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]

• 561. Trevor Swistchew - Edinburgh

  Monday, April 14, 2008 21:03

  Yes Independence will come
  and to those who say the Union is the Only Way
  i say Nay Nay
  Neither do i think the snp milk the Londom Parliament
  Perchance the opposite is true
  Will Independence mean Scotland would need Armed Forces ?
  Even if the nation did they will not be anywhere on par with huge nations
  Dont put Independence down before it has even got here
  Like history shows Unionists ruled for centuries yet still failed to create the prosperity the London leader goes on about.
  Forty years ago in a far poorer nation Scotland did not starve
  if Readers want to defend the Union ok
  just try not to use fear as a tool
  noone is buying that anymore
  scotland can run its own affairs
  it can Afford Independence
  what it can not afford is to go on getting further behind growing economies around the world and i dare any Economist to come on here and say Scotland has achieved continual and sustainable growth under Unionist policy
  Independence is the future Scottish youth want it that way go ask them
  the old tired out politivs are over
  the revival of Independence will kick start scotlands economy and create real growth for which Unionist politcs has endless excuses
  Housing
  Transport
  Education
  Compassion in the nation
  to end degedation
  of the poorest in the nation
  Let Scotland Flourish
  say no to poverty
  demand better from the nation
  if Unionist policy HAD delivered
  the forum content would read far more pro-Union
  but who on the Forum can honestly say they think New Labour have integrity and that Labour redisribute wealth when the Labour leaders are earmarking over 300 BILLION POUNDS for nuclear weapons? go ask Labour why they want to put that money into war machines while hundreds of thousands of people in this UK live below the official poverty line?go find out why people cant afford a house or even to pay their increasing utility costs in our Third Way economy.
  Labour are a spent power
  they have run out of ideas and crediobility
  many Labour voters have left the Party
  noone thinks of Labour as a party with public trust now
  Independence is the future
  that is a fact.
  why?
  here is why the other roads led nowhere.
  

• 562. PMK - Ayrshire

  Monday, April 14, 2008 21:20

  Mike King 559 & 560, you are quite right about the powers of the executive as compared to that of the legislature. However the SNP's mandate to govern at Holyrood is the strongest and comparable to that of Labour's to govern the UK. SNP vote share at Holyrood was 32.9% in the Additional Member System and something similar in the constituency. Compare that to Labour's 35.4% GB-wide in 2005 and that is far closer to the current situation in Scottish elections than any comparison to Mugabe or anyone else outwith the UK.
  
  Also, note that because of the totally undemocratic and outdated British electoral system Labour receive a working majority of 60 odd with such a mandate! So they receive the backing of a minority government, but are delivered undiluted power - provided the party whips can keep order.
  
  It is not that Scotland is "unfairly represented" in terms of the make-up of MPs and/or Cabinet posts. It is more that the concerns of Scotland are constantly, and in one sense "democratically", overlooked as we can only ever have a weighting of 8-9%. The objection is that decisions are not being made in the national interest of Scotland - precisely because of the "democratic set-up" where eighty-odd percent consistently over-rules the other constituent nations within the Union. Therefore the UK is a good example of the tyranny of the majority (or increasingly the tyranny of a minority of affluent southern swing-seats that set the terms of political discourse).
  
  Finally, Tony Blair - though born here - would not consider himself a Scot. He has represented an English constituency all his political life, and in the acid test of who you support at the football: backs England. So I feel it is slightly unfair to burden Scotland entirely with the blame for Anthony Charles Lynton Blair. After all no Scot ever directly elected him, we all have the citizens of Sedgefield to thank for that!

• 563. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

  Tuesday, April 15, 2008 19:38

  If Scotland can become independent why can't the city of Glasgow become indepenent within itself.
  
  Nationalists argue that Scotland indepedent will become more wealthier and prosperous nation so if this is the case why not make Glasgow independent from the rest of Scotland.
  
  Maybe an independent Glasgow will able to govern itself and make it's own decisions in trying to transforming the city. With reference to two major successful world cities Hong Kong and Singapore we could become like them totally independent and free from Westminister and Edinburgh control. Then maybe the citizens of Glasgow won't be stereotyped and treated like second class citizens.
  
  The UK government has failed to tackle some of Glasgow's notorious social problems and so has the Scottish Goverment even with the the old labour administration and new SNP executive.
  
  We need our own parliament for the city of Glasgow to tackle our these serious issues.

• 564. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Wednesday, April 16, 2008 16:59

  564. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
  
  I agree with you partly.
  
  The Union HAS failed Glasgow.
  
  But the Scottish Government has not made much of an impact themselves.
  
  But do you not believe once we are in full control of our country that we can tackle Scottish issues?
  
  If I had my way I would make better use of the more advanced policing units to combat Glasgow gangs and other criminal problems and continue to offer grants etc for new businesses to move to Glasgow to provide work.
  
  But well we do not have the powers to do that and unless we carry on without them Glasgow will only get worse.
  
  But the S.N.P. have not been in Government one year yet give them a chance since you gave Labour a decade.
  
  But for what I see they have gave more then what Labour has given so far.
  
