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]

• 51. livilion - livingston

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 02:25

  #46. David - London
  Tuesday, September 4, 2007 16:30
  
  Cheers for the namecheck auld da!
  
  If you have something to contribute just get on with it and forget the namecalling.
  
  EG Why don't you take up my points in turn and explain how a grown up would deal with them?
  
  If you have something full and objective to share other than the Telegraph or Evening Standard's editorial piece, or your opinion, let's hear it.
  
  Let me give you an example:
  ""..not 1707 but when Britain began its successes in colonialisation..""
  
  Would that be 'British' British colonialisation or 'English' British colonialisation such as in North America eg Virginia colony 1607–1776?
  
  You see some of us see Ireland and Scotland as the first colonialisations.
  IE in 1707 the very name Scotland was to be dis-established in favour of 'North Britain'.
  At Waverly Station, George Sq in Glasgow, up until the 90s the hotel there was still called the 'North British'.
  
  >>>The UK is the 5th largest economy in the world and has had consistent and strong growth for the past 10-15 years. Take this grounding for granted at your peril.<<<
  
  Turnover does not have to equate to strength.
  It could also be argued that this apparent wealth was funded by selling off anything that wasn't screwed down. Ask Sid.
  
  Yes the UK has a cashflow in the order of £1.5trillion a year, but has a national debt running at 87% of GDP, almost double that which the UK Treasury admits is sustainable.
  http://society.guardian.co.uk/publicfinances/story/0,,2006184,00.html
  
  If the banks call in this debt or the pound takes a Black Wednesday tumble, the UK could once again face bankruptcy, her normal condition from 1919 to 1980.
  
  The time of colonial expansion from ~1870-1914 preceded a time of UK insolvency which coninued up until 1980.
  
  First the USA providing loans to bale us out between the wars, and post WWII to staunch the tide of the Red Menace threatening to sweep across Europe.
  
  When Harold Wilson refused to jump into bed with the USA over the Vietnam War that tap was turned off, and he was rapidly replaced by Jim Callaghan as PM, who then had to send his begging bowl round to the IMF.
  
  Your other points have all been well enough covered already, suffice to say you are a child of your environment and can only go on the propaganda available to you.
  You're only about two or three decades behind the debate we've been having here in Scotland.
  
  I am right behind your call to Gordon Brown to, as you quaintly put it: 'claim back Scotland for the Union'
  
  It would help no end to speed up the process of claiming back Scotland for the people of Scotland.
  
  Anti-English? Puir soul you must imagine we children north of the border so terribly ungrateful to want to be permitted to reclaim our own country back?
  Personally half my extended family and in laws are English. Most of us get on fine. My grandmother was born a Cockney.
  
  Honest its not you, its us, maybe we just need some time 'to find ourselves'?
  

• 52. Joe - East Kilbride

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 09:07

  In response to #50 by livilion.
  
  You are demonstrably keen to point out the benefits of the Irish economy and are keen to see the Scottish economy follow a similar path. However, the Celtic Tiger emerged in unique circumstances which do not lend themselves to Scotland at the moment. You have then either misunderstood or misrepresented my statement regarding employment growth. If you are to look at the successes of the Irish economy, you must also look at the failings to reach a balanced conclusion. A pro-business environment and economic growth is commendable but if you believe it is the only way to measure the success of a nation then you are seriously neglecting the working people of Scotland. You cannot have jobless growth. Building growth on tax cuts is essentially a New Right idea and there is a broad centre-left consensus in Scotland which would find the concept objectionable.
  
  I stated that Scotland within the union was ahead of the game in reducing child poverty in that Scotland, like most of the UK, has met government targets to reduce and eventually eradicate child poverty. Only the Midlands and London have not. However, Scotland is evidently making progress without independence.
  
  If the only way you can justify independence is in terms of profit and growth then you should bear in mind that it was this New Right approach to the wider UK economy which resulted in so many of the social problems I speak of developing in the 1980s.

• 53. Robert - edinburgh

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 18:03

  Ah, how I laugh when reading all these comments. Do any of you really think it would change a thing in your day to day lives? The same people would be in charge, making the same mistakes, while we get on with our lives. All you might notice is a different name at the top of your tax bills.
  
  Many people in England are happy for Scotland to be independent. Most don't care. Why? They see Scotland as a drag on their economy and society, contributing little while demanding a lot. How many Scots are employed in London? A lot. How many Londoners in Scotland? Not many. Why raise a barrier when business has been so easily transacted between the two nations for so long.
  
