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]

• 641. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

  Thursday, June 19, 2008 16:42

  In response to my previous postings, in relation to the city of Glasgow most people in Scotland's largest city do no support the notion of indepedence so how can Scotland become an independent nation if it's biggest and most important city does not support it ?
  
  Going against the will of the people in Scotland's largest city would not be a wise move for any government in power.
  
  However I do admit that I'm not fully oppossed to Scottish Independence yet I am still not convinced by it.
  
  For instance is Scottish Independence going to -
  1. Reduce the shocking levels of Crime in the City which currently has a higher rate of crime compared to New York.
  
  2. Will indedendence change the living and consumption patterns of many Glaswegian's who choose to live unhealthy lifestyle's ?
  
  3. Will Scottish indepedence reduce inequality in the city of Glasgow by creating more employment in the city ?
  
  4. Will increasingly unequal society if Scotland became independent solve many of Glasgow's Social and Economic problems including racism and sectarianism ?
  
  5. Will a more powerful capital city of Edinburgh do anything to transform Glasgow into a better place ?
  
  The answer to all these questions is NO !!!
  
  Now I'm not going to argue for the Unionist's I'm simply arguing the real issues that affect Scotland's largest city in which scottish independence would not solve in reality.
  
  However I would agree with nationalist's that both the previous Holyrood administrations and British Government have systematically failed to tackle these critical issues. But more importantly the SNP government has also largely ignored these issues.
  
  It is clear that Scotland in the status quo or even independent is not going to effective deal with these problems. Therefore a devolved parliament or even independent parliament for the city of Glasgow would effectively deal with these socio-economic issues.
  
  But if this means seperating Glasgow from the rest of the Union or Scotland then I would fully support it.
  
  

• 642. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Friday, June 20, 2008 09:35

  641. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
  
  "How can Scotland become an independent nation if it's biggest and most important city does not support it?"
  
  Glasgow is not as great as it once was. (no offence) Can you provide evidence to support your view? The reason I support Independence is because I belive that Glasgow mainly can actually acheive better if we have control of our own money.
  
  For instance is Scottish Independence going to -
  1. Reduce the shocking levels of Crime in the City which currently has a higher rate of crime compared to New York.
  
  It depends. More resources are needed but does Westminister give Glasgow enough? Despite reports showing Scotland sends a surplus of approx 4 billion per year to the Treasury?
  
  2. Will indedendence change the living and consumption patterns of many Glaswegian's who choose to live unhealthy lifestyle's ?
  
  Again. More resources are needed.
  
  3. Will Scottish indepedence reduce inequality in the city of Glasgow by creating more employment in the city?
  
  Inequality exists everywhere. Scotland can reduces taxes to attract new investments however. Similar to Ireland.
  
  4. Will increasingly unequal society if Scotland became independent solve many of Glasgow's Social and Economic problems including racism and sectarianism ?
  
  Some but not all and deffinetly not overnight.
  
  5. Will a more powerful capital city of Edinburgh do anything to transform Glasgow into a better place ?
  
  Of course. When your Government relies on your success for their own well being why would they neglect you?
  

• 643. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Friday, June 20, 2008 09:39

  641. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
  
  "But more importantly the SNP government has also largely ignored these issues."
  
  Actually, you have offeneded me here. The reason that the SNP have not completed their manifesto promises in certain parts of the country is because the EXTRA money they gave the councils were spent improving others areas instead of completing the manifesto promises.
  
  The SNP told the councils that they could spend the money as they saw fit and didn't expect all the councils to follow the same line.
  
  Show some respect for them.

• 644. Paul Lamont - Glasgow Riddrie

  Tuesday, June 24, 2008 17:11

  As you made a point about Ireland. The reason they were able to increase interest from foreign investors was because of EU subsidy- which they no longer give. The point every one of the pro- Independence (yes thats how it is spelt)supporters is how much economic damage is it going to cause and is it viable to rely on a commodity like oil to take Scotland forward. In Britain the nation has the best chance of achieving a safe future that is not weighed down by petty Nationalist whinging.

• 645. PMK - Ayrshire

  Wednesday, June 25, 2008 13:12

  # 644 - Yes of course independence can be afforded. Especially when treasury based figures show a Scottish surplus of £4.4 to £6.2 billion and even the GERs report commissioned by the last Labour Executive shows Scotland in modest surplus £800 million and the UK (as a whole) running a rather large deficit (c£4-5 billion). The question is can Scotland afford to be held back by the union much longer?
  
  In relation to oil the UK currently relies on it to a large degree as well ... the beauty is with independence - after tax cuts (5p across the board on income tax and slashing corporation tax from 28 to 12.5% - the same as in Ireland) we would still have between £1 and £2 billion a year to invest in an oil fund to make sure the money outlasts the oil. While we remain in the UK, subsidising the rest of the union, Scotland will continue to pour its surplus down the drain wasting our chance for greater prosperity.

• 646. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Wednesday, June 25, 2008 18:44

  644. Paul Lamont - Glasgow Riddrie
  
  "The reason they were able to increase interest from foreign investors was because of EU subsidy- which they no longer give."
  
  I suppose when the Irish reduced corperation tax by 50% that helped aswell.
  
  Scotland is already suffering from the slowest growth rates within Britain.
  
  If we were Independent it could not possibly get slower then our current situation.
  
  Oil is running out. What has Britain provided for the North East of Scotland for when the oil does run out?
  
  Or do they expect the Scots to move out of expect doe money because there are no longer any jobs?
  
  I trust a Scottish Government with full powers to help re-invest for the future instead of relying on the UK-Gov because so far there is nothing.
  
