The Scottish Government

SEEL (Systems Engineering Economics Lab) has initiated analysis and editorial work in preparation of a series of publications under the title "The Scotland Effect" and to be made availbe at the British Strategic Review website (BSR). These documents will cover most constitutional issues raised in the Scottish Executive's paper.

BSR decided to support this series because of the importance of the issues not only for the people of Scotland but also for everyone else on these Isles.

As Director of SEEL I have written a short introduction to the series which can be seen at:

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

The BSR has no poltiical party affiliations and the work will be undertaken by the SEEL units concerned with Constitution, Constitutional Economics, the Minority Principle and Real Incomes policy.

The first paper will concern "Fiscal Autonomy" and I understand that this should be posted by Monday, 27th Aug, 2007.

We sincerely hope that this series will provide a useful contribution to a fundamentally important issue to us all.

Hector

To Allan Steele, Post # 1393

I hope you read my second post on this subject that I was writing while you were posting #1393. You will see that my core objection to federalism is not that it is failing in the USA and Canada, which it demonstrably is. It is rather that it a meaningless exercise in the current geopolitical context.

We are moving towards a number of continental Unions along the lines of the European Union and in time towards a one world government. This is not conspiracy theory it is happening out in the open with the enthusiastic cooperation of our politicians and bureaucrats. Whether this will be acceptable to the people affected, is not a particular concern of the governing elite who are pushing this agenda. I honestly do not believe they care one way or the other. They know most of us are fast asleep and they believe they can easily deal with those of us who are awake. I am not suggesting they are acting maliciously or without a "good" end in view. My concern is that they do not care how they achieve their goals. I suspect they know that if they placed their goals before the people they would be rejected. Hence they act surreptitiously. It is this high-handedness that I find objectionable, as I believe most Scots people would too.

If the SNP does not subscribe to this agenda then they will offer another alternative to their present preference of "independence" INSIDE the EU, i.e. independence OUTSIDE the EU, while maintaining our current trading relationships. Then, if the electorate choose to remain tethered to Brussels or Westminster, so be it.

To Dave Balnabreich post#1392:

I agree with you about the impossibility of federalism working in the UK. My references to the USA and Canada were in reponse to their being used as examples of federalism in the Steel Report mentioned by Allan Steele, who has, incidentally, identified himself as being resident in Scotland, not Washington DC.

Your observation about an English parliament dominating a federal union is no doubt accurate. However, I believe the point is moot.

The reason I say this is that we must not, indeed cannot, ignore, the current geopolitical context in which this discussion is taking place. The elephant in the room, that I have pointed out, to little or no avail, in a number of posts, is the burgeoning supranational entity spinning its web in Brussels.

The idea of Regional Governments you characterise as a non-starter, being promoted by Tony Blair, already exist. The option that voters were given in the NorthEast Region was whether they wanted to VOTE for the members of their Regional Assembly. They said no, so the members remain unelected. The Regional Assembly and Regional Government continues to function nonetheless.

There are twelve EU Regions designated and in existence in the UK. One is Scotland, nine are in England, one of which is London, one is Wales and one is Northern Ireland. Each Region has its own Regional Assembly and Regional Government. Only the National Assemblies and the London Assembly, at present, have elected members. The Scottish Assembly is called the Scottish Parliament and the Northern Irish Assembly is called the Stormont, both named as a nod, I suppose, to national sensibilities. You might like to look at a report prepared by a Dr. Ricardo Gomez of the Department of Government at Manchester University. This details each of the nine English Regions and how much funding they currently receive from the EU.
http://les1.man.ac.uk/devolution/docs/English%20Regions%20Report%204.11.pdf

Also take a peek at this website dealing with our future in der Super Statt von Europa:
http://europa.eu/index_ns_en.htm

My perception is that discussing federalism is meaningless, not for the reasons you mention, but because we are already, for all intents and purposes, being absorbed into a European supranational entity of former nation states. This has been happening in the UK, under the radar for the most part, since the early 1970's, when the people of the UK voted to enter what was then called the European Common Market. They were under the impression that they were agreeing to join a free trade area, which is how it was presented to them by the Heath Government.

