The Scottish Government

1565. Sensible...

Well said. Very sensible.

Here's an idea.

Let's just have a referendum.

If the sanity of Scotland steps in we should be okay and (until it is safe to do otherwise) remain part of the UK.

If not, and the zealots get their independence (which to be honest I doubt), those of us with common sense can shift elsewhere in The EU and continue to prosper before the change takes effect, leaving our more recklessly patriotic friends to reap the rewards of their idiocy.

Just a few minor points to help you make your decisions, as to whether you are going to go with the sane portion of the population or the patriots-with-a-chip-on-their-shoulders:

1) All this nonsense about “all the oil companies would have to move to Scotland” is just that – nonsense. As members of the European Union (as Mr Salmond suggests we would still be post-independence) you might want to familiarise yourself with the fundamental freedoms and company incorporation rules throughout the EU – In case you didn’t realise it, you don’t HAVE to be incorporated in a country to operate in it. In fact, to support this, looking at the big oil companies… Aren’t Total French? And I’m pretty sure Shell are Dutch. Talisman? Canadian I believe. Esson (AKA Exxon Mobil)? American. Just go look at their websites. Anything in the UK is probably a subsidiary. So while the money may be eared in Scotland, most of it’s gonna go elsewhere anyway. Deal with it, it’s unlikely we can have a thriving economy by furthering the national attack on the environment. (On a side note, buy energy saving light-bulbs and turn down your thermostat one degree before reading on. We may as well get a head start on undoing the damage caused in order to succeed independently)

2) The “Great Deception”. Could someone please tell whoever’s writing that stuff to actually reference it with some level of competence? I mean, seriously, with that appalling quality of essay, he would hardly pass a standard grade essay. A meagre bibliography is NOT referencing. Also, if this is really the case, I would love to see it addressed in a First Minister’s Question Time (that is if Mr Salmond can actually get round to ANSWERING a question! He’s worse than Mr McConnell and Mr Blair put together!). I’m sure that if there really is a “Great Deception” he will be more than willing to acquaint the Scottish Public with the particulars and thereby garner their enthusiasm for his cause. However, his complete failure to bring it up at all (there would have been a national scandal if he had!) since the article was originally written in May 2000 (extended to full report in 2005) suggests that either he feels Scotland is too stupid to understand, or that he believes it to be a great big heap of nonsense. I reckon on the latter.

3) We would not get that great a deal if we were independent in The EU. Everyone cites Ireland as the independent success story, but let’s face it, European money brought that about, and Scotland has missed that boat – there are far more needy countries on the European Charity list than one who chooses with no human rights violations as an excuse to go independent. As far as the EU would be concerned, choosing to split from the UK, where no-one was getting hurt or discriminated against, would probably leave us to fend for ourselves. The Scottish Voice? A hell of a lot smaller than the UK Voice…. And the French Voice…. And the German Voice….. And the Spanish, and Italian….. Yeah, we’d be oh so powerful. We’d be a tiny little whisper in the EU playground. And the whisperer? Always gets ignored or bullied. Point: The fishing rights are GONE. They were signed away and, contrary to what a lot of you seem to think, they’re not coming back! This is called the cost of being a part of the European Union. And yes, they WOULD let us in as an independent state. However, the whole deal would have to be renegotiated, and we’d have to give up something else… and something else…. I like the EU, they facilitate free trade, which has benefited Scotland greatly as part of the UK. The trade position is strong, as European Trade favours European goods and companies. To be honest, Scotland needs the EU more than the EU needs Scotland. We need the free trade. And everyone who has gone and worked elsewhere in The EU? You need The EU (and free movement of workers and capital and persons) more than The EU needs you. An NO, Scotland would not be automatically in the EU. We would have seceded, not split (UK would still exist), two very different things. So no EU is not an option, and staying in is gonna cost Scotland.