  

• 647. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

  Friday, June 27, 2008 16:29

  In counter-response to my previous posting there is a wide range of evidence to illustrate that the majority of those living in the city of Glasgow are actually opposed to independence, even though there is support for it.
  
  Look at the voting intentions of Glaswegian’s; there is only one nationalist MSP representing one area of the city. In relation to the Westminster Parliament every constituency is represented by a Unionist party i.e. Labour. With reference to Glasgow City Council only 30% of seats are represented by the SNP in which the labour party still control and will still control for a long time to come.
  
  In addition in reference to this forum the majority of comments made from those living in Glasgow do not support or have made comments against the notion of independence.
  
  Is that not evidence enough?
  
  As I said before I'm not totally opposed to Scottish independence but I am still not convinced by it.
  
  In response to the answers there is no guarantee whatsoever that there will be more resources available or EXTRA money to deal with the serious issues concerning Glasgow if Scotland became independent.
  
  In addition the SNP has failed to account for some of the serious issues affecting Glasgow for example there was nothing in their manifesto telling the voting public on their policies to deal with racism and sectarianism which affect our city on a daily basis. In comparison it was the previous administration which undertook in innovative work to stamp out bigotry. I only hope the SNP will do the same.
  
  Although I would agree with most people that the city of Glasgow is not as great as it once was it is an important place nevertheless. Even if Scotland was independent or not it would not survive without the city of Glasgow's existence. So many people from outside the city including those from Renfrewshire, Dunbartonshire, Lanarkshire and Ayrshire depend on it for work and employment.
  
  Glasgow is also the largest retail centre outside London even beating larger cities such as Birmingham, Manchester and Leeds. I’m not trying to overestimate it's importance but it is still vital to the Scottish Economy. It is even holding Scotland's largest ever sporting event in 2014 with the commonwealth games.
  
  And in relation to my final point posted the last time both London and Edinburgh have failed to deal with Glasgow's socio-economic problems effectively. Some areas of the city have been neglected and will continue to do so in future even if Scotland is independent or not. A more powerful city of Edinburgh does not mean that Glasgow will be transformed into a better place. (No offence to those living there)
  
  
  
  
  

• 648. Martin Caldwell - Paisley

  Monday, June 30, 2008 10:22

  What hasn't been pointed out is that an independent Scotland would have to re-apply to join the EU. The European Commission has made this very clear. The international law on successor states means the rump UK would take on the responsibilities and membership of international organisations just as Russia did for the USSR and Serbia has for Yugoslavia. This presents a big problem for Scottish business as it would be outside of the common tariff meaning trade with the rest of the UK and Europe would become much more expensive and this would damage industries like banking and Whisky. Scotland would be forced to negotiate for 5-10 years on membership and would be forced to join the euro under the acquis communitaire. Also, countries with successionist movemebts like Spain would not want to set a precendent for the Basques or Catalans with independence within the EU and would be likely to veto Scottish membership.
  
  You never hear nationalists ever tell you this.
  
  I am a Unionist because we live in a world of greater dependence rather than parochialism.
  
  We can achieve more together than we can apart and for Scotland which is more communitarian than England, I would have thought we would recognise this basic principle, instead of selfishness and uneccessary division.

• 649. PMK - Ayrshire

  Monday, June 30, 2008 12:12

  # 647 Neil Anderson - The SNP only stood 22 candidates for election in Glasgow at council level: all 22 were returned in May of last year. If more had been put forward then more would have been elected. As it was, only one multi-member ward (out of a total of 21) had more than one SNP candidate standing.
  
  The rest of the info you mention is accurate enough, but probably outdated by now. Let’s see how Labour's 3rd safest seat in Scotland votes in the coming by-election (Glasgow East)! Even getting in a couple thousand votes of Labour in a constituency taking in much of Baillieston, Shettleston and Easterhouse would be a great achievement for the SNP (Labour's current majority is c13,5000).
  
  Also, you must not confuse support for the SNP for support for independence - prior to the last election only around 50-60% of those backing independence voted SNP (in May last year it was closer to 75%). Tommy Sheridan may yet stand in Glasgow East and prove this point for me. Labour has a large nationalist-wing which is now wavering. Look to the coming by-elections in Glasgow-East and Glenrothes at Westminster, and Jack McConnell's seat of Motherwell and Wishaw at Holyrood.
  
  As for Labour being more anti-sectarian than the SNP: Labour itself is divided by sectarianism: to the extent that some party officials feel it is appropriate to attack cabinet minister's for "voting the way the Pope tells them". Also, remember it was the SNP that the Orange Order (from all over the UK) paraded through Edinburgh against last May!
  

• 650. Thomas Porter - Scotland, Aberdeen

  Monday, June 30, 2008 14:00

  647. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
  
  "Is that not evidence enough?"
  
  Course not. You assume that because one person votes Labour then they will not vote for Independence. This is wrong and once poll had shown that between 10-15% of those who regular support a Unionist Party would vote for Independence while another 10-15% who never vote would vote for Independence.
  
  The by-Election in Glasgows East End should show you what Labour has accomplished within decades of having that seat.
  
  "Male life expectancy across the city's East End is 68, five years less than the Scottish average, while in Shettleston it drops to just 63. Women, meanwhile, live on average to 74, which is still three years less than the national average. Across the area, 30 per cent of the population is described as "deprived", while 25 per cent are unemployed, compared with a national average of 5 per cent. Mortality rates from cancer and heart disease are all above average, with smoking in some pockets running at 50 per cent."
  
  Shall you continue to vote Labour and still have the cheek to complain about the problems?
  
  You vote Labour then that is what you will get.
  
  One reason Labour abolished the 10p tax was to have more people relying on benefits and more likily to want Labours type of governing.

[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]