The Scottish Government

I though I would also like to add a little more personal comment to the one I made earlier. I am pro-independance, always have been, infact more so than I was 10 years ago and NOT because the Parliament has been a success. In my view the Parliament up to now has been a disaster. The scandal over the building itself, two senior figures (one a first minister) forced to leave office because of alleged financial irregularities and another first minister whose activities in promoting us as "the best small nation in the world" while wearing a designer kilt I found quite embaracing. This is not to mention the meaningless gestures of free care for the elderly (which was nothing of the sort), end of tuition fees (only to be replaced with a tail end tax) and a complete inability to tackle Scotland's seriously under developed transport infrastructure (without which we can't export competetively). Even the smoking ban indicated that the executive was completely devoid of ideas in how to deal with the real reason for our nations health problems, namely poverty, deprevation and inequality.
No, what has turned me from a passive nationalist into partizan seperatist is the negative and insulting rhetoric of the unionist. Because I want independance doesn't mean I hate the UK, I just believe Scotland has a seperate identity and ethos which is better served through an Edinburgh legislative than through a London one which has historically struggled to correctly gauge the mood of a 'region' who never fully learned to integrate. Why do unionists never talk of Britain as a great global power, big players at the UN with a perminant seat in the defence council, a mighty player in the EU, a colonial history which touched every corner of the Earth, a proud nation that delivered great gifts on a grateful world, famed for our mannors, our education, our society? Why can't unionists express this? Who would want to damage that?
No, unionists tell us that we can't afford it, we are too small, too weak, too poor. We can't be trusted to run our own affairs, we will loose all our jobs and everyone with money or foresight will leave to live in England where everything will be alright. This is the rhetoric that makes me and many thousands like me so partizan. Scotland also has a great history of good both before and during union. We have great achievements and cultures that we can be equally proud of. What is more, in our universities and financial institutions we still strive and succeed, setting new standards and blazing new trails. Also our potential to grow is enormous. Our people are intelligent and industrious and with the correct focus and direction, areas that may be depressed now will rise again into prosperity.
The debate for me is clear. Unionists recognise that the benefits of the UK are outweighed by Scotlands own and Scotlands potential is greater but they are scared, scared of all the things they shout in oppossition to independance. I'm scared, what if they are right? What if? But more than that I am excited. The gains are too great, the potential is too exciting. What is for certain is I am tired of seeing Scotland stagnate in a post impiralistic world, empire has gone and with it the real quantifiable benefits of being members of the UK. We all know that is true, the next step is seeing past the fear and taking that step forward, through off the "small nation" tag and start building for the future, for all of Scotland's sake.

Like many others, I believe the attitude of the unionist parties appears to be one of fear - not of defeat, but of appearing to bow to the Executive who I believe the other three expected would fail dramatically in Government.
Labour want to see the SNP hang themselves and seperate themselves from Iraq & Blair, Liberals are trying to shake the image of power 'carpet baggers' and Conservatives are very weary of appearing to give any creadence to desolving the union. This type of forum is the Executives only outlet for a debate into the subject of independance as the other parties are far to interested in 'playing politics'.
Ironically, a referendum would at this stage, most likely meet with defeat and posibly leading the SNP to another 20 years in the sidelines, similar to the impact of the 1979 referendum. Paradoxically, failure to establish a referendum could result in national pathos and a backlash against the bodies which prevented our leaders carrying forward the policies they were elected to execute.
Of course, this is all political sooth saying and doesn't contribute to the debate, for which I make no appology as the debate currently appears to be more concerned with which party holds which highground as oppossed to independance. In truth, independance is a relative term, after all, Holyrood has more powers over Scotland than Westminster - actually Brussels has more powers over Scotland than Westminster! The arguement is far more base, it is about history, self perception, nationalism, etc. These are not small issues that can be dismissed as not being proper intellectual arguements, after all they have endured for the 300 years of political union.
If this debate was about good fiscal policy we would never have put more pressure on borrowing and taxation by adding another level of beaurocracy in the first place, devolution was the ballance between the security of Union and an outlet for nationalism. What is clear is that that outlet is gready and needs to be fed. The other parties are ready to feed this obsession by offering another half-way house by devolving more powers. This trend is unlikely to end and has only one natural conclusion, even if it doesn't happen within this SNP executive.
Tam Dalyell predicted that the Scottish Parliament would not endure in its current form and whether the outcome in the next couple of years is more devolution of powers or total parliamentary seperation - Dalyell will be proved right.

Stevie from Dundee wrote:
(#1434) As I can't find any reference to the questions you posed I'm afraid I can't answer them. I should add that this is after heeding my own advice and googling.


