http://sgf-gwb-web-002/News en-gb Crown Copyright 2009 newswebsite@scotland.gsi.gov.uk (Website) webmaster@scotland.gsi.gov.uk (RSS Webfeed) Sat, 21 Nov 2009 02:33:07 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5752 In reference to PMK's point I firmly believe that Scottish independence will not benefit or improve the lives of people living in the city of Glasgow. As I have said before more financial powers given to those in Edinburgh will do absolutely nothing to help those who live in shocking and deplorable levels of poor health and poverty in Glasgow. As history has shown in other countries independence will bring more bureaucracy and inequality within society. Even if Holyrood is given more powers even those of an independent nation they will still be completely useless in dealing with the serious socio-economic problems that Glasgow encounter's on a daily basis. Those parliamentarians in Edinburgh and the rest of Scotland living outside Glasgow fail to understand many of these problems therefore with more powers they would still be ineffective in dealing with these issues. As I have said before if the nationalists are right (for which I believe there are not) that Scotland would become a more wealthier place then why not make Glasgow an independent city with independent powers thus decisions are made for the people of Glasgow by the people of Glasgow and no one else. Splitting up Scotland with an independent Glasgow could have in weaknesses but also strengths by stimulating competition in Central Scotland however the difference being that Glasgow it would own democratic decisions for itself. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5752 Tue, 12 Aug 2008 15:26:29 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5750 #679 Mike King - "I don’t only believe in the UK because it brings strength nor do I deny that being in the EU can also bring strength to its members." I can respect that viewpoint, whilst disagreeing with the conclusions it leads you to. There is none of the innate hypocrisy one so often hears from those making the "practical case" (such as there is one) for continued Union with England, whilst damning the EU for leaching sovereignty away. You identify with Britain, while I identify with Scotland; we both seek what we believe is best for each. There is no fundamental/ideological divide there. On the purely European questions you raise, however, I do not recognise the picture you paint. Also, it seems to me withdrawing or retreating in the face of unwelcome change (increased integration, in this case) is not the solution. Engagement and passionate argument for a loose Union of Sovereign European States is the solution, not withdrawal or any other form of disengagement. The reality is further integration has been stopped in its tracks by the Irish referendum vote. Were one to strengthen the democratic element of the EU (via the Parliament), the sovereignty of individual member states is arguably compromised by the loss of power (and veto rights) from the Council of Ministers. So, you can either have a more democratic representative integrated EU, or a less democratic structure more concerned with preserving the sovereignty of its members and limited collective action in selected areas only. Either solution provides plenty of ammunition for those who wish to make the anti-European case. Incidentally, you ask about my definition of "stronger": I don’t have one! I was merely setting out the ideological unionist case. I too would rather live in my own sovereign state (with which I identify, Scotland) than in a notionally "stronger" UK. Thanks again for the replies. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5750 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 17:59:59 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5749 [#679] “My point is to claim to support the break-up of the UK because of its undemocratic nature AND advocate full acceptance of the EU (as per SNP policy) seems to me fundamentally wrong & dishonest.” While following your argument, it would seem to me to be “fundamentally wrong & dishonest” to argue against Independence for Scotland on the basis that the UK would be better-off outside of the EU when none of the major political parties in the UK are supporting this proposition. Therefore, in Scotland we appear to have two practical choices: 1. Maintain the status quo and participate in two ‘expensive international clubs’ with their growing bureaucracies, one in which we have no direct say and the other in which we have only a token say and which is a club that is rapidly declining in international influence. 2. Resign our membership of the ‘UK Club’ and directly present our views at the ‘EU Club’ which should not only enable Scotland’s interests to be better represented, but also, with greater numbers overall, perhaps enable the common interests of the peoples of these islands to be better represented. Making the latter choice need not commit Scotland indefinitely to the EU Club, and if in the future this membership did not appear to be working to Scotland’s advantage then we could, perhaps subject to another referendum, also withdraw from this Club. However, I personally believe that in ‘Tomorrow’s World’ an Independent Scotland’s interests in the global market-place are likely to be best served through continuing membership of the ‘EU Club’. [Having said this, I would not fear the day if Scotland’s people decided to go it alone (ie without membership of either club) as I am confident in the ability of Scotland’s people to harness our resources to achieve a better future for the vast majority of our citizens (including those living in Glasgow that one contributor in particular seems especially concerned about) compared with what recent decades have indicated is likely to be achieved through maintaining the ‘constitutional status quo’.] http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5749 Fri, 08 Aug 2008 09:54:31 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5747 Neil Anderson - Your thinking, along with far too many others in your area - has ensured the continuation of all of the negative aspects of life in the former empire that you point out. As the rest of the developing world leaves us behind in most aspects like health, life expectancy, crime control to name but a few, you seem to advocate - more of the same? eh, are ye mad! Please dont take this personaly, it's your politics that im taking exception to not you or yours. Scotland would do very nicely as a free country or as an equal partner in Europe. Maybe a few more of us would think with pride of ourselves and our nation too, and not just when watching the footy- ( thats if they have satelite tv) http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5747 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 21:13:05 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5746 