One final point. Many people I know who voted SNP did not particularly want independence. They just wanted to give Blair a final kick in the guts. If people I know though that? I’d guess a lot more felt the same. If Mr Blair had stepped down a few months earlier, it is highly unlikely that Mr Salmond would be First Minister. It was a foolish move by Mr Blair, and you can bet Labour are kicking themselves for it now – they gave away the Scottish Parliament. Mr Salmond got in on a protest vote, not on the basis of his political standing on independence. Not everyone who voted for the SNP wants independence, and since they won by a such a slim margin, there is little chance of garnering the higher level of support that would be required to achieve independence.

The initial referendum would not even be FOR independence…. Only to decide whether we can TALK about independence in a political sphere.

So bring it on – I want to see a referendum paper with the following options:

a) Independence WITH EU membership.
b) Independence WITHOUT EU membership
c) Remaining part of the UK WITHOUT More devolved powers
d) Remaining in UK WITH More devolved powers

Option D for me please…. If we can get 60-70% to definitively decide any way, let the discussions commence.

1561. David said: “This is how you dismissed a request to spell out your case for the Union”

David, I have not dismissed any request. The UK is a good working partnership, why destroy it? That’s your problem to explain, not mine to anticipate.

“"What is the positive case for not ending a good marriage? It’s a non-question. It doesn’t come up." Actually there are many cases of marriages where one spouse believes everything in their life together is wonderful and the other is seeing a lawyer about a divorce….””

That’s why I asked for the POSITIVE reasons to destroy the UK partnership… so far none presented.

I said "If you want to destroy a working partnership or split up a successful team, you have to provide some pretty persuasive reasons. Which you have not done." To which David replied “No you don't.”

With respect, I think you do. If a partnership works, there have to be some pretty strong reasons to break it up. Which is not to say that there are NEVER such reasons: just that they must exist. So far you have not explained your reasons for destroying the partnership.

“… Many partners leave a going concern or members leave a successful team because they have had some bad experiences with their partners or team manager and believe their interests would be better served elsewhere””

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

““You then conclude: "As for me, like the majority of Scots, I’m happy as I am thank you” Alex, you are living in a dream world that is passing away. You are the Colonel Blimp of your generation.””

No need to be rude.

“.. To say that the majority of Scots are happy as they are is a breathtaking assumption…”

No it isn’t. It’s based on support for nationalism as expressed at numerous and successive elections. The nationalist parties never get above a third of the vote. A third is not a majority. Two thirds is a majority. And I am among the two thirds… the majority is happy with the current set up. The minority wants independence. You may not like it…but…the majority of Scots are happy with the current situation..

“.. 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…”

Your guess is not evidence. Your guess is not relevant. Facts are relevant. And 70% of the population routinely do not vote for independence. That’s the fact and that’s the evidence.

“That many oppose independence today is very likely…”

Correct. The majority.

“… 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..”

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

“You have not indicated what kind of work you are doing but my surmise is that it is in government or academia. You may even have legal training given your adversarial style of debating.”

Wrong.

“..Why not just admit it Alex. You do not have one positive argument in favour of the Union “

It’s not incumbent on me to defend the union. It works. That’s good enough. You are the one who wants to destroy it. What is your POSITIVE case for destroying a working relationship? I see a lot of words in this reply. I see no POSITIVE arguments for independence. Don’t you have any?

“… because, like the rest of us, you have no idea what tomorrow will bring..”

Wrong. 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. Then who knows what tomorrow will bring? Come to think of it, that’s what I have asked you to describe. And you have not done so yet.

“.. and this whole conversation is about tomorrow..”

It’s about the tomorrow YOU want. But, strangely enough, although you want it, you don’t seem able to describe it. So why do you want it?

1562. Dave takes up the cudgel… he says “Alex says "like the majority of Scots, I’m happy as I am" - Alex, you are claiming to speak for "the majority of Scots", but you have no evidence to back up that claim.”

In the election in May 33% voted for the SNP and the other pro-independence parties. 67% voted for the pro-UK parties. 67% is a majority. Can you deny it?

“.. You have also claimed that "A 'no' vote is certain", but you have no evidence to back that up either…”

Same evidence.

“.. There is really only ONE way to establish whether your claims are true or not, and that is to have a referendum. If you are happy with things the way they are, and if you are so certain the majority will agree, then you won't be worried about the result. So, join with me in demanding REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO.”

