The Scottish Government

Is it me? do I detect a new fresh approach to politics in Scotland?
The First Minister is brilliant at dealing with the Lab/Libs who are struggling with the new concept of local government and above all transparency in decision making in parliament with no hidden slush funds.
Annabel Goldie is a good person and her approach is both measured and interesting.Hope for our future?
I think so.

Well, in any truly democratic society the electorate need to be informed. To achieve this an independent and balanced media, both press and
broadcast, are necessary.

In Scotland it is clear that the press range from rabidly anti independence (Record, Scotsman etc) to more subtley so (The Herald). The Sunday Herald is perhaps the only newspaper that strives for some sort of objectivity.

Within the last week we have seen the online comments facility being removed from The Herald. This is a very disturbing move on their part and has brought widespread criticism, noticeably though not from Unionists.

I truly believe that the strength of feeling coupled with well structured arguments from the pro-independence posters caused concern to those in control at The Herald.

This has meant that criticism of the news blackout on Wendy Alexander's criminality coupled with the two month silence of the electoral commission in Scotland is now (along with the scandal itself) absent from their pages.

Alexander herself now surfaces only once a week at First Minister's questions, cowering behind a human shield comprising the weak, infirm and poor of our society.

On 24th January Alexander finally managed to scrape through the bottom of the barrel and began wading through the sewer. Her attempt at politicising the rape of a 16 year old girl was simply disgusting.

I truly don't believe that this woman represents the well meaning and thouroughly decent Scots who vote Labour. Nor do I believe that the Scottish press have the good governance of Scotland at heart.

On illegal donations though, Wendy Alexander has stated that she expects the electoral commission to clear her, a strange statement given that she has already admitted wrongdoing. Although the Unionist nature of the establishment in Scotland suggests that she may be right.

Finally:
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. 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.

i think it's stupid to base 21st century politics on grudges since time began !! move forwards not backwards !! i dont think its worth the risks just so we can say that we're 'independent.'

duncan crompton-manchester we have never ever north of the border been anything else but a seperate nation of scottish people. what i cant undersatnd is why you english wont vote along with us for the scots just to have a say over all our own affairs.and i promise apart from letting you keep the scots that are running england at the moment we wont interfere in your affairs. honest :-O)))

Duncan Crompton of Manchester (1801) says "for personal historical reasons I should maybe be one of those who call themselves 'a Scot'", but Duncan goes on "In todays world, is it not a mistake to look back, defining ourselves in terms of where our ancestors happened to live?" - nobody is forcing you to look back, or to define yourself as a Scot, Duncan. The choice is entirely up to you.

Duncan also says "independence - no thanks!" - but Duncan, as a resident of Manchester, you will have no say in the matter. As both Margaret Thatcher and John Major said when they were prime minister, it's entirely up to the people of Scotland. While neither Tony Blair nor Gordon Brown have been spoken as clearly as their predecessors on this subject, neither of them has actually _contradicted_ the principle laid down by Thatcher and Major. It would in fact be quite impossible for any British prime minister to do so. The United Nations sets out three conditions which have to apply for a member state to be REQUIRED to permit a self-determination referendum in a territory. Scotland fulfills these three U.N. conditions better than any other place on Earth which is not already an independent country. Sooner or later, and preferably sooner, there is going to have to be a referendum on independence. There is no way of avoiding this being put to the democratic verdict of the people. In that referendum, the people entitled to vote will be the people on the electoral roll in Scotland (however they define themselves, and wherever they came from originally). Nobody outside of Scotland will be entitled to vote, regardless of whether or not they have Scottish ancestors.

Im British, and one of those who if asked calls himself 'English', although for personal historical reasons I should maybe be one of those who call themselves 'a Scot'.
In todays world, is it not a mistake to look back, defining ourselves in terms of where our ancestors happened to live? Thats history and the world is now a lot smaller.
There is a good argument for stronger regional powers, for compelling practical reasons, but independence - no thanks!

