The Scottish Government

Anon - 54

This is all very hypothetical, and Crystal Ball gazing, but let me indulge you, given say that a large number of Western forces are involved in Afghanistan it seems likely that we would be similarly engaged in that particular war. Regarding Iraq you are probably right, and potentially rest of UK would not be involved. But it is all Crystal Ball gazing we could potentially surmise that RBS and Bank of Scotland got taken over as other companies with more aggressive growth strategies not stymied by the type of regulation you are talking about would have existed, RBS would never have taken over NatWest or at the least it would have been a whole lot more costly for them to do so, and substantially more difficult.

Glasgow’s economic free-fall as you describe it would have been exacerbated if say an independent Scotland currency was introduced in 1979, as the appreciation in value of that currency with North Sea oil coming online would render them far more uncompetitive, and in addition by 79' investors where looking for non-UK industrial sites for a variety of reasons, the structural re-alignment of the UK economy in the 80's under Thatcher undoubtedly accelerated the pace and in many instances also threw the baby out with the bath water but this was occurring across the UK and to some extent was inevitable with EU competition laws and the cost that would have been associated with supporting businesses/jobs that where no longer competitive in a global market place that had created the jobs in the first instance. Glasgow now benefits from a much broader base of manufacturing, services, and other economic sectors but it is unrealistic to suppose a smooth or quick fix could ever have been or will be achieved.

Not really sure about your point on national waters, although I would point out that EU law has superiority in a number of areas including say fisheries.

I am not going to go into great detail on why a SWF is not actually all its cracked up to be, but suffice it to say that sweating of foreign based assets does not remove the dependence on oil a finite resource, and does not necessarily mean investing in domestic opportunities. Would Scotland have got into a trade war in the US over the stealing of US Offshore Technology and take ownership of the majority of oil fields that had already been sold (if you are implying the SWF of the scale of Norway’s this would be required), I know UK govt. decided not to go down that path. A SWF does not in itself allow for exploitation of price volatility in oil price, and neglects the fact that becoming a petro-currency would depress the tax-take in non-oil business, that like many other primary product dependant economies would become subject to the cycles in price, while within a larger economy those impacts are less destructive as the shocks are more evenly spread over a larger body, the collapse in oil demand/price in the 1980's was a significant blow to Aberdeen yes, but because of the breadth of the economy prevented another IMF style begging bowl operation. There are many arguments for actually retaining oil revenue within general spending, as it encourages the ability to either cut taxes on non-oil businesses encouraging diversification to prevent the oil price dependence, or it allows state sponsored investment in those non-oil infrastructure related services that make an economy overall more competitive, whether that be in education or bridges.

The Treasury, does not own the oil it simply taxes the oil that lands, the motivation to find oil in the north sea was actually instigated by the US State Department keen to see non-Arabic oil due to fears of political instability, Iran proved them correct as it turns out, alongside OPEC. The pumping or not of oil from the ground is done on a completely commercial basis which is why in periods of high oil price you see expensive oil from the north sea getting pumped more and when it drops below certain price points oil is pumped less. But basically we have US concerns and Technology to thank for the existence of the market in N.Sea oil in the first place.

Much of your statement is based on some rather flimsy understanding of how things are and have been, and much of my own response is speculative but it is based on a series of events that never happened, but at least my response includes a level of context that your, this would not happen lacks and fails to appreciate the ramifications or realities of what you suggest as fact. I would say in relation to banks we can only really judge things in say if Scotland became independent today and had to take on all the liabilities required to prop up the banks or let them go to the wall no amount of oil would stop the Scottish Govt. needing to go to the IMF for a bailout or a more severe and protracted economic catastrophe would occur.

Ken (Perth) re 51 (Dave) "So you think Scotland should have a greater say than anyone else in the EU over fisheries!!! "

No, I reread my posting just in case, and that's not only not what I meant, but it's not what I said.

In the give and take of negotioation within the EU, an independent Scotland could give fishing quotas a higher importance, and could hold out for higher quotas in return for allowing other countries their way on issues less important to Scotland.

As it is within Britain right now, Scotland's particular and special needs are suborned to the needs of Britain as a whole - which might place a higher importance, for instance, on military action in non-EU countries than fishing quotas.

Scotland's trade-offs within the EU would very likely be greatly different from Britain's as a whole.

Had the vote for devolution in 1979 not been rigged Scotland would by now be independent.

Independent Scotland would not have got involved in the illegal war in Iraq.

Independent Scotland would not have got involved in Afghanistan.

Independent Scotland would have put in place a regulatary regime for its banks fit for purpose.

Independent Scotland would not have allowed nuclear submarines to pollute its territorial waters.

Independent Scotland would not have allowed Glasgow to go into economic free-fall.

