The Scottish Government

#1352 - Ken

In my opinion the reason the USA is still together is that it is the dominant world power, the same reason people in the constituent countries of the UK were more content when the UK was the dominant world power.

1349. David Ardrey - Cumbernauld, Scotland

Mr Ardery, Sir, I too value your opinions on the matter and recognise that we differ on the question of federalism.

I would point out that whilst my postings are being made in Washington DC, that is by a close relative out there who handles all things technical (I am told that it is probably best if the IP address matches the location given? Whatever that means!). I for my part remain in Scotland where my patriotism and belief in federalism continue to flourish!

None of my comments are from a party political stance - this debate requires everyone to shed party bias and to focus on what we truly believe is best for our beloved Scotland.

Ok, this 'national conversation', all i have to say is why can't we just grow up and get on, why end the most successful political union in history?

I am all for Independence but I think more information needs to made available to everyone on what are the gains and losses of Independence. What are the advantages and disadvantages.

A lot of people are just wanting to know what is in it for them!

livilion - livingston
Liked your #1333, explaining the concept of civic nationalism.

Disagree with your #1335.
"The UK is smaller I think than any of the Federal States of the US and Scotland itself is only eg half the size populationwise of Metropolitan Chicago."

Least Populous State: Wyoming, 493,782 people (2000 US census)
(Most Populous State: California, 33,871,648)
Smallest State (Area): Rhode Island, 1,545 square miles (distances North/South 48 miles; East/West 37 miles.)
Population 1,067,610.

I vaguely recall an opinion expressed a few years ago, when someone floated the thought of joining USA, that UK would warrant being about three states.

One wonders how USA manages federation with such a variation of size, without anyone other than the occasional Texan arguing to leave that union.

Dear Eddie - reference your post: 1306 - Eddie Foirbeis Climo - Devon.

You are right to criticize the "arguments" against referenda given by some Westminster politicians, and I paraphrase:

As a parliamentary democracy our electorate's will is expressed through general elections to elect parliamentary representatives. Referenda ignore the will of parliament and are therefore undemocratic.... You say people "..... expressing their will on a raft of issues by voting at a General Election IS democratic, but the people expressing their will on a single issue by voting in a Referendum is NOT democratic. R U B B I S H ! "

The Briton's Quest for Freedom covers this and many other failures in our political system. It summarizes the general election as an attempt to get voters to use a single vote to select:

- a long list of distinct pre-decisions, that is many different policies
- a political party
- a management team for unknown eventualities
- a constituency representative
- a Prime Minister

This is considered to be completely irrational. The term "pre-decisions" refers to preliminary decisions made on the basis of imperfect information. Voters can't do much else. But political parties prevent voters confirming their opinions once the full implications of a piece of legislation become apparent, at a later date, when unfurled in Parliament. The result is, of course, that parliamentary votes therefore cannot represent the real preferences of the people. General election results are considered to be statistically flawed and for the voting balance to have been determined on a fraudulent basis.

None of this reflects the real preferences of the electorate but only preconceived party preferences drummed up by enthusiasts by these tiny private organizations, none of which has a membership of more than 0.5% of the electorate. First-past-the-post provides a minority faction with a large parliamentary majority with the support of, currently, just 19% of the electorate allowing it to impose its will against the wishes of the remaining majority - some 81% of the electorate !!

And, on this issue of MPs being parliamentary or constituency "representatives" they, almost exclusively, vote the way their party demands (that little private clique with that miniscule membership) and SELDOM in line with any constituency wishes. Arbitrary majorities make a charade of balanced "debate", "scrutiny" and "a vote" since outcomes are normally foregone conclusions. Indeed, the concept that we live in a democracy with a supreme Parliament reflecting the will of the people is a fantasy. But this is the image the political parties insist on selling us.

Most politicians do not want to SERVE or REPRESENT the people but rather to CONTROIL events so that their party gains and remains in POWER. This is why they don't like referenda since it is a demonstration that they are not needed.

The Briton's Quest for Freedom proposes a constitutional settlement that makes voting participatory. A constitutional law, the Minority Principle ensures that constituency representatives reflect faithfully the view of their constituents on each piece of legislation.

Response to,1326, Allan Steele
Why apologise for using the word separatist. In the context of the national conversation and after reading your posting, I am now a Scottish, separatist, economic, political and part cultural Nationalist. Add to this a sprinkling of grains from ideologies such as Marxism, socialism, liberalism and even conservatism with a small c. In today’s politics in Scotland I am a ‘Scottish Nationalist. For today’s Scottish Nationalist the priority is Independence. To complicate matters more I have dual identity: Scottish and European. I also believe personally that the benefits of fiscal federalism or something similar are viable, but not within in the Union.
Your vision of a federal model for Scotland within the Union conveys “No one state should be overwhelmed by a fellow state due to differences in size or wealth.” This paradigm of Liberalism portrays a harmonious, trustworthy Union. I hope this next statement does not sound to Jacobitesque to you, but I have romantic licence due to the fact that I have a slither of Cultural Nationalism in my political make up. My distrust is not with the English people, it is with the British/Westminster Government, no matter what political party is in power, no matter how many Scotsmen are in the Cabinet.
For 300 years, we have taken what we have been given and been made to feel guilty if we did not say thank you. For 300 years we have been overwhelmed by a bigger and wealthier state that is our closest neighbour; now you, Wendy Alexander and in the future the Westminster government are or will be advocating that should embrace some model of fiscal federalism within the Union, with the promise of a ‘renewed and refreshed relationship’. Again it is not some form of federalism I am against, it is the Union.
For 300 years, Scotland as a Nation and her people have carried the psychological burden of the Union on our shoulders, now just when we are about to break the shackles of that Union (sorry for repeating this) you want us to renew and refresh that relationship.
You have described yourself as a patriot, I can understand that for the further one travels from their homeland the stronger the psychological thread becomes. You also convey that you are a sober minded Scot, I had to go and get a drink before I could comprehend that one. You say you are a proud and confident Scot, there are many Scots men and women like that, and their will be many more in the future once we get Independence.
However proclaiming yourself as a Scottish Nationalist is not very convincing, it reminds me of the Orwellian classic: 1984 with the sinister institution: The Ministry of Truth and with just a hint of ‘doublethink’. This should not be seen as a disparaging remark, you are very good at what you do; a seasoned campaigner. I do value your opinion but we will have to agree to disagree on occasions.

No 1334 Mr Stevens:

Thank you for your endorsement from south of the border. Federalism would be to the benefit to each constituent nation of the United Kingdom should they all use the powers it would grant them sensibly. Should that entail competition between the constitent nations, so much the better! I have every confidence that we Scots would prosper!

I take your point regarding the potential embarrasment caused by any name change - I think that we could safely continue with the current name of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland to the outside world.

To those just joining the debate google 'steel commission', read it and make your own mind up.

Scotland Forever!

In reply to:

#1336. livilion - livingston

Thursday, August 23, 2007 20:13

Your argument has lost me to this conversation, because your statement is as if I had said to you:
"BTW I think that much of what passes for patriotism and nationalism in your neck of the woods is little more than the narrow minded anti-englishness that scars this country when I am a man."

I'm sure you know where the problem with that is.