The following email and attachments were sent by Councillor Mike Barnacle to fellow Councillors in relation to the “Forward Together” campaign that should follow the “Better Together” campaign for the referendum.

---

 

Dear Colleagues

Following the Independence Referendum that produced a clear majority in Scotland for us to remain part of the UK (although you would not think so from media coverage since), I have become increasingly alarmed, as we approach the forthcoming UK General Election, at the growing strength of the separatist SNP and the number of recent opinion polls suggesting a nationalist landslide, with the increasing and frightening prospect of the SNP holding the balance of power at Westminster.  I am left pondering the real danger that the vote of the ‘NO’ camp (over 2 million people) will be fragmented by tribal loyalties to party politics that don’t realise the importance of the bigger picture (the survival of the UK as a family of nations) and lose out to a totally focussed nationalist party and the YES activists that remain in place.

I had thought that the offer of enhanced devolution through the Smith Commission would settle matters for a while but, as expected, the nationalists would never be happy with that (their politics of grievance knowing no bounds) and their opponents sometimes appear to pander to such sentiment rather than defend the clear reasons and advantages of maintaining our union.

Given this situation, it is surely incumbent for the parties in Scotland who backed ‘better together’ to support ‘forward together’ on a national basis, in order  that the candidate best placed in each constituency to prevent a nationalist victory gets the support they need.  I am sure this could be organised and suggest it is urgently required, if the forecast scenario above is to be avoided at this critical juncture for the future of Britain.

I have refrained from circulating the many people who helped the ‘NO’ campaign in Kinross-shire, although alluded to this tactical approach at a ‘thank you’ evening last November for supporters.

One idea I have is a logo showing 2 flags side by side, the Union Jack and the Saltire, above the words ‘co-operation, not separation’.

I would be interested in your thoughts and welcome a response ASAP.

Kind Regards

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Member for Kinross-shire

ps I enclose background viz:

1. My article of 16/10/14
2. Ian Campbell’s email of 5/1/15
3. Guardian leader 4/2/15
4. Guardian article 5/2/15

Submitted on 16 October 2014 for publication in the November 2014 Kinross Newsletter

Dear Editor

Final Reflections on Referendum Result of 18 September 2014

I have noted the view expressed in some quarters that local councillors should not get involved in nationalissues, like the recent referendum, and write to refute that. I was at the launch of the Better TogetherCampaign in Kinross-shire on 27 May and spoke in support of it.

My fellow opposition councillors Cuthbert and Robertson, along with myself, campaigned hard recentlyin support of a “NO” vote and our opposition to the break up of Britain. My constituents know that Ihave been opposed to the SNP’s separatist agenda all my political life and this will continue. Whathappens nationally in government has a direct effect on local authorities and I think people expect theircouncillors to have a view on such matters and to show leadership, where necessary. The fact remains thatby the end of its current term, the SNP Government will have frozen Council Tax for an unprecedentednine-year period, with consequential effect on public services locally, cuts that they of course blameWestminster Government for, as with most things.

I was heartened and relieved by the outcome of the referendum in Scotland in delivering a clear majorityin support of us remaining part of the UK. In PKC, the NO vote at 62,714 far exceeded the YES vote at41,475 on a very healthy 87% turnout. The highest ward turnout was Kinross-shire at 90% and I alsounderstand that our ward had the highest percentage NO vote and lowest percentage YES vote in ourcouncil area, a fitting tribute to the many folk who campaigned locally.

I voted NO because I don’t believe it is necessary to break up Britain in order to tackle Scotland’sproblems. I still had unanswered questions on citizenship/nationality, currency/financial services, theeconomy, land ownership reform and pensions/welfare after a seemingly interminable referendum debatebordering on a national self-obsession with little regards for the rest of the UK watching from thesidelines. I was completely against the division of Britain’s armed forces in a very uncertain world,opposed to the SNP’s proposed open borders for significant immigration and wanted a say in a promisedreferendum in the UK on reform of the EU.

The NO campaign won despite the flawed Edinburgh agreement negotiated by Cameron since thequestion put invited negativity from the unionist side. If the questions had been: Should Scotland remainpart of the UK? Do you support a Devo Max/Federal solution for Scotland within the UK?, positivedebate could have ensued. There should have been a threshold percentage for such an important voterather than a simple majority. Whilst I support the lowering of the voting age, it should be for allelections.

