The Scottish Government

I note that the federal proposal has caused a stir amongst the separatist community. To date the only arguments against such a structure of government have been that some English are not too keen on the idea and that our Scottish nation is too small to benefit from a federalist model! I cannot, nor will I attempt to speak for the English, but I can address the second point - the very idea of federalism is to ensure that each constituent state of a federation is largely, if not wholly, autonomous for its internal affairs whilst drawing upon the benefits associated with membership of a federation e.g. defence of the realm, foreign and diplomatic assistance etc. No one state should be overwhelmed by a fellow state due to differences in size or wealth. Scotland too small to thrive within a federation? I reject that proposition, but if it were true may I suggest that separatism would hardly be an attractive proposition.

I, like most confident and proud Scots recognise that our nation could stand on its own two feet - given our vibrancy as a people and our natural resources that has never been in doubt – I am of course biased, but we are the finest nation in the world. However, the issue is not one of surviving, but rather recognising the opportunities afforded to Scots through participation in a union with our closest neighbours in the British Isles.

If we never had the union, I would suggest that in this world of increased multi-national co-operation, we would probably be considering something along those lines now.

Incidentally, I do not use the term 'separatism' in order to be disparaging. I do it as I consider myself to be every inch an ardent Scottish nationalist in that my love for and pride in Scotland knows no bounds. My support for federalism does not qualify that patriotism for my nation.

The thing about federalism is that once fully explained, it appeals to the majority of hitherto separatists, hence the consternation caused by my mooting the subject.

Let any referendum include the Steel Commission's proposal as a choice! And should the Labour Party adopt the Steel Commission's proposals - so much the better - the issue at stake is not one of petty rivalry between political parties, but rather the general good of Scotland and Scots wherever they may be.

I believe in Independence for Scotland.

I would love to see everyone who can prove they were born in Scotland (Birth Certificate etc) being able to vote in a Referendum, NO matter where in the world they reside at the moment.

I believe the "Cost of freedom" should never enter into the debate.

Education is also expensive, whats the cost of Ignorance? We lost our country and self respect.!!!!

1299. Sam - Castle Douglas

The BBC references I used were used purely for the quotes – I did not adopt any opinions from these, and personally consider that as far as my purpose was concerned, my source was not particularly relevant. While the BBC may edge towards the non-independence view of things, it is generally considered to me more accurate that most when relating to bare facts. I will not apologise for my use of this press, as if it’s good enough to get me a good mark on my dissertation, its good enough for a passing example here.

Again, I must protest at the use of “Unionism”. Assuming you know your subject well, you will be aware that “Unionism” is a term used, not for people with caution in relation to independence, but for people who wish actively to maintain the union. As I have stated before I am NOT against independence, I just feel that Scotland needs to show an ability to improve its situation before we take a risk – yes, risks are good, but I would like to see some hint of improvement first.

So yes, I am being pragmatic – not “Unionist” – I want to see PRACTICAL improvement. I see plenty of hot air coming off this site, but I want to see some action that shows we are capable of being independent. I’m more than willing to consider independence as a viable option – if anything, I already do consider it such – but I want more information. If that’s not being pragmatic, wanting more facts, what is? Stop labelling people as “Unionists”. You’re shooting your own cause in the foot, not garnering support.

1305. Livilion – livingston

Hang on, didn’t our current government – the one running this discussion and pushing for quick independence – recently try to STOP a tram system in Edinburgh? Isn’t that a model urban transport scheme? Oh well…

Generally, people care a lot more about the here and now, and about the future, than about history. You say you might feel good in a couple of decades – I’d feel worse if we made this decision at the wrong time. If we get some more powers, and let those who would lead us into independence lead us towards a better society first, I don’t think our grandchildren will look down on us for our caution. If anything, they will applaud us, for looking out for the future, and ensuring that we do not run unseeing into things (after they’ve demanded to know where the ozone layer went to).

Again, stop me lumping me in with various political parties or leanings – I have no political allegiance. I look at the current policies and decide on that basis.

And the gradualist approach has nothing to do with sitting on ones hands. It’s to do with taking a few test steps before we run across the rope bridge. Letting Hollyrood prove it can make changes before resting our full trust in an untried government. Again I say, let them make a difference – then they can have independence.

1316. Eck from Lanarkshire – Lanarkshire

Thank you. Finally someone who gets what I’m saying. If our sparkly new government uses the influence it already has correctly, it will earn its right to more.

Also, thanks for not accusing me of being a unionist. I’m getting kind of bored of explaining the definitions on that one! :-)

Allan Steele of Washington DC (1304) says "the USA has a federal system - when did you last hear of a Texan feeling inferior with his lot?"

Unlike most other American states, Texas did actually have a brief period of independence when it broke away from Mexico. There was even a Texan Embassy in London. Texas even had talks with the British government about the possibility of joining the British Empire! But what Texans really wanted, all along, was to join the USA. For several years, the "North" wouldn't agree to Texas joining the USA as a slave-owning state, and increasing the power of the "South". But the possibility of the USA having the British Empire on BOTH it's Northern and its Southern borders concentrated minds in Washington DC, and Texas was finally allowed to join at the same time as California joined as a "free" state, thus maintaining the balance, and staving off the American Civil War for a few more years.

Allan says "The Texan will rarely allow him or herself to be referred as anything else, but you won't find them demanding independence too often either" - that is because Texas never wanted to be independent in the first place. Scotland, on the other hand, has many centuries of history of independence. You can't really compare American states with an ancient nation like Scotland. Besides, the USA only "works" because no one state, not even a really big one like California, can totally dominate the rest of the Union. But just imagine what it would be like if California had EIGHTY FIVE PERCENT of the population of the entire USA, and all of the other forty nine states put together just amounted to fifteen percent of the population.