No problem. A referendum tomorrow - question: “Do you want to break up the UK? Yes or No.” I’m all for it. But it will not happen because Wee Eck is terrified, and is casting about to find ways to blame the other parties for his failure to have it. My own preference is a UK election next month and a referendum on the same day. That’ll shut you guys up for a while. And let the rest of us address the real problems rather than spend precious energy talking about the idiocy of independence. Which, as we have seen, the majority does not want..

george joins the discussion: “Alex from Largs suffers from a cognitive dissonance..”

No need for you to be rude either george

“..…Independence would mean control over all income raised in Scotland including that generated through natural resources…..”

George, if you mean democratic control over tax income, we have that already… if you mean some other type of control, maybe you could describe what that might be?

“…Decide for ourselves how and where every penny raised in Scotland is spent…”

George, this happens at the moment, and has done so ever since the establishment of the Scottish Office in the 19th century… so what would independence add to it..?

“..In the case of oil this would also mean that oil company headquarters would move to Scotland in order to be close to the sovereign state capital…”

Who told you that? Why hasn’t Alex Salmond mentioned it? You would think it would be a great selling point for his policies.. Texaco comes to Edinburgh, indeed.. but it isn’t happening and it isn’t going to happen. Except in your dreams, george. Where’s your evidence for this statement?

“…The headquarters of the U.K.’s biggest export (whisky)…”

Eh?

“.. would also move to Scotland for the same reasons and have the same effect..”

Eh?

“Investment in renewables would soar…”

How high would they soar, george? Or is this just one more example of your wishful thinking?

“..carbon capture, wave wind and solar would be more heavily researched…..in part through the income from hydrocarbons. With an estimated 25% of Europes renewable energy Scotland would thrive in the new renewable era…”

Possibly. But why couldn’t these things happen now george. If these things are so desirable, why wait for independence?

“…Our fishing industry (what’s left of it) would no longer be used as a bargaining chip by Westminster…”

If there are no fish in the sea they cannot be taken out. Or are you advocating that Scotland should ignore the scientific evidence and advice and destroy the fishing grounds? Rather short-sighted, don’t you think?

“…. We would have a Scottish media (print and broadcast) that was no longer biased and would actually begin to inform Scots…”

How do you propose to do that george? Nationalise the Scottish Daily Mail and Express and Times and Star and…STV.and .. ????? The SNP controls the media: doesn’t seem a very attractive country you’re describing george. Does it?

“…Scotland would have direct representation in the EU and indeed around the globe…”

Probably. And less influence than if we were part of the UK. What’s the point of a smaller seat and less influence, george? Who does that help?

“..Becoming an independent nation would create a dynamic that would infuse Scottish culture, the arts and indeed industry with new energy and confidence…”

As I understand it, the Scottish National Theatre production of the play Black Watch is taking the world by storm. Right now: in the present constitutional arrangement. In what way would that improve?

“..A fabulous new union with our English neighbours based on a mutual respect for one another and an appreciation of our cultural similarities and differences…”

I already have that george. You could too if you opened your mind…

“..Having the right to decide which, if any, conflicts to engage in…”

No guarantee that we would not get it wrong though… “wrong” being a matter of opinion, of course… so maybe when you think we got it “wrong”, we actually got it “right”… It’s just a matter of opinion after all…

“…Deciding for ourselves whether we should have nuclear weapons based in Scotland or indeed nuclear power stations in Scotland….”

Not a great advantage if the UK decides to have their nuclear weapons and power stations in Cumbria, is it george? Then we would have the problems on our doorstep, but no longer the ability to influence any decisions about those problems. Not a pretty situation. Not a sensible situation.

“…Deciding what immigration policies to implement..”

We have that ability george. It’s called democracy. How would it be any different if we broke up the UK?

“…Having the right to make decisions with the best interests of Scots as the priority. One example is the recent foot and mouth outbreak so badly handled by Westminster and the effect on Scottish farmers…”

So. If there is an outbreak of some vile illness in England, we can ignore it? Not sensible, IMO. The fact that we are an island is one of the strongest arguments against breaking us up. You cannot break up an island. And anything that affects one part of an island is likely to affect another. We cannot insulate ourselves from effects just by drawing a line at Gretna… Do you think we can, george? You can just see the picture: customs officers waving placards at the border: foot and mouth go home! Yep. That would work! Are you serious?

