The Scottish Government

There is NO WAY whereby G Broon will ever allow more powers to be devolved to Scotland. I suspect the SNP have also reached this conclusion. I see the only way forward being that Scotland should, nevertheless, take these powers and deal with the consequences. Retaliation by London, in whatever form it may take(most likely by with-holding funding) could easily be met by Scotland with-holding electricity and oil from being transported down south.

The ensuing chaos would soon come to the attention of the international community, and I would hazard a guess that Scotland might find she has more friends than she imagines.

Simple. It's easier to run a small ship.
Just look at similar W. Euro small countries, Norway, Rep. of Ireland, the newly independent Baltic states, amongst others.
Norway's standard of living is one of the best in the world. We should be, and can easily be, the same.
Scotland has produced a tremendous wealth of profundly talented politicians, across all parties - pity a great number of them ply their trade, not in Scotland.
They seem to be wannabee BIG politicians, craving Westminster accolade, rather than focussing on making life better for the people of Scotland.
I have a vision. For the future of Scotland as a nation. It's one as a beacon of light for others. A social minded, green, self-sustaining, peace-loving, caring society.
We would be far, far better positioned to get near this ideal if independent.
I put this to all parties - what ARE you afraid of ?
Let's go for it !

Salmond, you are a LEGENED mate! I back you 100 percent on everything you say. The English parliament for too long have had controls over this country, they shouldn't have. How do they know if our buses/trains etc are on time or not?

How do they know the social circumstances of this nation? We need our FREE medications, after all, isn't that what the NHS is for in the first place, with out NI??

YES for independance!

#1647 Fiona
On digital Television the first area to have the analogue signal stopped happened in ENGLAND a week or so back.

Cervical cancer, Scotland HAS control of the health expendititure. See the Scottish Government website, Quote 'The vaccine, which prevents the development of some of the strains of the Human Papiloma Virus (HPV) which can lead to cervical cancer, is to be offered to all girls who are under 18 at the start of the immunisation campaign in September next year (2008).

The Scottish Government has already announced its commitment to the routine HPV immunisation programme for girls aged around 12-13, to begin in September 2008.

A catch-up campaign for older girls will be carried out over the two to three year period from September 2008.

The exact timing and phasing of the campaign will be considered further.'

If this is a problem with England the First Minister has missed the boat!!

#1649 Gordon

I presume Wulbert speaks for the SNP from the fanatical responses from other contributors when support for the Union is submitted.

I can only speak for myself, but I do feel that it is important to poitn out that 64% of the Scottish Parliament do not subscribe to independence, nor do 2/3rds of the electorate. Why is this a red rag to a bull.

When the SNP Finance Minister and First Minister claim that the percentage increase from last year's budget is only 0.5% omitting to mention (it is over inflation) and forget the £900,000,000 additional contribution over and above that, one has to ask, 'What price truth?', 'Is this spin?'. In cash terms what was the actual increase?

Graeme Linigstone wrote "I can't help wondering if Scottish Labour will stick by their stance on a referendum if (and when, as it seems at the moment) David Cameron pips Brown to the post at the next election - whenever its called! A Conservative UK Government will not be popular in Scotland and could just be the catalyst for the people of Scotland to pluck up the courage to push to be allowed to decide on the constitutional future of our country. Perhaps in a strange twist Scottish Nationalists will vote tactically vote Conservative in the next election as a way to delivering the ultimate prize - for Scotland to be a nation again!"

My mother and father raised me in a family that wasn't just Labour, but Socialist. Although I long ago gave up on Blair, Brown, and co, I'm not sure I could ever bring myself to vote Tory!

I don't think those of us who want independence should be waiting for the next UK general election, which could be years away still. I think we should be pressing for a referendum NOW. Or, at least, as soon as this can practically be organised, which means in a matter of a few months. Donald Dewar and co managed to organise a referendum on a Scottish Parliament quite quickly, so that proves it can be done. Delaying a referendum sends out a message of not being confident of the result. I am confident that if we had a referendum this week it would result in a decisive vote for independence.

