The Scottish Government

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/6942352.stm

Call for debate on independence


You are amazing Alex,

You certainly poked the eye of the British bulldog with you're
comment on "Britishness".

All looks well in the house of Salmond, You're on the ball, except for a few things...

1) Getting the Scottish people completely on you're side.
2) Ensuring that it STAYS that way.


There is nothing to say that it isn't possible for both of these
options to come to fruition, and you definately have the energy to
to do so.

It's all about the only hardest thing of all...convincing the Scottish
people that Independence will work, (and it will) but sadly, because
they have been slaves to the English power for so long, (over 800 years)
it is going to take finesse and prowess.

You can go with the facts; the first = 27% of the votes from the people,
then you can go with the freedom vote to explore the empowerment
of being a free from the tyranny of another BIASED government.
(Which you have already started to do, but unfortunately that really
only gets you another 11 or 12% of the votes.)

It's that other 50% of voters that are still Labour party LOCKED!!!
Probably the Glasgow lot, with a few areas holding minority interest.

Although, It is not unusual for MP's to switch political parties because of
principle or precedent, but this is a population you have to change.

Did I say change, sorry I meant manoeuvre, here are some other words
for this term you should possibly use:

angle, beguile, conspire, contrive, cook, design, devise, doctor, engineer, fence, finagle, finesse, go around, intrigue, jockey, machinate, manage, manipulate, move, navigate, operate, plan, proceed, shift, upstage, work, deploy, dispense, drive, exercise, guide, handle, manipulate, move, navigate, negotiate, pilot, ply, steer, swing, wield...

And here are some better words:

aim for, be after, hint, hunt, invite, look for, maneuver, plan, seek, solicit, strive, try for.

You may have to employ some very good promotional people for this if your word power is not up to
snuff, as you will be against some very intellectual and eloquent listeners, plus you'll be amongst
a percentage (ie: of about 15% possibly more) that are really are determined not to change the status quo.

So how do you do that???, well (for one) you can do it the English/American way...

Easy:

1) Find a gimmic, a logo or an icon that you can can symbolize what independence means to the Scots
2) Then find the SONG (very very very inportant, trust me this DOES work.)

and if you need any extra help talk with the Quebecois party in Canada (quietly, no press)
http://www.blocquebecois.org/fr/

After all they were 46% to 52% votes in 1980 in favour for separation during their independence referendum, so close
to winning an overall majority and right now you need more help than you're getting.

I know being at the top where you are right now must at times feel very very lonely, but we' are depending on you and we
ALL know you can do this.
So when you are feeling low please remember that the Scottish people, their children and their childrens children are the
future and you are continually and completely given hope and guidence in prayer, not only in Scotland but in Scottish
communities ALL over the world.

With that kind of support and encouragement, we know you will finish what you set out to do.

More Scottish people than you know are hoping you get the independence vote, personally I'd say of 69%,
they just don't want to stand up and say.

They seem to be afraid that if it doesn't happen then they'll personally have angered the southern neighbours and
somehow themselves or their families will suffer sometime in the future for agreeing to separate from England.
This IS a myth you should dispell immediately!!!

It's up to you Alex, the World is truly waiting for Scotland to separate. Get some other countries onboard with your
indepedence proposition ie: all of Scandinavia, Italy, Spain, even France if you have to, (remember... the last time
the English beat the French was at Waterloo, not since.)

Give the Scots; a hope, a dream, and a goal and they will NEVER let you down.
Good luck my friend, the future may seem like a mountain, but in reality it is only a small hill that you have to triumph,
and a victory for Scotland this time, will truly be real.


Alex McGuire

Wednesdays Newsnight Scotland broadcast a meeting of the three leaders of the unionist parties. It was apparently arranged by the Liberal Democrats to discuss how they should ask their Westminster leaders for more superficial powers for the devolved Scottish government. Pointedly they did not see fit to ask anyone from the SNP to attend. Once again this demonstrates how little they think of the Scots electorate and their chosen choice of representation.
The detail of the subjects this cabal discussed was not reported on by BBC Scotland. Nor was Wendy Alexander’s direct appointment of a team from Oxford university to look into Labour stance within Scotland and how they can advise Labour to recapture their place at the head of the dinner table.
However there was an interview where Nichol Somebody, the leader of this cabal and the head of the Liberal Democrats in Scotland was forced to admit that whilst he is in favour of a referendum being given to the UK electorate on the EU constitution he was vehemently against giving the Scots a referendum on the Independence issue.
The interviewer could not understand the contradiction in this. He continually questioned Nichol Somebody on how this stance could be justified but Nichol could not find it in his soul to admit anything at all was wrong. In fact it was perfectly normal behaviour.
The Liberal Democrats can only achieve power by getting into bed with whichever majority group the electorate return. They are basically a protest vote. Otherwise if the polices they believe in were so attractive they would be in power now and we would all be wearing the same uniform. I fail to see how we Scots should be discriminated against by this group. I fail to see how they can dictate from a very minority position whether we Scots can have a vote that they feel threatens their position. Is that democracy?

