The Scottish Government

#1703

Which pro-unionist Scottish press do you refer to?

I assumed the GERS report report was a reference to the RFC so I did not read on.

More interesting is the machinations of the current adminstration to try to excuse their failure to meet their own manifesto promises.

Reports deal with possible results, we have to live with ACTUAL results.

e.g. the whiskey industry produces a wonderful pot of gold for the (UK)exchequer through the taxation system. The actual value of each bottle represents a very small portion of the price. The value of tax collected from the population of Scotland would be less than 10% of that collected from the UK. Unless, of course, we have all to sacrifice our livers to the cause.

Hi all!
I was very much helped by the information with this article.
Many thanks at you very fascinating resource.

G'night

#1687. Gordon Murray - Livingston

Thank you for your responses.

> I believe you make a common error in assuming that after the Treaty of Union is
> terminated there will still be a United Kingdom of Great Britain, there will not.
>
> Constitutionally, there would be a Kingdom of Scotland and a Kingdom of England
> as there were between 1603 until the Union of the Parliaments a century later.
>
> If in future England wishes to call herself 'The Former United Kingdom of Great
> Britain' it will not change the realpolitik. Frankly given the English habit of
> referring to Britain as England I regard this as unlikely.

So does this mean that the voters in Scotland, who might vote for independence in a referendum, will determine the constitutional status and nationality of the entire population of (what is currently called) the UK?


> England would have precisely the same status as Scotland, with the same
> international obligations, as well as the same rights to current diplomatic
> facilities.

What "rights" do countries have to diplomatic facilities? Surely whether a country chooses to put diplomatic facilities in place is up to them?

Or, do you mean, that Scotland's/England's _citizens_ would have the same rights to current diplomatic facilities?

If so, I'd feel happpier and more secure if, before any referendum, there were written binding international agreements in place, to ensure that the current freedom of Scot's (and English) citizens to travel is maintained going forward.


> Why would non-Scottish born residents wish to take up Scottish or dual nationality?
>
> I suppose for the same reasons non-UK born residents take up UK nationality now.

Well, in the case of my Australian partner, there was a simple financial reason. When her old Australian passport ran out, the cost (imposed by UK immigration) to transfer her "leave to remain" visa to her new Australian passport was far greater than applying for, and maintaining, a British passport.

The other reason was that, being a UK citizen, travel around the EU is now a lot easier for her, and we both now have the option of living/working in EU if we so choose.

As neither of these reasons would be relevant to current British passport holders, I still don't see why they would actually need a Scottish passport (as well as a British, or whatever it's going to be called, one).

My partner did not feel any particular desire to become a British Citizen, it was simply a pragmatic course of action.

I take the same view, I don't need words on a passport to define where I'm from, or give me any additional sense of belonging. This, for me, extends to Scottish Independence.

I feel Scottish already, even though my passport says British.




I guess my overriding concern is that full sovereign independence is a leap into the unknown, that involves those living in Scotland taking a collective risk (and responsibility for it).

Whilst such leaps/risks have been taken in the past by other countries all over the world, they are often taken when the populations of those regions feel that they are oppressed and/or suffering under their status quo.

The bottom line is, most people in Scotland aren't suffering under the current status quo and are, in fact, doing pretty well.

Whilst we might all do better in an independent Scotland, there is a risk we might not. I'd like to seem some (unbiased) percentages on those two scenarios, before making such a big decision. Given that I reckon there's an 80-90% chance that I'll continue to do pretty well under the staus quo (essentially, only global events could put this is jeopardy), I'd need to have the same confidence of that 80-90% chance in an independent Scotland.

I'd feel more secure if full sovereign independence, should it eventuate, comes in a series of smaller, less unpredictable, steps.

I would like to see true federalism be implemented within the UK first, on similar lines to the Canadian and Australian models (where the provinces/states there have a high degree of fiscal and legislative independence from their respective Federal governments).

Indeed, if there is ever a true European federation in the future, I feel that Scotland could, and should, become an independent state within that federal setup. This, I believe, would give us the independent self-determination that nationalists desire, but with fewer risks to Scotland and its population.

Being candid, I feel that jumping straight to full sovereign independence is too big a risk.

Under the status quo, I have reasonable confidence that my own future is secure, predictable and that I am going to flourish, financially and emotionally.

Whilst the same MAY be true in an independent Scotland (and, in fact, the future might be even better), it is also true to say that it MAY NOT (and nobody can say FOR CERTAIN which will be true).

I guess my question is:

"I, like many, am not a natural risk-taker. How can I be sure that the current stability, quality of life (and, on the whole, success) I currently enjoy under the status quo is likely continue, or get better, in an independent Scotland?"

Porky:

I promise you a response to the points you make, in particular the 23% support for independence, if you will at least address the points I made regarding GERS and the misleading statements regarding the Scottish economy by Unionist parties.

I also note that you haven't disputed the pro-union Scottish press assertion.

#1701
George Alexander

From the content of your submission you appear to have read widely with respect to the points you make, so I am somewhat surprised that you are not aware of the poll by academics on voting intentions of a statistically viable sample of the Scottish population.

While the SNP have maintained a healthy support for the SCOTTISH parliament, they do not carry the same level of support for their flagship policy of independence. Only 23% would vote for independence.

Was the change from the manifesto commitment to ABOLISH the community charge to FREEZE it a porky pie or an acceptable adjustment?

If the First Minister now says he is not going to 'Fall into the trap' of raising revenue by increasing income tax, for the Community charge so that it could be eliminated, why did he say he would in the run up to the election?

Why did the Depute First Minister say she would stop the CLOSURE of a hospital in Ayr, when none had been proposed? Was this a slip or a porkie pie? No apology for this either.

