The Scottish Government

Altho' an exile I am ,and always have been interested in Independence for Scotland.
I am continually intrigued by big business in England(and politicians) decrying Scotland as a "drag on the economy".Why then do they want us to stay?
I am not sure that the opinion of anyone except Scots is valid in this Conversation.Its "our" business surely.Scotland deserves to be master of its own affairs quite simply.
As an aside. Why does the Governments Overview of Scotland state Head of State(UK) Queen Elizabeth 11.The UK has never had a previous Elizabeth as Queen,altho of course England had one once.Have the Government not noticed letter and phone boxes?

Dave, there are 3 options, Unionism, federalism and separatism. You have already acknowledged that you favour the third 'side'. I made no mention of any leader, but I did refer to Nicola Sturgeon, as she is a senior political figure of the only major party favouring separatism.

"Young Stevie” indeed – if only. You fair made my day. I interpreted your reply as lecturing. Perhaps it’s an age thing.

My interest in politics covers all parties. There is no party membership, activism or leafletting. There are more than a handful of books, too many to count. That said i am no apparatchik. Like a few others, I like my politics. I’m one of those happy to admit that I stayed up on May 3 and took annual leave the next day.

That shouldn't be mistaken with party loyalty. point me in the direction of a politician on the make, one living in a greenhouse throwing stones or one painting a picture of Utopia with broad brushstrokes, making pledges he knows he can’t honour and therefore shouldn’t make, well then, I’m happier than a pig in.....

With regards to Scotland leaving Britain I suppose one should never say never, but if the lack of detail from supporters of Separatism of late is any indication of the depth of argument in favour then yes, it is most unlikely that I will change my mind. Spare me the dreamers and the rantings from the Braveheart battalion, show me the evidence.

Sturgeon stated that a defeat in a referendum wouldn’t kill it dead. In other words, it could become a neverendum. I'm opposed to neverend(a)ums. Clearly there has to be a base limit set to make the vote credible in the eyes of not only the voter but of the watching world community. If memory serves, 40% was the benchmark turnout for devolution in 1979 but that in my opinion is way too low, especially when a general election today could attract over 50%. To be perfectly honest I think this issue could be left to party reps aided by an imparial ‘jury’. Between them they should be able to settle a figure acceptable to all. Of course, I would expect them to seek advice from other countries who have some experience of such matters, such as Canada.

I’m keen on hearing what others think. My own view is it has to be a straight YES/NO – a YES vote would mean immediate consultations towards a date for separation; a NO vote would mean continuing the Union with discussions on increased powers. That is my preference.

Stevie

Thanks are due to the Scottish Government in setting up this national conversation. This is true democracy in action. There seems to be a consensus throughout Scotland that our parliment requires further powers. My personal choise is for Scotland to be a independant nation within the European Union. However as a democrat I will accept the will of the electorate. It will not stop me campaining for an independant Scotland which I believe is a historical inevitable. I think the generation that will take Scotland to independance is alive today, I just hope it's mine

The Fiscal Autonomy paper has been updated to improve some aspects of exposition (clarity).

The new version can be found at:

http://www.seel-telesis.com/bsr/

Hector McNeill

[1499] Ranting about "censorship" when others are attempting to encourage constructive debate from across the political spectrum on Independence (which is what I understand this blog to be about) does not disguise the fact that there are some whose vision is limited to the view that because (the Union) has been (here) for 300 years the current constitutional arrangement should not be changed. Of course this is a perfectly valid view, even if most would determine that Scotland's position in the 'global economy' has changed considerably during this period, but I would suspect that when Wendy Alexander finally figures out a way to improve Scotland's relative progress (while remaining in the Union) that will also keep Gordon Brown happy, that the generally pro-Union Scottish media will be bombarding us with the 'good news'. In the meantime, as someone who is becoming increasingly convinced by arguments in favour of Independence, but who is not a 'committed nationalist', I would welcome the views of those pro-Unionists who can put forward constructive arguments on how we can reverse the historical drain of many of our skilled and talented people from Scotland while staying within the Union? No doubt some who may struggle to grasp the 'big picture' will also find it difficult to understand why it is of great importance for the country as a whole, and especially for those most 'deprived' in our society, that Scotland retain a proportionate amount of people with the abilities and enthusiasm to significantly improve the welfare and the prospects of their fellow Scots. Hopefully others with more to contribute than those who express doubt in the value of this 'conversation' yet insist on attempting to re-debate the issues of the last election (clearly the same people who still cannot understand how the SNP won that debate when Labour had been doing such a 'fantastic job' for Scotland across the strata of government) will have the conviction to put their arguments here, and perhaps the recent post by Hector NcNeill [1500] will encourage this?

In a response to myself, Stevie from Dundee mentioned "your side", to which I responded "MY side, Stevie? Which 'side' would that be, then? I have already told you that, unlike you, I am not a member of any political party, and I have never even BEEN a member of any political party. What's more, I'm not a committed 'supporter' of any political party. During the twelve years that I lived and worked in London, I never once voted for anybody. On the occasions in my sixty six years when I _have_ voted, I have voted five different ways (including, quite probably, for the party which you support)".

In message 1496, Stevie now says "The 'side' I refer to is the one that wants to take Scotland out of Britain, of course. I would have thought that was obvious" - no, only obvious to someone such as yourself who thinks along party political lines, Stevie. In the next sentence after your reference to what was supposedly "my" side, you went on talk about the leader of a political party (who, let me make absolutely clear, is not MY leader).

