The Scottish Government

This blog is now closed to comments. The First Minister published a new blog on February 5.

1814. george alexander
They're not my allegations; I'm not a policeman, I'm not a journalist nor am I a member of any political party, I'm in no position to make any such allegations or "smears". Like most of us I get my news via the media; like most of us I see the media as often sensationalist and inaccurate, and view "news" with scepticism. As for the waste of time by both "sides" in this silly parliamentary rammy, I have the evidence of my own eyes, watching the TV broadcasts from Holyrood before Christmas (sad person that I am!).

I stand by the point of my posting (the point you appear to have missed) which is to highlight the waste of Scottish parliamentary resources on a minor issue, a waste which is continuing - with regard to both "allegations". And the SNP is just as guilty of that waste, as is the Lab/Lib etc. Let the law or whatever commissions have responsibility for conduct take their course, neither you nor I are in any position to make a judgement as to the correctness of any allegations (well, if you are, then you shouldn't be posting about it here).

I had high hopes that Alex Salmond, with his tremendous sense of humour, would be a great statesman for Scotland, he started very well and did us proud; I think he's in danger of descending into the usual murky cesspit of British style "smear" politics; I would call on him to rise above it, and to lead Scotland to become "a nation again".

Poster #1808 - Dave Eastabrook writes:
"Personally I think there's far too much attention by Alex Salmond & co. on Wendy Alexander's wee indiscretion - and similarly by Nicol Stevens & co. on Alex Salmond's indiscretion."

There is no 'wee' about breaking the law. It is not just the illegal donation but the much more serious charge of falsifying the source of the donation in the documents sent to the commission.

Alex Salmond, his ministers and civil servants have behaved in accordance with both the law and the ministerial code. I would urge you to retract false allegations.

Nicol Stephen in particular has made alegations without evidence and has become a liability.

The so called Enquiry has been a disgrace to the parliament. The head of the CBI in Scotland has highlighted the damage it is doing to Scotlands international profile.

The SNP have been very quiet on the illegal donations. Roseanna Cunningham has indeed spoken out but not to any great extent, this was appropriate considering Roseanna had been falsely accused by Alexander of hiding donations.

Preface your comments with facts please Dave, not with smears.

It's time! Come on, Scotland, for goodness sake. We have been told for so long that we are the poor relation, we'll never amount to anything, that some people actually believe it! At long last, there is a wind of change blowing through this country and I am absolutely delighted that I WILL see an independent Scotland in my lifetime.

The Scottish Government should take an equity stake in Scotland's Energy portfolio, especially the renewables sector.
I equally believe he same for Scottish Oil , in particular the new reserves on the other side of Scotland. The revenue ascertained from this the Scottish Government can regenerate the regions.
I also think it is time to develop some of the mountains and the ecotourism Industry. Where we have Mediterranean style villas with solar panels and wind power to encourage new tourism.
There are many mountains in Scotland so why not build mountain resorts and market holidays to the Europeans whom want to spend them in the Scottish mountains.
You also have Scottish Castles that can be better utilise and I think they are a part of the Scottish heritage, so promote the Scottish Castles.
There are many people from around the world that would want to get married in a Scottish Castle so there is much opportunity there.
Then there is he emphasis of economic committee that works independently with the Scottish Auditor General to report to the Scottish Government to quantify policy initiatives. It is a process of transparent Government where ideas and vision for the future are placed and debated across the board.
Yes Scotland has scope but its greatest asset is the people themselves to implement that vision of a greater Scotland within a modern Europe.
The political entity with vision is the party of Government and that is a fact.

#1810

How far do we look back Linda? Would that be to the times where the clans paid homage to the lairds and provided the young men to do battle on the lairds' or kings' behalf and worked the crofts to pay their rent! Proud people all treated like chattels by their own masters. Or would that be when the lairds decided that sheep were more profitable than people and kicked them out to fend for themselves? No wonder Scotland is so well known over the world with our young men forced to go out and fight as mercenaries to earn a crust. The king of France was so beholden to his Scottish soldiers that we were awarded dual citizenship of that country, as were the French dual citizens of Scotland.

If we have a Scottish government concerned with the Scottish people why is it our ministers keep banging on about how badly we are treated by Westminster in one breath then running after them with a begging bowl the next. Why is Nicola Sturgeon asking the Westminster government to declare the support vessels as 'naval' ships so the Clydeside can be awarded them exclusively, and in the next claiming that the orders for actual naval vessels were won because the Clydeside workers are more economic and skilfull than the rest?

How to govern more effectively. Make promises you can't keep then pass the buck on to anyone else.

Latest blockbuster, 'We will reduce our carbon emissions by 80% by 2050'.

How? Well we will have a conversation with the Scottish people to get their suggestions!!!

So aspiration is the name of the game, not achievement, into the bucket along with the 1,000 extra police, 18 max class sizes for primaries 1,2 and 3, abolition of council tax, scrapping SportScotland, cancelling Edinburgh trams, £2,000 for first time buyers, my fingers are getting sore!!!

By the way Sir Sean left of his own accord, as did all the successful migrants who are basking in the sun wishing we were independent!

I don't live abroad but I am proud to be Scottish and always have been. I don't need Independence nor Alex Salmond to talk for me, I can manage my own affairs better than he can.