When we discuss Scottish independence in this environment we are simply following the overarching game plan of the governing elite in Brussels. To believe that our politicians in the Scottish Parliament are unaware of this would be terminally naive. To borrow Annabel Goldie's favourite phrase, this is THEIR bread and butter. Politicians and bureaucrats live in a symbiotic relationship and the EU is THEIR creation, THEIR feeding ground and THEIR raison d'etre.

Democracy for them is merely the means to gain more power and justify their existence to the people. Otherwise they treat us like mushrooms: keep us in the dark and cover us in BS.

I would love to believe that the SNP is honestly interested in complete independence for Scotland i.e. outside the EU but retaining our present trading relationships via the EEA. To believe that I would also have to believe they are entirely altruistic and self sacrificing. Meaning no disrespect to them, that is a hard pill for me to swallow.

Dear Messrs Coull and Robertson et al,

Let me clear one thing up - I am not an ex pat, but rather am a lifelong resident of Giffnock. I have been using a relative who lives in Washington DC to assist with the postings - I am blissfully ignorant of all things technical, but can manage a wireless telephone! I admit that this ignorance should be borne in mind by those reading my posts, but trust that my arguments, if they are to fail, will fail on their substance and not their author's archaic manner!

As for the thrust of what you are both saying, it appears that your arguments against a federalist solution for Scotland are reliant on the failures and disappointments of other federal nations in the past.

Well, to that I say simply one thing - we can learn from the experiences of others, whether they be Americans, Canadians, Germans or Australians (you may detect a pattern here - all very successful, desirable first world nations which have chosen and stuck with federalism!) and ensure that any system adopted by us benefits from the hindsight of other federal nations.

Together, nationalist and unionist alike, we can work towards a mature constitutional settlement for Scotland that will satisfy all but the most extreme constitutional tastes.

Without being arrogant, I suspect that many fellow Scotsmen and women reading this are tempted if they are honest!

David Robertson of Inverness (1384) tells Allan Steele (Washington DC) "Dave Coull in Balnabreich has taken issue with you on a federal arrangement for the UK on the basis that the assymetry amongst the member states is too great, England comprising 85% of the population."

The USA was originally thirteen separate British colonies. These thirteen colonies were very wary of each other, Maryland and Pennsylvania actually fought a war with each other while both of them still professed allegiance to the crown. (Maryland hung some folk as traitors and spies for Pennsylvania.) What made them unite was their desire for Westward expansion. The British crown had made agreements with the red indians, and with their newly acquired French-speaking subjects in Canada, that there would be no expansion west of the Appalachian mountains. When the United States got their way, they started opening up "territories" in the west, and these "territories" would then gradually become "states". But there is no way that scenario has any relevance to the United Kingdom.

Some enthusiasts for federalism think England could be broken up into "regions". But this is a complete non-starter. Tony Blair's government tried to encourage enthusiasm for "regional government" in England, precisely in order to muddy the waters so far as the straightforward question of independence for Scotland was concerned. They tried a referendum in the region of England which they thought might be most enthusiastic about regional government, the North-East. The idea was emphatically rejected. As for "Wessex", or the East midlands, and so on, forget it. What really IS growing in England is a demand for an English Parliament, without uppity characters from the Celtic fringe such as Gordon Broon. And anybody who thinks THAT parliament wouldn't dominate a "federal" UK is kidding themselves. The only realistic option is independence for Scotland, and to be on friendly terms with the neighbours as a completely independent country.

Ref 1379. Sam - Castle Douglas Saturday, August 25, 2007 09:17
Sam,

Part 2

My experience seems to have been slightly different. I started off being very pro-European Community but then began to sense things were not quite what they seemed, especially after working in Brussels HQ.

To summarise I would state that there is a stark difference between the obvious benefits of some single market standardization issues (but where care is required) and the political European Union which needs, in its present form, to be resisted.

Single Market

The "technocratic" argument says the EU is concerned with establishing rules and regulations to support a single market - significant benefits include the break up of public telecom giants and establishment of mobile telephony standards helping EU penetration ahead of world markets.

There is a "constitutional school of thought" saying since the EU Law is only concerned with "technical" issues no one should worry because these are politically "neutral." But this was never true and now the EU seeks to control most aspects of our lives including civil/criminal law it is simply no longer true through an increasingly arbitrary legal system.

Political Union - Mmm?

Foretastes of what was to come were the metric-martyrs and destruction of UK fisheries and marginalization of UK agriculture. Here we see "standards" and "quotas" applied with intent according to over-riding manipulations of political and commercial interests.