  No-one denies that Scotland is a nation, but the politicians so desperaste to grab attention overlook a lot of facts that would obstruct them in their stupid quest for 'independence'.
  
  1) How do you make Scotland a sovereign nation when the Head of State is still the Queen? Change that and every law, statute and order composed under Her Government's authority is invalid. England had a Scottish King with James VI in 1606, and since then Government has been collated between the two nations. Try undoing 400 years worth of law etc. in the next generation...
  
  2) The Act of Union 1707 (not 'treaty' livilion) was put forward BY Scotland, because it was in her interests. This fact is overlooked to such a degree that one could believe no SNP politican ever read a history book. It was not forced, and there was an extremely generous Scottish Settlement that to this day provides for over-representation of Scottish constituents in the House of Commons at Westminster.
  
  3)England is the biggest market for scottish business, not the EU. Saying that we would adopt the euro etc. misunderstands that fact, as well as denying handing power over to the EU.
  
  Saying that 'we would be free to do this that and the other' is meaningless. Do you think the people of South-West England don't share your concerns over liberty and representation? Or the people of South-West London? We all live on this island together, and I do believe it's in our interests to stay together.
  
  Stop distracting voters with talk of independence and get on with the job in hand: let us get on with shaping our own future, as individuals and communities.

• 54. David - London

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 19:23

  51. Well thank you for the tirade there, I expected just as much. But I don't want to get into playground politics, so I will not respond to most of livilion's comments. Although the notion that I am parly to some form of propaganda is extremely childish, and quite offensive, and I hope the author will reconsider his or her views. In addition, I don't want to be associated with the Telegraph, if you please.
  
  I suppose the point I was trying to put across is that I would like to see an objective debate about Britishness in our society, led by our respective national leaders. Whether you think it exists or not, all points of view are valid. As I found this page through the SNP website I don't think this thread gives an accurate account of the views of all Scots. Indeed, the premise of this discussion - i.e. the wording of the debate - seems to be towards the idea of independence, which is not exactly a fair place to start. Better to call it 'the future of scotland' or something like that. I have to say that I suspect Mr Salmond and his party are manipulating the tone of the argument through scotland.gov resources, which I think is highly unethical.
  
  I am not attempting to veto the point of this discussion, it is of course an important issue for many people, not just in Scotland but in the rest of the UK as well.

• 55. David Robertson - Inverness

  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 22:28

  #46 David-London
  
  "There is clearly a crisis in our notion of Britishness and it is my belief that the decline of empire has fostered this. Indeed, for anyone who may have studied the concept of Britishness, it essentially emerged not in 1707 but when Britain began its successes in colonialisation. Before that there were Scottish, Irish and English, that's it."
  
  You left out the Welsh David.
  Certainly Edward I absorbed Wales into England but they, like Scotland, retained their identity. Ask any Welshman.
  
  As to colonisation, it was England's refusal to allow Scotland access to HER colonies that gave rise to the disastrous Darien venture in the 1690's, against strenuous English opposition, and eventually the final capitulation of the Scottish ruling class.
  
  No old chap, without rancour or bitterness I tell you, it was always an English Empire. The "British" facade was simply a conscious effort by the English aristocracy to create a new singular identity. They took the identity of the conquered peoples, Britain, tacked on Great to make them feel proud, and renamed them Celts. It work well for a time but it is now unravelling. The Empire did benefit some Scots but the majority at home were oppressed by their own people, not the English. They were too busy oppressing their own.
  
  The Scots philosophers of the 18th. century contributed, out of all proportion to our population, to the development of modern civilisation but once again this did not greatly benefit those Scots who remained in Scotland.
  
  Those who left for the colonies, willingly or otherwise, and later, the new United States, did find a measure of freedom and prosperity and made a worthwhile contribution to the development of these countries. Those who remained behind sufferred the same old oppression by their own people.
  
  This is why the Labour party started and found fertile ground in Scotland and why this country has been the source of radical political movements.
  
  However over time Labour too have joined the oppressors, taken over by intellectual socialists. They and their courtiers are the new aristocracy and the council estates are their plantations. The oppression today is not primarily material and physical, the poor have bread enough and circuses, it is more spiritual, moral, emotional and mental. I am not suggesting that independence is the complete answer, nor even a significant part of the answer, but it could be a small, hopeful beginning for a people who have all but forgotten what it means to be free.
  
  My hope is that the Scottish people will decide to go all the way to independence outside the EU with our own monetary and fiscal autonomy. My post #28 under the latest blog by John Swinney spells out in more detail my thoughts on the subject.
  
