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]

• 61. livilion - livingston

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 02:28

  52. Joe - East Kilbride
  Wednesday, September 5, 2007 09:07
  
  I use the Irish example to illustrate the sort of potential that having your own hands on all of the levers of government,in your own country, can provide.
  
  It is not a question of left or right, the Irish model, or the Norwegian model, it is simply the potential to make executive decisions to benefit Scots and Scotland rather than sitting waiting for scraps from the Westminster table and hoping not to be poisoned by them.
  
  The Scottish model:
  We are a relatively affluent western European country,eg head for head the same as England.
  (GDP~£145bn-£165bn@2004/5?)
  just the right size and weight to fit in nicely with the bulk of EU and world states.
  ie up beside the likes of Greece, Portugal, Austria and Finland, where our rightful place should be.
  

• 62. John - Kirkcaldy

  Saturday, September 8, 2007 21:30

  I can see no benifit in an independant Scotland.
  As one country the UK has a strong world position, and is a symbol for freedom and forward thinking throughout the world. Separation would be a step backward towards cross boarder rivalry, which i'm sure would soon return as each nation becomes more and more different.
  Although Scotland may not have been always treated in the best way by the union, it has got a lot out of it in the form of shared devlopment.
  Perhaps we should be looking at how the UK can work better together, as a signal nation where things don't always have to be done the English way but instead the best availble way. Also maybe we should be encouraging the UK to view Scotland not a single 'region' but as many regions just as England is.
  I note many of the comments complain at decsions being made about things in Scotland by people in Westminster which gives the Scottish no say. This is not the case and fails to take into account that Scotland just like England has MP's in the UK Parliment in London, which governs over all the UK Soil. It is not an English Government ruling over English soil and Scotish Soil. At times it my seem like this, but this simply means that we must put pressure on our MP's to bring up the issues at Westminster that we want from our region, and if a decision is taken we don't like, protest againsted it just as would happen in any 'English' region.
  
  I think what i'm tring to say is maybe we should be asking how the Regions in Scotland ensure and equal standing to the regions in England - within the UK. A start towards this would be to enter into the union with the same interest as we would like to recive out of it.

• 63. gavin thompsn - dunfermline

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 10:56

  In answer to Craig Cricks response of 30 August regarding problems of pverty etc. Yes the executive has powers - but it doesnt have the money, control of taxes. I think thats kind of important

• 64. William Mc Lellan - Washington

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 11:28

  Would like to see place names in Scotland with their Gaelic names shown first followed by them shown in English. Was in Black Isle last week and noticed this was the case and i do not see any reason why this could not be seen through out Scotland. This i believe would put Scotland on the right track and move even closer to full independance to what we deserve as a Nation.

• 65. livilion - livingston

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 11:58

  62. John - Kirkcaldy
  Saturday, September 8, 2007 21:30
  
  The Westminster government tried to introduce devolution to the English regions to give equal standing for them with the South East, particularly with London.
  The only one to accept this was London.
  Londoners are not daft or so easily conned it would appear.
  
  London has just got its fast rail link to Paris.
  About £10bn has been earmarked for new crossrail links for the capital.
  Then there's all the £bns for grand scheme's that London has awarded itself, because London is the capital city of the UK.
  
  Blackpool's supercasino never materialised. Manchester's was announced and then cancelled.
  
  London has Westminster and its own elected mayor and assembly, the rest of England does not.
  
  Perhaps there is a lesson for us in this?
  
  If you want loadsamoney spent on your population, just be sure its within commuting distance of the seat of government.

• 66. Fiona Murray - Coupar Angus

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 13:10

  The UK has been holding scotland as a nation back for years. Alex Salmond is showing that we as a nation can produce great political leaders. Why even the UK Parliament has a Scot at the helm and as Tony Blair used to like to think he was a Scot the UK has been run by Scots for over 10 years. What as a population are we so scared of going alone? The sooner we get Independence the better.

• 67. David Robertson - Inverness

  Sunday, September 9, 2007 17:21

  The issue of poverty has been raised in the forum and the question posed whether independence will make a difference.
  
