The Scottish Government

[1585] While I am yet to be convinced that we should be Independent of both the British Union and the European Union, I think you have expressed some good arguments here and in principle I share your view that we should be trying to reduce the relative size of ‘Scottish government’ and associated levels of bureaucracy so that more can be invested where the general public think it is most needed or most beneficial in achieving our common aspirations. On a more practical note, I think it is difficult for most of us to come to terms with all the ramifications of Independence from the British Union, so attempting to ask people to also consider the consequences of independence from the European Union at the same time is an approach that I personally feel will not be ‘popular’ because it seems to make the constitutional step too big and too complex, and therefore more uncertain. For those that wish this eventual outcome I would suggest that they campaign for a Referendum on Independence from the British Union, then, if they do not see a net benefit to Scotland in continuing with the new position within the European Union, they should campaign for another referendum at a later date.

With regard to the high number of people who appear to have a ‘vested interest’ in maintaining the current tiers of government and associated bodies, while undoubtedly we all have natural instincts of self-preservation, especially in relation to our jobs and life-styles, I remain generally optimistic that most can look beyond current self-interest and recognize that to do otherwise would likely condemn their children to paying a high price for the mistakes of their parents.


[1584] (Read #1585 for the more gracious response.!:)

Responding to selected strings of text in the posts of others (like reading only selected reports that agree with ones own opinions) may provide some measure of self-satisfaction to a self-indulgent person, but does little to promote the case for continuing a ‘Union’ that growing numbers have come to realise has in effect been superseded by the European Union. Of course there were some that would not believe the earth was round until they could actually journey around it for themselves, and in spite of the many advances we enjoy today, there are still those who will refuse to believe even the most compelling circumstantial evidence until they can ‘see the proof’ for themselves. Independence will not change history, or ‘break’ our ties and emotional attachments to families and friends living in England, but a more confident, vibrant and prosperous country will provide greater opportunities for more to stay in Scotland as well as for some to return to Scotland.

As evidenced in the last election, more and more people have become disenchanted with a Labour Party that kept telling us how ‘great’ everything was in spite of the mounting evidence to the contrary. Regrettably some have been slower than others to learn the logical lessons from this and, as evidenced by this ‘blog’, persist in deluding themselves as well as persist in attempting to delude the decreasing numbers that remain pessimistic about Independence. But fortunately for Scotland, increasing numbers of people are looking beyond the hollow claims of our most selfish politicians and of those who would support them by attacking others, and the sincere arguments of others, with derisory group labels and cynical words.

One does not have to be clairvoyant to predict that the sooner more people set aside the comments of those who lack faith in themselves, or their fellow Scots, to do better than we have done over the last thirty years, and objectively engage in constructive debate, the faster an ambitious Scotland will progress its aspirations, irrespective of the preferred final constitutional destination!

I would like to thank Alex from Largs for his contribution to the debate so far. At the very least he has provided a consistent critique of the independence position and challenged those who support it to think through why they do.

Without intending to demean the extensive content of his posts I would suggest that his position may be summed up as "a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush." I believe this to be both natural and rational.

There must be many in Scotland who do not wish to endanger their way of life by launching on what appears to them to be a dangerous expedition into the unknown. Certainly amongst them would be those who depend for their living on the UK government. I believe this may well be as many as 25% of the adult population.

If you add in those on pensions and long term disability we are probably looking at an additional 15% of the adult population, making 40% in all.

There are many businesses in Scotland who have vital trading connections with the rest of the UK since I believe at least 60% of our trade is with England. If we include the employees and owners of these businesses we probably have another 15% of the adult population.

So, if we all act only in our own self interest, there is probably a core constituency of 55% of the adult population who would want to stay with the present position or at least not wish to rock the boat too much. This correlates very well with the polls suggesting that 30-40% support outright independence although perhaps twice as many want to have a referendum on the issue and may wish further devolution.

For my own part, my wife and I are pensioners and may well be among those who would suffer if Scotland gained her independence. However, paradoxically, we support an independent Scotland, philosophically. I have posted in other locations in these forums my reasons for this position and the kind of arrangments I would like to see after we become self governing. Here is a summary:

"My reasons for wishing Scotland to be independent, outside the EU, are practical and flow from principle rather than patriotism and passion, although both of these will be necessary if independence is to be achieved.