Independent Scotland would be a constructive member of the United Nations and work to resolve international differences through it.

Independent Scotland would have sole durisdiction over its territorial waters.

Independent Scotland, unlike Westminster, would by now have a Sovereign Wealth Fund which would allow it to exploit the volatility of the oil market to it advantage. ie Sell when the price is high and keep it in the ground when the price is low.

Westminster, through bad management finds itself having to sell at any price.

51 - Dave - Largs

So you think Scotland should have a greater say than anyone else in the EU over fisheries!!! Is this what I have to look forward to if Scotland ever became independent? I assume you are talking of some belief that this would be a normative ideal as opposed to thinking this would ever be allowed by the rest of the EU independent Scotland or not.

I would take issue with your rationale, my concern would be the creation of a sustainable fisheries industry, which must include all stakeholders from producers to consumers. Currently fishing industry whinges whenever someone try's to stop the complete annihilation of fish in general, which various reports suggest is not to far off at current rates and practices in fisheries.

I fail to see what an independent Scotland would achieve, and how their policies would be different than UK, unless they wanted a pillage the ocean policy, protect jobs for votes today leading to no jobs tomorrow, no fish tomorrow, either way it needs to be agreed at an EU if not global level thankfully. Lower dependency on this kind of backward industry is essential to put some more sanity into policy in various parts of the world not just Europe.


50 – Kev – Edinburgh

I think you live in a different world to me I do not see this as England’s interests or this is Scotland’s interests. I do not mean to be condescending but the real trade off’s in policy decisions are inevitably about town vs country / suburbs vs inner cities/ working class vs middle class / middle class vs upper class / the underclass vs just about everybody else etc.. generally speaking these have varying impact on varying elements of all communities the breadth of the country not just Scotland or England.

The need to go “cap in hand” as you put it to Whitehall civil servants is quite funny. Let me spell it out for you Central Govt. civil servants (many of which do not actually reside in Whitehall, but are distributed throughout the UK (shock horror this also includes Scotland) and many abroad) work on the basis of running the country, which includes Scotland, advising ministers etc on the various policy options for this that or the other, and you know what happens when they all meet in the EU they see if they can come up with a consensus. This process will not radically alter if Scotland became independent and nor would the actual outcomes. What does this unique Scottish position consist of? Nobody is prepared to answer this, because if it was ever held up to scrutiny it would prove to be either half-baked given some of the suggestions here or nearly identical to a UK, English, or Welsh set of positions.

So what is the point in wasting millions £’s on a referendum that all the evidence shows the majority will reject because it is based on a ridiculous set of assumptions about what Scotland is, myths about our relationship with the rest of the UK, and how Scotland relates or could feasibly relate to the wider world.

'Who needs democracy?'

The Queen's speech made no mention of electoral reform.

Not even a reference to PM Brown's previous announcement that Labour will offer a referendum on the Alternative vote (AV) in its next manifesto.

To this a spokesman for the Electoral Reform Society had this to say:

"Today Gordon Brown spoke of the 'change we choose'. What he meant was the change he chose.."

(Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor, spoke thus, in his Richard Dimblebey lecture of 1976 "...To begin with there has been a continuous enlargement of the scale and range of government itself...and a change in the relative influence of the different elements in government, so as to place all effective powers in the hands of one of them (the Prime Minister) ...the checks and balances, which in practice use to prevent abuse, have now disappeared") see #11 'FATHER OF A NATION' (...Scotland performs)

"The Alternative Vote (AV) would be a very minor reform - it would not get rid of safe seats or make elections competitive everywhere, it would not guarantee a more representative (westminster) parliament or one better able to hold the (westminster) government to account, and it will do little to change the nature of (westminster) politics.....With the expenses scandal and revelations over MPs' second incomes, we need a radical option that would restore faith and confidence in (westminster) politics"

With independence Scotland gets a parliament fit for the twenty-first century - but until the union that binds us to England is dissolved we remain shackled to the past.

see #672 (Donald Dewar's vision...etc).

48. Ken - Perth

"... such as fishing quotas".

Scotland, with a large length of coastline and coastal waters in relation to its land mass is more dependent on fishing for a substantial part of its economy than Luxembourg for instance with no coastline, and therefore Scotland should have a far higher proportion of the overall EU quota than many if not all other EU countries.

I guess the idea is that Scotland can negotiate this better on its own as part of its whole economical package, than as just a part of Britain which has a lower dependency as a whole.

Certainly makes sense to me.

48

Ken I think you are being a little naive if think the UK does not on occasion "ignore Scotland in its dealings".

The UK is a supposed partnership with England the largest "shareholder" , therefore in each and every decision or deal their interests are to the front.

It is very simple with our current Westminster leaders to busy looking for ways to increase there earnings or look for loop holes in there expenses claims it is about time the people of Scotland had a party to put Scotland at the forefront of all "dealings".