[1797] Further to the points expressed in #1798, the actual recorded postings does not reflect the total number of people who have viewed and discussed the various contributions. Clearly if your thoughts run along the same lines as a previous contribution, you may feel that you have nothing further to add at this time. However, the fact that the number of 'web hits' is apparently now in the hundreds of thousands perhaps suggests that this 'Conversation' is reaching further than some might like others to think!

andrew hoolahan should read the history of scotland from the 11th century,then scotand was a nation and was quite well off especialy the churches paisley abbey an d glasgow cathedral were amongst the richest in europe.the town of lanark was full of rich merchants who traded round the world.then the english invaded and occupied scotland up to the early 13hundreds then scotand became free again in 1314 after banockburn.then in the early 1700 ds england planned to invade again to get money and soldiers for the war with france the english parliament passed a bill declaring the scots to be alliens and not allowing them into england or to trade and under william of orange the put a blockade on the scottish ports and nothing could get in or out and thousands die of starvation.then instead of invading the came up with the so called act of union and bribed the nobles to sign it.the industrial revelution helped scotland it wan't the union scotland became a world leader in steel production and the first steam ships were built onthe clyde but then labour nationalised the shipbuilding and steel industry and eventually took it to england along with the railway industry.

In contribution 1797, “Braveheart” (but, unlike me, not brave enough to use his real name) asked “What ‘national conversation’?”

Answer, the one about the future constitutional framework for the people of Scotland running things in their own country which has been taking place for several months now through letters, written submissions, and various other methods, including this on-line forum.

“Braveheart” (but, unlike me, not brave enough to use his real name) says “There are 1800 posts on this blog, in 20 weeks”.

That’s just this particular blog. Only one out of seven. There are seven ministers with blogs which invite contributions to the national conversation from the public. In addition, there are other on-line forums open to the public on various different aspects of the national conversation. I think there are about a dozen in all.

“Braveheart” (but, unlike me, not brave enough to use his real name) says “You can get 250 a day on one of the busier threads on the Herald most days” .

Well, I do sometimes contribute to the Herald discussions, but, let’s face it, some of those “contributions” on the Herald are just jokey one-liners or yah-boo style exchanges between particular individuals. The number of contributions actually worth reading can be quite limited.

“Braveheart” (but, unlike me, not brave enough to use his real name) says “you're only getting 100 a week here! Pathetic!”

It’s not an awful lot, I agree. Part of the problem is that it looks very like there is an actual organised boycott of the discussion by members of the Labour Party, the Liberal Democrats, and the Tory Party. When a member of one of these parties (such as yourself, Braveheart-but-unlike-me-not-brave-enough-to-sign-your-own-name) does write something, it is, like your latest contribution, merely an attempt to discredit the whole conversation, rather than a constructive contribution putting forward positive ideas about the future constitutional framework of Scotland. Although this is technically Alex Salmond’s blog, apart from starting it off in the first place he doesn’t write on it. The same goes for all seven of the blogs started by members of the Scottish Government. So the main people making constructive contributions to the discussion are folk who are neither members nor supporters of any political party, such as myself.

“Braveheart” (but, unlike me, not brave enough to use his real name) also says “waste of public money”.

Not much public money. Running an interactive website like this one is actually remarkably cheap nowadays. The thing that really IS a major waste of public money is the so-called “constitutional convention” which was forced through the Scottish Parliament by the Labour Party, the Tory Party, and the Lib-Dems. That will burn up public money far faster than Alex Salmond’s website blog open to the public does. And what makes the Labour/Tory/LibDem project a COMPLETE waste of money is (1) they have already written the conclusion, because, unlike this “National Conversation”, it will not be open to all viewpoints - they have specifically stated from the start that anything connected with independence will NOT be considered, and (2) despite being very expensively funded by all of us, it will NOT be open to contributions from the general public, only to the political parties.

What "national conversation"?

There are 1800 posts on this blog, in 20 weeks.

You can get 250 a day on one of the busier threads on the Herald most days.

you're only getting 100 a week here!

Pathetic!

National conversation my bum.
And a waste of public money...