Perhaps it would be good to look back to the time before devolution. The time when a petition from Scotland landed under the table in Westminster as opposed to on it. The people of Scotland had no voice they had no opinion. We now have Scottish Parliament and we now have a Government in Scotland really caring about us the Scottish people. We should look even further back in history times when Scotland had opportunities to be a great and wealthy nation. The problems that arose in that time hundreds of years ago were too much greed and a lack of people willing to put their own best interest aside and care about Scotland and the Scottish nation as a whole. We again have the chance to make Scotland a nation putting Scottish interests first and I wonder if we can find enough Scots who "will" put their nation first. All we need is a little faith and to remember how the Scots have helped other nations to be great in nearly every nation in the world we have Scottish influences where it counts why can't we use this expertise to help Scotland.

George Alexander (1805) says “This week sees the launch of a campaign to raise a 100,000 signature petition in support of a referendum on independence. I fervently believe that it can be done”.

Yes, it can be done. However, while this initiative should definitely be supported, we should not make the mistake of thinking that this is the ONLY way of achieving a referendum on independence. Over fifty years ago, the “Scottish Covenant” got a couple of million signatures on a petition requesting home rule for Scotland, devolution in effect, and yet the government back then successfully managed to completely ignore this. Governments get away with what WE let them get away with. You couldn’t imagine any government nowadays getting away with ignoring such an initiative, like they did in the 1950s.

Another difference from the 1950s is that folk are more reluctant to give out personal details nowadays. The signatures on a petition do have to be accompanied by a checkable name and address, in order to be valid. Many people are more reluctant to give these nowadays, because of things like the danger of receiving junk mail, or spam, or even becoming the victims of criminal identity theft. For this reason, it would be quite impossible to collect as many valid signatures as the “Covenant” got back then. But I agree that 100,000 “can be done”, and it is plenty. It is enough to prove that there is “significant” demand for a referendum on independence. Under the United Nations’ rules on requiring a member state to permit a self-determination referendum, “significant” demand is all it is necessary to prove; whether it is majority or minority is for the referendum itself to establish. As well as international law, there are also precedents in national law from some countries. The proportion of Scotland’s electorate which 100,000 signatures represent would be more than enough to compel the government to hold a referendum in Switzerland, for instance. Some states of the USA, such as California, have a similar law. But regardless of the legal position, in political terms, a 100,000 signature would, nowadays, be impossible for both Westminster and the Scottish Parliament to ignore. Plus, extremely importantly, 100,000 is a target which can be achieved within a reasonable period of time. There would be no danger of getting bogged down in what felt like endless petitioning.

Goerge continues “More importantly though if we are to see Scotland move away from this entrenched corruption and begin to evolve and mature then I believe that it HAS to be done” - no, I don’t agree. I agree that it _should_ be done. I agree that the 100,000 signature petition is an initiative which should be actively supported. But - “HAS to be”? As far as I am concerned, the case for holding a referendum on independence is, in terms of international law, already beyond all reasonable dispute. Even without the petition, Scotland _already_ meets, better than any other territory on Earth which is not already an independent country, all of the criteria which the United Nations lays down for REQUIRING a member state (such as the UK, for example) to permit a self-determination referendum in a territory under its control. The three UN criteria being, a definable “community”, with a clearly definable territory, and SIGNIFICANT demand for self-determination within this community/territory. That last point is already beyomd dispute, the mere existence of organised independence-oriented political groupings with significant support proves it, even without a petition. The petition will just be the icing on the cake, and not the cake itself.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

1805. george alexander
Personally I think there's far too much attention by Alex Salmond & co. on Wendy Alexander's wee indiscretion - and similarly by Nicol Stevens & co. on Alex Salmond's indiscretion. Politics should relate to genuine issues, and politicians aren't perfect, who of us is? There are real issues that urgently need addressing - NHS, housing, schools, knife crime, gangs, drugs, etc. etc.

At around £400,000 per year per 129 MSPs, including their salaries, expenses, Holyrood support staff, heating, repairs etc. for a total cost of £51.6 million. Say 30 weeks, that's £1.72 million per week. Better figures appreciated.

In the last 2 weeks at Holyrood before Christmas and Hogmany I calcuguessed that Holyrood spent a whole week on £950 and possible improper use of a ministerial car. For me, there are better ways to spend our £1.72 million than personal feuds between politicians.

Oh - could you post a link to info regarding the referendum petition - I'd like to support it on various websites of mine? Many of us don't really bother much with politics, including me :-) TIA!

Laura (1804) says "i think it's stupid to base 21st century politics on grudges since time began" - yes, that would be stupid. However, while a small minority of folk may think like that, the vast majority of supporters of independence do not, so Laura's assertion can not be used as an argument against independence.

Laura instructs us to "move forwards not backwards !!" - a totally pointless instruction. Doctor Who might be able to visit the past, but, so far as all the rest of us are concerned, the Arrow of Time has only one direction.

Laura also says "I dont think its worth the risks just so we can say that we're 'independent'".

Continuing to accept rule from London means continuing to be ruled by politicians who still cling to the illusion that the old British Empire has some sort of phantom existence. Continuing to accept rule from London means continuing to get dragged into foreign adventures on the other side of the world, such as the War in Iraq, whether we like it or not. Continuing to accept rule from London means continuing to have nuclear power and nuclear waste forced upon us, whether we like it or not. Continuing to accept rule from London means having virtually no say on environmental matters and the future of planet Earth as a whole. I think the risks of continuing to be DEPENDENT on rule from London are far greater than any possible risks involved in independence. And I am absolutely certain that the majority of folk who live in Scotland (whether native-born or incomers) will agree with me about this. Which is why I say

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

Of course, if Laura thinks that most people in Scotland want to continue accept rule from London, then she should join with me in demanding a referendum on independence, in order to establish what the people of Scotland really do have to say on the matter.