hand for people who will lose housing benefit due to the under occupancy measures and other housing benefit cuts being introduced by Westminster from April.

“The UK Government’s agenda is completely at odds with the values of the people of Scotland and the aspirations that this Government has for our nation. Only through independence can Scotland have the levers required to create a welfare system that is aligned to Scottish needs and values.”

Thousands of vulnerable people in Scotland will be protected from increased Council Tax bills following the UK Government’s abolition of council tax benefit this week, Cabinet Secretary for Finance, Employment and Sustainable Growth John Swinney announced yesterday.

Around 560,000 people will receive support to ensure they are not affected by the UK Government’s 10 per cent cut in funding for Council Tax Benefit successor arrangements.

The Scottish Government and local authorities in Scotland are working in partnership to invest £40 million in 2013/14 to bridge the funding gap and mitigate the impact of the UK Government’s benefit cuts.

Mr Swinney (pictured below) said: “Hard working and vulnerable people are having to bear the brunt of these Westminster benefit cuts. Instead of protecting our poorest households, Westminster has responded to this recession by imposing deeply damaging welfare cuts which will make it far harder for people to meet the rising cost of living.

“To ensure households across Scotland do not face additional burdens the Scottish Government and Scotland’s councils are providing £40 million in 2013/14 to ensure that around 560,000 people in Scotland are protected from this reduction.

“Whilst Council tax bills will be increasing in many areas of England as a result of benefit cuts we are using the limited resources we have to ensure vulnerable people do not have to face increasing bills.

“We are determined to do everything that we reasonably can to help those who need it most, however we cannot meet every Westminster cut. We are making available an extra £2.5 million to social landlords to help them ensure that people affected by housing benefit changes have the advice and support they need.

“And we are providing £5.4 to organisations such as Citizens Advice to help those affected by benefit reforms. This extra support will assist social landlords in their efforts to engage directly with affected tenants and seek to identify ways in which they can deal with the impact of the changes.

“These unjust policies show why we need the powers of independence to protect vulnerable people rather than simply trying to cushion the blows in Scotland. It would be far better to control benefits and welfare so unfair policies like abolishing Council Tax benefit are not even considered, let alone implemented. “

Left wing firebrand and IDS are ‘old chums’

Left wing campaigner Willie Black (pictured above) hit the headlines last week when he branded Work and Pensions Secretary Iain Duncan Smith a ‘scumbag’ at a conference in Edinburgh’s posh George Hotel. The Granton man’s attack on the Tory minister was seen by millions on news broadcasts and across social media sites – but what viewers didn’t know is that Black is actually related to some of the noblest families in the land, and that he and Duncan Smith are in fact old friends!

“It’s true”, said retired merchant banker Farquhar Finlay-Cameron. “William does indeed have blue blood in his veins and he can trace his family history back many generations. The Blackstone-Cuthbertson family seat was in the western highlands, as I recall. William and I roomed together at boarding school and he often stayed with our family over the school hols. We got up to some really jolly japes, I can tell you! We lost touch when William went down to Oxford and I went to Cambridge, but we still meet up at the start of the grouse shooting season every year. It was rather a shock to see him attacking IDS on television as I know the pair were inseparable at Oxford – they were known as ‘Laurel and Hardy’! Mother was very upset when she saw William’s outburst on television – he used to have such a cultured voice and she felt he sounded rather uncouth! I shall certainly rib him about this if I see him at Royal Ascot this summer!”

IAIN DUNCAN SMITH 'inseperable' — IAIN DUNCAN SMITH ‘inseperable’

Theatre impresario Sir Cyril Westmacott-Smythe was an Oxford contemporary, studying Classics with ‘Laurel and Hardy’. He recalls: “I was one of the less privileged students but IDS and Wills always treated me as an equal – I remember Wills was kind enough to give me one of his old smoking jackets and the occasional morning suit. He was like that – so generous to us poorer types. I shall always be grateful for his support – and I still treasure the opera glasses Wills and IDS bought me as a graduation gift.

“Oh, we had such fun – there were some memorable characters but Wills and IDS were the life and soul of every soiree. Wills was a particularly good pianist and he and Iain would regularly entertain us with songs from the Gilbert and Sullivan songbook. They were supremely talented and much admired, and I had rather hoped to take the pair up to Edinburgh for the Fringe, as a Hinge and Bracket type duo. Sadly politics prevailed and it wasn’t to be – theatre’s loss was the class struggle’s gain, as it were – although they do say that politics is pantomime, so you could say the chaps are still performing and putting on a show! I do hope to meet up with them at Klosters next winter when we can relive those halcyon days.”

Willie Black claims to be a lifelong socialist and is currently a leading light in the North Edinburgh Fights Back campaign group. One comrade, who asked not to be named, said: “A few of us have had our suspicions about Willie for some time. Aye, he talked a good talk about the working class struggle and that, but when we went for a drink after our meetings he only ever sipped Pimm’s and lemonade. And after one demo when we stopped for chips Willie brought a silver knife and fork out of the pocket of his donkey jacket – and a clean napkin! Aye, some of us had our doubts and we’ve been proved right – another champagne socialist!”

