The Scottish Government

I have been following all the comments on the national conversation website from day one. As a Scotsman and Nationalist I have been trying to pin down exactly what the "United Kingdom" means to Scotland and the Scottish People. There seems to be a concerted effort by every facet of the "British" media to dissuade the Scottish People from aspiring to self governance as a Free and Independent Nation. After visitng http://www.alba.org.uk/scotching/greatdeception.html " If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State." (Thanks, Nial, for putting everything in perspective.)I find that just about says it all. However, read on- there's more, much, much more.

TRUTH not LIES- INDEPENDENCE NOW.

george alexander - north lanarkshire

Friday, December 21, 2007 16:39

wrote:[quote]

"I doubt that an independent Scotland would create a more civilised, tolerant society because the core of nationalist ideals is inherently against the acceptance of openness and differences but creates boundaries and divisions based in this case on economic terms but I fear may become based on ethnic terms in the future.........."





I have heard Unionists utter this kind of stuff before. This attempted demonisation of the independence movement and supporters is the next step in their battle to retain the Union now that their economica argument has been roundly destroyed.



It is my view that there are proportionally a great many more racists and bigots amongst this kind of poster than amongst the 40% or so Scot's who say they desire independence.[/quote]

george, on the herald site you will have seen this by rob4i, [quote]
Alex and his or her ilk cannot defend their beliefs in any way, that would not make them look like blatant traitors to their own country if indeed they are Scottish, that is one problem in all of this, how many non-Scots are for the status quo and those who are Scots, why do they have this belief that Scotland should be governed by a foreign country's parliament?[/quote]

You will not have seen anything nearly so vile by anyone who is not a nationalist.

Case rests.

Kinda dying a death. Postings steadily dropping off. Time for Alex to re-appear to tell us what he's learned

The real risk is in staying part of the UK.

The UK has this imperial pipe dream, of still being a world power, overstretching itself. Iraq, Afghanistan are examples of this. These wars and actions increase the UKs debt, and thus Scotlands share of. Scotland the herald states, breaks even in the union. Even the Telegraph printed such a statement recently.

So lets not risk our current state by staying in the union, which will force higher and higher taxes on us to pay for its world-power dreams.

It is unfortunate that the SNP came to power at this time, given what lies just ahead. The question that I have is will the coming economic collapse make it more or less likely that people will want independence? My guess is less likely since human nature tends to stay with what is familiar when things go sideways.

The reason I bring this up is that in July/August we entered a financial meltdown all over the world. The central banks are pumping liquidity into the markets but to no avail. The Interbank markets are frozen. Housing prices have fallen three months in a row and I believe the situation will worsen considerably in 2008.

In that case Scotland will not fare too well. Most of our economy is either government or foreign owned. When a company shrinks it tends to lay off workers in branches before head office. Scotland is mostly a branch plant economy. The rot is starting in the financial sector, we have sufferred an economic heart seizure. RBS is the biggest bank in Scotland and they have just recently taken over the big Dutch bank, ABN Amro which was a £48 billion deal. They now have to sell off some of the assets at a time when the market is soft. This will hurt. When things go bust after such a long run of boom the results can be quite horrific. I believe this bust will be even bigger than 1929. In fact it could be the biggest in history.

I would be interested in what others have to say about the likelihood of getting a yes vote on independence in those circumstances.

1777. Andrew Hoolachan - London (ex Dundee)
Thursday, December 20, 2007 14:56

Thank you for brightening up my Christmas, I'm still chuckling to myself as I write.

Historic revisionism? You don't see the irony of your own comments, or is it you just don't know your own history?

Mind, no shame in that because they don't teach it in School, but I would have imagined someone with such strong views might have read the Declaration of Arbroath, or at least heard of the Treaty of Edinburgh-Northampton 1328, recognising Scotland as a free and independent sovereign nation.
http://www.etsu.edu/cas/history/docs/edinburgh.htm

Perhaps you might expand on your modern understandings of a 'nation' and why Scotland pre-1707 in your view doesn't qualify?
There was me thinking Scotland had claim to the title of oldest recognised sovereign nation in Christendom.

Neo-liberal growth, in 'socialist' Scotland?
Nice one, care to explain?
On second thought, don't bother.

What is Scottish culture?
You've been away too long if you now need it spelled out.

>>>Why would a nationalist interest unite these people?<<<
Ask the fans attending Hampden Park, Murrayfield, or Wembley.

Ireland and Estonia are free to pursue policies that best represent the aspirations and desires of their civil populations.
In this respect Scotland is less able than even the Isle of Man or the Channel Islands to make policy.

Your suggestion that oil money would only make Scotland rich in the short term, is like me saying winning the Lotto would only make me rich in the short term.
Pure dead brilliant!

Most nations are less fortunate in terms of resources than we are in Scotland.

Aberdeen, like many urban areas, is suffering declining birthrate accelerated by young families being driven out by shortages of suitable, affordable housing.

You contend Scotland must not become independent because there are so many Scots living outside Scotland?
Aye, right!
Can we justify independence with so many having been forced to leave to seek opportunities for their families outside Scotland?

That Scots have risen to prominence all over the globe, as well as at Westminster, serves to remind us what our nation has been losing in terms of its best talent and ambitious sons and daughters as a dependent backwater of the UK.

As a 'sweaty sock' of a Cockney grandmother, I lived in London for some years and so know about dark, intolerant places. I returned to Scotland, enough said.

You need to brush up on ‘CIVIC’ nationalism, its a wee bitty different to what you'll be used to in London.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civic_nationalism

>>How can we have objective platform for open debate when the hosts are Nationalists themselves?<<

As I said, it’s different to what you'll have been used to, but look, you got your opinion through to me.

