Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
THE BRITISH GOVERNMENT has pledged greater fiscal autonomy for Scotland, after a poll put the pro-independence camp ahead for the first time – just 11 days before the referendum on separation.
British finance minister George Osborne said greater tax and spending powers would be announced in the coming days and would be implemented if Scotland votes on September 18 to retain the 300-year-old union with England.
Polls
The offer came after a YouGov poll in The Sunday Times newspaper gave the pro-independence “Yes” camp 51 percent support compared to the “No” camp’s 49 percent, excluding undecided voters. Six percent said they had not made up their minds.
Although the two-point lead is within the margin of error, the findings dramatically up the stakes ahead of the vote.
Scottish First Minister Alex Salmond, of the separatist Scottish National Party (SNP), dismissed Osborne’s move as a “panic measure”, saying it was “ridiculous” to announce it now, with many people having already voted by post.
Reacting to the poll, Osborne told BBC television: “If people were in any doubt that they can stay at home, that they don’t need to go out to the polls and vote ‘No’ to avoid separation, they won’t be in that doubt today.
“They should also be in no doubt about the consequences of this decision,” the chancellor of the exchequer added.
No ifs, no buts: we will not share the pound if Scotland separates from the rest of the UK.
‘Best of both worlds’
Osborne said it was “clear” that Scots wanted greater autonomy and the three main United Kingdom-wide parties — the Conservatives, their Liberal Democrat junior partners in government and the Labour opposition — had agreed to “deliver” on that.
“You will see in the next few days a plan of action to give more powers to Scotland. More tax powers, more spending powers, more plans for powers over the welfare state,” he said.
Then Scotland will have the best of both worlds.They will both avoid the risks of separation but have more control over their own destiny, which is where I think many Scots want to be.
Any vote for Scotland to leave the UK would raise questions about Britain’s standing in the international community.
Scotland represents one-third of Britain’s landmass and is home to Britain’s submarine-based Trident nuclear deterrent, which the SNP says must be out of an independent Scotland by 2020.
Salmond claimed the momentum was now “decisively with the ‘Yes’ campaign”.
“The Westminster elite are losing this campaign… we’ve got them on the run,” he told BBC television.
He said there was “clear panic in the ‘No’ campaign. They’ve failed to scare the Scots; now they’re trying to bribe us”.
The Better Together campaign, which backs Scotland staying in the United Kingdom, has been ahead in opinion polls for months but its lead has narrowed in recent weeks.
The “No” camp had a 22-point lead in YouGov polling just one month ago. Another YouGov survey for The Times newspaper on Tuesday showed a marked narrowing of the gap to six points.
‘Irreversible decision’
Osborne’s Labour predecessor Alistair Darling, the Better Together leader, said the latest poll showed the referendum “will go right to the wire”.
“Every voter in Scotland can now tip the balance in this referendum,” he said.
It’s not a protest vote, it is about the future of our country. If we decide to leave, there is no going back.
A second survey commissioned by the “Yes” camp and released today puts the “No” camp four points ahead. The Panelbase poll gives “No” 52 percent and “Yes” 48 percent, excluding undecideds.
Gordon Brown, Cameron’s Labour predecessor as prime minister, blamed Conservative policies for hindering support for the union.
But the Scot said whatever government was “temporarily” in power — a UK-wide general election is due in May — that should not be a basis for an “irreversible decision”.
“The underlying mood of the electorate voting in this referendum is they want change,” he told Sky News television, but stressed the best way to get it was through greater autonomy rather than breaking “every single link” with the rest of the UK.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
New name, same old sh*te. Presumably a small fortune will be spent on new marketing and branded material?
@Paul Shepherd: it’s to pave way for water charges and kill the argument of private profiteering as it will be fully public owned. They did their homework before they go public again for the full charges..
@l: post a link to prove your theory
@l: Not dumb in fairness. Like in other countries we should be paying for treated water separate to other taxes.
@lelookcoco: We are and always have, that was dealth with many years ago. Rates were abolished and it came out of income tax which was raised by 1%.
@lelookcoco: We have been for years, people constantly talk about it. It was one of the points when people protested and marched about water charges. Do you not remember any of this or are you new to the country or 4 years old or something?
@l: Who are the current shareholders?
This rebranding will cost a fortune weather in English or Irish. Of course the public taxpayer and water you will be paying for this.
