http://www.scotland.gov.uk/News en-gb Crown Copyright 2009 newswebsite@scotland.gsi.gov.uk (Website) webmaster@scotland.gsi.gov.uk (RSS Webfeed) Mon, 30 Nov 2009 07:41:37 GMT http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5726 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 "breaking-up" of England to necessitate a workable form of federalism is obvious. When even the North-East opted against its own talking-shop assembly, the idea of a Federal Britain died. England will 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. The fundamental question that devolutionist and half-way housers need to answer wherever they happen to draw the line is: "why this far, but no further"? Why can Scots be trusted to run their own health service but not to regulate the use of air-rifles? Why can Scots decide to change the level of business rates but not cut corporation tax? Why do we suffer the highest fuel prices in Europe when we are one of the continents largest producers? Why must a country overwhelmingly opposed to Nuclear weapons host one of the world's largest arsenals just 30 miles from its largest centre of population? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5726 Tue, 29 Jul 2008 15:36:45 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5629 devolution couldn't go far enough. It's ridiculous we're even debating it when you think about it. Every other nation controls its own revenues, broadcasting etc, why should it be any different for us? Independence. It's time! http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5629 Sun, 22 Jun 2008 11:16:37 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5541 In the event that a referendum is held, the second option should be "devolution max". Essentially, this would involve complete fiscal autonomy for Scotland, with Scotland's finances collected and distributed within her borders. We would contribute something towards the maintenance of the military and diplomatic activities of Great Britain, but essentially, we would be entirely financially autonomous. Why this option? Well, as a nationalist, it's the next best thing to independence for me. It would entirely undercut allegations that we are being financially subsidised by England, because the finances would be separate. Automatically, the major alleged benefit of the Union disappears from Unionism's arsenal of arguements against independence, and reduces it to sentiment. Moreover, as part of such a settlement, the SNP could force a provision that Scotland would get at least a cut of the Scottish oil revenues, if not those oil revenues in their entirety. Naturally, Westminster would be reluctant to part with these, but in the event of a successful referendum, there would be very little that they could do about it. Even failing independence, we would still be able to press ahead with a Norwegian-style oil fund, the interest of which would be used to build Scotland's infrastructure. Naturally, I would prefer independence. But full fiscal autonomy with control of our oil revenues is the next best thing, and would allow us to build an even stronger case for independence over the coming years. With full control of our own economy, the oil wealth at our disposal, and few political ties to Westminster left, leaving Britain will be a bureaucratic technicality: because we will already be functioning as a de-facto independent country. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5541 Tue, 03 Jun 2008 12:50:15 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5254 Do you feel Scottish - British - European or simply Scottish - European ? If the latter, is Westminster simply an extra tier of administration ? http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5254 Mon, 28 Apr 2008 20:36:39 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5155 Foreign affairs, international relations, and representation: This for me is the single most important issue. Without more international co-operation to help developing countries find a way out of poverty (other than gun running and repressing their own people) we are all going down the same toilet bowl. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5155 Fri, 18 Apr 2008 16:25:42 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5040 55. Robin MacCormick - Edinburgh It is simple. Under STV those parties would not benifit and that is why you still have First Past The Post used for the UK elections. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/5040 Fri, 04 Apr 2008 20:59:29 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4980 I was surprised that the Labour / Liberal Democrat administration (or at least the Liberal Democrats) did not press ahead with a demand for STV in Scottish Parliament elections, having successfully introduced a fair system of voting for local authorities. I suggest that the voting system for, and administration of, Holyrood elections should be high on the list of matters to be transferred to Holyrood. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4980 Mon, 31 Mar 2008 00:47:55 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4961 I have watched the addresses to the Scottish Labour party Conference by Gordon and Wendy. It was interesting to see that Gordon has rediscovered his Scottishness after spending so much time distancing himself from it in England. Presumably, he assumes (probably rightly) that nobody down there will know about it. Nevertheless, he managed to convey that an Independent Scotland would do nothing to help the poor, needy , hungry, illiterate masses throughout the third world. Has he not heard of the work already being done by such very proudly Scottish organisations as Scottish International Relief? Our independent Scotland could set the benchmark for international aid, and our Scottish armed forces could be dedicated to service to needy communities everywhere, instead of being engaged in futile and illegal armed conflicts. Just think what good could be accomplished by a Scottish-led International emergency force,committed to peaceful purposes! http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4961 Sat, 29 Mar 2008 17:22:13 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4825 My council repairs local roads. The private sector is contracted in from St Andrew's House to deal with major roads. Surely we should have a hypothecated Road Tax system that can be invested in transport. You don't even need to devolve driver's licensing etc.. because you pay a fee for that seperately. That seems like a straight forward change that I'm surprised hasn't happened already. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4825 Mon, 24 Mar 2008 20:02:39 GMT http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4811 Although I would prefer independence I am happy to go with further devolution if that is the democratically expressed wish of my fellow Scots. In such a case I would hope that further devolution would include: Control over the Scottish Parliament itself, including the number of MSPs and the electoral system used; Broadcasting; Fiscal Autonomy; Energy; complete control over Transport. I believe any real Parliament must be in charge of its own affairs and have a fiscal responsibility for raaising at least a significant amount of the monies it spends. That is healthy for democracy. I think broadcasting is a vital part of any nation's culture, including Scotland's. I think Scotland's culture should be under the democratic guidance and accountability of the Scottish Parliament. I believe energy issues in Scotland are so divergent from England that we need separate national policies. I believe Holyrood should have complete control over transport including aviation to allow a cohesive transportation policy that matches Scotland's needs. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/a-national-conversation/Tell-us/commentIssue/extending-devolution/Q/cid/4811 Sun, 23 Mar 2008 17:12:22 GMT