THAT is why a "federal" United Kingdom could never work.

A number of posts here have raised constitutional questions beyond Devolution versus Independence:
-- should Scotland remain in the EU?
-- should she leave the EU and forge close ties with Scandinavia?
-- should she be a monarchy or a republic?
-- as a monarchy, should she have a shared monarch with England?
. . . and so on.

Consider this: without full independence, all these important questions are moot and a bit premature. As part of the UK, Scotland will be whatever an England-dominated Westminster decides she'll be.

Independence is the essential first step before Scotland can decide her own future. Let's focus on that first step, and then discuss and decide on the other issues afterwards, when we'd be in a position to do something about them.

Roll on the day when the following non-conversation will fall by the wayside:

-Passport?
-Here you are.
-Ah, you're English.
-No, Scottish.
-But this is an English passport.
-No, it's a British passport. I'm Scottish.
-But Scotland's a part of England, isn't it?
-No, it isn't. I'm Scottish.
-So why have you got an English passport?

...and so on, ending up in a well-worn monologue on geography, history, politics, culture and a million other things while the people behind me in the queue get upset.

Let's remember that 'British' has never meant 'Scottish'. 'British' is a synonym of 'English'.

When's the referendum - and where can it's-all-right-for-you-you-don't-even-live-here expatriate Scots vote?

#707 Alibaba - Stornoway

The Westminster Goverment has already decimated military bases all over Scotland closing them down and causing much unemployment locally as a result; and also our proud regiments which have served the Union so well for 300 years, have been forced to almalgamate or cease to exist as a cost cutting exercise by the MOD. MOD contracts have been pulled out of Scotland and handed over to English companies.
What does this tell us? It's obvious, Westminster has seen the light and realised that Scotland will become independent regardless and have already started the process by pulling out of Scotland wholesale.
Coming from Stornoway I'd have thought you would have realised how successive Westminster Goverments, Tory and Labour, have plundered and destroyed our industries for decades to create a wasteland ''all for the good of the Union''
The quicker it happens the better for all of us.

#1316. Eck from Lanarkshire - Lanarkshire
Thursday, August 23, 2007 13:01

Fair point about the things that Holyrood can do with its present resources, but what about its ability to expand those resources?

This week we hear of discontent in Edinburgh about the reorganisation of school provision, with declining school rolls, and disagreements over which schools to close and which to retain.

Given that the government is committed to reducing class sizes for primary schools and that the previous administration came unstuck over this issue, isn't the fact that a substantial slice of funding having to be diverted to transport projects going to frustrate even the best intentions?

Wouldn't it be worth considering looking at being able to borrow or adjust the tax/revenues regimes in order to fund these types of committments or other like projects in the future?

I must confess that I am set against financing public projects on the nothing down, forever to pay, get it cheap while you can, deals previous administrations have saddled us with.

More schools, green energy, hospital projects are all dependent on Westminster's willingness to adequately fund the Scottish Government.

We are at the tender mercy's of Gordon Brown, his underlings, or successors in office and if they get the notion that there's more votes in Kent or Middlesex by cutting funding to Scotland, basically we'd be stuffed regardless of the value of reciepts raised here.

So to say we have control over eg education, this is only true in as much as our begging bowl has enough in it.

For so many years the scottish voters were ruled by conservatives when the national majority voted for Labour believing that when they get to power they will right wrongs and make changes to the benefit of the scottish prople. The loss of our manufacturing base (coal and steel)by conservative govournements was the driving force behind Labour and when they get in power make no effort in saving our last industry (fishing)just to give westminster some favours in the EU?

Many comments have been along the lines of 'we don't trust the scottish executive to build a parliament bulding never mind running a country' what a defeatist attitude and total lack of confidence in your own people, we have many home grown champions of industry and a long history of exporting many of the best business and industrial minds over the past few centuries, setting up home rule (partial) after a few centuries was never going to be perfect but can only improve as the now diluted power is transferred towards full independence.

The Scotland and Wales Acts, and the re-introduction of a power-sharing, devolved Northern Ireland Assembly has changed the shape of the U.K. forever.
Many forget that, in 1922 after the partition of the island of Ireland, the first devolved parliament in the U.K. was opened with much pomp and ceremony by King George V at the new Stormont Parliament in Belfast.
The Unionist dominated parliament only came to end in 1968, some 46 years later when the Catholic population of the Province was no longer prepared to accept second class citizenship!
The resultant 30 year undeclared war with the IRA ended in stalemate and
the Province's constitutional arrangement within the U.K. has also
changed for all time.
The centralised British state is long gone with the wind and the United Kingdom is now a quasi-Federal state
in everything but constitutional name.
It is claimed that the U.K. has an unwritten constitution but this is far from the truth?
The 1536, 1707 and 1801 Acts of Union between England and Wales, Scotland, and the successor state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and Ireland, along with the subsequent Representation of the Peoples Acts and recent Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland Acts, govern the Constitution of the U.K. to this day.
The constitution of the U.K. will in all likelyhood continue to evolve into a more definitive Federal or Confederal model with more and more powers being slowly but gradually devolved from the Centre to the Celtic nations. In all probability, this will be the only way of preserving the Union.
However, IF at some future time another government at Westminster were, for whatever political reason, to recall existing legislative powers from the Celtic nations back to the Centre, in an attempt to reverse Devolution, then
it is obvious to a blind man it can only result in one outcome!
Westminster and the Scottish Unionist parties can only look forward to a long term rearguard defence of the Union against a further upsurge in Nationalism.
The majority of Scots are still Unionist but IF this majority should be reversed in favour of the Nationalists then there is virtually nothing, short of military intervention, that can be done to stop
an independent, sovereign Scottish State coming into existence?