What about the concerns about overspend on the Edinburgh Trams? Oops, no apology for that either. Indeed in a fit of annoyance any cost over run was to be passed on to the taxpayers of Edinburgh. Now that the company's doing the work have suggested that the total cost cound be UNDER budget do the good citizens of Edinburgh get the money to dispose of as they wish?

Labour, Conservative, Lib-Dem, SNP and so on, politicians all, out to promote their own ideas.

WE the people decide in the end.

So the GOVERNMENT of Scotland better look to its ability to deliver the goods for our benefit not their own.

I'm not sure what point post #1699 is making but the fact that the SNP have a leader of stature is one that I agree with. If 'Yea or Nay' believes that this can be extrapolated to suggest that "massive chunk" of SNP voters are apposed to independence I suppose he is free to believe it, I simply think that it is improbable.

On the subject of newspapers, both The Herald and The Scotsman are pro-union, it's just that The Scotsman is rabidly so. Both will front page an anti SNP headline at the drop of a hat, usually affording it undue prominence. This doesn't happen all of the time (Well The Scotsman almost always) but more often than not.

As far as pro-union fiscal figures are concerned then the infamous GERS report takes pride of place in the rogues gallery of Unionist propoganda.
There are so many aspects of the report that are unbelievable (literally) that I won't list them, However I will cite just one example.

GERS apparently adds up all monies raised in Scotland and offsets this against money given back to Scotland from Westminster. On the face of it a sensible and essentially straightforward excercise. However scotch whisky (exclusively a Scottish industry) generated over £2.5 billion to the exchequer in 2006 but the figure attributed to Scotland in the GERS report was.........nil. The money was counted as English generated by dint of the fact that company headquarters is based in London. There are other examples of the 'creative accountancy' that is GERS, but you get my drift.

I also raised the matter of liars within the unionist parties. Now this has ellicited a response that seeks to conflate blatant lies with unfulfilled manifesto promises. Every party at every election will make promises in the manifesto that they will ultimately be unable to fulfill. This goes for the current Government in Westminster as well as the previous Lab/Lib administration at Holyrood. Yes that's right, both of these administrations made promises in their manifesto's that have failed to keep. It would not surprise me in the least that, come of the end of the four year term, the SNP also fall into this category.

Now this isn't lying to the electorate, this is just the way government is.....probably even more so given the minority nature of the SNP government.

However, the point that I am making with regard to lying is that successive Unionist politicians (in particular Scottish politicians) have been in posession of the fiscal figures for some time (years). Yet despite knowing the true state of affairs they continued, as recently as weeks ago, to tell Scots that the country was an economic mess depending on £billions from Westminster in order to survive.

This to me is lying, knowing full well what the truth is, yet insisting on telling the population the complete opposite. They even compounded the lie by allowing their fabricated 'black hole' figure to grow and grow.

Finally, the aptly named 'Porky Pies' is sure that he/she can see into the future by telling us how many of the population would vote for independence in a referendum. I can only refer this poster to earlier posts from myself and in particular Dave Coull, where it is clearly explained why we do not know the support for or against independence.

#1698

When is failure to meet a manifesto commitment excusable, due to circumstances, or is it a porky pie when the wording is changed to read 'effective' instead of 'new'? I would have thought 'Replacing the Community Charge with a local Income Tax' meant just that not 'Freezing the Community Charge at the present levels, IF the members of COSLA agree'

If you want apologies for every time a minister gets it wrong there is a long list for the SNP to apologise for, and they have only been in power for 4 months.

PS 23% of the population would vote for independence 33% of the population voted for the SNP, so 10% percentage points from 33% could be reasonably called 'a big chunk' eh?

PPS I still see BOGOF deals on booze in supermarkets, I thought Mr MacAskill was goig to have these stopped! An apology required?

#1698

You can tip toe all you like around this issue but it was widely reported (and acknowledged by the first minister) that the SNP benefitted hugely from Salmond's popularity with voters who otherwise consider themselves as opponents of separation.

That this small point isn't to your liking is perhaps why you prefer pedantry.

You quote the pro-separation Herald's figures to make the economic case for divorce from England. Others prefer to quote the pro-Union Scotsman.

I think November 14 will be crucial in helping to clarify the credibility of this SNP Executive. Certainly you are on a sticky wicket when you accuse the last lot of lying to Scots voters given your party's record thus far on broken promises and rampant backsliding.

Post number 1696 makes a good point, although perhaps unconciously.

The recent election is no indicator of support or otherwise for independence. Whether there is certainly some SNP voters who do not support independence to suggest a "massive chunk" is improbable. It is certainly stretching credulity to suggest that this is "widely believed".

Another area of the independence debate was recently addressed by an article in The Herald newspaper.
This article basically suggested that Scotland was not the subsidy junkie it had long been portrayed as by Unionist politicians, many of them Scottish.

The article described Scotland's position as basically neutral, although it is my own opinion that we are in fact in surplus.

However, it begs the question; Will the Labour politicians who stated as recently as weeks ago that Scotland relied on subsidies from Westminster and would face economic black holes of billions if independent, be held to account for lying?

#1691

'Quango's and Bonfires' are old political rhetoric for 'We have to be seen to do something that no-one can actually measure' If six Quangos are merged because they do similar work then the effective reduction is 5 Quangos in numeric terms but zero in manpower terms, (excluding 'non - compulsary' redundancies). However if we include the local authorities, police, fire etc boards that are, in reality, Quangos, then there are 247 in Scotland, not 199 as claimed by the First Minister. Shove these on the bonfire too? Pity the previous Executive had identified 26 for the axe before the new Government took seat!! Only 40 or so to go then?