#1548. Alex - Largs
Thursday, September 20, 2007 10:58

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

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.
Black, no grey about it.

Scotland does not need oil to be successful any more than Ireland or Finland, Greece or Austria or Portugal with no such mineral resources do.

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

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.

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

We will have control of our own media.
No more puting up with the 'stuff' we've been subjected to since the dawn of the steam wireless.

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

The UK 'worked' when the object was to conquer as many countries and peoples as possible (1875-1914), use British technological advantages to help ourselves to their natural resources, and make a few bob for some very wealthy gentlemen enjoying all of the rich pickings and status that the Empire could offer.

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

Since that time the UK has been a hindrance rather than a help to Scotland.
One by one world leading Scottish industries starved of investment withered and died.

Ships, trains, boats and planes, which used to be Clyde built, are now German French or Italian built.

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.

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.

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.

There, is that positive enough for you?

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

1542.

You are right to be afraid of a referendum. A "No" vote is certain, and it will boot the question into the long grass for a generation. Which is why Alex Salmond is backpedalling furiously and hoping that the other parties will block it.

As for the hope that the SNP can prove itself in government: that's a double edged sword. The more politicians become good at government, the more they like it, the more they are absorbed by the establishment, and the less they become attached to destroying their ministerial careers.... Independence becomes an election slogan, but a soft promise... a neverendum ensues and independence is off the agenda for at least a generation.

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...

1549. Stan said "Addressing your point directed to me first, the key word “independent” appears not to have been spotted in that dark room that you inhabit (to quote a previous contributor)!"

Stan, not a clue what you are getting at here.

"....if you had read through the earlier postings, never mind reports by various ‘independent’ authorities on the subjects we are discussing (some of which are hyperlinked from the postings), you would realise that your accusations of ‘making the facts fit’ seem, perhaps embarrassingly, to be more pertinent to your comments than to mine! "

Stan, I have debated with nationalists for decades, and I have read some of the posts here, but I have yet to see a really positive case made for independence.

I was not commenting on you particularly, but agreeing with Cameron...

And it is my experience that nationalists are keener on emotion than logic and if you quote a sound source they will express distrust in that source, and point you to their preferred expert...e.g the only comprehensive financial figure 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.

"... Some of the ‘acknowledged problems’ to which you refer have built up over decades and if they could have been solved under the current constitutional structure why do the Unionist parties continue to fail Scotland in this area? If you don’t accept this analysis of the situation you should read posting #1508, or perhaps you are happy to only see what you want to see? [If not, I welcome the opportunity to read your constructive response to 1508.]"

Stan. That's my point. 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?

"The statement that the “the positive case for independence is never put” not only brings into question your eyesight but your hearing..."

No need to be rude Stan.

".. Time and time again those proposing Independence have loudly sought to prove their case with the mounting evidence (circumstantial admittedly but positive certainly).... "

"Circumstantial" is not good enough for me Stan.

"...and some would say overwhelming evidence.."

and some would say insubstantial. So where does that leave us? Or is "some would say" good enough for you, because it is not for me.

"... borne out of the performances in the same period of ‘small countries’ around the world from Ireland to Singapore..."

I live in Scotland Stan, not Slovakia or Serbia or Ruritania. I need to know your case for independence here, not there.

"...Even setting aside historical and perhaps “emotional” ties with our Scandinavian neighbours, either you are not listening or your lack of confidence in your fellow Scots, and perhaps yourself, runs so deep that you truly cannot believe that we can emulate the recent progress demonstrated by these countries?"...

Maybe we could. Maybe not. Should I condemn my grandchildren by my gamble? Or yours?

"...If this is the case, then in addition to some more reading I would recommend that you extend your travels further and perhaps listen to the views of others in some of these countries both on their own country’s development and how they think Scotland might develop if Independent."

Don't worry about how much I read or how far I have traveled Stan. If you address the points I make I'll be more than happy.


"..However, in spite of what I have said above, I can still understand that some, perhaps without a more positive vision for Scotland and a belief that we can do better, will prefer that Scotland remain in the Union for a variety of reasons, including simply fear of the unknown. It is their right to have this view and express it accordingly, but, in my opinion, it would be wrong to argue that no one is putting an alternative and plausible proposition forward, and if you do indeed think that that is the case then you are doing yourself, and anyone who respects your opinion, an injustice."