For the record this is what Stevie claimed:
"Unlike many of those who follow the Separatist agenda, I actually like the English, etc. Crucially, thankfully, many of my fellow Scots think likewise."


Stevie has publicly accused ‘many’ who support Scottish independence of being anti-English. Below are a series of questions that I posed to Stevie.

What number of people who are members of the SNP do you believe are anti English?
What proportion of the SNP is this?
Is it only SNP members who are anti English?
If not, then what other parties do the rest they belong to or vote for?
What proportion of the general Scottish public are anti English?
Is this more or less than the SNP proportion.
Are there any anti Scottish people in the U.K.?
Are there any political parties in the U.K. with anti-Scottish members?


Stevie claims he does not know the answers to any of these questions, yet despite this apparent ignorance he feels compelled to try to demonise only Scottish independence supporters, implying (or more accurately inventing) a racist or xenophobic tendency.

There are at least two questions from the above list that can be answered without reference to google, they are:

Is it only SNP members who are anti English?
Are there any anti Scottish people in the U.K.?

The answers to both are No and Yes respectively.

Honesty on Stevie's part would have led to the uncomfortable acceptance (for him) that prejudice is not mutually exclusive. What can also be stated is that the numbers who hold these views on either side are insignificant.

There is though another prejudice becoming ever more prevalent as Scottish politics moves forward. This prejudice is displayed by people like Stevie, whose bitter loathing of fellow Scots, based on no more than a political difference, leads to these kind of distastefull labels.

Thankfully, most comments on this forum are positive and contain the genuine feelings of those from both sides.

My own view on the constitutional debate is that the independence side are winning. With the advent of the internet giving more of us access to hitherto 'hidden' information the electorate are now more able to make a more reasoned judgement.

The Unionists will have to do better that name calling and pretending that this conversation is meaningless and of no interest to the public.

Gabrielle H Aberdeen are you really saying there is no poverty in the Sandilands, Tillydrone, Seaton,Balnagask areas of Aberdeen? If so you really need to look closer, people may have designer clothes but they have no carpets on the floor and these are mostly areas that have been under Labour councillors for years. Fortunately I have a decent standard of living but would prefer if the people in the schemes mentioned before also had an improvement in their living standards and believe an independent Scotland is the best option for this. A nice shiny new kitchen or bathroom supplied by the council is nice to look at but does nothing to help put food on the table or change a persons life for the better.

Shyly Anonymous (1478) says the Sunday Herald "had a poll on Sunday putting support for independence at 35% and opposition at 50%..." - that's ONE way of looking at their results. A more useful way would be to recognise that, for all practical purposes, in assessing levels of support, the "don't knows" are "don't counts". If they vote at all (which is by no means certain) all previous evidence suggests they are most likely to divide up along much the same lines as those who DID express a preference, therefore the significant figure you can extract from the Sunday Herald's poll is that 42 percent of those who expressed an opinion were in favour of independence. Of course if we express it in that way, then the figure for those opposing independence also increases. However, there is another point you are missing, which is that many of those who said they were "against" independence are folk who prefer the status quo simply because they are a bit nervous of change. Folk who prefer the status quo simply because they are a bit nervous of change are not committed "Unionists", they are less likely to turn out to vote in large numbers, and, even if they do, they are quite capable of changing their minds. The alleged "Unionist" majority is much softer than it appears.

Shyly Anonymous (1478) also says "If you poo-poo polls, and stick to analysing real votes in real elections about 30% is the best you can expect based on the trends" - NONSENSE. You can't equate votes in party political elections to the result of a referendum! In party political elections, people vote for all sorts of different reasons. For instance, if I lived in Edinburgh, I wouldn't even consider voting for the SNP, because of their opposition to having trams in Edinburgh. Then there is the question of personality. In elections, you are ELECTING somebody, some individual, to some sort of office. People sometimes decide how to vote purely on personality, because they like candidate A and dislike candidate B. In a referendum, it's completely different. You are not voting for a political party. You are not voting for some ambitious politician. You are deciding where you stand on one single issue. People can and do vote differently in referendums.

Shyly Anonymous says "There will not be a referendum. Don't blame me, blame the other Alex, Mr Salmond.....he won't push it" - but some of us will. Yesterday, myself and some other members of Determination, the non-aligned campaign for self-determination for Scotland, held a small demonstration outside the Scottish Parliament just before and during Alex Salmond's speech. Our posters read REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO, and in addition to holding these posters up we made the same message vocally. In addition, our group has taken the first steps in raising the issue of a self-determination referendum with the United Nations. In our letter to the UN HIgh Commissioner on Human Rights, we pointed out that Scotland fulfills all of the criteria laid down by the UN for a self-determination referendum to be _required_ under international law, yet the British government has REFUSED to hold such a referendum. (Yes, we do have the British government's letters of refusal, and can produce these in evidence.) If we have to, we will proceed with the international case against the British government. I don't believe for one minute that Alex Salmond wants to find himself cited as an accessory to the British government's refusal of a self-determination referendum for Scotland. No matter how uncertain he might be about the outcome, he is going to have to go ahead with a referendum.