So instead of Irish water it’ll be know as water Ireland.. ok
@John Kavanagh: Quite often in Irish the order of the words is flipped
@John Kavanagh: A better translation is Ireland’s Water.
@Séan Ó Nuanáin: Thanks for that Nuanáin Ó Séan
Quango nua
@Hugh Mc Donnell: Maith an buachaill ;-)
@Frank Cauldhame: Should you not be watching your lefty friends at the doomed no confidence debate?
https://www.irishexaminer.com/news/arid-20391168.html
Red line promises don’t matter for FF as long as they stay at the trough.
More money for the Advertising and PR Company’s. I wonder what connections the Companies that are awarded the contract will have with the Political Elite and their Brown Envelope cronies.
What’s the point in doing this.. When they sell it off to some US multinational in 10 years time they won’t have a clue what it means and will change it again
@Hughie Lynch: The plan is to make it impossible to sell it off to private interests.
Is it not possible to split from the parent company without changing the name, and save all the expense and effort of a rebranding exercise?
Blah blah blah blah……great at wasting money that could be better spent. I wonder what’s really behind all this.
Another one of spoofer Martins promises conveniently forgotten. https://www.facebook.com/watch/?v=2132873473608388
I live in an area that has been waiting over 20 years to be connected to the public sewage system. There is no soakage in the area & every house has had continuous problems. There was a survey done & tests completed. It went to design stage & tendering over 6 yrs ago. Irish water wanted the people of the area to pay for the building of the system over €1 million. Then hand it over to them free & then pay €3,499 per house to connect to it. You couldn’t make this sh!te up if you tried. Surprise, surprise nothing has happened since. A new name won’t make a damn difference. Just a waste of space & money. Meanwhile my parents & all the others of the community here go on having endless problems.
Wonder will people now be more inclined to pay for their water ?
@Ciaran: irish people do pay for their water already through their TAX, PAYE, VAT, USC etc…it would be nice sometime to actually get something in return.
@Ciaran: You must be the last to know Ciaran but surprise surprise, people do pay for water, wonder no more.
@Ciaran: Considering the amount of taxes working people pay in this country and literally get nothing for our water services are more then paid for multiple times. It is not the tax payers fault that millions are wasted over and over, not least on setting up Irish Water a quango that was a complete waste of millions instead keeping water services with the council and giving it to them to actually do needed upgrades and repairs. How much was wasted on the water meters alone?
@Dave Ennis: it’s the people who pay tax fund Irish water not the people who dont work
@Patrick O Connell: Everybody pays tax including the jobless, VAT.
@Dave Ennis: WORKING people, not people, already pay for it.
@Heather Knowles: “literally get nothing” eh? That’s literally not true.
@Ciaran: We do in our tax burden, that was done many years ago. Paying a bill as well
as paying tax is double paying it.
@Patrick O Connell: Lousy pensioners getting free stuff!!!!
@Graham Quinn: Really, abysmal infrastructure, a health service that’s not fit for purpose, completely inadequate national broadband, terrible transport in most cities and basically none in rural areas, schools falling apart, carers getting less benefits then long-term dole scroungers, a housing crisis for both those who rent or would like to own a home, nurses getting paid a pittance they can’t even live on, pensioners who can’t heat their homes, completely inadequate support for people with intellectual or physical disabilities, one money wasting fiasco after another for example The Childrens Hospital! Property tax that gives zero benefits locally and on an individual level working people get nothing tangible, one lousy dental check up a year. The more you work the less you get.
More tripe, a new name that most people won’t understand. A bit like “glan bia” which is contrary to Gaelic grammar rules. Also, how would anyone feel about seeing an advertisement offering “clean food” (board bia), or, should it be “food clean”? Is the manufacturer somehow suggesting that at times their food might be unclean? Speak/print English and stop the nonsensical pretense that Irish is spoken here by a significant number of people. If anything the second language should be Polish.
Changing your name go ahead. It would be far better if you employed people who can actually the job required of them. The crowd you have putting in new wastepiping in Monasterevin are a crowd of muppets.
Tap Dancing
Cuideachta uisce réabhlóideach na ndaoine = The People’s Revolutionary Water Company.
“Separation of Irish Water from the Ervia Group is in the best strategic interests of the water services and gas networks businesses.”
It would have been helpful to the reader if The Journal made a small effort to explain how the separation of the companies makes any difference.
i.e. What’s the point?
have your say