However, there is another circumstance where the Labour Party might change its tune. The SNP has a one vote majority over the Labour Party, and is very much in the minority of the parliament as a whole. The SNP doesn't have total control of the parliamentary agenda. Other parties can propose bills. The Labour Party might be a mess for now, but what if they start to get their act together? What if Wendy says never mind Gordon or brother Doug, I want to be running things in Scotland? What if the Labour Party manage to come up with a scheme for a referendum of their own, to be held within a few months, just like Donald Dewar did? What if they get the support of the Lib Dems and others for this? What if they decide the wording of the question to be asked? What if they come up with what Donald Dewar called "Independence Within The UK"? (Yes, I know it's a contradiction, but I wouldn't put it past them.) What if they manage to word their bill so that it looks very positive, yet it means that people will be voting "yes" to lots-more-powers-for-the-Scottish-Parliament, but in doing so rejecting independence? And what if their bill for doing this gets passed by the Scottish Parliament? The SNP executive would then be in a position where they either have to implement the Labour Party's referendum, or resign. Okay, this might seem unlikely just now. But maybe the SNP coming up with a bill for an early referendum would be less risky than leaving it until 2010.......

Yea or Nay (1637) wrote "The people of Scotland made their views on separation" - you mean independence. Physical separation is an both undesirable and, in any case, an impossibility. Independence is both possible and desirable.

"clear at May's election" - NO, they didn't.

Opinion polls have indicated that significant percentages of Labour, Conservative, and Liberal Democrat voters would support independence in a referendum, yet they continue to vote for their parties at party political elections for reasons which have nothing to do with independence. Political parties have policies on hundreds of different things, and these can influence how people vote. In a referendum, you are only being asked your opinion on ONE thing, and folk are far less likely to vote along party political lines.

(Of course, the opposite is also true, it is possible that there are some folk who voted SNP because they think the SNP will stand up for Scotland's rights under devolution, yet they would vote AGAINST independence in a referendum.)

Another thing that can influence how people vote in an election is how they feel about the particular candidate, or how they feel about the party leader. It is possible that some folk voted Labour at the last election because they like Jack McConnell. It is even possible that some folk might vote Labour at the next election because they fancy Wendy Alexander. Or even her brother Douglas. (Stranger things have been known.)

The people of Scotland have never, at any time in history, had the opportunity to vote on whether they want to be independent, or whether they want to be ruled from London. There is only one way to find out what they would say.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YEA OR NAY

The unionist arguments that Scotland is an economic basket case and a subsidy junkie has affected many of the anti independence comments here. I think this is because they have drip feeding us that line for the last 50 years increasing the rate the closer independence seems.

I am in favour of independence because I believe that Scotland can be a lion economy and that we can do this with our expertise in fileds such as finance and renewable energy. Oil is just a bonus.

Anyone who seeks to deny the Scots a vote on the constitutional future of the country are dictators not democrats. When we hold a general elction for either Holyrood or Westminster we do so to elect a government not to use that election process as a referendum. The SNP won the largest number of seats of any party at the last election giving them a mandate to govern and put forward their ideas including a proposal to hold a referendum on the future of the country.

1644. John Bobbit - Glasgow
Friday, October 26, 2007 13:45

'We' are mistaken.
Scotland is a signatory member of the Union of the United Kingdom of Great Britain.
Legally an equal partner with England who has agreed to pool some of her sovereignty in the interests of mutual political and economic benefit.

You will see a similar relationship developing in the body of nations forming the European Union.
Born out of the bloodshed and flames of idealogical conflict and the need for peacefull co-operation.

No 'region' could have been signatory to the Treaty of Union or have the right to dissolve that treaty.

No region of the UK has Scotland's history of statehood, state Sovereign and Royal Cipher, independent legal and criminal justice system, independent education system, state religion National Assembly, representation on world sporting bodies or defined international maritime boundaries.

That's the ones I could think of just off the top of my head.

btw We speak for one's self.
It is more than a little presumptious unelected to take on the mantle of speaking for the nation.

Similarly:
#1645. You again? - Fife
Friday, October 26, 2007 15:36

Care to share with us the grounds upon which you presume Wullbert speaks for the SNP, or anyone else but himself?

'hard - working, honest, law abiding Scots'
Who do you presume to speak for?

You have some brass neck, as an apologist for the union, to bring up the Highland Clearances and transportation/deportation.

1646. Cat - Edinburgh
Friday, October 26, 2007 15:42

So that's your position on the Union benefit to Scotland of governance from Whitehall?

Thank you for your most enlightening contribution.

Lets' look at some recent issues -

Digital TV - cut off Scotland first - they have poorer reception anyway; leave south England till 2012. (Should be working by then.)

Cervical Cancer vaccine - let's vaccinate all the English girls first, starting right now, and start in Scotland sometime late in 2008...

Is it just me or does this sound like if it's bad try it in Scotland, if it's good England has it first???

I thought 'health' was a devolved issue - but apparently vaccines are controlled by 'Westminster' (a bit like movement of animals and subsequent compensation, methinks).

Time to cut the cord before it chokes us beyond breathing.