As to principle, it is my firm conviction that, with few exceptions, government, imposed from without, is the source of many of our problems, rather than the solution to them. The only truly effective government is self discipline founded on recognised virtues. When we seek to have discipline imposed upon ourselves from without, we are, in effect, demanding to be enslaved. Seen in this light, our system of democracy becomes a means for us to define the kind of slavery we prefer. This is what we blindly call freedom. In order to begin our journey as a nation back to true freedom, it is essential to clearly perceive this truth.

At the present time Scotland has four layers of external government: local, national, UK and EU. At the stroke of a pen, if we are clear headed enough, we can lose two of these layers, UK and EU. Then, with a modest effort at reorganisation, we can eliminate a further layer by combining the national and the local tiers.

External government has always preferred to be centralised. This will still be true when we are independent. It is the nature of the beast. Only poor communications in the past rendered it difficult. Today this is no longer the case. I see no reason why we should not abolish one level of elected government altogether. The MSP's we elect to the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for administering local affairs in the context of a national vision. Where they actually do their work would be determined by circumstances.

Entering Europe and adopting the Euro would place the Scottish economy under the control of international bankers whose priorities are far removed from Scottish needs. Therefore Scotland must take the direction of monetary policy out of the hands of the Bank of England and place it under the control of a Scottish Reserve Bank controlled by the Scottish Treasury. There must be no private banks lending fiat money, created out of thin air, to the people of Scotland and earning interest on it. Fiscal autonomy would automatically come with independence.

Scotland should have its own internal currency based upon the productive value of our land and territorial waters. This would be deposited by the SRB in chartered banks. All lending would be done at zero interest under strict guidleines to prevent excessive borrowing. Banks would earn their revenue through fees for services, including money management and trading in equities through an independent Scottish Stock Exchange. The SSE would be 100% electronic trading and no short selling would be permitted.

The external currency for trading would be gold. The true economic value of gold would be determined by the Scottish Treasury. The gold price would be set periodically and aligned annually with the productive economic value of our land and territorial waters. This land value would be used to determine a land value tax. This would be the only tax levied on citizens. Income tax, National Insurance, corporation tax, VAT, council tax, inheritance tax and all customs and excise duties would be abolished. Tax would be paid monthly by landowners directly into the Scottish Treasury bank account by pre-authorised deposit and banks would receive a small fee per deposit for this service. This will eliminate virtually the entire cost of tax collection. This fiscal and monetary arrangement would give Scotland significant advantages in trading and have a liberating effect on the economy.

Ownership of land in Scotland would be restricted to citizens of Scotland and companies chartered to do business here. Only landowners would pay the land value tax and only citizens and their children would qualify for any social benefits. Citizenship would be granted to anyone at the age of majority who accepted the duties of citizenship as defined in the Scottish Constitution and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, after completing successfully a citizenship course of study. This course would have the objective of imparting the truth of personal freedom and how it is attained.

Children of citizens would have an educational trust account set up for them, at birth or when their parents become citizens. Both parents of the child would have to be named as joint trustees. This trust account would be funded by the Scottish Treasury and used for the purpose of child care and education at the discretion of the mother and father of the child. In a similar fashion, every citizen and the children of citizens would have a medical account set up for them, funded by the Scottish Treasury. Every citizen would be responsible for the use of these funds for their own and their children’s health care. The National Health Service and the Scottish Department of Education, as presently constituted, would be dissolved. Schools, hospitals and other education, training and care agencies would continue as private businesses or as private non-profit societies with boards elected by their members and be run in the manner decided upon by their boards and staff to meet the needs of their communities. They would set their own fee structures and receive payment directly from parents and patients, from the education and medical accounts, or from private insurance companies. Hospital insurance premiums would be paid from medical accounts.

The basis of Scottish Law would be changed to recognise criminal actions as incurring a debt to the victims of crime rather than Scottish society as a whole. If the debt can be repaid, as in the case of theft, fraud or damage to property, then compensation would be paid by the thief, fraudster or vandal, to the victim, in the amount of double or four times the damages incurred, depending on whether the property involved is recovered. If it is impossible to make recompense, as in the case of serious crimes such as murder, then, unless the closest relative of the victim authorises leniency, the murderer would be executed. The guiding principle of the law would be reconciliation, restitution and restoration of the lawful order."