OK Stan. What is the positive case for independence? Put it here and we will examine it. If I could suggest some conditions for brevity and avoidance of red herrings? No mention of transient issues like PPP, or Iraq or the Barnett Formula, or many of the other nationalist bete noirs. After all, these things (if you think they are a problem) can be solved without breaking up the UK.

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?

Colin Anderson (1542) wrote "If we let the people speak right now then the overwhelming answer will be NO" - you have been reading, or listening to, too much negative propoganda. As for opinion polls, many of them ask "loaded" questions or have "loaded" samples, and in any case the polls disagree with each other, so, if you don't like one, wait for the next one, which will be along soon. What can we safely say about the outcome of any simple, straightforward, yes-or-no referendum on independence? We can safely say that the "don't knows" are less likely to vote than those who do express an opinion, and, in any case, if they do vote, they will probably divide along the same lines as those who did express an opinion. We can safely say that a considerable proportion of the electorate will vote "yes". We can safely say that the very act of calling a referendum will be a tremendous boost to the "yes" campaign (which certainly does NOT just mean the SNP), which will then go into immediate high gear. And remember, those who feel positive are far more likely to vote than those who feel negative.

"and then the issue will be bedded for another generation" - as I see it, there are really only three possible results from an independence referendum. The first possible result, the one which I think is by far the most likely, is that there will be a really decisive majority for independence. So decisive that is the matter settled. The second most likely result is a narrower victory for independence. Less clear cut, maybe, but nevertheless we are on our way to independence. The LEAST likely result, in my view, would be a very narrow victory for the "no" camp. But that would certainly NOT be "the issue bedded for another generation". The narrowness of the result would ensure that the issue remained very topical indeed.

But, you may be thinking, what about a really decisive majority AGAINST independence? Wouldn't that ensure the issue was bedded for another generation? Look, Scotland getting hit by a large meteorite from outer space would probably put the issue of the agenda for a while. While not completely ruling any possibility out, I feel the meteorite is a bit more likely than a decisive majority against independence. Although I would probably be unable to get the bookies to accept my bet, if they were foolish enough to do so I would bet against a really decisive majority against independence, and I'm not a gambling man.

"We have exercised our democratic right and ousted a Labour/Lib Dem administration that has been in power for a very long time. We have to build upon this success and show that a non-unionist party can govern effectively in partnership with others." - you are talking in terms of what is best for the SNP, but the whole point of a referendum is that it is NON-PARTY-POLITICAL, you don't vote for a political party in a referendum, and you don't elect any politician to any office in a referendum, you are asked a question and you vote yes or no.

#1546 Ross Edinburgh

I have never heard of Highland Cathedral. Can you post the words.

I have always loved this song, A Nation Once Again. It was written by an Irish nationalist, in the 19th. century, Thomas Osborne Davis. Since the Scots came from Ireland originally I think it would make a great national anthem. I have no idea why the Republic of Ireland didn't adopt it as theirs. Perhaps because Davies was a Protestant Irishman. I have changed Ireland to Scotland for the sake of clarity.

A NATION ONCE AGAIN

When boyhoods fire was in my blood
I read of ancient freemen
For Greece and Rome who bravely stood
Three hundred men and three men
And then I prayed I might yet see
Our fetters rent in twain
And Scotland, long a province, be
A nation once again

[CHORUS]
[A nation once again
A nation once again
And Scotland, long a province, be
A nation once again]

And from that time through wildest woe
That hope has shone a far light
Nor could loves brightest summer glow
Outshine that solemn starlight
It seemed to watch above my head
In forum, field and fane
Its angel voice sang round my bed
A nation once again

(CHORUS)

It whispered too that Freedom's ark
And Service high and holy
Would be profaned by feelings dark
And passions vain or lowly
For Freedom comes from God's right hand
And needs a godly train
And righteous men must make our land
A nation once again

(CHORUS)

So, as I grew from boy to man
I bent me to that bidding.
My spirit of each selfish plan
And cruel passion ridding.
For thus I hoped some day to aid
Oh, can such hope be vain
When my dear country shall be made
A nation once again.

[1548] I guess my earlier comment about removing sunglasses [An Independent Scotland #114] is perhaps just as apt in this instance.

Addressing your point directed to me first, the key word “independent” appears not to have been spotted in that dark room that you inhabit (to quote a previous contributor)! Even so, if you had read through the earlier postings, never mind reports by various ‘independent’ authorities on the subjects we are discussing (some of which are hyperlinked from the postings), you would realise that your accusations of ‘making the facts fit’ seem, perhaps embarrassingly, to be more pertinent to your comments than to mine!

