The Scottish Government

The Tory`s should support Scottish Independance, as this would give them total control in melt down England. Labour needs the Scottish vote for U.K. control,hence opposition. Liberals always want to negotiate with anyone who will listen. SNP is comming across as an all Scotland party while the rest languish in the cetral belt. let time tell if the present Scotland set-up can do better, then perhaps independance, with the prospect of seeing my national football team on national telivision instead of listening on radio as 50`s scotland.

PS Of course some might try to argue that the benefits claimed for Independence could also be achieved within the Union but there are at least three good reasons to suspect otherwise:

1. Scotland’s poor economic growth rate of 1.8% to which I previously referred was not a low rate in one poor year, but an average over the last 30 years. In other words the Unionist parties, and in particular the Labour party, have had every opportunity to reverse this situation and have consistently failed in spite of the many promises of their politicians (some still struggling to understand why they lost their seats in the last election). [Only the most politically naive would suggest we give them another 30 years to try and do better, especially if any remote possibility of success is supposedly contingent on the continuing ‘charity’ of a country that is now suspicious of the merits of the Union for their own country!]

2. “The implication is that very different policies might be needed to improve the Scottish economy from those in place in the UK.” These words included in my post #1558 are not my words, but the words of John McLaren who is a member of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions. [It did not surprise me that neither post # 1563 nor # 1568 addressed this “common sense” statement because clearly it does not fit the ‘neat picture’ of the still supposedly “Good Marriage”.]

3. An inspirational vision and motivational leadership seldom come from a fastidious councillor who makes his/her way up the government ladder or from a political appartchik who readily compromises his/her principles to curry favour with those higher in their party hierarchy. [Alex Salmond may be far from the ‘perfect leader’, but he is streets ahead of all the other Holyrood ‘contenders’, and perhaps also ahead of those politicians that might return to Scotland should Scotland win Independence.]


Or put another way, if the Union did not exist today and Scotland was Independent and a member state of the EU, how many economists do you honestly think would be arguing for the creation of the Union within the EU as the best means of Scotland growing its economy successfully and meeting the aspirations of the vast majority of its people???

[1569] Of course to someone who seems to be 'deliberately obtuse' others commenting on this fact may appear “rude”, and as you appear unwilling to correlate an improved economic growth rate for Scotland (over our low average during the last thirty years relative to the UK, and many other small countries) with positive changes we can make in deprived housing estates, it seems I will have to spell out some of the obvious benefits of a higher growth rate to you, even at the risk of impinging on your sensibilities further (but all positive arguments that you seek in addition to the many outlined in posts #1563 & #1568, and various other ‘blogs’ that you seem to have unsurprisingly chosen to ignore):

More economic growth means more money for investment in our most deprived communities – personally I would suggest that this money not be committed to more short-term hand-outs but to long-term investment aimed at providing desired community facilities and ‘expert assistance’ to encourage all in our communities, including our disenfranchised youth, to participate in , and positively contribute to, local society. [With more enjoyment in their lives, more meaning to their lives, and more positive interaction with their neighbours, crime will eventually decrease even in the most deprived areas, although more money for visible policing in the interim will undoubtedly help.]

More economic growth means more jobs (also helping those in deprived areas), and with more Head Offices likely to be located in Scotland due to the move from Westminster to Holyrood of economic control (why would ‘Scottish companies’, like United Distillers, have moved their HQs away from their primary infrastructures to London in the first place??), more high quality jobs also available in Scotland for our most talented youth.

More economic growth means more money to invest in education and research so that Scotland can once again lead the way in education at all levels and also lead in the development of new technologies such as those associated with renewable energy and other industries that fit our geography, skills and aspirations.

More economic growth means more money for our health services, including local NHS dental services (which are now a sad reflection of the standard we enjoyed as recently as ten years ago), and perhaps a radical change from reactive to proactive health care which probably needs a longer term vision than one restricted by current political terms. [What I personally would propose here is to invest, over time, up to say 10% of our total health budget in encouraging physical activities among all ages and in all parts of the country as part of fostering significantly fitter and healthier life-styles, as opposed to eventually spending much more in attempting to treat the various medical issues arising out of increasing levels of obesity.]

More economic growth also means greater incentive for leaders, in whatever areas Scottish businesses and Government wish to focus, to come and contribute to the further development of Scotland’s economic growth, which hopefully will be based on a more sustainable balance between these two major employer groups than we have achieved to date (as evidenced by current levels of bureaucracy). [In other words, when we get the ball rolling the Scottish economy will generate even more dynamism, and perhaps instead of a proliferation of ‘government advisors’ we will have a more direct ‘hands-on approach’ to progressing start-up companies that will see our recent poor performance in this area dramatically improve.]

