The majority of Scottish people vote "NO" to an independent Scotland

Back from the brink: Scotland stays in the UK

THE DAY, Friday 19 September 2015

The 307-year-old union between Scotland and the UK survived this morning. 55% of voters said ‘No’ to independence. But politics will never be the same again in Britain.

The United Kingdom remains united and Scotland has rejected the opportunity for independence. In answer to the referendum question: ‘Should Scotland be an independent country?’, 45% voted Yes, but 55% voted No.

It was the busiest day in Scottish electoral history: 4.3 million people — 97% of the electorate — had registered to vote (including 16 and 17-year-olds voting for the first time in a UK election). Turnout was an astonishing 85%.

This was a tumultuous end to what had become, over the last six weeks, an exhilarating roller-coaster ride of political engagement. Many agreed that even though the No team won the vote, the Yes team won the campaign. ‘It has outwitted the three main Westminster parties who spent so long worrying about their positioning ... that they have forgotten about voters’ said Fraser Nelson, editor of The Spectator.

After decades of decline, democracy came alive in Scotland in recent weeks. Nearly everyone had an opinion and was willing to defend it. They informed themselves on every aspect and shared what they learned with others. One commentator recorded his delight in tasting ‘the pure bubbling water of democracy’.

The rejection of independence does not mean that things will stay the same. In the last fortnight as Yes and No ran neck and neck in the polls, the three national party leaders hurriedly pledged that further powers would be transferred to Edinburgh. Gordon Brown called it ‘home rule within the UK’. Changes include greater control over finances and will radically shift power away from Westminster.

But these promises, underpinned by a guaranteed subsidy through the Barnett formula, have already caused deep resentment in other parts of the UK. A huge political row is brewing for Prime Minister David Cameron over ‘the English Question’. Some MPs are now calling for an English parliament. Wales and Northern Ireland are expected to follow.

Unfinished business

Scotland’s First Minister is Alex Salmond, without whose extraordinary political skills it is unlikely this referendum would ever have taken place, let alone have come so close to success. He said last week that this vote would settle the question of Scotland’s independence for a generation and he did not anticipate a 'neverendum'.

But is that likely? The people of Scotland have rediscovered their passion for politics and a belief in the possibility of change. And nearly half of them have just rejected the current political setup. As the general election next May approaches, both north and south of the border there is enough energy and resentment for a perfect storm of political upheaval.

To do/questions:

1. Research and explain the words and phrases highlighted in grey.
2. How old is the union between Scotland and England?
3. Did those who voted YES to the referendum win?
4. What was the winning margin?
5. How many people took part in the referendum?
6. Who "forgot about voters"?
7. Why do you think the three main parties promised further transfers of powers to Edinburgh?
8. Why are some MPs calling for an English Parliament?
9. Will there be another referendum on Scottish independence soon?
10. Name and describe the three main UK parties.
11. What is the SNP?
12. What other areas of Europe want independence and why?

KERNOW soon?

Click HERE to read the article from THE DAY!

Cornwall is one of the poorest regions of the UK and one of the “marginal” regions of Europe… How is it being developed? What are the inhabitants of the county, the region’s industries and businesses, Cornwall Council, the UK government, and the EU, doing to improve the region’s situation?

2015 is European Year for Development in which the issue of EU spending priorities will be discussed; should the EU give so much aid to countries outside the EU when it, and the poorer regions of Europe in particular, are undergoing an economically difficult time ?

David Cameron and the Conservatives were re-elected to the UK government in May 2015. The issue of continued UK membership of the EU will therefore probably be put to a referendum; “Brexit” (i.e. the UK leaving the EU) is becoming a strong possibility… If the UK is no longer a member of the EU, what will happen to Cornwall if it no longer benefits from EU help?

English rules...

Babelling on: Brussels versus the English language

THE ECONOMIST, December 13th 2006

In their loftier moments Brussels politicians say that languages are an expression of the European Union's unity in diversity. What they seldom admit is that languages are a logistical and expensive headache, as well as a cause of nationalistic squabbles. All these could increase when the tally of official languages in the EU rises from 20 to 23 on January 1st 2007, with the addition of Romanian, Bulgarian and Irish.

There is impeccable democratic logic for the EU to do business in the language of its citizens: hence the addition of Bulgarian and Romanian when these countries join next month. It is less obvious why Irish is being added to the list. Although it is an official language of Ireland, it is a minority one that the Irish government declined to use when it joined in 1973. The government concedes that less than half the population can speak it and a mere 5% actually use it. But Charlie McCreevy, Ireland's European commissioner, insists it is central to Irish cultural identity.

Asserting cultural identity may be more important in a growing club. Ireland's decision has raised the stakes for other countries. Last year Spain requested semi-official status for Catalan, Galician and Basque. The Spanish government will foot the bill for translation services for Spaniards who prefer to use those languages. Welsh nationalist politicians are now lobbying the British government to get the same deal for Welsh, although not so far to any effect.

Getting national governments to pick up the tab for using regional languages can keep the EU's costs down. In 2005 the union spent some €1.1 billion ($1.4 billion) on translation and interpretation. This pays for staff to interpret at 11,000 meetings a year and to translate more than 1.3m pages of text. One result of the latest enlargement is that the commission has instructed officials to write shorter, snappier communications that cost less to translate. But not all problems are so easy. A plan in 2002 to simplify European patents failed when some countries blocked it because the new patent would be only in English, French and German. Subsequent efforts to find a compromise have foundered because of high translation costs.

English, French and German are the main working languages of the European Commission, a truce agreed some 20 years ago. At that time half of all EU documents were drafted in English. Now it is around two-thirds, as enlargement to Scandinavia and Eastern Europe has created a bigger group of people with English as their first choice of second language. This points to an unsettling conclusion for advocates of multilingualism: in a union of many languages, increasingly there is but one language.

To do:

1. Describe and comment the photo above the text.
2. Translate the highlighted words and phrases in the text above.
3. Describe what THE ECONOMIST is.
4. Draw up a list of minority languages used in Europe.

Questions:

1. Why is Irish being added to the list of official languages?
2. What is the “growing club” (first sentence, third paragraph)?
3. Who do you think should pay for the cost of translation and interpretation of regional languages at Brussels (the EU itself or national governments)?
4. Who are the “advocates of multilingualism” (last sentence of text)?
5. Which language is the most used in the European Union institutions and why is it the most used?
6. Do you defend the use of several languages for European Union institutions?