Between now and 2010 when we expect to hold the referendum it is my expectaion that a great deal will change in UK society. The recent instability in the banking system is, I believe, a harbinger of more serious troubles ahead. My own view is that the international fiat currency system will fail and the world will be thrown into confusion. The President of Iran in response to extreme American financial pressure is making bellicose statements. This is very similar to the pressures placed upon Japan prior to their attack on Pearl Harbour. War with Iran will likely pull the trigger on the collapse of the world monetary system.

1573. David Robertson

“As I said before, given your disingenuous definitions of "positive" and "negative"..”

David, I gave no definition. The words are defined in the dictionary. ..

David continues “…there are no positive arguments for leaving the Union…”

My point David. You’re the first nationalist I have seen admitting it..

“…. (not "breaking it up" as you characterise it)….”

How do you leave without breaking it up David?.... Sorry dear, I’m running off with my secretary. Not breaking up the marriage, you understand. Just leaving it…. Aye. Right.

“However, that said there are clearly many EXCELLENT NEGATIVE arguments for doing so……As you know perfectly well the independence position grows out of a dissatisfaction with the status quo…”

Yep. That’s why nationalists are always telling us how awful everything is, when in fact things are all right, and improving for the majority.

“…As you know perfectly well the independence position grows out of a dissatisfaction with the status quo…”

And that’s also why nationalists are so NEGATIVE. If dissatisfaction is your aim, you must guard against saying anything positive about the current set up. You must produce an endless stream of discontent and moaning and whingeing, to convince yourself, if nobody else, that it’s all going to the dogs.

“…. This is a legitimate position. You seek to undermine it with your accusation that all the arguments are "negative" as if this somehow made them untenable. This may have worked for you in the past but those days are over. The sheer volume of negativity about the Union will eventually overwhelm all your protestations that "everything is for the best in the best of all possible worlds".

Maybe. It is clear that the “sheer negativity” in Burma is prodding the people to action. But, in Burma, the situation IS horrendously negative. In the UK it is not, and the concentration on the negative by nationalist politicians is effectively lying. Or “spin” if you prefer.


I said "Tomorrow will bring, more or less, what today has brought: stability and strength. Unless we are silly enough to destroy the country…as you want.",

but that isn’t good enough for David.

To which I respond: David, it isn’t enough to tell us how awful you think (or wish) everything is. Nationalists should and must produce some positive arguments in favour of independence… otherwise all we would be buying would be a package of complaints and frustrations. That’s no basis on which to build a brave new country…is it?


David continued;“.. Like most of the population in the UK they are living in a Brown bubble that is going to pop any day now. My guess is that most of them are under pressure from debts and the demands of daily life in an increasingly stressful environment. That many oppose independence today is very likely, but they do so out of fear of change because they have these stressful lives. They disguise this with scepticism because they have found this to be a useful means of warding off uncomfortable possibilities they would rather not face. They are easily manipulated by politicians who speak to this fear, to magnify it..”

I replied “"Everybody’s a fool but you? Is that it? How condescending can you get?"

David was outraged “Putting your words in my mouth is an old political trick. ..”

No. And, David, they ARE your OWN words. Copied and pasted. Not changed one dot. Your words. And they show contempt for the average voter. According to you they cannot face the truth, cowed down and unable to shake themselves free from some nameless fear… otherwise, if they were more clear-sighted, they would support you. .. two words, David. Non and Sense.

“..I honestly believe you are living in a dream world…”

So I’m a fool too David? That would be me and the majority of Scots then….


1574. Stan Grodynski - returns to the fray: “I will have to spell out some of the obvious benefits of a higher growth rate to you…”

The benefits of higher growth are obvious Stan, even to me. What YOU have to show is how and by how much, growth will be higher (or more likely lower) if we break up the UK. Be positive Stan. Give us some projections for the economy under independence.

1577. Colin Anderson – “So far I have heard good arguments on both sides, with the more positive ones coming, in my opinion, from those who back independence.”

Not according to Dave, who supports independence but denies that there are any positive reasons for it…maybe you could help him by posting the positive reasons for independence that you have seen here?