1. Some of the ‘acknowledged problems’ to which you refer have built up over decades and if they could have been solved under the current constitutional structure why do the Unionist parties continue to fail Scotland in this area? If you don’t accept this analysis of the situation you should read posting #1508, or perhaps you are happy to only see what you want to see? [If not, I welcome the opportunity to read your constructive response to 1508.]

2. The statement that the “the positive case for independence is never put” not only brings into question your eyesight but your hearing. Time and time again those proposing Independence have loudly sought to prove their case with the mounting evidence (circumstantial admittedly but positive certainly), and some would say overwhelming evidence, borne out of the performances in the same period of ‘small countries’ around the world from Ireland to Singapore. Even setting aside historical and perhaps “emotional” ties with our Scandinavian neighbours, either you are not listening or your lack of confidence in your fellow Scots, and perhaps yourself, runs so deep that you truly cannot believe that we can emulate the recent progress demonstrated by these countries? [If this is the case, then in addition to some more reading I would recommend that you extend your travels further and perhaps listen to the views of others in some of these countries both on their own country’s development and how they think Scotland might develop if Independent.]


However, in spite of what I have said above, I can still understand that some, perhaps without a more positive vision for Scotland and a belief that we can do better, will prefer that Scotland remain in the Union for a variety of reasons, including simply fear of the unknown. It is their right to have this view and express it accordingly, but, in my opinion, it would be wrong to argue that no one is putting an alternative and plausible proposition forward, and if you do indeed think that that is the case then you are doing yourself, and anyone who respects your opinion, an injustice.

#
1543. Cameron S - Aberdeen

Agree with your general comments and about education in particular. The Herald carried a story yesterday about Scots teachers being in the top 5 worldwide in respect to pay, overtaking Japan, and the they spend more time in the classroom than teachers in any other country.

On the oil, you are right that it is not at all clear that the SNP would get anything like the amounts and finances they claim from the oil. It is a very grey area indeed.

I would also like to hear the benefits of independence, but in my many conversations with Nationalists, apart from believing that oil will solve the economic problems, their motivation is more a negative one, anti-English, anti-union, anti-any particular but transient problem, and never pro-anything (e.g. no nationalist would, un-prompted - highlight the education performance I noted above. It just doesn't fit with their preconception that everything must be rubbish unless we get independence).

The corollary of the above is that the positive case for independence is never put. I contend it does not exist, or if it does is not very strong.

When you ask that it should be “be proven without a shadow of a doubt we will be better off as an independent nation”, I would agree that the positive case for independence (if it is ever made)would have to be a very strong one indeed, otherwise why destroy what we have, which works well enough. Let's put our energies into solving the problems we have and not chase political rainbows, for which the case has never been made.

Stan #1544 disagrees with your conclusions and advises you to get different economic and legal advisers. To me that sums up one of the great weaknesses in the nationalist mentality... if the facts and opinions don't suit your pre-ordained conclusions, seek out advisers who will tell you what you want to hear...

The facts, as I see them or these:

1. The UK works well..there are acknowledged problems, but these can be addressed without destroying the country.

2. The positive case for independence is not made, and is never made by nationalists. They prefer the emotional case. After that, the facts must be bent to their desired conclusion.

1543. Cameron S - Aberdeen
Tuesday, September 18, 2007 22:45

For someone who claims to work in the oil industry you show a poor grasp of the fiscal regime operating in the North Sea.

The UK Continental Shelf is divided into blocks which are exploited by individual companies under licence from the government.

At present all profits from these activities are taxed by the UK government in the form of 'Petroeum Revenue Tax' from the land that is Extra Regio Territories which does not appear in GERS.

The usual raft of other taxes such as Corporation Tax, VAT, Income Tax, etc, also apply.
These would all acrue directly to the Exchequer of an independent Scotland rather than to Whitehall as they do at present.

Today the value of the near 50% of the proven finds that were there in 1975 is steadily rising with oil prices.
Over the next four years the Treasury in London have budgeted for £65-75bn to come to them from North Sea Oil.

That oil barrel is still half full.

That resource brought the UK back from begging to the IMF to stave off bankruptcy and paid dole money to over 3million workers thrown onto the employment scrapheap in the name of Reganomics, and Thatcherism.

Have you no imagination what the same level of funds could do for a nation with only one tenth of those overheads in the same amount of time?

As it is the governments own figures present Scotland's economy as being in the same league as eg Portugal, Finland, Greece and Austria in Europe.

I think it is safe to assume that the governments figures do not over estimate Scottish GDP.

All that having been said, how sad that you only measure a country's worth in terms of GDP and spending power.

Would it be fare so assume that if Britain could have been shown without shadow of doubt to be financially better off, say as the 51st state of the USA, you would have been in favour?