In respect of your point about Europe, Independence would remove the barrier that our senior civil servants having to go cap in hand to Westminster prior to any dealings with our European counterparts.
Again very simple, I want people to negotiate on the behalf of Scotland not spend there efforts and our money "having substantial amount of conversation with Westminster"

'The future is not ours , it belongs to our children.'

Arlene phillips, well known as a judge on the BBC One programme 'Strictly come Dancing', in an interview with Kirsty Young on Radio Four's 'Desert Island discs', spoke of how her mother died of hodgkin's desease at the early age of forty.

She remarked that the hospital in Manchester where her mother was treated was, at the time, experiencing a surge in the number of cases of the desease.

We now know that it was less than coincidental that the surge followed soon after the world's first nuclear disaster at Calder Hall nuclear power plant, now called Sellafield.

The fire at the plant in 1957 caused a radioactive cloud to be released via one of its chimneys, which drifted in a south easterly direction towards the cities of north England.

The legacy of that disastrous fire is embodied in one of the chimneys which to this day remains sealed from the outside world.

Of our neighbours, the Norwegians have been the most vocal in their concerns at the prospect of another release of radioactive material from the site.

Ignored by the Westminster government they have conducted a study on a hypothetical accident at Sellafield - And they are not happy.

The report concludes: 'The Norwegian authorities have repeatedly expressed their serious concern about security and safety at Sellafield and the liquid radioactive waste stored there. This report shows that their concern is justified, and it is important to strengthen the dialogue with the British authorities to ensure that the risk level is reduced as rapidly as possible.'

For too many years Scotland was without an independent voice. Reduced to mere bystanders, helpless to influence events happening within its own borders.

Now that we have a Scottish parliament whose views on the need for additional nuclear power generation are at variance to those of the Westminster parliament, it is important that these views be expressed independently at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

But also to argue the case for the alternatives (wind,wave and tidal) whose impact on the environment are benign rather than toxic as is the case for nuclear generation.

for further reading see #603,618 (your voice heard).
#25

I picked this out of one of the documents here:

"In other areas, Scotland's position is weakened by our reliance on the UK. In Europe, for example, critically important Scottish issues such as fishing quotas, agricultural subsidies and stewardship of our natural resources, are often damaged by a UK Government position which fails to recognise these unique Scottish elements." - Michael Russell MSP Minister for Culture, External Affairs and THE Constitution

Now in my opinion UK policy on food production in EU is pretty good, only wish they would get tougher on fisherman who are dangerously overfishing our seas and whinge that they cant make a living (well that’s what happens when you refuse to make timely cut-backs and argue over everything designed to save a long-term future for your industry. SNP would simply accelerate this process of complete fishery annihilation with everything coming from a fish farm. As regards Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) UK govt. has consistently argued against price mechanisms that artificially inflate prices and dumping of excess produce in the third world. UK has always supported a cheap food policy against the unfair multiplication of taxes we pay on food at the expense of poorest in society to subsidise a tiny minority of the population who farm in uneconomically sized units. UK has placed emphasis on transfers being determined on other basis than artificial price mechanisms, have secured moves away from butter mountains, and wine lakes, and has secured a review of CAP that will make uncomfortable reading for French and Bavarian farmers.

Is this SNP Minister suggesting either it could get the EU to move further and faster in this direction on its own, or is it saying that it supports an unreformed CAP, a highly regressive form of taxation that perpetuates inequality on access to the most basic items all of us require to satisfy a tiny minority of individuals in rural constituencies?

What is the unique Scottish element in Fishing and Agriculture? And how does the UK ignore Scotland in its dealings, I am pretty sure the senior civil servant in charge fisheries in Scotland has a substantial amount of conversation with Westminster and European negotiation counterparts, or do they not? I wish Michael Russell was here to tell me and explain if this is the case or not as he is apparently far more informed about some kind of block on communication between north and south of the border than I am.

Dave 46.

Planning is already a Scotland determined thing, with Scottish Govt. able to call in planning applications for various reasons. Having an independent Scotland would not make an iota of difference.

I think I would be a bit worried about a giant coal fired power-station, you will not get much sympathy if the Scottish Exec call it in as you do not have enough strong SNP candidates in Ayrshire from what I know. You know why there is no carbon capture requirement, because it has not been invented yet!

Personally do not know what all the fuss about wind turbines is, every town used to have a windmill in the olden days, and I think they look cool. Anybody who looks at the fields in this country and suggests that this is not already an industrial commercial utilisation of space and is somehow natural is significantly deluded. Wish people would stop objecting to things like windmills, or else it really does make the whole energy rich nation statements a bit ridiculous esp if we need to opt for very expensive offshore wind.