1777. Andrew Hoolachan
"As for this ‘National Conversation’… what a load of propaganda! How can we have objective platform for open debate when the hosts are Nationalists themselves?"

I think the fact that I just read your posting answers your own question!

Incidentally, I have seen on all these blogs and lists only one posting from an MSP / Minister (from Jim Mather). I find this disappointing. If it is to be a national conversation, then MSPs of all flavours should join in, at least to acknowledge that they bother to read the lists.

Lest it appear that they like to talk, but don't have any interest in listening ...

#1777 wrote:
"I doubt that an independent Scotland would create a more civilised, tolerant society because the core of nationalist ideals is inherently against the acceptance of openness and differences but creates boundaries and divisions based in this case on economic terms but I fear may become based on ethnic terms in the future.........."


I have heard Unionists utter this kind of stuff before. This attempted demonisation of the independence movement and supporters is the next step in their battle to retain the Union now that their economica argument has been roundly destroyed.

It is my view that there are proportionally a great many more racists and bigots amongst this kind of poster than amongst the 40% or so Scot's who say they desire independence.

This poster is openly stating that it is only the Union and by extension influence from England that is stopping Scots from becoming an ethically intollerant race !!!

Bruce 1760
Your question "Secondly, and this is a genuinely objective question (because I'm interested in people's answers)...

Why is becoming an independent sovereign state seen as the solution to Scotland's problems?
"

My short reply would be its a no brainer, the national average wage in England is about £27,000 in Scotland its £20,000 a rather large difference do you not agreed?
In a decade when the gap between rich and poor is at its greatest, it strike's me that any goverenment in Westminster would be best served in looking after there own voters ie middle England.

Scotland will continue to be a side interest to any british government and to me its time to get a grip and lets go it alone, add in Iraq and the horror of another ten years
of tory rule and its a smart move.

Nationalism is no other than a tactic of historical revisionism in order to justify present day seperatism.

Scotland was never a coherent nation with all-encompassing values, traditions and languages. In fact the concept of the nation-state was only conceived gradually throughout the 18th century, after the union of 1707 has taken place.

Before the Union, Scotland had many different warring clans, a division between Highland and Lowland and multiple dialects and trading customs.

What promoted a national consciousness, was the threat of English invasions and influences over affairs in Scotland.

So although Scotland did exist as a Kingdom from around 850 until the Union in 1707, it didn't represent our modern understandings of a 'nation' and thus our current Nationalism based on historical revisionisms are flawed.

In the present day, another Nationalist argument that is deployed, is that the English are either depleting Scotland of it's resources or are keeping it 'on benefits', inhibiting neo-liberal growth from within it's borders.

From a cultural veiwpoint, people talk of Scottish 'culture'. But culture is not an inherent 'thing' that one can define existentially. It is always defined by governments, institutions, those with control of over the distribution of representations. So i that sense, what IS culture? Surely it is more realistic to talk about cultures that transcend boundaries, such as class cultures, religious cultures, urban and rural cultures and so on. In my opinion someone growing on Dundee's Whitfield estate will have nothing in common with growing up on a farm in nearby affluent Angus. Why would a nationalist interest unite these people? The same can be said for our various other identities i.e. non heterosexuals, the elderly, foreign ethnic groups etc, who while contribute so much to Scotland, also have connections beyond it's borders, or if not, identify with similar people around the world.

From a geographical perspective, this argument is also flawed. If one looks at the GDP output per capita over the different regions of the UK, we can see the England is MORE divided within itself. The Southeast of England actually produces around 40% of the UK's entire GDP output per capita. The central belt of Scotland is also one of the largest financial centres in the EU. With this in mind then, it is the north of England that lags behind the UK and Scotland just as much supports Manchester and Newcastle as London supports Dundee and Glasgow. Therefore England is not some economic entity that drains or impedes Scotland; rather, the UK has multiple areas of wealth and deprivation across both England, Scotland, Wales and NI.

'Oh but look at Ireland and Estonia' I hear you cry. Their respective economic booms are highly specific. Ireland did not industrialise and thus it's economic 'boom' reflects a rapid catching up process. There were also millions of Irish around the world than there are Scots who came back to Ireland during the boom. Estonia was able to afford a flat rate income tax in which everyone regardless of income paid just 10 percent tax, which created an economic boom. Would socialist Scotland, welcome such a change?

The argument that Scotland's Oil would make us a rich nation is also flawed. Maybe, yes in the short term. But wouldn't such oil also attract unethical American conglomerates who would collide with Scotland's traditional 'leftism'. But more importantly, the Oil is running out! Aberdeen is already feeling the effects of falling Oil revenues and the City is projected to have the fastest population drop as a percentage of it's current population that any other City by 2015.

Let us not also forget, that there are some 400'000 Socts, like myself living in England alone, the vast majority of them in London. Many of these people leave Scotland to take advantage of greater opportunities but in doing so take Scotland with them around the world, maintaining our reputation as a nation of Enlightenment. Can we justify nationalism with such a diaspora? Let us also not forget, aside from his politics that it is a Scot who is Prime Minister of the UK and if it weren't for Scotland, a conservative government would have won the 1997 election - so our presence is not 'small' as some Nationalists like to perpetrate.

Also, having lived in London for some time, I do believe that Scotland is not as 'cosmopolitan' as it seems, yes even 'Scotland with Style' Glasgow can be a dark, intolerant place. I doubt that an independent Scotland would create a more civilised, tolerant society because the core of nationalist ideals is inherently against the acceptance of openness and differences but creates boundaries and divisions based in this case on economic terms but I fear may become based on ethnic terms in the future as the rise of Right-wing politics in Europe takes a stronger hold on small towns and small countries (see Switzerland)...

As for this ‘National Conversation’… what a load of propaganda! How can we have objective platform for open debate when the hosts are Nationalists themselves?