I gave young Stevie some good advice: "Stop trying to treat this conversation as if all the people with whom you are conversing are members of some rival political party. You will only make a fool of yourself if you do that." in response to that good advice, Stevie responds "Lecturing others won't attract support" - but, Stevie, I'm not a politician. I'm not a candidate for any kind of office. I'm not asking for your vote. I am neither a member nor a supporter of any political party, so I really couldn't care less which way you vote. I am just somebody who is in favour of a referendum to settle the independence question one way or the other, and you have already indicated that you agree with this. As for how you would vote in that referendum, that is very clear from all you have said. There are people who might be persuaded through presenting a good case, and there are people who are so set in their ways absolutely nothing can change their minds, and you come into the latter category Stevie, so I wouldn't waste my time seeking to change your mind. And what you interpret as me "lecturing" you, more open-minded folk may see as exposing the flaws in YOUR lecturing.

"What did Nicola Sturgeon say on 12 April?" - I have absolutely no idea, Stevie. I am not such an enthusiastic follower of party politics as yourself. I cannot speak on behalf of any political party, only on behalf of Dave Coull. And the only person whose words I need to defend are my own.

"Referendum or neverendum?" - that probably rather depends on how close the result is. A very decisive majority one way or the other could settle the question. But just suppose, for instance, that there was a very narrow majority for independence, on rather a low turnout. Would YOU accept that as settling the question once and for all, Stevie?

I am afraid later than promised we have now posted a paper on fiscal autonomy at

http://www.seel-telesis.com/bsr/Fiscal_Autonomy_Part_1.pdf

This is a pdf version.

This is part 1 of a 2 part working paper. Part 1 covers things which need to considered and part 2 will set out up-to-date options for managing fiscal affairs according to the preferences of an electorate.

The paper was split into 2 parts because if one gives fiscal autonomy a "complete" treatment one needs to take into account everything being discussed in this National conversation. Why? Because we are discussing constitution and any final constitutional structure has a direct impact on the economy. To make this plain, any constitutional structure influences the economy in ways additional to those established by economic policy and/or fiscal activity. More directly, constitution influences the degree to which governance responds to preferences of the electorate as opposed to imposing their own. This is all a matter of the degree to which governance responds to freedom of expression and thereby individual freedom. In fact, without governance making this its main imperative, freedom cannot be sustained or defended under any system whether it be structured as unionism, federalism or independence.

This will, I hope become clearer in part 2 of this paper.

I welcome any form of feedback since this is a working paper.

Hector

I find it breathtaking that some here could argue for a national conversation yet possibly miss the irony that a successful debate simply can’t be had without the views of others being heard.

Once agin, a reminder: this is a conversation on Scotland's future, not some jolly-up for a small minority to use this blog to have a cosy wee chat.

Many issues are conjured up of life in Scotland outside of Britain. This includes, taking one example, membership of the EU. Given what has appeared recently I am certain that some will be unhappy or feel uncomfortable about seeing the EU debate unfold. As a democrat I find this staggering.

Yet it also amuses me to think that in harbouring such thoughts they actually believe their views should also ride roughshod over others', on what is and isn’t up for debate, and how that debate should proceed.

Thus far anyway, the Mods back my point. It would be a sad day indeed if censorship over what are after all, everyday issues, were allowed to prevail.

With regards to making a case for the union, it’s here and has been for 300 years. Like many Scots, I’m unconvinced by the idea of Scotland away from Britain. For me Alex (in #1474, Para 5) sums it up nicely.

Let’s hear the argument of those who don’t feel this way..

... [1497] - it is regrettable, but not surprising, that there is still nothing constructive coming from those 'posers' whose sole (and seemingly cynical) purpose appears to be to distract this 'conversation' on the merits, or otherwise, of independence, with questions clearly aimed at furthering their own political agendas - I would respectfully suggest that if they cannot find a single argument to support a case that continuing in the Union will reverse Scotland’s relative 'decline' of recent decades that they change their forum and join the ranks of like-minded politicians who, with little or no vision of their own, attempt to persuade us that because everything in their particular gardens look rosy (at least that is what some would have us believe), or because fundamentally they personally fear change, the rest of us should not seek a better future for all - in the meantime it is hoped that such 'contributions' have not dissuaded those who genuinely believe in the merits of the Union from expressing their arguments here on reinvigorating Scotland as a whole or on making significant improvements in important areas that affect the day-to-day lives of those that now inhabit a country with a relative population in Britain that has apparently dropped from 18% to 9% since 1707 (according to Paul Henderson Scott in today's Scotsman) and from which a disproportionate number of our most skilled and talented people still feel compelled to leave in order to pursue their chosen careers - I am certain that all who have children, whether sympathetic to a particular political party or not, aspire to see a country where not only is poverty and social deprivation relegated to history, but where all children have the opportunities to responsibly follow their dreams, and although some may perhaps think of me as a ‘dreamer’, I believe if all Scots can set party politics and petty point-scoring aside and work positively and constructively towards such a common vision then we can perhaps over the next decade help build a country of which we, and our children, can all be proud!

#1492

Oh, right. The 'missing' legislation will be trawled out over the rest of the parliament.

Why then didn't Salmond mention this at the time?