  There is abundant evidence to suggest that the two essential pillars of personal prosperity in society are private property and stable families with both a father and mother in the home.
  
  Aberdeen council recently stopped the right to buy programme for council housing. This decision was supported by the SNP minister responsible. The motivation for this decision was, no doubt, the fact that "poor" families cannot afford to buy their homes. The families who manage to save enough to buy their homes then take the property out of the rental stock so that fewer "poor" families can get into public housing.
  
  The flaw in this reasoning is that the two pillars of personal prosperity, stable families and private property, have been directly undermined by the council's and the Scottish Government's action. This can only lead to greater poverty.
  
  It is this unsound reasoning that is at the root of Scotland's problems, and has been for several generations. Independence will make no difference to this condition since it is an integral part of the modern Scottish ethos. Most of the Scottish political parties reflect this ethos so there is little difference amongst them in this regard.
  
  I would suggest that if we wish to have a truly independent and "free" Scotland we must address this very serious moral deficiency in our nation. It is not of course peculiar to Scotland, among the UK nations, but it is most marked in our country. A willingness to confront our personal shortcomings is a sine qua non to overcoming them. No amount of oil money can paper over the cracks in our foundations.
  
  I have put forward some suggestions, in my post#28 in John Swinney's blog, which answer the question of what the government can do to create a society within which meaningful change can begin to take place. Government must not interfere directly through its actions in the personal lives of the people. What it can and must do is to put in place the fiscal, monetary, physical and moral/legal infrastructure that can set the people free to better themselves.

• 68. Barry - Brentwood, Essex, United Kingdom

  Monday, September 10, 2007 00:23

  livilion, Scotland is no 'colony' and never has been. How could it be when vast numbers of Scots have served and continue to serve in the British army with such great distinction? Don't put Scotland down. I'm English and proud to be but I also consider myself to be British and I'm proud to have that identity too which I can only have due to Scotland being in the United Kingdom. We in England DO value Scotland as an integral and very important part of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and NI. Wellsaid, Stewart of Stirling.

• 69. Mark Dawson - Aberdeen

  Monday, September 10, 2007 01:52

  There are significant questions here about how the transition between the existing constitutional status quo and full independence would be managed. The government's preferred question (to avoid acting outwith its powers) is to simply ask the people of Scotland to approve negotiations for independence. On what basis, however, would we be negotiating? Some elements are unclear - what, for example, would be the status of a newly independent scotland under international and european law? Would there still be circumstances where it would be in Scotland's interests to pool sovereignty with the rest of the UK (e.g. in defence, or in respect to foreign embassies). Surely we have to know what we are letting ourselves into (i.e. what our negotiating position is) before we can accept or reject the principle of negotiations in a referendum.
  
  As an additional point, it makes sense, in the event of negotiations, to have the possibility of saying no. what if the rest of the UK allows Scottish partition under highly restrictive conditions, or where we accept an undue proportion of the national debt? To get a decent deal requires us to be cagey about our strategy, while to get a legitimate deal requires either 1) further assent once a new constitutional status for scotland has been agreed, or 2) a more substantive statement about what a post-independence scotland would look like. While I am not oppossed to independence, I find both of these options under-explored in the existing white paper.

• 70. David Robertson - Inverness

  Monday, September 10, 2007 10:50

  Post#69 Mark Dawson Aberdeen.
  
  I would agree with you in principle Mark.
  
  Perhaps the process could be:
  
  1. Hold a first referendum to empower the SNP government to negotiate the best deal possible with the UK, subject to a further referendum. This same referendum will empower the SNP to negotiate the relationship we could have with the EU or the EEA, in discussions with them after the conclusion of negotiations with the UK.
  
  2. Hold a second referendum with two ballots. One to accept or reject the UK agreement. The second to choose between the EU and the EEA.
  
  I believe you have raised a valid concern that must be addressed. It would be foolish to vote for, or indeed against, independence with no clear idea of what it meant.
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  

[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]