  

• 565. PMK - Ayrshire

  Wednesday, April 16, 2008 21:36

  #564 - you expect the SNP administration to have successful solved all Glasgow's endemic social problems (which have outlasted the tenements and many of the high-rises), with only devolved powers, against a hostile Labour-dominated council and a very hostile UK Government (determined to prevent local tax reform which would favour the poorest) ... in a total timeframe of 10 to 11 months?!
  
  Why not try Scottish independence? Then the Scots Parliament would have all the powers of a sovereign state to shape the economic and social environment in Scotland's largest city. The only other European country I can think of where the largest city is not the capital is Switzerland (where Zurich does very nicely). Perhaps you should advocate a federal or confederal structure within a newly independent Scotland?
  
  PS - A more direct answer to your question is: "because no-one would vote for it [an independent Glasgow]", whereas if recent polls are to be believed 40% plus would vote for Scottish independence. Intriguingly, even more would should the Tories win the next General election (which again is starting to look like a very real possibility)!

• 566. PMK - Ayrshire

  Thursday, April 17, 2008 13:24

  #564 - It should also be mentioned that Hong Kong is not independent, and is in fact seeing its limited autonomy increasingly subverted by Communist Party control from Beijing.

• 567. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

  Friday, April 18, 2008 01:43

  Mike King - comparing Scotland with Zimbabwe to support an argument rebounds very quickly and easily. Zimbabwe also were free to vote, and did so.
  
  On the subject of "freedom", one person's freedom is another's prison. We do have the freedom of thought to decide what we regard as being - freedom - and no-one should decide for us what we personally mean by the word free. To do so is an arrogance, or worse, totalitarian control, puppetry and indeed slavery. For me, being under Westmonster and Britain is not being free for Scotland; others have the right to think differently. I support their Right.
  
  On the subject of powers of MPs, I partly agree in that party Whips should be illegalised as infringing on the rights of properly elected public representatives - MPs - to decide on what they think, and what way they want to vote on any issue, not just the "conscience" issues like hanging and abortion.
  
  On the other hand, MPs are indeed elected by their constituents, and therefore do have that given right, and should therefore have the courage and strength of conviction to vote according to their conscience, whatever their Whip may demand and decree, and whatever loss of privilege may result frm their "disobedience". To do so is not being a "rebel", to do so is to have integrity and honesty and strength, and is indeed their duty.
  
  Sadly most MPs are cowards, or self-serving and so we do not have a democracy in Britain, by the People, for the People.

• 568. Mike King - Birmingham

  Friday, April 18, 2008 21:41

  Re: 563. PMK - Ayrshire - Monday 14 April - “It is not that Scotland is "unfairly represented" in terms of the make-up of MPs and/or Cabinet posts. It is more that the concerns of Scotland are constantly, and in one sense "democratically", overlooked as we can only ever have a weighting of 8-9%. The objection is that decisions are not being made in the national interest of Scotland - precisely because of the "democratic set-up" where eighty-odd percent consistently over-rules the other constituent nations within the Union”
  
  I think that is a fair point if you define ‘national’ interest in terms of Scotland or England.
  
  As a Unionist I don’t, but as (I presume) a SNP supporter, I absolutely accept you are free to do so.
  
  And I certainly don’t hold Scotland responsible for Tony Blair; that is a burden too big even for the whole UK to carry, & I say that as a Unionist!
  

• 569. A.allan - Scottish borders

  Sunday, April 20, 2008 17:05

  At last an intelligent first minister who could lead us to an independent
  
  REBUBLIC OF SCOTLAND.
  
  Roll on.

• 570. Donald MacKinnon - Edinburgh + Barra

  Monday, April 21, 2008 10:26

  North Sea oil 'could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Switzerland'
  12:00AM Thursday December 15, 2005
  By Ben Russell and Paul Kelbie
  It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, written by Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for 30 years.
  
  McCrone's paper, written for Ted Heath's Tory Government and only just released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Switzerland.
  
  Earlier this week, Chancellor Gordon Brown underlined the vital revenue stream that North Sea oil still is in the context of British politics.
  
  In his pre-Budget report, Brown extracted an extra £6.5 billion (NZ$16 billion) in tax from North Sea oil and gas producers, to be taken over the next three years. Imagine then, what the oil could have done for a Scotland which chose independence in the mid-1970s and claimed ownership.
  
  Thirty years ago, McCrone's conclusions shocked his political masters. An independent Scotland's Budget surpluses, wrote McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing". Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe with the exception of the Norwegian kronor".
  
  Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England, a situation that could last "for a very long time".
  
  The study was judged incendiary by London and classified secret. The mandarins demanded that McCrone's analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of extreme sensitivity".
  
  It was the comparison with Norway that particularly worried. In the mid 1970s, Norway was fully independent and about to take advantage of an oil boom that has generated huge prosperity to the present day.
  
  In Scotland, however, heavy manufacturing was in deep trouble. Between 1970 and 1974 the number of coal mines in Scotland slumped by a third, while steel production fell by a fifth.
  
  The Government refused to bail out four shipyards in Upper Clyde in 1971, leading to a work-in by unionists and a march by 70,000 people.
  
  And so the call for independence became louder. The 1970 general election saw the Scottish Nationalist Party poll just 11.4 per cent of the vote and one seat. By the 1974 election their support had risen to the all-time high of 30.4 per cent of the vote, and 11 seats.
  

[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]