The Scottish Government

[1625] It may be that one of the reasons that some have been dissuaded from contributing to this ‘Conversation’ is a reluctance to enter the domain of the politicians in arguing over party policy details and their implementation. Certainly from a general perspective it is logical to comment in a discussion of Scotland’s constitutional future on what parties in favour of the Union have achieved on behalf of Scotland in the past, and where they are now headed, and it is also logical to comment in the same manner on parties in favour of Independence. But three months is a short period of time when compared with the last thirty years, or even the last eight years, so I think it would be appropriate, as far as this ‘Conversation’ is concerned, to judge the detailed performance of the SNP Government at the next election when they have served their first four-year term.

With regard to the specific example you raised, I was (like many) disappointed that ‘tuition fees’, or even a ‘graduate endowment’ was introduced in the first place, when neither of the coalition partners indicated such action in their election manifestos so had no mandate to do so. Having said this, I wholeheartedly agree with the sentiment of the comment that “I care to think that when politicians make promises, they have to deliver on their promises” and I will be even more disappointed if the SNP have not addressed this issue well before the next election, and if they fail to meet the bulk (if not all) of their promises they should not be surprised if they are not given the opportunity to serve another term, never mind win the support they are seeking via a referendum for Independence.

However, for the moment, given the realities of minority government, I believe the SNP Government has generally shown a sincere commitment to attempt to honour their promises, and so far have not attempted to introduce any unheralded charges, fees or ‘stealth taxes’, so personally I am happy to remain relatively optimistic about the 'short-term' and to focus on how Scotland could do still much better with a new constitutional arrangement designed to meet the challenges of the next three hundred years when hopefully all forms of ‘poverty’ will be eradicated, even amongst our poorest students and pensioners, irrespective of their residential circumstances!

#1615

You know, having read your first couple of paragraphs I am beginning to understand why this 'conversation' has struggled to reach the 1600 mark.

You say I'm "petty political point scoring" yet I note you aren't slow to do likewise.

You claim to seek "constructive" comments, yet criticise the previous lot's unwillingness to accept things and 'move on', something that can't happen if you won't do likewise!!

What can't be ignored is the performance of government, local or national.

For instance I recall the morning when my next door neighbour's student son stated he would vote SNP on May 3rd (as they had promised to scrap student debt). Now he says that voting is just a waste of time. Those seriously interested in Scotland's future should be questioning the shameful way students have been treated and should do this regardless of the political make-up of the administration.

That you don't or won't is understandable: you want to avoid criticising the SNP as nothing should be allowed to halt the only party in a position to give you 'independence'.

My view is fairly straight forward. I care to think that when politicians make promises, they have to deliver on their promises.

It is sad to note that others prefer r the bigger picture of an 'independent Scotland' than care for the hopes and dreams of a few thousand hard-up students or the thousands of Scots pensioners on limited incomes dreaming for an end to council tax.

The National Conversation

Response by David R Peutherer, Glasgow

I believe that Scotland should be an independent country within the European Union.

Those who argue against independence usually do so on one or more of four main grounds.

First that we are better off economically as part of the United Kingdom.

Part of this argument is that Scotland would have a deficit. The fact of having a deficit is not in itself an obstacle to independence. Most countries have a deficit, not least of all the United Kingdom and the United States of America. What matters is how the deficit is managed as part of wider economic and fiscal policy.

One of the studies into the economic impact of independence concluded, as I recall, that it would depend on the policies pursued by the Scottish Government. I think this is absolutely correct but that there are good reasons to believe that Scotland would prosper. These include the high level of educational attainment and skills in Scotland, our actual and potential natural resources of power, land and of water, our ability to attract skilled immigrants, the Scottish diaspora and the record of business enterprise, innovation and excellence achieved by many individuals and companies in Scotland.

A lot needs to be done particularly to raise aspirations and increase educational attainment and skill levels amongst those with low or no qualifications, to reduce dependence and to support enterprise and competitiveness. But if an independent Scottish Government focussed on these and promoting a positive image of Scotland in the world then I believe that independence and the related ability to tailor economic fiscal and other policies to our specific needs and opportunities would enable an independent Scotland to be more prosperous than it is now.