1581. McMillan - East Kilbride

Wednesday, September 26, 2007 14:56

I look foward to the day when Scotland is free from the Idiots in westminster that run our country and its services. As a Civil Servent I am ashamed to say our services are shocking.I would like to go into more detail but my tounge is silenced by the National Secrets Act. I did not mind so much being apart of Britian when we were a proud nation. But the stories I could tell about the goverments services would make you cringe. Free country? My butt it is!!!

This posting is recreated without comment. Maybe it was posted by supporter of the union to discredit nationalists..?

1582. Buckpool Loon enquired “Now where have I seen this style; this intellectual cnycism. This statistical wallpaper of Westminster myths being regurgetrated as fact for the gullible and by the gullible who have done, or so they claim, 'alright' by them? Could it be AM2 of the Scotsman?”

Haven’t a clue what you are talking about Loon. Is this your positive case for independence?

Oh no, here it is…”To be independent and, by doing so, to dispel the myths of democracy we suffer under the regime of Westminster and Whitehall. For Scotland to be free to stand, or fall, through it's own efforts. To decide its own values as a nation State. Not as a minority partner, who may or may not be privy to the reasons or the accounting practices behind the actions of the senior partner.”

Actually, if you remove the waffle from this paragraph it makes sense. You appear to be saying that Scotland, as an independent country, could make decisions more locally, and therefore, possibly, more effectively, than decisions made in other places.

This is the broad case for devolution of any description. But at least it is a clear position. Could you provide some more positive information: e.g. what would the economic position be, what would be the costs of breaking up the UK etc. Because, of course, once you have the bright idea of breaking up the country, you have to come up with the proof that it would be a good thing… which is what I have been asking for…so far I have seen precious little of …

Still. Well done Loon.

There were some posts recently applauding the fact that Scottish teachers were among the best paid in the world. However a more pertinent fact would have included the answer to the question, why? It appears that once again Scottish education is getting a failing grade.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opinion/main.jhtml?xml=/opinion/2007/09/27/do2705.xml

What is most disappointing is that the new Scottish Government is acting in the same way as its predecessors, cherry picking the statistics to put a favourable spin on the results, instead of facing the awful truth that our education system is in serious trouble. There is a time for optimism. There is also a time for realism. It is time for realism if the SNP want to show us they can really govern.

Alex.Largs. Now where have I seen this style; this intellectual cnycism. This statistical wallpaper of Westminster myths being regurgetrated as fact for the gullible and by the gullible who have done, or so they claim, 'alright' by them? Could it be AM2 of the Scotsman?

But, be that as it may, you want a positive reason for Scotland to choose independence. I'll give you the only one that matters.

To be independent and, by doing so, to dispel the myths of democracy we suffer under the regime of Westminster and Whitehall. For Scotland to be free to stand, or fall, through it's own efforts. To decide its own values as a nation State. Not as a minority partner, who may or may not be privy to the reasons or the accounting practices behind the actions of the senior partner.

In the end Alex it's a question of empowerment; you could call it an equation of diminishing power. For all the so called wealths the UK holds,60 million of a population is no real power in today's world. Probably a shade under 1% of the world population? Surely a doubtfull amount to claim to have any significance on the world stage given the emergence of China, India, Asia and South America as major players at the world trade table. Of course the nudge-nudge- wink - wink- barrow boy's of London can service these trades for a while. But that will only work till the natives get up to speed and we all know that can be alarmingly fast in this day and age. So the argument for staying with the status quo has no more substance or sense than a Rover dealer in Solihull selling his stock at a discount to make room for next years model.

How then does an even less significant Scotland stand in this game of empowerment? First, if we leave the admittedly doubtfull integrity of the politicians (all politicians) out of the equation, the voters of Scotland will be voting for a government that is soley responsible to them. Secondly, size has no irrevocable claim to wealth, expertise, efficiency or equality. In fact in the mantras of commercial globalism down-sizing, though often a euphanism for asset stripping, was sometimes correctly used to promote efficiency,profitability and more to the point survival.

Thirdly security. Will we be more secure? Commercially my assesment is 50/50. We would have to expand into the high end niche markets of technology. Tourism's good, but we have to be realistic on the weather front and the type and quantity of tourist our topography would attract. The other major service industries, Banking & Call Centres, the latter especially, are too subject to the vagaries of commercial fashion for them to be regarded as anything more than a stopgap and generally a frustrating one for most employed by them. However if there is one thing the service industries are good at, it's adaption; so the rest will quickly evolve to fill whatever oppurtunity is offered.