Willie Black – or rather William Blackstone-Cuthbertson – was unavailable for comment, but his friend Rupert suggested he may be salmon fishing on the Balmoral estate with Toby and Crispin.

Iain Duncan Smith was also unavailable for comment but a spokesperson said the minister ‘hopes to do some recreational angling over the Easter holidays’.

Scotland will decide on 18 September 2014

Should Scotland be an independent country?

Scotland’s referendum will be held on 18 September next year, First Minister Alex Salmond announced in the Scottish Parliament today. The date is contained in the Scottish Independence Referendum Bill, introduced to the Parliament and published today, which also confirms that voters will be asked the question: Should Scotland be an independent country?.

The legislation provides that the referendum will be:

preceded by a 16-week formal campaign period, during which limits will apply to the amount of money any registered participant may spend on campaigning, aimed at ensuring a level playing field for both sides of the debate
overseen by the independent Electoral Commission, responsible for regulating the campaign rules, informing the public about the referendum and reporting to the Scottish Parliament on the conduct and administration of the referendum
conducted under the direction of a Chief Counting Officer responsible for appointing local Counting Officers to run the poll in local areas

Mr Salmond said: “On 18th September 2014 people across Scotland will vote to determine their country’s future. It will be a historic day, and one on which this ancient nation decides its place in the world. People will be able to choose if they want a Scotland that is independent and able to make her own decisions – with a Scottish Parliament that is responsible for making the most of Scotland’s rich resources to benefit its communities and safeguard the welfare of our most vulnerable citizens and accountable for how we engage other nations around the world.

“Devolution has shown how we can use Holyrood’s powers to improve lives in the policy areas where we are already effectively independent. Scotland has made great strides since our national Parliament was reconvened in 1999 after almost 300 years. We are a more confident country, secure in the knowledge that when we take decisions for ourselves we can help make this a better place to live for all our citizens.

“Landmark policies introduced since devolution have made Scotland a safer, healthier and fairer country. Throughout the Parliament’s history, we have used our powers for progressive purposes – such as free personal care, pioneering homelessness legislation, an end to tuition fees, and protecting the National Health Service.

“But we can and must do more – and only the powers of an independent Parliament with control of the economy, of international representation and of security will allow us to make the most of our huge national potential. Scotland now faces two futures: continuing with an outdated political entity that ill-serves the interests of the people of Scotland – a system that will continue to give us governments we didn’t vote for. Or independence, where Scotland will get a Parliament that is both fully empowered and fully accountable to those whose lives are affected by its actions.

“With full economic levers and access to our huge natural resources, we can not only defend the progress made with devolution but we can become a fairer, more prosperous society. And one where a new, 21st Century relationship is forged between the nations of these islands and with the wider community of nations. 18 September 2014 can be a date which becomes etched in our nation’s story as the day Scotland took a decisive step forward to a better, fairer future.”

Opposition parties who support the Union – including Labour, Conservatives and the Lib Dems – argue Scotland is better off as part of the wider UK. Scottish Labour Johann Lamont responded to news of the referendum date by accusing the government of ‘putting Scotland on pause’.

She said: “If the hand of history is on the First Minister’s shoulder I wish it would give him a shove and he’d get on with it. This is the man who got into power by playing down his belief in independence. And there will be many people who voted SNP but don’t believe in independence who will breathe a sigh of relief, like me, that the date when we can finish this constitutional debate once and for all and get on with dealing with the real issues and priorities of Scotland is now in sight. Until then Scotland remains on pause.

“What I do not understand is that why if leaving the United Kingdom is the key to Scotland’s prosperity, why he wants Scotland to languish for another year and a half before we get the chance to vote on it. The truth behind the delay is not that he is holding to a promise made to the electorate in a tv debate. The truth is Alex Salmond knows if he held the referendum now he wouldn’t just lose it he would be routed. All the self-aggrandizement of today isn’t just a sign of the First Minister’s usual pomposity. Making an occasion out of a delayed announcements, is an attempt to con the people into believing that we have moved a step towards independence when we haven’t.

“The truth is, I believe, we have moved a step down the road of cementing Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom. If today is the day when the debate starts in earnest then it should also be the day when the First Minister breaks the habit of a lifetime and starts answering questions. What controls would the Bank of England, by then a foreign bank, have over the policies of the government of a separate Scotland? What would the deal be if Scotland became a new member of the European Union?

“Alex Salmond has avoided giving detailed answers to these questions and many more in the years past, in the months ahead the people of Scotland will hold him to account. He plans to hold the referendum in the autumn of next year and to publish his white paper in the autumn of this. Why the delay? If we are to have the transparent debate the First Minister says he wants, why does he not publish his full independence plans now. If he wants a proper debate then he must disclose that white paper today. If not the whole country will be asking: What’s the plan, Alex?”

Who do you believe? Whatever your current opinion, both sides of the argument now have eighteen long months to persuade and convince voters.

And they say a week is a long time in politics … !