More economic growth means … I could go on and on here but I think even the most 'obstinately obtuse' should have understood this positive message, even if they are still reluctant to accept that there is any way forward for Scotland other than in the Union despite the positive arguments for Independence and the accessible independent reports that are optimistic for Scotland as an Independent country!

post #1564 Alex Sensible -Largs,Scotland says:

"So. You think the reasons for independence are all negative? Isn’t that what I said? Do you have no POSITIVE reasons?"

As I said before, given your disingenuous definitions of "positive" and "negative" there are no positive arguments for leaving the Union (not "breaking it up" as you characterise it). However, that said there are clearly many EXCELLENT NEGATIVE arguments for doing so.

As you know perfectly well the independence positon grows out of a dissatisfaction with the status quo and a growing apprehension that we can be better off looking after our own affairs. 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".

On the side of the future we have your assertion that:

"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."

No Alex, stability and strength are nice sounding political placebos but the Union you are speaking of is today a house of cards built on debt. So, if tomorrow brings more of the same, God help us.

I said:

“.. 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..”


You said:

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

Alex, perhaps you think everyone who is under stress from too many debts and demands on their time, making them more susceptible to manipulation by unscrupulous politicians, is a fool. I certainly do not. There have been many valleys in my own life so I only have compassion for those who are going through them. My own weaknesses are well known to me and it is a shared humanity that motivates my remarks, not contempt as you aver.

Putting your words in my mouth is an old political trick. Is this what you are Alex, a political party professional? Am I getting warm?

As for my Colonel Blimp reference, I have always thought of him as a sympathetic character, not a figure of fun. I honestly believe you are living in a dream world. Negative is a word you appear to reject but it is in the warp and woof of our lives. If we ignore it then we shall experience a very rude awakening when we least expect it.

Alex from Largs states:
If you read my previous posts you will see the rationale: the majority of Scots vote for pro-union parties. I agree with them. That's all.

Alex previously stated:
The minority wants independence. You may not like it…but…the majority of Scots are happy with the current situation..

This is typical disinforation used by Unionists in order to 'demonstrate' a lack of support for independence. Sadly it goes unchallenged by our journalists and broadcast commentators.

There are at least three reasons why Alex is incorrect here.

1. Support or otherwise for independence will never be known until such a time as the Scottish people are given the opportunity to make their wishes on the matter known. A referendum is the only way to determine the level of support.

2. There are independence supporters amongst the voters of all parties in Scotland. Therefor one cannot state that the result of any election mirrors support for independence.

3. There are around 10-15% of the electorate who, for whatever reason, do not take part in elections but who would take part in an independence referendum.

Lastly, I would urge those supporters of independence to remember that these messages will be viewed by undecided voters. It is important not to be drawn into negative confrontation with posters who may be less than constructive in their contributions.

post #1565 Sensible Alex and post #1566 Alex Sensible

I say Colonel, jolly good wheeze that. Calling up the Old Sensible for a frontal assault on the enemy centre while you pick off the stragglers, sniping from the parapet of Fort Union.

You may be too late though. That scoundrel Brown is doing all he can to undermine you. The English are howling to destroy the Fort and you with it.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml;jsessionid=3R0I2GHWFXTV5QFIQMFCFFWAVCBQYIV0?view=BLOGDETAIL&grid=F11&blog=yourview&xml=/news/2007/09/24/view24b.xml&posted=true&_requestid=361962

Stan says "In spite of your continued irrational ramblings.."

You nats are a very rude bunch Stan. Why is that? Calm down is my advice.

" we still have not heard your constructive response to 1508??????????????????????????.."

Sorry Stan I didn't think I had to respond to everything posted by any random nationalist....

As it is, the estate mentioned is like many other estates in Europe.. a vast majority of decent people live decent lives and a minority struggling. Drugs are a problem as they are in all the developed world. If you were trying to make a positive case for independence, and were really concerned about estates, you would tell us what difference independence would make to our housing estates...

"...Do you simply just not care ..."

Nasty Stan. No need for it. You don't know anything about me.

"..as long as you are “happy” and blissfully, or arrogantly, think you are speaking on behalf of the majority of the Scottish population which to my knowledge you have not yet consulted on this subject – refer #1562)..."

If you read my previous posts you will see the rationale: the majority of Scots vote for pro-union parties. I agree with them. That's all. No insults. No name calling. No snide asides. No blaming everyone else. No hysterics.

You should try it, Stan.