  One last observation, the year of the referendum, 2010, is in reality the next Year of Jubilee. It begins on September 28, 2009. This is when all the slaves have to be set free and all debts cancelled. Perhaps this is why the election call of the SNP resonates in our hearts. IT IS TIME. It is the ancient call of the ram's horn blowing, reaching into the depths of the human spirit. IT IS TIME. LET MY PEOPLE GO!

• 56. tommy scouller - isle of scalpay

  Thursday, September 6, 2007 14:44

  all this talk about the union that we are stronger together is a load of mince,england has taken most of our heavy industry like our locomotive works and sreel industry and used our soldiers to do their empire building.the letter from harold wilson to his government in 1974 stated that if we got independence he would send troops to take the oil revenues from us so the so called union only benifited england,the unionists especially the labour party are only interested in their party and could'nt care less about scotland thats why they are afraid of scottish independence they know they would not have their 50 scttish mp's to make up their numbers . when they talk about the oil they keep saying it will run out the last quote was that it would only last another ten years the oil companies reckon 30 to 40 years.there are vast amounts of oil and gas off the west coast of lewis but it is in deeper waters and it is estimated that it will be 2011 2013 before they can start extracting it so come on lets get independence soon as possible......

• 57. Alison Redfern - ex-pat Scot living in Australia

  Friday, September 7, 2007 09:54

  It's interesting that the people who bleat most about retaining the "Union" don't seem to understand the unrepresentative way it was formed. Ordinary Scots had no say in it whatsoever By all means let's live in peace with our English neighbours, but it is surely time to throw of the English yoke. Scotland reaps very few benefits from England yet Scots must defer to decisions taken in Westminister that have little or no regard for the welfare of the Scottish people.

• 58. Michael Dolan - Edinburgh

  Friday, September 7, 2007 12:47

  I would prefer to see ' Scottish Executive ' retained, as it reflects the ' hard choices ' of government.

• 59. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 01:29

  53. Robert - edinburgh
  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 18:03
  1) How do you make Scotland a sovereign nation when the Head of State is still the Queen?
  ans) Because when the Union was formed the two countries were both sovereign under the same monarch and had been for a hundred and four years previously under the Scottish royal house of Stuart.
  The only technical effect of the Union on the monarchy was the English Act of Settlement 1701 barring catholics from the throne of England was in effect extended to the throne of Scotland too.
  
  2) The Treaty of Union 1707 (yes "Treaty" Robert)
  It was ratified first by an Act of the Scottish Parliament, in January 1707, and then an Act by the English Parliament, in March 1707.
  It is a Treaty binding under the terms and descriptions recognised under international law.
  Suggest you check the difference between an Act and a Treaty
  Clue: How many participating nations do you require for each?
  
  3)England is the biggest market for scottish business, not the EU.
  
  Yes and that is the problem.
  The richest market in the world on our doorstep and we still have a distinctly unhealthy reliance on England's consumers due to economic matters reserved to Westminster.
  
  When the US economy sneezes, the UK's catches a cold.
  When the UK economy catches a cold, the Scottish economy ends up in intesive care.
  
  But rather than take my word for it:
  I respectfully suggest you have a look at this article "Celtic tiger/Celtic kitten"
  by Donald Adamson, lecturer in economics and politics @ Cambridge University
  In which he compares the economic performance of Scotland and Ireland and concludes that Scotland needs to end its dependency on England
  
  http://www.scottishleftreview.org/php/public/pastissues.php?action=article&docid=352

• 60. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 02:05

  #54. David - London
  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 19:23
  
  OK, two posts now and what have you told us?
  
  You don't want name calling if it is directed at you and you would like to see a grown up discussion that includes Britishness.
  
  Great, on you go.
  
  Tell us what Britishness means to you, what you understand it to be, and why Scots should value this above their own Scottishness?
  
  To folk like me, who have lived and worked in England (Herts, Essex and London) for a number of years and have a high percentage of English friends and family, from our experiences we understand 'British' to be the term reserved for those inhabitants of this island archipeligo who are not quite 'English enough'.
  
  I dunno, perhaps a fuedal echo from England's class ridden past?
  
  England seeing itself as 'Lord of the Manor' with celtic vassal states filled with dutiful serfs who ought to gratefully stick to their station and enjoy the patronage and protection of the Manor?
  
  e.g.
  I hear of the 'Queen of England' or the future 'King of England'.
  Seldom do I hear Queen of Britain used, why would that be?
  
  If this is important to you then tell us why, or I'll respond by telling you that it isn't important to me.
  
  Who's opinion should carry more influence?

[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]