As to security in the 'War on Terror'front Scotlands exit from this false flag corrupt crusade can only be regarded as a dividend of independence. Domestic vigilance - yes; invasive, duplicitous, inept interference - a definate no.

Finally Alex it's an oppurtunity for all the people of Scotland to stake their claim to their own 1:5m chance of empowerment. Not great odds perhaps but better than 1:60m which to many may seem unsurmountable and so bewilderingly remote it leads to the bilgerent apathy of the disenfranchised.

So can you, as a Scot be a positive Unionist? Of course you can, but if you live in Scotland they odds of succeeding are 3%? As a Nationalist they're around - Oh lets believe the pollsters for ther moment - 23%? and rising. So who's being positive!

I look foward to the day when Scotland is free from the Idiots in westminster that run our country and its services. As a Civil Servent I am ashamed to say our services are shocking.I would like to go into more detail but my tounge is silenced by the National Secrets Act. I did not mind so much being apart of Britian when we were a proud nation. But the stories I could tell about the goverments services would make you cringe. Free country? My butt it is!!!

[1577] Some good points made objectively and dispassionately!

“Panacea” suggests a direct cure for a straightforward problem and while I am not sure that this is the best choice of word for the ‘complex condition’ most concerned wish to remedy I guess if one considers the perspective of viewing Independence as a process, rather than an event, then what becomes pivotal is ‘timing’. As with devolution itself, the longer something continues the more people appear to become comfortable with it, even those who initially predicted ‘doom and gloom’. This is also why, quite understandably, many are naturally opposed to ‘constitutional separation’ from the Union, in spite of the fact that arguments that prevailed 300 years ago have seemingly little relevance today, except in their historical/emotional context (which in practise should not be weakened by constitutional change).

Of course for those that have become increasingly frustrated over many years of witnessing what they perceive as Scotland’s under-achievement within the UK, Independence cannot come soon enough. This feeling undoubtedly is further fuelled, as you rightly pointed out, when even those in the media who claim impartiality are apparently sometimes drawn into the language of the ‘pro-Unionist’ cause. [In using this term I would note that I don’t consider myself ‘anti-Unionist’ as I believe there are good arguments for retaining the Union, but generally these arguments would only apply if the UK were to withdraw from the EU which admittedly seems a less likely event than Independence.]

So, what timing would best suit the ‘majority’? I personally think, put in these terms, that most Scots would rather face the challenge now rather than postpone what may likely become a bigger challenge for their children to face in the future as the UK falls further down the international ladders indicating relative socio-economic performances (and with Scotland continuing to under-perform even relative to the UK average). But without a Referendum I cannot claim that this is any more than ‘blind faith’ in my fellow Scots or simply my own educated guesswork with which others will no doubt disagree!

No.1553. Alex - Largs
Of course, government is not easy, and they may be poor at it. Events intrude.. (did you see Wendy deflating Eck at FMQs today by asking a simple question about his aim to means test the currently free central heating benefit for pensioners?), in which case they will be booted out and in the wilderness for a generation...

I am sorry to deflate your hopes of wee Wendy as the question she posed was based on completely false information dreamt up by another poor Labour keyhole voyeur.
I am deeply disappointed that you as a Scot still hold onto this belief in a discredited system.
Can I suggest that you try reading the Economists little Blue Book on the position of the UK within the civilized worlds league table. NOWHERE does it come in within the top 5.
You Alex, I think are living in a dream world that your party has conjured up to deliberately mislead people. I do not need to quote the Economist to show the number of times this has happened over the last 50 years. More so in the last 10. Promised a referendum on EU, but not now.
Every serious industry that employed the core of your supporters has been decimated and apart from showing sympathy and redundancy cheques you have not given a thought to this part of the ‘successful partnership’
Your party was supposed to fight for people who could not fight for themselves and perhaps in the past it did, but not in my time. Shipbuilding, engineering, mining, steel making, fishing. Industries that once were common in Scotland, but now? yet Germany has these, Holland, France, and Belgium.
But you know all this.
Instead your party now relies on fear to hold its grip on power. G. Brown demonstrated this at his speech when he talked about the terrorist threat that only a British government could stand up to. He also mentioned Foot & Mouth that seemingly only his government can deal with yet it was partially his system of cheeseparing that stopped expenditure on the site of the probable cause.
G. Brown has been responsible for so many costly schemes that have turned out to be financial flops that it would take more than this post to list their titles alone, and yet you Alex are prepared to continue to support this idiocy. I seriously question what it would take to convince you that enough is enough. Are you so blindly dogmatic to the Labour cause that you cannot see the wood for the trees?
Wee Wendy apologized to her comrades for losing the election but I have yet to hear her apologies to the Scottish people for treating this country as if it was a personal fiefdom. The only real industry that Labour has helped along is the dependency culture and aligned to that the drugs that so many Scots think is a way out of the misery that dependency brings.