“…Our greatest resource of all, our young people, might begin to have a sense of worth and aspiration sadly lacking today….”

Your young people might lack aspiration george, mine don’t. And breaking up the UK isn’t likely to improve any situation you may, rightly or wrongly, perceive.

So. There we have it. Not a very strong series of arguments for destroying a working partnership, is it?

Alex from Largs suffers from a cognitive dissonance that results in him denying the truth. He would have readers of these messages believe that not once has there ever been any positive arguments for Scottish Independence.

Well, just for Alex here are some of the positive arguments that have been put forward many, many times.

Independence would mean control over all income raised in Scotland including that generated through natural resources. Decide for ourselves how and where every penny raised in Scotland is spent.

In the case of oil this would also mean that oil company headquarters would move to Scotland in order to be close to the sovereign state capital. Thereby generating more high powered jobs that would otherwise be elsewhere.

The headquarters of the U.K.’s biggest export (whisky) would also move to Scotland for the same reasons and have the same effect.

Investment in renewables would soar, carbon capture, wave wind and solar would be more heavily researched…..in part through the income from hydrocarbons. With an estimated 25% of Europes renewable energy Scotland would thrive in the new renewable era.

We could sell the extra power that Scotland currently generates… meaning even more income.

Our fishing industry (what’s left of it) would no longer be used as a bargaining chip by Westminster.

Broadcasting would not be filtered through London as it is at present. We would have a Scottish media (print and broadcast) that was no longer biased and would actually begin to inform Scots.

Scotland would have direct representation in the EU and indeed around the globe.

Becoming an independent nation would create a dynamic that would infuse Scottish culture, the arts and indeed industry with new energy and confidence.

A fabulous new union with our English neighbours based on a mutual respect for one another and an appreciation of our cultural similarities and differences.

Having the right to decide which, if any, conflicts to engage in.

Deciding for ourselves whether we should have nuclear weapons based in Scotland or indeed nuclear power stations in Scotland.

Deciding what immigration policies to implement.

Having the right to make decisions with the best interests of Scots as the priority. One example is the recent foot and mouth outbreak so badly handled by Westminster and the effect on Scottish farmers. At the time of writing Alex Salmond has written to Gordon Brown in an attempt at changing Whitehall intransigence over changing the regulations for lorry drivers in order to prevent a possible catastrophe.

Our greatest resource of all, our young people, might begin to have a sense of worth and aspiration sadly lacking today.


Alex from largs also wrote:
What is the positive case for not ending a good marriage?
It’s a non-question. It doesn’t come up


Yes it does Alex, time and again. When it does, the Unionists lose the debate and end up running away from it as you are doing.

By any measure this marriage is far from good for Scotland, to flippantly state otherwise is simply ridiculous. Population, health, income, economic growth….for goodness sake take a look at the facts and figures or better still take a look at the communities around Scotland.

Now Alex, why should the current mechanism endure?

Alex from Largs (1560) says "like the majority of Scots, I’m happy as I am" - Alex, you are claiming to speak for "the majority of Scots", but you have no evidence to back up that claim. You have also claimed that "A 'no' vote is certain", but you have no evidence to back that up either. There is really only ONE way to establish whether your claims are true or not, and that is to have a referendum. If you are happy with things the way they are, and if you are so certain the majority will agree, then you won't be worried about the result. So, join with me in demanding REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO.

post #1560 A;ex - Largs

This is how you dismissed a request to spell out your case for the Union:

"What is the positive case for not ending a good marriage? It’s a non-question. It doesn’t come up."

Actually there are many cases of marriages where one spouse believes everything in their life together is wonderful and the other is seeing a lawyer about a divorce. The usual reason is that the happy spouse is self-absorbed and unable to hear what the other is saying.

You then continue:

"If you want to destroy a working partnership or split up a successful team, you have to provide some pretty persuasive reasons. Which you have not done."

