Published on 15 Oct 2012

‘Hitlerian’ venue for low-key Scottish independence deal

There was one “boo” from a far-off solo protester as Alex Salmond, David Cameron, Nicola Sturgeon and Michael Moore posed for cameras before heading inside for talks. “I think you should be more specific,” a reporter shouted at the protester.

But with that the quartet was gone.

A Whitehall source tells me officials working on Alex Salmond‘s behalf touted the idea of making today’s signing ceremony a little more flamboyant – a more historic setting, more flags, a whiff of a treaty between two sovereign states.

London dismissed the idea and we are left standing outside this Hitlerian building, St Andrew’s House, for a more low-key summit though I’m sure flags will be present.


Alex Salmond wants Scots to get their heads round Scotland and Rump UK getting along just fine in a mature relationship if independent states and hopes the (mainly) amicable negotiation over the referendum is a template for that.

Follow Gary’s blogs on Twitter via @GaryGibbonBlog

Article topics

Tweets by @garygibbonblog

11 reader comments

  1. J Gallagher says:

    “Hitlerian” ? A very emotive term to use. Would you like to elaborate.

  2. Mark Clark says:

    Why on earth aren’t we, as the remaining 55 million in England & Wales, being allowed to vote (16 and 17 year olds too..) on our views of breaking apart the Union? Or do we just have to accept that if 5 million want to go their own way they should be allowed to do so? Taken to extremes, Manchester could secede, Leeds could become the 53rd State and ‘Passport to Pimlico’ could become real life. Bonkers.

  3. Susan B says:

    From the headline put on this, I was intrigued to know what connection Hitler might have had with St Andrew’s House.
    Do you really just mean ‘it’s an Art Deco influenced building from the 1930s’?

  4. Philip D Hawker says:

    Three cheers for Salmond’s programme to Balkanise Britain in a globalised world!!! He is the pied piper of Scotland! (Actually Hamelin sounds Scottish!)

  5. Philip Edwards says:

    Gary,

    Allow me a short reverie of political fantasy:

    1. Scotland becomes “independent” as defined by the SNP.
    2. North Sea oil runs out for everybody.
    3. Nationalism must find another cause other than xenophobia, racism and English “oppression.”
    4. Scottish class warfare resumes without “the English factor,” and soon assumes the same form as pre-independence. That is, Scotland remains a capitalist state ruled by a right wing elite.
    5. Religious sectarianism is reinforced throughout Scotland.
    6. Booms and slumps continue as before. Unemployment and poverty remain at, or more likely increase from, existing levels.

    So, speculating – of course – what then? :-)

    1. Gary says:

      You’ve never actually been to Scotland, have you?
      Independence would be defined by whatever settlement is reached between London & Holyrood.
      We have a diverse economy, unlike certain of our neighbours, which seem to be based entirely on stockmarkets.
      Scotland needs more immigrants, not fewer, so all the xenophobia & racism polluting the London-centric media is irrelevant.
      With two centre-left parties at the heart of Scottish politics, we would never again be ruled by whichever old-Etonians head up the Conservatives.
      The fight against sectarianism would continue much as it is now.
      Our economy moves in cycles, the same as every other economy on earth. With a budget not governed primarily by the needs of another country, unemployment and poverty would likely be reduced.

  6. Dugald Craig says:

    With regards to mark Clark’s comment, is he consistent enough to accept that following his logic would mean that the electorate in the other 26 Member States of the EU should be allowed to vote in any referendum that the Europhobe Tory and Labour parties put in place for breaking up the EU?

  7. Peter Harvey says:

    Norway, the other Scandinavian countries, Belgium, Luxembourg and other small countries in europe are independent and managing their own lives and their own way in the world, so why not Scotland with inventors such as Clerk Maxwell and James Watt?
    So let us all vote for independence and be proud of our small but vital nation.

  8. mark smith says:

    As a Scot I’m a definite No. We’re better together. Put simply I believe we’re all a mix of Irish, Scots, English and Welsh. The thought that my English cousins will become foreigner’s appalls me. We share a great past, ( a few disasters like the troubles in Ireland or every family suffering during the two world wars – though the latter can be turned into a positive by fighting as one). We can have a great future together.

  9. Gary says:

    Londoners don’t like to believe anyone could get by without them, hence the scorn.

    If we were only to add the epithet: “Obviously not as good as it would be if it included London” to all discussion re an independent Scotland, then the broadcasters would probably come out in support!

    Or perhaps the author just sympathises George Carey?

  10. martin says:

    http://www.govtoday.co.uk/politics/25-devolved/13696-an-independent-scotland
    Scottish first minister Alex Salmond on why Scotland should be independent.

Comments are closed.