Shyly Anonymous also says that "the SNP activist...are the only people who really want a referendum" - wrong yet again, Shyly. I am not a member of the SNP, I am not a member of ANY political party, and unlike you, I never have been a member of any political party. But I have been actively pushing and demonstrating for a referendum for three years now, along with other people who are not members of any party.

1479. Stevie - Dundee
Thursday, September 6, 2007 16:57
If only it were a straight choice between independence and abolish devolution.

>>>I don’t think for one moment that your side would be prepared to sign up to and honour such a commitment<<<

Wanna bet?

I'd have the referendum before my tea tonight and we'd be independent tomorrow.

>>>read the President, sorry First Minister's “legislation programme”.<<<


Back at you pal.
Pity Honest Tony is away, he could usually be counted on to obey Presidential requests.

Look at New Labour's Westminster election manifesto broken promises:
"Education, Education, Education."

Does this mean we can abolish Westminster?

I mean if we are good and say please and thankyou very much?

1477. Willie Lenzie asks : Let's see some evidence! "

I quoted the result of the May election and an opinion poll and the trend vote for nationalist parties over the years... that's evidence. You might not like my conclusions...

You also said "....during the election campaign I spoke personally to hundreds of voters as part of the SNP canvassing operation. As well as asking them which party they would vote for, we asked how they would vote if an Independence Referendum were held tomorrow (i.e. last Feb -April). Many people who intended to vote Labour, LibDem or even Tory, said they would vote YES in a Referendum..."

So, 6 months ago you asked some people some questions and they gave you the answers you wanted to hear...?

Forgive me Willie, but as really real hard evidence, that ranks just below "Mah mammy telt me" on the scale of reliability...

Where's YOUR evidence for whatever it is you are trying to prove?

(#1467) For the record, I have been a keen advocate of a referendum on separation for more than a decade. Unlike some, I never felt comfortable with George Robertson’s view that devolution would kill dead calls from those keen to break up Britain. That suggests to me that I should be welcoming YOU to the debate.

“and we will both accept the outcome, whatever it happens to be, won't we?”

The devil, as always, is in the detail. Accept the outcome for how long? - a generation, or until the next election or the next, or the one after that, until you get the outcome you desire? What did Nicola Sturgeon say on 12 April?

Me? I’m all for ONE vote, winner takes all. What does that mean? Yes or No. Reject it and Scotland stays with England.

Truth be told, I don’t think for one moment that your side would be prepared to sign up to and honour such a commitment.

For evidence of promises made and promises broken, please read the President, sorry First Minister's “legislation programme”.

Dave Coull says "Alex from Largs (1468) says "The SNP got 32% of the vote, and is unlikely to get much more in any referendum".

The Sunday Herald, not exactly a hotbed of unionism, had a poll on Sunday putting support for independence at 35% and oposition at 50%... they used exactly the question proposed by the SNP and this is result almost exactly the same as the May vote...32.9% for parties supporting independence.

If you poo-poo polls, and stick to analysing real votes in real elections about 30% is the best you can expect based on the trends.

Anyway. There will not be a referendum. Don't blame me, blame the other Alex, Mr Salmond. He knows he would lose, so he won't push it... or only enough to try to put the blame on someone else for his failure to hold the referendum.

The only people being fooled here are the SNP activist... but then they are the only people who really want a referendum... like a 3rd division team eager to get the Old Firm in the cup, in the mistaken belief that they can somehow win against the odds...

Romantic nonsense.... my advise to the other Alex is: if you want to please your party, have the referendum: if you really believe in independence, don't have it anytime soon... running away being the better part of valour in this case....

my real advice is drop the policy of independence.. it's a lost cause anyway...

Alex - Largs (1468 and other posts)
Most of your arguments are just prejudiced nonsense, as are your usual letters to the Herald etc. Let's see some evidence!
For example, during the election campaign I spoke personally to hundreds of voters as part of the SNP canvassing operation. As well as asking them which party they would vote for, we asked how they would vote if an Independence Referendum were held tomorrow (i.e. last Feb -April). Many people who intended to vote Labour, LibDem or even Tory, said they would vote YES in a Referendum.