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]

• 661. David Mccallum - Taynuilt

  Wednesday, July 16, 2008 22:38

  SMC Edinburgh,
  Yes you have the right to comment on your country, we all have!
  It's one of the benefits democracy and freedom bring, im glad to see you are making the most of that right because it's one of dam few we've got left.
  Im concerned that you dont however seem to think that the rest of the benefits matter! for example getting the govenment you vote for as a nation.
  When the English public decide to ellect for us all a new Tory government
  and once again it's a case of UK plc dictating to Scotland will you still think it's fair and in your/our best interests.
  In case you had'nt noticed the english westminster mp's outnumber our own by huge numbers, more even than some well known dictators would think they could get away with.
  How can this possibly be fair democratic representation?
  

• 662. PMK - Ayrshire

  Thursday, July 17, 2008 10:54

  661. David Mccallum,
  
  Unfortunately, the situation you describe is exactly "fair democratic representation" because Scotland represents c8.5% of the UK population and England some 83-4% of the UK population and both get represented accordingly (at least in terms of Westminster seats allocated). There is nothing "undemocratic" about this, but it remains (in my view) a huge reason to back independence.
  
  For me, the fundamental question is do you want 8.5% of someone else's say or 100% of your own?
  
  The very figures themselves demonstrate why it must be independence and not some half-way house form such as "devolution max" or federalism. Any federation where one component part represents 83-4% of the whole is useless and remains a dictatorship of the majority. Equally, the (justified) hostility toward the necessary "breaking-up" of England to necessitate workable federalism is obvious. When even the North-East opted against its own talking-shop assembly, the idea of a Federal Britain died.
  
  England will indeed return a Tory Government despite how Scotland votes, a decade ago this was a major argument for a Scottish Parliament – now it is a major reason make that parliament (which most accurately represents the people of Scotland) sovereign.

• 663. jyemee - glasgow

  Saturday, July 26, 2008 18:36

  strongly support Scotland to have full independent.

• 664. martin blythe - mansfield england

  Sunday, July 27, 2008 12:17

  Im irish born and I think the time is coming for scotland to be independent again. But the snp need to take there time and get full control of the country first then have a vote for independence

• 665. David Mccallum - taynuilt

  Sunday, July 27, 2008 14:46

  662, PMK.
  Im glad you agree on the need for independance.
  My point re westminster representation is that it's only fair if you believe yourself to be a british citizen first and foremost,and you also believe that people south of the border think likewise.
  The whole thing ceases to be in anyway fair however if you think yourself a Scot or English or Welsh or Northern Irish.
  I think that favoratism has no place in a democracy and that the tendancy for English mp's to grab all they can for their own electorate is probably inevitable given the circumstances.
  Change however is also inevitable it's the only constant thing in the universe and to try to hold it back is usually counter-productive.
  Well done to the SNP for their latest victory - im begining to find hope in my heart for the future once again.

• 666. Neil Anderson - Glasgow

  Monday, July 28, 2008 16:21

  In response to my previous postings I am not opposed to Scottish independence but I'm still not convinced by it.
  
  Although I did vote SNP for the first time in the Glasgow East By-election I did so like others as a protest vote against the present Labour government not for Scottish independence. In fact over the past five years support for independence as increased by a small amount of the total population.
  
  But if the nationalists argue that independence will bring more wealth and economic prosperity then why not make Glasgow an independent city free from Scottish or British Control.
  
  For instance if Glasgow was given full control of power and political autonomy for the city then surely Glasgow can deal with it's own socio-economic issues more effectively in comparison to the status-quo.
  
  As history has illustrated both the Edinburgh and London governments have systematically failed to tackle these serious issues so why can't Glasgow have its own independent parliament with its control over Education, Health and Law.
  
  Therefore Glasgow with its new "city-state" status could have its own democratic parliament and will finally be able to make its own decisions made at a local level which could have a more positive impact in transforming the city.
  
  For example cities such as Singapore and to some degree Hong Kong have full independent power and are successful so why can't Glasgow be independent from Scottish and British control as well.
  
  As the nationalist's argue we could still maintain Scottish or British Citizenship the only difference being Glaswegian's would decide there own future not dictated by bureaucrats in Holyrood or Westminster.
  
  In reality splitting up Glasgow from Scotland sound's crazy but surely independent autonomy for the city would be better or would it?
  

• 667. Mike King - Birmingham

  Tuesday, July 29, 2008 22:26

  666. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
  Monday, July 28, 2008 16:21.
  
  Re: "Although I did vote SNP for the first time in the Glasgow East By-election I did so like others as a protest vote against the present Labour government not for Scottish independence"
  
  Neil, do that in a general election & you may well get independence whether you want it or not!
  
  Some protest!
  
  By all means vote SNP if you really want independence from the UK/England & don’t mind being subservient to the EU but please don’t vote SNP as a "protest".
  
