The Scottish Government

#1694

Of the 32.93% who voted SNP in May it is widely believed that a massive chunk don't support separting Scotland from England, but voted that way because they preferred Salmond as first minister over Jack McConnell.

'Alex Salmond for First Minister' it said on the ballot paper. No mention of the SNP or separation.

And that's how the people voted.

[174. David - Muthill, Perthshire

Any chance of re-drawing the border to leave West Central Scotland and its Irish/Brit poison part of England?]

Gosh, not even independent, and already the 'West Coast are Irish' brigade are awake! One more reason to vote for the union, if only to safeguard ourselves! What next, David, ethnic cleansing of those not 'truly' Scottish? This attitude, to be more serious for a moment, is why I will never vote SNP. I don't trust some of their supporters not to try and 'repatriate' me. After all. I'm only the 3rd generation of my family to be born in Glasgow!

Only SOME of the people of Scotland voted for your party. The majority (who vited for the other parties and not the SNP) did not. You are ignoring those of us who did not vote for you, yet claiming to speak for ALL of the people of Scotland. So I say, try and persuade me that you are right, but so far you are failing. I am proud to be British, and wish to remain so. My ancestors fought and died in the BRITISH army. You should not be permitted to take that Britishness away from us.

#1690 Colin Campbell

So how do you propose to clear the decks Colin? By using the same tactics as North Korea, Iran and now Pakistan? The three opposition paries you mention have always talked to each other, they just didn't always agree on the way forward!! Maybe the SNP should join their CONVERSATION, instead of the insular tone preferred by contributors like yourself.

To achieve an objective politically requires the administration to have a meaningful dialogue with the other parties in parliament and convince the population of their fitness to govern. It's called DEMOCRACY, and if they agree with your remedy it's called AUTOCRACY. I assume the SNP would not wish to take your advice!

Why is ahbudee aheen protecting Gaelic, fit aboot doric? It'll be awa deid and geen afore lang. Let's save the language and give it a rebirth too. Why? Because it's culturally and socially important plus it would give the north east a boost to tourits who love listening to our languages and dialects!!

#1690 I agree with the small government bit. Pledges to make big cuts have been hot air thus far.

When the first minister announced a 'bonfire of the quangos', it's strange his first real government decision on public service structure was to set up another quango!!

We will be able to see how much we should trust this Executive by November 14.

Small country, small government, Three oposition parties who are all talking to one another now that there is a new broom at the helm. Scotland needs to clear the decks and become a sepearate Country again.

#1686 Gordon Murray

I have said in previous submissions that if a case could be made for independence I would be persuaded to vote for it. However SPIN is SPIN no matter where it emanates. To claim, as the First Minister and the Finance Minister that the increase in funding was only 0.5% more than last year,(over inflation, without stating that the 0.5% was based on the higher funding applied by the Barnett formulae is disingenuous, as is the failure to sate the rate of inflation used. To also 'forget' the £900,000,000 thrown in from prior under spend could also be considered misleading. Perhaps some straight talking instead of looking for points of dispute might make inroads into the 4 to 1 majority FOR the Union.

#1680

How odd that you should interpret my previous post (#1678) as prophesysing the end of the Union between Scotland and England, when I suggested no such thing.

#1684. Bruce Freshwater - Edinburgh
Saturday, November 3, 2007 20:25

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.

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

The option of course would be open for either party to share embassy and consulate facilities on the Scandic model with each other or some other friendly power.
England may eg choose to go along with the USA in view of her historic position and foreign policy strategies, whereas the Scots could choose to go with her Celtic and Scandic friends.

By 'England' of course, that includes Wales and Northern Ireland, who will remain under Westminster rule, until their citizens are permitted to decide otherwise.

Wales and N.Ireland having been absorbed and politically neutered by English military conquest some centuries before the Treaty of 1707 which created the United Kingdom of Great Britain.

As for passports, the only practical change would be the substitution of Scotland For United Kingdom etc, below the title European Union, unless you know why it should not.

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.