No you don't. Many partners leave a going concern or members leave a successful team because they have had some bad experiences with their partners or team manager and believe their interests would be better served elsewhere. I have seen good businesses destroyed by partner disagreements and the partners go on to be more successful elsewhere. Most often it was time to go their separate ways.

You then conclude:

"As for me, like the majority of Scots, I’m happy as I am thank you."

Alex, you are living in a dream world that is passing away. You are the Colonel Blimp of your generation. To say that the majority of Scots are happy as they are is a breathtaking assumption. 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 have not indicated what kind of work you are doing but my surmise is that it is in government or academia. You may even have legal training given your adversarial style of debating. This would also explain your extreme conservatism. Why not just admit it Alex. You do not have one positive argument in favour of the Union because, like the rest of us, you have no idea what tomorrow will bring and this whole conversation is about tomorrow and in that tomorrow the Union will be even less relevant than it is today.

1554. Gordon Murray -

"Well done to the previous administration for spending more money on teachers' pay, they deserve every penny..."

Well done the UK. And for increasing doctors and nurses pay, they deserve every penny too (the Tories were recently claiming that medical staff are getting paid too much...). And for (almost) full employment. And for building dozens of new schools and hospitals and improving the rest. And for the increasing prosperity of the majority of the population. and... the list could go on... but you get my drift... Well done the UK.

"On the oil it IS CLEAR who'll get it and it's not the SNP but the people of Scotland who's birthright it is."

Gordon, it's not at all clear. After all the UK government invested heavily in research and infrastructure and grants and academic support and a thousand different ways in the success of North Sea oil and gas. Is not the UK is entitled to ask for a share in the returns? Plus, there is controversy over which parts of the seabed would be controlled by an independent Scotland... so more lawyer time and money..and maybe a smaller return than you think.. Believe me there are complications, probably complications that have not yet occurred to anyone... The legal and moral position is far from clear.

"...Black, no grey about it."

Grey. Very murky indeed.

"...What do these countries have that we don't? Control of their own destiny, that's what..."

And they have their own problems too. They are not Nirvana or Utopia. And they are not Scotland and have different circumstances and economic and other performances. You need to tell us what an independent Scotland will do, not list some other countries and insist that they are better than us. They are not, as far as I can see...

"..As an independent nation we will be able to direct our economy, our culture, and all of our resources to concentrate on improving the lot of Scots, Scots industries, and the Scottish condition in general, rather than hoping that what's been prescribed for the Home Counties isn't going to be toxic to us..."

Do you really think Scotland is toxic? In my lifetime there have been great improvements, but there are still problems. That's life. That's what it would be like if we were independent. There are always problems. Blaming others is not the way to solve them.. working together is…

“….An end to the pathetic cap in hand dependency culture of 'we're too wee, we cannae dae it wursells'…”

I don’t feel pathetic Gordon. I feel fine. BTW, being not tall, I can confirm that having a tall person or a stepladder around can be useful some times: getting books off high shelves in the library or shop for instance. It’s called teamwork. Think a big centre-half and a wee wiry winger… the strengths and weaknesses of one complement the other… Think about the wee winger trying to win the game without the big centre-half. Or indeed, vice versa. It is a lot more difficult… wouldn’t you agree?

“We will have control of our own media.”

What does this mean? Is it policy for independent Scotland to nationalise the Scottish Daily Mail? Or STV?.... Or all media outlets? If you mean the BBC, “we” have control of “our own media” at the moment… I’m sure you wouldn’t want political interference in the BBC (or it’s new Scotland equivalent) would you?

So, I guess you are going to have to define “we”, “control” and “media” a lot more closely before this point makes any sense, and so we can be debate it further.

“Honest and fair coverage of our own history and culture rather than the edited lowlights we are currently fed from London…”

Are you asking for history programmes biased towards a nationalist POV? What’s stopping you making them now? And broadcasting them? Then we would see how popular they are…

“By WWI that technological advantage had all but gone and other players took Britannia’s ball away to play with…”

Probably true

“ Since that time the UK has been a hindrance rather than a help to Scotland.”