In the negotiations surrounding UK entry the sheer ignorance of the political parties on the potential for these natural resources was exacerbated by how they viewed the associated small "voting population" dotted along the coasts. This in their self-serving psych caused fisheries to be "irrelevant", a bauble to be handed to the EU in exchange for favours.

Up with standards!

Standards are vitally important in areas such as public health but their enforcement is a single market issue, as they always were. Like Europe's codified law, embedding standards can result in difficult-to apply systems. Often the small unit suffers since the standards, through lack of adaptability, can enforce sub-economic status. Irrespective of what people will say, there are often systems solutions, but no one waits for these. Anyone "adjusting things" to get the system to work (a very common state of affairs) can end up contravening the law and even be closed down. Others who put people at risk, and on a wider scale, escape any justice on the basis of rampant corruption.

I think the media seriously confuse single market and political dimensions, they ignore the real dross (covered above) and concentrate on the irritating dross. This form of auto-censorship by the most journalists pandering to the governing political parties ensures promotion, continuity of advertising, some political support and even willing keynote speakers from the EU or political parties at their high profile sector conferences.

This means Paxman's correct conclusions will be ignored.

Ref 1379. Sam - Castle Douglas Saturday, August 25, 2007 09:17
Sam,

You say (the gist)".. I agree that cash diplomacy goes on .. but until you can show me where this does not happen then I would rather sleep with the devil I know. .. What I was attempting to demonstrate was that politicians are not alone in this, civil servants too contribute single sided research into the formulations of positions that countries adopt in order to protect their status quo....."

There are 2 things with which I agree. 1. Bias is introduced into information used for decision-making 2. Political party (read government) cash diplomacy exists.
Cash diplomacy helps guarantee bias and politicians lever this into decision-making to support their objectives and the population is effectively manipulated.

You say, " but until you can show me where this does not happen then I would rather sleep with the devil I know. "

Constitutionally governance of a free independent state should satisfy people's preferences by reducing the influence of known devils. The public perception is that most politicians in the UK, including Scotland, place their party/personal interests over those of the people; they can't be trusted. After a few years in power they tend to go the same way.

In the EU big devils (larger states) have more influence that little devils. Increasingly arbitrary European court decisions taken under pressure from the big boys, means a Scottish devil can't do much to protect his government, national companies or individuals; this is powerlessness where it really counts - defending the individual freedom of Scots. This is nothing to do with compliance with EU standards (see below).

On the other hand, the UK political parties when in government, and who are big boys in the EU, were always in a stronger position to defend the individual freedom of the English, Northern Irish, Scots and Welsh. They failed to do so because of their enduring promotion of party over country landing us all in a precarious situation where our individual freedom has become progressively undermined.

Just a small point, I am not arguing for unionism nor am I anti-European.

These questions are very important but are also extremely complicated which might explain why they have not featured much in the posts on this "conversation site". The constitutional impact of the European Union is of fundamental importance to Scotland in spite of the fact Gordon Brown seeks to prevent people, including of Scotland, from influencing this current treaty decision. Scotland should be kicking up a fuss about this since these are not separate issues.

The best recent review of all of this is H. McNeill's book, The Briton's Quest for Freedom - Our unfinished journey. Inter alia this covers the issues of the civil service, political party manipulation, bias in information and the increasing arbitrariness on European Courts.

I am afraid I have run out of space. I will return on EU standards compliance and Paxman issues which are, of course, important.

1388 Euan. It is so easy to sit back and criticize, so much harder to be constructive and positive and to work towards making things better. The people of Scotland are experts in the first but there are encouraging signs of energy and positive thinking happening now. Thank you Mr. Salmond for showing us another way.

After having trawled through pages and pages of Blog entries I only have one thought - Get Mr Bean in to run Scotland - I have never read so much utter crap as posted by my so called fellow Scots. Come on boys and girls wake up Independance is a non starter - you know it makes sense - Mr Bean for First Minister - oh sorry we already have his alter ego in situ - good old Soapy Salmond.

Alan edinburgh,
You said 'I for one love my country and am proud to be Scottish but if we go through with this folly I for one will be on the 1st plane out, no doubt big business will be along behind me shortly.'<<<<

Be sure to offset your carbon footprint now will you? ta...bye!