No. 1552. Alex – Largs
“Give us the POSITIVE case. What is available through independence that is not available now, that is worth the pain of breaking up the existing, successful, partnership.”
Firstly I do not have access to much financial data, but I do know that most of the Scottish branch’s of UK registered company’s tend to purchase their vehicles from vehicle dealerships in England then ship them up to their Scottish outlets. So the purchase tax, the VAT, and the registration fee is shown as part of capital expenditure based on revenue generated in England. Therefore BBC, Post Office, etc etc. all by using this method of purchase subscribe to the subsidization issue that the media are continually feeding on. Scotlands car dealerships lose out on this potential market.
Next, I have just sold a used van to a Gimsby company that delivers FISH to a supermarket chain throughout Scotland. So three times a week they travel up as far as Inverness with this fish which is imported from…Norway. I personally do not know the direct losers on this sort of deal but how much is this repeated daily? How much do you see in your local supermarket or B & Q that has not been imported from somewhere other than Scotland?
Next, you mentioned your grandchildrens future prospects. Scotland relies on ‘tourism’ as one of its major earners. How much of a future do you see in this?
Unfortunately this site is incapable of displaying images, otherwise I would post some images of Wind Turbines being used on a small Industrial Estate in Northern Holland. During the day this generated power is used at the cost of 3p per unit then, at night, the power is sold to the grid. Therefore their production costs are only a proportion of what we pay here, consequently their items that much cheaper, keeping people employed. So why have we not the same kind of system here? Apart from the fact that we have almost no production facilities left.
This is a few of the gains that Scotland could benefit from with Independence.

Gordon Brown in his speech to the Labour conference said that ‘the UK will deport those who are found dealing in guns or drugs’. Now I do not know how long he spent on preparing his speech but I do know that this action is in itself ILEGAL, it is enshrined under EU Human Rights Legislation, no deportation. This leader of your successful partnership sold off the UKs gold reserve at a price of 230 dollars an ounce. Last week the price was 730 dollars an ounce. He was the instigator of the pension fiasco. During the Northern Rock run he gave the impression that savers would have their savings guaranteed by the tax payer. He must have known this was also illegal by breaking rules that he set up when he was chancellor.
So what I see as available after independence is, not being treated as a simpleton by this son of the manse who bends and twists to suit his very own ends.
The EU referendum, is a direct example of his style.

Dave [1551] - Everything in this country is party political. Of course, I know that a referendum can simply be a Yes/No response to a set question, but who sets the questions? Which group of people decides the timing? It is a little naive, with respect, to suggest that these issues are not affected by party politics. You make some good points about my saying the issue will be 'bedded for another generation', and on reflection, you are probably right to say that it won't be, whatever the result.

I think that the level of support for independence within the pro-union parties is pretty low, and it doesn't rise high enough in the general population. Of course I could be wrong about this, but it is my feeling from talking to people about the subject, that the SNP, in coalition with other independence-minded parties and organizations need to build a case for self-determination through good leadership and increasing powers for the Government.

I think the dogmatic stance taken by many on this blog highlights how party political this issue is. It is a real pity that a pretty good idea such as this has degenerated in to a tool for slagging-off others and point-scoring. I'm sure with a little more self-restraint and willingness to rise up from entrenched views to listen to others, this debate can turn more positive.

So far I have heard good arguments on both sides, with the more positive ones coming, in my opinion, from those who back independence. The problem with a perception of media bias, it seems to me, is that in counteracting it, supporters of independence can come across as quite zealous. Again, I would ask: is independence the panacea to all Scotland's problems? If the answer to this is no, then lets start viewing independence as a process and not an event.