In what way exactly? That may be your opinion, what makes you think it’s fact?

“..One by one world leading Scottish industries starved of investment withered and died…”

One by one world leading Brittish industries starved of investment withered and died… and were replaced by others, such that, in the golden age unemployment was at 10% -20% and even higher, now it is at historic lows…

“…We don't even have the wherewithal to service our most famous icon of recent years anymore. ..The Queen Elizabeth 2, for too many years now has had to go to Germany for routine maintenance and major refits alike.”

Gordon, I had asked for positive reasons for independence.. moans about lost glories, even if true, are not positive reasons for choosing independence. The nub is, there would be no guarantee that servicing the QE2 or anything else would return to an independent Scotland..



“Had that 1975 North Sea Oil windfall been in Scottish hands, there would still be a Scottish steel industry supplying Scottish shipyards, locomotive engineering works, car plants and mines, because the funds to ensure that the investment to keep them all ahead of the game would have been readily available…”

Maybe. Maybe not. Who knows? And if it was true, would that be a good thing? The real question is: what is the positive case for an independent Scotland now?

“…Instead we've had Thatcherism, military misadventures galore, and decades of kids brought up in despair and our best talent getting out of the country as soon as it was able to plot a life of opportunity denied them at home…”

Gordon, this is just a list of things you don’t like. E.g. many people think Maggie was a great leader… where is the POSITIVE case for independence?

“There, is that positive enough for you?”

No.

“..I've yet to hear a convincing case for retaining the Union, howsabout it?..”

What is the positive case for not ending a good marriage? It’s a non-question. It doesn’t come up. If you want to destroy a working partnership or split up a successful team, you have to provide some pretty persuasive reasons. Which you have not done. As for me, like the majority of Scots, I’m happy as I am thank you.

Alex from Largs (1553) wrote "A 'No' vote is certain" - exactly _how_ certain, Alex? Bookies tend to weigh up odds realistically, because their livelihoods depend on it, so I don't think I would get good odds from any professional bookie for betting against a really decisive majority against independence. But you appear to be more emotionally involved than any bookie, and likely to be less cautious. So, what odds would you offer? Twenty to one? Ten to one? You obviously wouldn't put it as low as evens, after all, that would suggest you are not "certain" at all, so how about five to one?

"Alex Salmond is backpedalling furiously and hoping that the other parties will block it" - it's not just a question of what Alex Salmond wants, or what the SNP wants, or even what the other parties want, it's a question of what we, the people of Scotland, want. If enough of us press strongly for REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO , they will have to concede
our demand. So, how about it, Alex from Largs? Do you feel confident enough about the outcome to join with me in pressing this demand ?

[1552] Apologies if my comments appeared rude but when one attempts to converse with someone who refuses to read the positive evidence put in front of him/her by ‘independent sources’ and refuses to listen to the positive arguments that many others have made it is difficult to assess that that person is objective in his/her assessment of the merits, or failings, of the case for Independence.

Your comment that "Circumstantial is not good enough for me” perplexes me because you appear happy to accept ‘circumstantial evidence’ (it can only be thus when talking about the future) that Scotland will continue to enjoy the ‘success’ of which you boast within the Union. Irrespective of the fact that others would not necessarily agree that the recent story of Scotland’s progress within the Union has been a ‘success story’ (see another ‘independent’ analysis below), to simply dismiss the lessons offered by other small countries around the world further undermines your credentials for any objectivity in this matter (which is the best way I can word what I am thinking without perhaps appearing ruder).

If you really do want what is best for Scotland, let me suggest a single travel plan for you that takes in some of the small countries referred to in this ‘blog’ and ends up in Singapore. Perhaps you have already visited this island state with around the same population as Scotland but with virtually no natural resources (even the water supply has to be piped in from Malaysia). But, in case you haven’t, and in case others who are attempting to form an objective view haven’t, let me paint a brief picture of their progress over the last thirty years from a country where the main streets were lined with open sewers, and many people lived in shanty towns with the minimum of hygiene standards, to a country with world-class transportation links, modern high specification housing across the island, excellent education, health and dental facilities, and in addition to this almost no crime. Certainly some of this progress has come at a price, with discipline in all areas of society being key in a country surrounded by large and populous neighbours, but to think Scotland can learn nothing from Singapore’s development experience I believe would be foolhardy indeed.


