The Scottish Government

An Independent Scotland

Friday, November 30, 2007

The White Paper says: For Scotland to achieve full independence, the UK Parliament must cease to have competence to legislate for Scotland and the UK Government must cease to have competence in respect of executive action in Scotland. Correspondingly, the Scottish Parliament and Scottish Government would assume the full range of competence, duties and responsibilities accorded to sovereign states under international law.

This blog is now closed to further comment.

Comments

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]

• 281. Gordon Murray - Livingston

  Sunday, November 25, 2007 19:20

  278. Ellis Sims - Gosport
  
  I will state clearly that I am completely in favour of Scotland ending her dependence on Whitehall.
  
  But just one issue I'd like to raise; which areas of policy are MPs representing Scottish seats able to vote on that their English honourable friends are not?
  
  My understanding is that Scottish MPs are barred from voting on devolved matters in the same way that English, Welsh or N.Irish MPs are too.
  
  As a matter of interest, is there not a Kensington and Chelsea Question?
  
  Eg Did London MPs such as Sir Malcolm Rifkind have any say over whether Ken Livingstone's(that old West Lothian connection!)London Assembly introduced, say, The Congestion Charge?
  
  Should Greater London MPs like Sir Malcolm be barred from voting on non-London issues?
  
  Similar question for Welsh and N.Irish seats?

• 282. Mike King - Birmingham

  Monday, November 26, 2007 21:49

  Alasdair Martin says his wish for an 'independent' Scotland has nothing to do with hating the English.
  
  Of course I believe him; my question is if you don't like being ruled from London by a Scots PM & cabinet full of other Scots why are so many SNP so keen on being ruled from Brussels, where 'we' (wether 'we' be Britain, Scotland or whatever) are ALWAYS in the minority.
  
  I believe that the only way to preserve the sovereignty of all of us currently in the UK is by maintaining the Union that served us so well for more than 300 years.
  

• 283. Ed Gray - Aberdeen

  Tuesday, November 27, 2007 13:01

  When England gets Independence, can they PLEASE keep Malcolm Rifkind??!!

• 284. Rad - KL

  Tuesday, November 27, 2007 16:11

  Re. #283
  Currently Scotland has two masters: Westminster and Brussels. With independence Scotland will be able to deal with Brussels directly - cutting out the London "middleman".
  

• 285. Alasdair Martin - Leadhills

  Tuesday, November 27, 2007 19:49

  #283 Mike King - Birmingham
  
  I can't say I'm particularly keen on acceeding further powers to the EU be it as part of the UK or as an independent Scotland. However, so long as Scotland remains part of the Union such decisions will be made by those in Westminster ... and they seem very keen to disregard the views of EVERYONE, regardless of where 'we' come from.
  
  Currently Scotland has no voice in Europe, at least as an independent nation we'd have more of a voice than we do in our current - a minority of a minority, if you will - circumstances.
  
  With luck whoever governs an independent Scotland will listen to it's people in a way Westminster never could thanks to the simple arithmetic of governance.
  
  Remember ... Regardless of whoever is in the cabinet (and there aren't as many Scots as some commentators seem to believe) there is still some 529 English constituency MP's to Scotland's 59.
  
  Regards
  Alasdair Martin

• 286. Crawford Fulton - South Lanarkshire

  Wednesday, November 28, 2007 18:51

  The SNP 'Government' is as good a reason as any to stick with the Union. It has shown itself adept at gimmickry and inept at substance. In two key planning decisions, both of which merited a public inquiry (Park Quadrant in Glasgow and Winston Barracks in Lanark) they blithely waved them through. I am now beginning to believe that devolution (which I have supported for 33 years) is a bad idea.

• 287. Kevin - Edinburgh

  Thursday, November 29, 2007 16:45

  263,
  (example Scotland playing in a huge game against Italy gets less coverage on TV than an england friendly)
  
  Well said James, its such a pity that when its comes to sport and media coverage we are treated as a region of britain, its a sh1te situation.
  
  Its our country people, lets get it back, we pay the same tax's as the English why should we be treated as a colony??.
  We don't even vote for the same parties, England are more inclined to the tories, do we need another monster like thatcher to wake up the people of Scotland?
  
  
  
  
  
  

• 288. Mike King - Birmingham

  Friday, November 30, 2007 21:44

  Re: Alasdair Martin's comments on Scotland having more say in Europe as an independent country than as part of the UK.
  
  How can this be? The EU is run ('bossed') by France & Germany (indeed its origins are in the EEC, formed in 1955 largely to protect French agriculture & German industry)
  
  Currently only one country is large enough to 'stand up' to them & that's the UK. Once we start to dissolve ALL of us currently in the UK will become less able to protect our national interests.
  
  Please think twice before voting to break up the UK Alasdair!
  

• 289. Harry Gladstone - Dumfries

  Friday, November 30, 2007 21:53

  I agree with Craig cook from Glasgow entirely. We live in an age where the nation state is getting larger and larger. I fail to see the point of joining Europe whilst leaving the UK which is a trade block in itself. For years and years Scots have benefitted from an economic union with the UK, receiving more money per capita than in England, whilst still retaining our strong Scotish Heritage. Our services industry based in Edinburgh for example, is far more important than Oil, and clearly depends heavily on a strong union with the City. The Role of the armed forces is also unclear under an independent Scotland.

• 290. Ellis Sims - Gosport

  Friday, November 30, 2007 22:37

  Lets face it, Gordon Murray London is slightly smaller than Scotland. Also Scotland is a country not a city, i could say that Chelsea should become independent because it shares a bourgh with Fulham FC. They are both in Fulham but are not treated as such.
  
  Its a matter of opinion if they should seperate :S, but like i said Scotland is different from a City. Plus if people aren't happy with Devolution, lets go back to one state Britain. Why not? Oh yes thats WHY, because Scotland wasn't happy that it was getting treated like crap. Now it isn't treated like bulls**t, we can focus on why England feels like it is feeling treated like Bulls**t. Then once we have sorted that out maybe we can then go onto far more important things which are to the benifit of the ENTIRE United Kingdom

[Latest First] | [Earliest First] Page: [1] [2] [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13] [14] [15] [16] [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24] [25] [26] [27] [28] [29] [30] [31] [32] [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] [38] [39] [40] [41] [42] [43] [44] [45] [46] [47] [48] [49] [50] [51] [52] [53] [54] [55] [56] [57] [58] [59] [60] [61] [62] [63] [64] [65] [66] [67] [68] [69]