The second argument put forward against independence is that we have a stronger voice in the world as part of the United Kingdom than we could have as an independent country.

This may have been true once but not now. The record of the Government at Westminster is not good. It has certainly in recent years championed good causes such as world poverty, the environment and fair trade. But its record of achievement is far from impressive in respect of any of these, or in relation to such as issues as Israel / Palestine, Darfur and Zimbabwe. The truth is that the United Kingdom is not nearly as influential as Westminster politicians like us to think.

There are many reasons for this : its imperial past which weakens its influence particularly in some African countries, negative attitudes to Europe amongst elements of the U.K. media and some politicians and our sometimes too close relationship with the USA. In some respects United Kingdom policy has been disastrous, as for example in Iraq. Independence would enable Scotland to make its own voice be heard in pursuit of its own domestic interests and international concerns.



The third is that there is no such thing as a completely independent country in the 21st century.

This is of course correct. Many of the major issues which affect countries and their people have become ‘globalised’ these including economic investment, health, crime, travel and the environment. All countries are affected by these global issues, no country can deal with them alone. Countries need to work together.

But this is not an argument against independence. What it means is that each country has to decide which other countries to work with most closely and the nature of these relationships. The European Union in my view has the potential to be a much more effective grouping of countries than is the United Kingdom. As a member of it an independent Scotland would be able to make its own voice heard within Europe and to influence European Union policy more effectively. And it would still be able to have its own independent foreign policies and to work with other countries of its choosing.

Fourth is the view that we are British, with shared values and institutions which unite us and are too valuable to lose.

I am conscious that legally I am British. But I don’t feel British. I am Scottish and feel more European than British.

There are of course some values which I share with other ’British’ people – freedom of speech, to vote as I want, etc. But I share these with the peoples of many other countries too, not least of all in Europe. None of them is uniquely British; they don’t make me feel British.

What of the British institutions? The Royal Family I have no particular views about other than that after ten years of Mr Blair’s presidential style of government having a powerless king or queen may be better than having a president. They are also a useful and relatively inexpensive tourist attraction. An independent Scotland could keep the royal family if the people of Scotland so decided, as several other countries have chosen to do.

The unelected House of Lords and the process of political patronage by which people are appointed to it ? The House of Commons, unrepresentative because of the first past the post electoral system, so careful of our interests that it takes us into an unnecessary and disastrous war then apparently cares so little about its own mistake and the hundreds of thousands of lives it has cost that it decides not to have an enquiry into it? A parliament so frequently embroiled in sleaze that it is now regarded as commonplace and some of whose members are so contemptuous of the electorate that they vote to exempt themselves from the freedom of information legislation ? Governments departments which have wasted billions of pounds buying computer systems and military hardware which don’t work? British military policy? British foreign policy ? The ‘not fit for purpose’ Home Office? The British Broadcasting Corporation with its London centric bias, inaccurate reporting and cheating ?

There are none of these, or, of these which an independent Scotland would need, that an independent Scotland could not replace with something better. None of them offers a good reason for remaining part of Britain.

Other Opportunities

There are many other opportunities which would flow from independence. I mention these here under one general heading but it is important to emphasize that independence would create opportunities to promote a positive image of Scotland and the Scots not just overseas but also at home. The contribution which this could make to increasing the self-confidence and aspirations of the Scots is at least as important as any other potential benefits.

Amongst the major opportunities which independence would create are :-

To set an example by signing, and unlike the United Kingdom, implementing the nuclear non-profileration treaty and being free of nuclear weapons.

To restrict the international activities of our military services to defence, genocide prevention, disaster relief and peace keeping activities as part of international forces with full United Nations approval.

To maximise our contribution to offsetting global warming by fully developing our potential to generate carbon free power from wind, sun, water and coal.

To work ourselves and in partnership with other countries, to reduce poverty in the ‘third’ world

To invest in our universities to ensure that they continue to attract overseas students and exchanges in order to develop links with other countries to their and Scotland’s mutual benefit.