And while you're at it, please stop giving us all the negatives, stop beating about the bush and give us some POSITIVE reasons why we should destroy the working partnership which is the successful UK.

"... or have you been holding back on posting a significant contribution that would provide a glimmer of hope that such situations will finally be turned around if Scotland remains within the Union??..."

No i haven't. Have you been holding back posting a significant contribution that would provide a glimmer of hope that such situations will finally be turned around if we destroy the Union??...

Stan says "In spite of your continued irrational ramblings.."

You nats are a very rude bunch Stan. Why is that? Calm down is my advice.

" we still have not heard your constructive response to 1508??????????????????????????.."

Sorry Stan I didn't think I had to respond to everything posted by any random nationalist....

As it is, the estate mentioned is like many other estates in Europe.. a vast majority of decent people live decent lives and a minority struggling. Drugs are a problem as they are in all the developed world. If you were trying to make a positive case for independence, and were really concerned about estates, you would tell us what difference independence would make to our housing estates...

"...Do you simply just not care ..."

Nasty Stan. No need for it. You don't know anything about me.

"..as long as you are “happy” and blissfully, or arrogantly, think you are speaking on behalf of the majority of the Scottish population which to my knowledge you have not yet consulted on this subject – refer #1562)..."

If you read my previous posts you will see the rationale: the majority of Scots vote for pro-union parties. I agree with them. That's all. No insults. No name calling. No snide asides. No blaming everyone else. No hysterics.

You should try it, Stan.

And while you're at it, please stop giving us all the negatives, stop beating about the bush and give us some POSITIVE reasons why we should destroy the working partnership which is the successful UK.

"... or have you been holding back on posting a significant contribution that would provide a glimmer of hope that such situations will finally be turned around if Scotland remains within the Union??..."

No i haven't. Have you been holding back posting a significant contribution that would provide a glimmer of hope that such situations will finally be turned around if we destroy the Union??...

Well Alex, quite a response you have made within what you initially described as a meaningless conversation.

First things first, cognitive dissonance or not I think that we can both agree that there are indeed some positive arguments for independence. Now, let’s have a look at your responses to the ones I listed.

You say that we already have full control over generated income……….. and where every penny raised is spent. The simple truth is that we don’t. The income raised through oil is not even attributed to Scotland. Whisky taxes and duties are not set in Scotland, we will be forced to contribute to trident despite our resistence to it.

You disagree that current UK oil company HQ would move to Scotland from London in order to be close to the sovereign state capital. I’m not sure why you disagree with this, can you explain why the HQ would remain in London when Westminster would no longer have control over 95% of the fields?

You also appear bemused by my assertion that Whisky is the UK’s number 1 export.
I can only assure you that it is the UK’s most consistently successful export, contributing over £2.5bn to UK exports last year. The whisky industry, like oil, have the UK headquarters in London, that is why duties from whisky are not attributed to Scotland in the infamous GERS report.

You say that you already have a fabulous new union…you appear to be unaware of the lack of respect shown to one Gordon Brown who has had to deny his Scottishness for fear of it damaging his election prospects. You are also apparently comfortable with Scot’s being labelled as ‘Subsidy Junkies’ by the Westminster establishment.
This to me is not a union based on mutual respect.

I mention renewables and you appear to believe that there would be no extra investment within an independent Scotland. Well, you may be correct, however I would argue that there is a strong probability that projects like the carbon capture plant at Peterhead would be funded and that there would be more investment in offshore renewables.

I have put forward a positive argument that suggests it would be better for the fishing industry to be controlled from Holyrood and not be used as a bargaining chip by Westminster. You respond that if there are no fish in the sea they cannot be taken out and to ignore the scientific evidence and advice and destroy the fishing grounds would be rather short-sighted. Not sure who you are arguing with with this response but I believe my positive argument has gone unopposed.

I suggested that we would have greater balance from our media and be better informed. You appear to suggest that the SNP would wish to nationalise newspapers and exert control over broadcasting. I am not at all sure that the SNP would be the government of Scotland forever, nor that they would seek to do this. However, I am glad that you seem to be opposed to governent interference. Perhaps then you would condemn Blair and Reids attempts at influencing the BBC over the Scottis six.

In the mentime though, I would be interested in hearing your proposals as to how we eliminate the current pro-union bias within current Scottish broadcasting and print media.

You agree that scotland would have direct representation around the globe and within the EU. You argue however that the influence would be less. I would counter that where our interests and that of others (say England) merged then influence would be great. Where our interests and Englands differed then we would have our own representation rather than have no representation at all as happens now.

