The Scottish Government

Can I thank Gabrielle H Aberdeen (#1248, #1295) for starting a rational thread of discussion.
It is intelligent, well presented and makes a refreshing change from some of the rants
that appear too often.

I appreciate Gabrielle's caution in deciding if independence would be good or bad for
Scotland and believe that a great many people will share her views.

Yes, Education, Health care and Social services are what most people are interested in
improving. However, to a large degree Scotland can already dictate what happens in these areas.
The problem thus far has been one of poor management and a lack of control over another key
component of which has very little control - that of the economy.

This in turn stymies the aspirations of Scots and affects our social and cultural behavior.
(Eg. Excessive youth drinking due to lack of opportunities, through to successful Scottish
business people selling their companies as they don't feel they can do any better)

In controlling the economy I am certain that we can improve all other areas for the better.

What the SNP need to do is persuade the electorate that they COULD improve services in
this way. I don't see any sign of them doing this yet.

#1314. David Ardrey - Cumbernauld,Scotland
Thursday, August 23, 2007 11:19

I watched Wendy Alexander on Newsnight Scotland last night and she repeatedly refused to be drawn on what additional powers she envisaged for Holyrood, never mind what additional fiscal measures she was in favour of.

Interestingly she admitted that Labour have been ghetto-ised into their Greater Glasgow and Lanarkshire heartlands, but to become more representative of the north, south, east and west she was embarking on a mission to talk to Labour supporters all around Scotland.

What does she imagine this is going to achieve?

She's going to make sure that local Labour party officials are 'on message' from the wise Wendy, or, she's going to take advice from the very people who lost Labour the election.

If she really wants to improve Labour in Scotland's party standing around the country preaching to the converted is hardly going to help.

I suspect Wendy reasons that it wasn't so much New Labour policies to blame for their poor showing but poor leadership from Union Joke and Honest Tony.
What Labour in Scotland's party needs is an intelligent, smart, charismatic leader who comes over well on the media.

Well, until they find one they've got Wendy.

So Des Browne is going to work with Wendy. If I was a cynical man it could be said that Browne’s statement a few days ago and his enthusiasm now for working with Wendy are stage managed by The New Labour spin machine, to show Alexander in a good light. Remember Wendy we are listening to you. Wendy will be ‘listening’ not to the electorate but to the New Labour machine in London. It may also be perceived that Wendy has been listening to the Scottish Liberal Democrats and drawing on ‘The Steel Report’
( www.scotlibdems.org.uk/files/steelcommission.pdf ) A taster of what the ‘Report’ advocates can be found
Page 90 and onward: The Principles of Fiscal Federalism
Page 99 onward: A New Fiscal Settlement for Scotland
Page 110 onward: Conclusions and Recommendations
Now I am not saying that the Scottish Labour party will plagiarise all the policies in this document, they will adopt some of them in a diluted format. Alexander’s terminology: fiscal autonomy/ fiscal federalism over that past few days mirrors some of the content/language in The Steel Report. Who knows this could be the start of a new friendship between The Scottish Labour Party, The Scottish Liberal Democrats and New Labour. I think I will go and familiarise myself with that old Burns Classic: Such A Parcel Of Rogues In a Nation.

1302. Dave Coull - Balnabreich
Thursday, August 23, 2007 00:08

Isn't the point of this forum for us to discuss what we want our government to be able to do for us and say to government: these are the resources we feel you should have to best look after our interests?

A referendum would then in effect say: if we understand what you have said these are the options you want,
a, b, c, d,
please indicate which option you favour.

#1307/08. Braveheart - Scotland
Thursday, August 23, 2007 09:13

'Regular referendums' bypass our elected representatives?

Maybe so, but when were the last ones held?
1972 EEC, 1979,1997 and possibly 2010 devolution, regular(ish) I'll grant you, but one every ten years or so?
I'd say that was hardly undermining due political process.

When asked 80% of the Scottish public have repeatedly said that they want this referendum, hardly a minority.

In context, Gordon Brown's party was returned to Westminster on the mandate of 35% of the UK electorate who voted, or 25% overall.

How democratic is it when four/fifths of the country, across all political divides, asks to be heard but because three out of four main parties fear the outcome of such an expression of public will they refuse to listen?

Where is the democracy in that?
You can vote, but only if you promise to vote for me?

No matter, when the time comes and politicians are called to account, there will be little sympathy for those who suffer at the ballot box.

Ask Maggie's Tories in Scotland what happened to them.

As an Englishman bringing up a family in Scotland with no intention of moving back to England, I think the referendum an excellent idea and independence, if managed well, an outstanding opportunity for this country.

For those people who haven't the time to read all the comments already made, I think it a pity this national conversation is linear. Implementing a forum or similar would have been relatively straightforward and allowed discussions around specific user-generated topics. It may have been more difficult to moderate, but the effort would have allowed more to come out of this. I suggest the moderators look to organisations like mysociety.org for inspiration.

Alan Steele's comment @ 1304
The weak point in your proposition of a Federal settlement for the UK is that opinion in England is hostile. In my observation this is also the esential view within the LibDem's in England.
The failure to establish a regional parliament in the English north east (seen as the region most favourable to the idea) is a living example. Most people from England who express an opinion on the subject, on the numerous newspaper web sites, see regional assemblies as a plot to sub-divide England and suppress her. It is an option which is just not practical.
Also, you use of the word "separatism" is a slur on our people who advocate Scotland re-joining the international community of nations. Is is you and the other unionists who would keep Scotland separate. Independence is the best option for a normal country, so we should vote for, when we win the chance.

Maybe my little barb should have been directed against Eddie Forbeis Climo. Sorry if i got confused, but the point remains.. I think.

George H.. my post on the very subject crossed yours. It seems that Harry Reid, an prominent and influential nationalist, agrees with "some Westminster politicians"..

As for "phoney logic proving bliack is white" it seems he thinks your logic is phoney...and he's on your side... ...

Don't be so paranoid. Politicians you disagree with can be still be right, as in this case.

I see that lots of nationalists posting here are claiming that others want to deprive "us" of "our right" to a referendum..

..there is an interesting piece in today's Herald by Harry Reid, a nationalist, who points out that referendums are the tool of choice for demagogues and populists and should be used sparingly...some quotes...

"The trouble with referendums is that they are not compatible with representative government. .... If you hold regular referendums you are asking the people to ... bypass their elected representatives. This is a recipe for populism."

"..if some issues are so big and important that they cannot be left to our elected representatives, why have these representatives at all?"

"(hanging)...is a classic instance of representative democracy working well. People like me have lost the argument on an issue of conscience, and we should accept defeat graciously."

"...referendums and representative government are ultimately irreconcilable..."

"... in wanting these two referendums I accept that I may be helping to undermine rather than strengthen our representative democracy."

So. My minority obsessive friends. Put your synthetic rage back in the dookit you keep it in between manufactured controversies. No-one is depriving you of any god given right. Unless you demand the right to undermine representative democracy..?