To be a country which values freedom and diversity and which does not tolerate sectarianism or discrimination

To invest in our own culture and our artistic institutions as a means of promoting a positive image of Scotland overseas and amongst all people – Scots and others - resident in Scotland

To have a Scottish Broadcasting authority designed to meet the needs of Scotland particularly for domestic and international news which is not dominated by English issues and perspectives.

To have immigration and asylum policies which are both fair and appropriate to the needs of Scotland

Further Devolution

The majority of the Scottish electorate are not, it seems, yet ready to support independence. Until they are the existing devolved powers of the Scottish Government should be increased in all areas necessary to enable it to govern effectively. My own view is that priority should be given to powers relating to economic development, immigration and asylum seekers.

1618. Independence or Status Quo? - Fife
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 22:13

""...AS did suggest that sheltering under the US 'nuclear umbrella' was an option to Trident in a typical throwaway comment. His flippant attitude to a very serious option has to be brought into question...""

I think if you check the relationship that Ireland has with the UK over defence you might find it enlightening.
Principly the relationship between the RAF and the defence of Eire airspace.

Scotland has no need or wish for nuclear anything, let alone umbrellas.

If we are to shelter under anything it will be the collective security of our allies, the EU and the UN.

Nemo me impune lacessit!

#1618. Independence or Status Quo? - Fife
Wednesday, October 10, 2007 22:13

Most folks finding themselves stuck in a hole with no way out would at least stop digging.

I salute your strength and indefatigueability, not totally.

""...One of the popular myths about Ireland’s remarkable economic growth since the 1990s is that much of it is attributable to EU subsidies.

If this were true, Ireland really would have performed an economic ‘miracle’ in this period! But as the Economist put it, in a survey of the Irish economy in October 2004:
“The most authoritative studies suggest that EU subsidies may have added around 0.5 per cent a year to Ireland’s growth during the 1990s – useful but modest in the context of average growth of 6.9 per cent.”
It’s not difficult to identify some of the main reasons for Ireland’s improved performance in the last ten years, they include: an impressive increase in Irish exports; sustained production led growth; the EU’s single market and single currency; and the huge increase in employment...""
http://www.scottishleftreview.org/php/public/pastissues.php?action=article&docid=352

From 1922 up until she joined the EEC in 1973, Eire was cut off from 95% of her traditional markets, in the UK and the British Empire, by a Whitehall trade embargo in a failed effort to force Eire back into Mother Britannia's protective bossom.

Actually if you examine the UK economy over the same period, even until 1980 when oil revenues started to make an impact, Whitehall doesn't look at all clever.
From WWI Britain had to be repeatedly bailed out by the Americans and then latterly by the International Monetary Fund when Jim Callaghan's 'Sick man of Europe' Lib-Lab Pact government was again teatering on bankruptcy.

Just thought I'd mention it as you don't seem to be willing to.

The recent announcement of reduction of money from central government in London shows all too clearly, Brown & co would be happy to strangle our country in order to get a Labour Government back in.

There is only one answer- independence. Then we are the Masters of our own future.

#1614 - george alexander

Rest assured ‘Yay or Nea’, unlike Scottish Labour who promised no change, the SNP Government do indeed have a commitment to putting 1000 extra officers onto our streets. Some will certainly be new recruits but others will be as a result of freeing up deskbound officers.

It is clear that this lot are no different to the last lot. The annoying fact is that Salmond spent most of the election spouting on about Scottish Labour's untrustworthiness. I have had enough of New Labouresque spin, from whichever party and I am sure I am not alone in this.

Let's be clear about this - when Salmond met with senior police chiefs at I think their Federation conference in late April, he pledged to recruit 1,000 NEW police officers. Nothing less.