I argued that deciding for ourselves whether we should have nuclear weapons based in Scotland or indeed nuclear power stations in Scotland would be better. You replied that it was not a great advantage if the (‘rest of the’) UK decides to have their nuclear weapons and power stations in Cumbria. Well for one we wouldn’t be paying for them would be? For another our wishes as a sovereign state would have prevailed. Now whether another country decides to have nuclear weapons or power stations is a matter for them, be that country England or France. We have no right to demand influence over their decisions.

You say that Scotland has the powers to decide immigration policy for herself already. I have to say that you are incorrect here, remember the dawn raids and the special protocol that Jack claimed to have with Whitehall?

I argued that having the right to decide which, if any, conflicts to engage in was a positive argument. Your response was that there was no guarantee that our decision woud be right. You are of course correct there is no guarantee, but the important point is that, right or wrong, it would be our own decision.

The foot and mouth outbreak was raised by myself in order to make a point that decisions made in Westminster are not always good for Scotland, nor sensible.
Your response appears to be a little emotional and extreme, not at all measured. There is already a suggestion that regionalisation be the way forward for any future outbreaks of this nature instead of the current blanket bans. This of course would help those farmes in Scotland and indeed the North of England. It should be noted that an outbreak in say Aberdeen would have the same consequences for farmers in Kent given the current arrangements. The virus doesn’t respect bordres of course, but outbreaks in France do not necessitate bans throughout the rest of the EU do they?

You seem to believe that there is not a problem with low aspiration amongst our young in Scotland. Again you are entitled to take this view, I obviously differ and believe that independence would be the catalyst for improvement in this area.

You conclude by stating that the list of arguments that I presented were not strong. Well, it is not you or I who will judge the relative merits of my arguments or your response. I am confident though that I have made a good case.

[1564] & [1560] In spite of your continued irrational ramblings we still have not heard your constructive response to 1508??? Do you simply just not care (as long as you are “happy” and blissfully, or arrogantly, think you are speaking on behalf of the majority of the Scottish population which to my knowledge you have not yet consulted on this subject – refer #1562) or have you been holding back on posting a significant contribution that would provide a glimmer of hope that such situations will finally be turned around if Scotland remains within the Union??

It is disappointing that some simplistically see today’s complex, but one-sided, Union as a “good marriage” (refer to valid points made in post #1561) and it is more disappointing that some seem unconcerned about the continuing disproportionate drain of talent from this country as well as unconcerned about our relative international decline overall. [Simply raising our economic growth rate to match that of the UK (over the last three decades our growth rate has only been 1.8% compared with the UK average of 2.3%, while countries such as Norway, Ireland and Singapore have achieved significantly higher economic growth rates than the UK over a comparable period of time) will greatly increase funds available for investment in an Independent Scotland, including our public services, and produce more quality jobs to encourage more of our talented people to stay in Scotland – perhaps your ‘friend’ of post #1565 would like to help you with a constructive point for the Union on this subject?] What is understandable, although regrettable, is that not everyone shares a positive vision of a much brighter future for the Scotland of tomorrow, and for our children. For anyone who struggles to see what seems clear to many who are advocating Independence, I would recommend that rather than become another cynic, you have faith in yourself and your fellow Scots, and if you still have doubts look closely at what other small countries have recently achieved (many with significant contributions from Scots who demonstrated belief in themselves and ‘showed the way’ in overcoming considerable challenges far from ‘home’).

Of course it is always easy to play the cynic, but cynicism can only hold people back, it cannot inspire people to achieve more and deliver a better society for everyone.

But what about those who are generally open-minded but still unsure about Independence and who before making up their minds would like more ‘proof’ of the claimed benefits (many of which have been stated in this ‘blog’ in spite of what some who seem intent on burying their heads even deeper in the sand, like the proverbial ostrich, keep trying to make out – those who cannot see the positives and the many substantial benefits in raising our economic growth rate to match, if not exceed, that of the UK, frankly not only would appear to lack objectivity but would also appear to lack sincerity) before they take on the ‘risk’ that they perhaps see as greater with Independence than with staying in the Union? A simplistic response would be to draw comparison with the many ‘risks’ the human race has taken and overcome in our own evolution (in spite of the cynics who throughout history, because of ignorance, self-interest or perhaps simply a lack of self-confidence, have mocked every new idea because naturally each new idea has an element of risk associated with it), but a more sympathetic answer would concede that it does take some courage to dare to hope and to take on new challenges, no matter how compelling the positive economic and social arguments may be. However, courage is an attribute Scots never seemed to lack in the past and I personally see no reason why we should doubt our courage, or our combined skills and abilities, to be successful as an Independent country in the future!