The referendum bitterly divided communities, families and organisations; the campaign being full ofenmity and intimidation, all caused by nationalism.

I have always supported the Liberal Federal Model for Britain with home rule parliaments for England(preferably outwith London), Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales, with full tax raising powers to fundtheir domestic programmes whilst a reformed Westminster retains control over currency matters, financialservices, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy. I very much hope that the Smith Commissioncharged with agreeing more powers for Scotland can keep to its tight timescale and get an agreementfrom the parties involved that takes us closer to this model. I do not think that this timetable should belinked to answering the “West Lothian” question on English votes for English laws that Cameron suggested.

It is now time for the SNP Government under Sturgeon to get on with their mandate by using theextensive powers they already possess to make a difference in running Scotland, rather than continuallyadvocating and campaigning that only independence (rejected by the majority of Scots) is a cure-all.

For my part, I continue to work behind the scenes up at Perth on a number of local environmental,planning and road issues of concern to my constituents for future reporting.

Kind regards

Councillor Mike Barnacle

Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire

The following letter was published on the Kinross Newsletter prior to the Scottish Independence Referendum.

Dear Editor,

REFLECTIONS ON REFERENDUM DEBATE AND PROCESS BEFORE HISTORIC VOTE 18^TH SEPTEMBER

Edinburgh Agreement

A flawed document. The question being put invites negativity from the unionist side. If the questions had been: Should Scotland remain part of the UK? Do you support a Devo Max/Federal solution for Scotland within the UK?; positive debate could have ensued.

There should have been a threshold percentage for the vote rather than a simple majority. Whilst I support the lowering of the voting age, it should be for all elections.

Historic mistakes by Westminster politicians.

The lessons of history are not learned. The loss of Ireland and its arbitrary division was the first casualty of the failure to introduce the home rule concept, following party disagreements. The failure to agree a ‘home rule package’ for Scotland that should be on the table if a ‘No’ vote is secured is a mistake that could lead to the loss of Scotland.

The SNP often refer to the period of independence before 1707 but are silent on the benefits of being part of the UK, from the enlightenment to the present.

Liberal Federal Model

I support this for Britain. There should be home rule parliaments for England (outwith London), Northern Ireland, Scotland & Wales with full tax raising powers to fund their domestic programmes whilst a reformed Westminster retains control of currency matters and financial services, foreign affairs and macro-economic policy. The current constitutional shambles results from the Labour Party’s piecemeal approach to necessary change that is long overdue.

SNP Rhetoric

I have never known a time when an issue (Referendum) has so divided communities families and organisations. The debate has been divisive, full of enmity & intimidating and I think Salmond’s legacy will be the politician who divided Scotland more than any other. The SNP suggest that if you don’t share their vision of ‘a land of milk & honey’ following ‘a seamless transition from the union’ you are somehow unpatriotic towards Scotland. The debate has been an interminable national self-obsession with little regard for the rest of the UK watching from the sidelines; to be followed by another 18 months of difficult negotiations if there is a ‘YES’ vote, that is irreversible.

Government in Scotland on hold

Rather than use the extensive powers they already posses to make a difference, the SNP have spent money from the public purse advocating that only independence is a cure for all ills. Their track record on several issues invites scrutiny.

Unanswered Questions

I do not believe it is necessary to break up Britain in order to tackle Scotland’s problems. Both sides in the debate produce experts to support their viewpoint so it is not surprising there are many undecided voters. I still have questions on citizenship/nationality, currency/financial services and the effects on the markets we’ve already seen, economy (why create a competitor of our largest market?), land ownership reform and pensions/welfare.

I don’t believe that separatism is in the best interests of our islands; it is surely crazy to divide our armed forces in a very uncertain world. Why would you do this unless wanting a different foreign policy? (I suggest if Scotland had been in the Republic of Ireland’s position in 1939, we would have lost the war). I don’t want vast sums spent on a nuclear deterrent either, but I would keep the minimum and negotiate it away on the world stage. Salmond wants open borders and significant immigration, England has had too much so border controls are inevitable; also if you want reform of the EU a ‘No’ vote will mean you have a say in that promised referendum, as opposed to a negotiation on Scotland’s membership that may not secure anything.

For all these reasons I’m casting a ‘No’ vote on Thursday.

Michael A. Barnacle (Independent Councillor for Kinross-shire)

‘Moorend’, Waulkmill, CROOK OF DEVON, Kinross-shire KY13 0UZ.

Tel: 01577 840516