674. Neil Anderson - Glasgow Tuesday, August 5, 2008 16:32 Re: "in reference to Mike King's point I am still not convinced by the independence argument and I still don't support it but I voted for the SNP as a protest vote and I intend never to vote for that party ever again" But who will you vote for then? Labour is in melt down across the UK. England will - as it always has done bar the 1997 General Election - vote Tory at the next General Election. Apart from that one time, its only been their Welsh & Scots voters that have seen a Labour govt. returned at Westminster. Whilst I doubt Labour will do as badly in Scotland in the General Election as they did in Glasgow East, the likely result is a majority of SNP MPs returned to Westminster. We then have a predominantly English UK govt. a SNP majority amongst Scots MPs & possibly still an SNP run administration in Holyrood. What price the survival of the Union under those circumstances? http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5746 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 13:14:13 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5745 672. PMK - Ayrshire Sunday, August 3, 2008 11:59 Re: For others (what I am tempted to call "British Nationalists", as opposed to Unionists – as their belief is not consistent that “unity brings strength” but only applies to the (British) “Nation State” level) independence would be a disaster as it would relegate Scotland to the status of a mere "region" within the EU. Surely then same logic would apply to Scotland's place within the UK currently if it is to be applied to the much looser Union of Sovereign European States where its destiny would not be defined by any, one neighbour?" I don’t only believe in the UK because it brings strength nor do I deny that being in the EU can also bring strength to its members. I don’t recognise this “looser Union of Sovereign European states” you refer to. What I see is an ever growing move to reduce the independence of member states & increase the authority of the EU & its various governing/controlling institutions. There can be little serious doubt that the majority of European politicians (though not the people themselves) are committed to the creation of a European State, in which all members, England as well as Scotland, would be no more than geographical regions. The point being they would have little political existence as separate states, merely a physical presence on a map. I cannot accept that is in the interests of ANY people, whether they be English, Scottish, French or whatever. Although you have yet to define what you mean by “strength”, I would rather live in my own sovereign state (preferably GB but England if I have to) than be “stronger” & in a United States of Europe! My point is to claim to support the break-up of the UK because of its undemocratic nature AND advocate full acceptance of the EU (as per SNP policy) seems to me fundamentally wrong & dishonest. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5745 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:39:39 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5744 671. PMK - Ayrshire Friday, August 1, 2008 18:35 Re: "Obviously, I can't agree with your analysis of the choice facing Scotland. However I would say that, in your own terms, it is better to be an "autonomous region" of Europe [The EU] (where the largest country – Germany – represents only 16.5% of the Union demographically 82 million/495 million; rather than the UK where England represents around 83-5% of the Union c50 million/c60 million), which for my money is a mere tyranny of the majority" I guess my honest answer to that is 1) I see the UK as one country & one people and 2) I see the EU as one state (not quite a country) with the continental members having far more in common with each other than any parts of the UK have with them - almost one people. On that basis being British is - for me - much better than being European. I find it strange that the SNP is so keen on being part of a united Europe but not part of the United Kingdom. The arguments against being in the UK apply equally (or more, in my view) against being in the EU. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5744 Thu, 07 Aug 2008 09:26:10 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5743 Unionist parties held power in UK for 300 years did little to make each nation in UK fair or equal.People on forum ought to know the Westminster mob still deny Scotland the power to make the nation flourish. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5743 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 20:02:28 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5741 Neil Anderson - merely repeating your personally held belief that Glasgow would not benefit in an independent Scotland (without providing any evidence at all) does not make it anything other than unsupported speculation. A couple other points: How could the Holyrood Parliament possibly have done anything to help Glasgow economically when it has such limited financial powers? And under Labour-Lib Dem leadership for 8 of the last 9 years too! You simply cannot have it both ways, either you believe Holyrood has failed with these (near non-existent) current powers; or alternatively it will not use new ones, which it will undoubtedly be given at some stage, to help. The crucial point is that independence is a change from current scenario. It is grossly unfair to tag independence (and its proponents) to the current utterly-deficient, unionist status-quo. This is not what the SNP and its supporters want, they want fundamental change. You currently appear to be saying "things are bad in Glasgow, the new (devolved) constitutional set up has done little or nothing; let’s not change anything!" The current constitutional structure is the problem; with independence Scotland could spend its surplus rather than subsidise the rest of the UK (bankrolling ID cards, Trident, and invasions amongst other things). Final point, Scottish independence means only one level of "National" Government, not two: so there will be less bureaucracy supported by the Scottish people under independence than under the current scenario. History has indeed illustrated all the unionist solutions have failed, it’s time for people to consider the benefits (and drawbacks) of independence with an open mind – this does not mean merely dismissing it as some form of extension to the current (failed) devolved “solution”! The independent Glasgow is a clever piece of sophistry, but little more. http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5741 Wed, 06 Aug 2008 12:32:46 GMT http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5740 "apply" even, not "reply"! http://sgf-gwb-web-002/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/independence/Q/cid/5740 Tue, 05 Aug 2008 17:31:06 GMT