  With Labour in free fall across the UK & the Liberals flat lining everywhere there is only 1 party for Unionists to vote for & that's the Conservatives!
  
  

• 668. Matt - Glasgow

  Wednesday, July 30, 2008 02:43

  The debate on independence seems to have taken a sidestep into the wonderful world of facts and figures, and while these numbers may or may not be accurate, the statisticians appear to be missing the point. The truth of the matter is that, although statistics are important, when the referendum comes (and it will), Scotland's future will be decided, not by the number-crunchers, but by the people who know very little of and care not a lot what the numbers say. While statistics can be impressive, nothing impresses more than a hard lesson learned - and our long relationship with our southern neighbour is littered with such examples. The first and most obvious lesson concerns the Treaty of Union in 1707. There appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding its birth (along with no small amount of misinformation).
  
  Although the idea of a union had been a moot point for many years before, it really took hold after the failure of the Darien venture (Scotland's modest attempt to build her own “Empire”). The project, begun in the 1690s, failed due to two things. First, the naiveté of the settlers themselves about what they were getting into. Second, and most significantly, English opposition to the venture. With William III (our own king!) and the all-powerful English East India Company set against it, we had no chance of success. William issued orders expressly forbidding any assistance being given to the Scots. The end result was failure, over 2000 dead settlers, and Scotland all but bankrupt. Then, to compel Scotland to negotiate for Union, the English Government threatened to pass the “Aliens Act”. The passing of this bullying Act would have meant that any Scot holding property in England would have it taken from them - and, strangely, those Scots who owned estates in England were, for the most part, the voting elite of the Scottish Parliament.
  
  When negotiations finally got under way, those who had something to gain began to angle for privilege, promotion or further holdings in England. Then, having wielded the stick of the Aliens Act, the carrot was produced. Up from London came a train of twelve wagons laden with what was termed “the equivalent” - cash and bonds totaling almost £400,000 (the “Price of Scotland”) - some of which was earmarked to compensate those investors who lost their all in the Darien venture. Some of those investors also had a vote in the Scottish Parliament.
  
  All over Scotland the people raged against what they saw as a betrayal of the independence principles of Bruce and Wallace. English soldiers were moved north to the border in case of rebellion, and money changed hands to persuade the reluctant and “smooth the path” of the Treaty. Once the Treaty had been ratified and the Scottish Parliament dissolved, the new Scottish members proudly took their places in the House of Commons. They soon witnessed, however, what would be a sign of things to come. Some English members, unable to get their heads around the title of the newly united countries, would unthinkingly refer to Great Britain as “England”. Such lack of thought, as we know, has been present in all the years since, in effect reducing Scotland to a province of England with a simple trip of the tongue. So ends the first hard lesson learned - charity begins at home; i.e. London.

• 669. PMK - Ayrshire

  Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:53

  #665 David Mccallum - we do indeed agree about fundamentals, I just dislike the argument about the current scenario being "undemocratic". If a majority of the populace consider themselves "British" (which is - I would argue - no longer the case, then it is perfectly democratic) just very harmful to Scotland's interests.
  
  #666 Neil Anderson - I am glad to hear you sought to hold Labour to account for it's record in government, and the lack of action in Glasgow East in recent years. No doubt - now that constituency has punished Labour - it will be rewarded in much the same way Govan has been for decades because it gives London Labour, and the Glasgow City Council variety, the odd kicking!
  
  I think that the comparison you draw between an independent Scotland with great reserves of oil, gas, and unmatched renewable potential in Europe is rather different to a landlocked independent Glasgow with 500,000 people and lacking in much of the infrastructure required to sustain it. Glasgow is no Singapore (neither can it be what Hong Kong once was). In addition, neither Singapore or Hong Kong are truly democratic the people's will is not what matters there. An independent Glasgow may well run more efficiently and produce better outcomes for the people than the current scenario unionist reality. However, it would not fare as well as it could as one of the two twin centres of an independent Scotland.
  
  #667 Mike King - The Tories remain an irrelevance in Scotland. The Cameron effect stops dead at the border. This was demonstrated in Glasgow East where various Conservative politicians were reduced to claiming a marginally lower share of the vote was a "triumph". Remember the Tory vote share was 6.9% from 2005 in GE. "Things could only get better" for them in Glasgow East, they didn't. The Tory candidate managed only to retain 6.3% of the popular vote. Equally in areas which used to be straight Labour-Tory battles (such as Ayr) the SNP is increasingly becoming the party most likely to unseat Labour encumbants partially due to their time in Government at Holyrood.

• 670. Mike King - Birmingham

  Thursday, July 31, 2008 21:37

  669. PMK - Ayrshire
  Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:53
  
  Re: "The Tories remain an irrelevance in Scotland ...."
  
  I don't deny it mate, I was simply pointing out that there is only 1 party to vote for now if you don't want Scotland to be reduced to a geogaphical 'region' within the EU.

[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]