Further to the positive arguments put forth in #1554, the analysis I referenced earlier (extract written by John McLaren who is a member of the Centre for Public Policy for Regions and published today in The Scotsman) perhaps gives greater substance to the positive argument that Scotland could do better with more control over its own destiny:

“Here are some interesting questions it (the Council of Economic Advisors) might want to consider with respect to Scotland’s recent quarterly growth figures in order for us to challenge accepted wisdoms and to better understand how our economy actually works:

• Why did the wholesale and retail sector not grow at all between 1999 and 2005, while in the UK it grew by 25 per cent, and why does the BRS Retail survey show higher growth for Scotland than the UK in seven of the last eight years?
• Why did the hotels and catering sector in Scotland rise by only I per cent between 1998 and 2006, while in the UK it rose by33 per cent?
• Why has the education sector in Scotland outgrown the UK sector in recent years, when ONS data shows the quantity, quality and employment levels growing much faster in the UK?
• Why has the health and social work sector grown more slowly than in the UK. when employment has been growing much more quickly in Scotland?
• Why has output from electricity water and gas fallen by 20 percent in the past two quarters?
• Why is employment in the real estate and business sector growing faster than in the UK, but output more slowly?
• What are the implications of all the above for sectoral productivity growth?

Overall, it would seem the generally accepted picture that the Scottish economy is very much like the UK economy, just a bit slower all round, is wrong. In most sectors, Scotland seems to be performing very differently to the UK, in places much better (financial services, education), in others much worse (retail, hotels and restaurants, health).

The implication is that very different policies might be needed to improve the Scottish economy from those in place in the UK.

post #1552 Alex - Largs

You are quite popular I see Alex. No doubt because of the unionist position you espouse. I would like to address your allegation that independistas will not produce any facts of their own to dispute the infamous GERS reports. I quote:

"e.g the only comprehensive financial figures we have are published yearly in the GERS report. Nationalists hate it and won't believe it because it undermines their economic case. But they never produce their own figures, preferring to rubbish GERS rather than make their own, positive, case."

As has been pointed out to you, there have been several posts in this forum supporting the case for independence, providing links to reports that would appear to disagree with conclusions that may be drawn from the GERS reports. One such link actually addresses the GERS reports directly and comprehensively, in my opinion, demolishes the "facts" reported in them. Why not have a look at it:

http://www.scottishpolitics.org/scotching/greatdeception.html

As for the general thrust of your own arguments, that supporters of independence tend to be "negative" rather then "positive". Well of course they are, given your disingenuous definition of "negative" and "positive". Again I quote:

"Your case is negative, against what has happened or is happening. Even if, as you say, the problems you refer to have been built up over a period of time, what is the POSITIVE guarantee that they would be solved by independence? Don't just tell us, negatively, that you do not like the problems, ..can you make a positive case?"

Since Scotland has not been independent for hundreds of years it is impossible to produce any "positive" evidence of actual conditions under an independent Scottish government. This is why supporters of independence use comparisons with other small nations who are independent to make their case. In another post of my own I pointed out that nine of the top ten nations in the GDP per Capita league table are small countries, the largest being Norway with a population of about 4.6 million. This is a legitimate argument in favour of independence but you would dismiss it as inconsequential since it does not actually refer to Scotland herself. This is why I characterise your use of "negative" and "positive" as disingenuous.

The only conclusion one can reach is that you are being intellectually dishonest. In this respect you not only deceive others, you deceive yourself. You accuse supporters of independence of using emotion rather than logic to make their arguments but you refuse to accept any basis for their arguments that does not agree with your definitions noted above, merely dismissing them as "negative". By your own admission you have been using this tactic for years. This may win you debates in the pub but if you wish to be taken seriously in this national forum as a unionist you will have to start listening and develop new arguments to refute the many sound arguments in favour of self government for Scotland.