Ian Innes of Elgin (1616) says - "Perhaps it's time to ask the good folk from south of the border to join in the 'conversation' " - this national conversation was inaugurated by the Scottish Government, so clearly the "nation" which is being invited to take part in this national conversation is Scotland. That means ALL of us who live in Scotland, including the approximately one in twelve of our population who were born south of the border, but it doesn't include the population of England. Now, Gordon Brown is not averse to pinching the good ideas of other folk, so it's not impossible that at some time in the future he (or his successor) might decide to hold a BRITISH national conversation. But this isn't that British national conversation, so it would be inappropriate for the Scottish Government to extend any such invitation. Some folk living south of the border do in fact take part in this conversation anyway, and if any such general invitation was issued there might be an awful lot more of them taking part, and they might completely take over OUR national conversation by sheer weight of numbers, which would defeat the whole point of the exercise.

Ian Innes also wrote "Independence for Scotland would also mean they could keep more of their own money" - look, I realise it might actually be in the interests of Scottish Nationalists to let folk in England think that, but I'm a supporter of independence, rather than a Nationalist, and I'm in favour of telling the truth regardless. Ian, your unsupported assertion is based on the total fallacy that England subsidizes Scotland. It doesn't, but folk have been known to believe all sorts of ridiculous things which can be disproved. Folk used to believe the Earth was flat, for instance. Now, maybe it wasn't a case of "easily" disproved, it did in fact take considerable effort on the part of some folk, but, nevertheless, it could be disproved, and it was. The nonsensical belief that England subsidizes us will also be disproved in practice when Scotland is independent, and people will come to regard believers in that fallacy as we now regard Flat Earthists.

#1614 George Alexander

Thanks for your constructive comments, however you assume my contribution was influenced by other subscribers which is not the case totally. My contribution was to attempt to present some objective comments to #1607, Louise, who had asked for additional constructive information. It was probably influenced by some other contribitors who had suggested that Scotland would flourish like the Republic of Ireland's 'Celtic Tiger' economy while failing to point out that it took 50 years and a hefty subsidy from the EU to allow that country to flourish. AS did suggest that sheltering under the US 'nuclear umbrella' was an option to Trident in a typical throwaway comment. His flippant attitude to a very serious option has to be brought into question.

It is also a fact that if the price of oil had kept pace with the cost of living the current price per barrel would be, at least, $400 but more closer to $600 a barrel now. If you can't understand that then you are grossly overestimating the value oil to our economy.

Are you not interested in how the State pension will be funded?

How can you trust a Finance Minister who fails to mention a £900.000,000 contribution from the UK treasury i.e. a 3% approximately increase from last year's budgeted allowance, but makes some other guess to arrive at the value of the increase as 0.5%?? Then claims we cannot afford to meet the manifesto pledge of 1,000 more police on the street? No COMPULSORY redundancies in making savings of £1.5 BILLION pounds from last years spend How many NON - COMPULSORY redundancies can we expect in the civil service / QUANGO's, (But not POLICE?)
( Taken in total with the £0.9 Billion carry over from prior years £2.4 Billion more than last year, 8.5% more?)

It's called SPIN.

All we are suggesting is that we discuss the truth in this forum not the spin you accuse other parties of.

Having said all that Mr Swinney reckons he WILL deliver ALL the SNP commitments?

Except the £2,000 for first time buyers, 1,000 more police, cancellation of community charge and introduction of a local income tax....

You can't have it both ways.

Surely if the unionist parties are so sure that the people of Scotland will vote against independance then they will allow a referendum to prove the SNP wrong? That way, the SNP will have lived up to their promises and the population of Scotland will have had a true say in the way this country is run. That is surely the most basic meaning of the word democracy?

I don't know about anyone else but I personally think that the statement above is just as good a comment as any other here:

"there is a range of other views in our country and represented in the Parliament. The national conversation on our future is to allow the people of Scotland to debate, reflect and then decide on the type of Government which best equips Scotland for the future."

Nothing's being forced on us, it's being left to us to show the parties what we want. My modern studies teacher has a phrase on her classroom wall: "when the people lead the leaders will follow." This could make history!

Finally, I think that we should try out independance,after all, we've been at this union business for 300 years, maybe it's time for a bit of change?