The Scottish Government

721. George H - Dalkeith wrote:

"How totally refreshing. A govt website that is not afraid to publish criticism of its policies alongside support for them. How totally against everyhting Alistair Campbell stood for. Any more of this and politicians will begin to be taken seriously again."

. . . and I'd add, any more of this and the electorate will begin to be taken seriously!

By the way, have you heard the argument against referenda given by some Westminster politicians? It's like one of those amusing bits of phoney logic that 'prove' Black is White:

-- We live in a parliamentary democracy
-- The democratic will of the electorate is expressed at the ballot box every few years, when they elect their parliamentary representatives
-- Referenda take no notice of the will of parliament
-- Therefore, referenda are undemocratic

So, the 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 in NOT democratic.

R U B B I S H !

#1295. Gabrielle H - Aberdeen
Wednesday, August 22, 2007 21:53

A gradualist approach is fine and dandy, our kids or grandchildren will reap the benefit in their time.
But how will we be judged by history?

I just would feel awful when, in 10, 20 or 30 years time, our country does make it to normality and equal terms with our neighbours, those kids ask us why did you just squander that lottery win you found under the north sea?

Even when the folks dipping your pockets were caught(McCrone)bang to rights, you let them off and admitted it was basically your own fault and 'thankyou for putting up with us'.

£300bn up to 2007 with nothing to show for it, and the same again still underground for a population of only 5million.


That could've saved our mines, shipbuilding, steelyards, fisheries, factories, families driven to dispair, given countless kids a decent start in life instead of condemning them to fester without hope in forsaken urban 'sink' estates and dead villages.

How can we look ourselves in the mirror when we've been presented with the chance to do something for them and for ourselves yet sat on our hands, waiting for things to 'gradually' get better.

£10bn a year in a country our size buys a lot of new houses, schools and hospitals or, if you're in Edinburgh, model urban transport schemes and peace from city center shopping.

In response to David Adrey at 1291 -thank you for your comments.

The two extremes largely being advocated thus far in this 'conversation' do little to advance our nation's cause. A read of the Steel Commission's well thought out proposals at: www.scotlibdems.org.uk/files/steelcommission.pdf will certainly assist informing the reader and the tone of this debate. The Empire is indeed a relic of the past; as is some romantic Jacobitesque notion that Scotland can only recover glory through separatism.

Let us use our patriotism and love of Scotland sensibly to ensure that we continue to thrive as a proud nation within a federal framework of something larger.

One final thought - the USA has a federal system - when did you last hear of a Texan feeling inferior with his lot? 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.

Being a proud Scot should never be equated to feeling down-trodden by a larger neighbour.

I would just like to say we have a real chance hear to make our wee country our own.Wee as a nation seem to da enough moanin about how we are treated as second class,so now we have a chance to do something about it so come on <SCOTLAND! lets take the bull by the horns.This is going to be the most important question most of us will ever be asked about our future and that of (OOR)country.So come on lets go for it, to say we cannie run our own country well lets show them we can and we can dae a dam better job than them.the only reason the Union works for th goverment is to drain the countrys they hold on to through fear!We have a chance to change this for our selfs and dont forget the future of our wee country our kids!So lets make our kind realy realy pround of us and give them the best present ever there own country. p.s sorry about the spellin was never ma strong point but a do know ma heart!

Paul Sergeant (1293) asks "what should be in the first referendum:
negotiations for independence;
increased powers for the Scottish Parliament;
abolition of the Scottish Parliament;
abolition of the Westminster Parliament;
other options people are suggesting?"

It would be completely pointless to include an "increased powers for the Scottish Parliament" option in any referendum, because the phrase is totally meaningless. You might as well include a "have a nice day" option. "Increased powers" can mean anything from mere window-dressing to total independence, with a hundred different variations in between. Since the phrase itself is almost totally meaningless, a vote for it could be interpreted to mean anything that the politicians want it to mean, thus depriving those who voted for it of any real say. Besides, we are absolutely certain to get some "increased powers" for the Scottish parliament anyway. That will happen automatically, as a way of Gordon Brown and his Westminster colleagues seeking to avoid independence.

While a case could be made for "Abolition of the Westminster parliament", by definition that would be a UK-wide matter, so there would be no point including it in a purely Scottish referendum.

"Abolition of the Scottish parliament" is just a distraction from the real issue. Dozens of opinion polls have shown that this is supported by only a very small percentage of the population. There is no point in including an option which cannot point to some significant body of support already existing. It's just irrelevant.

That leaves the question of "negotiations for independence". Now, of course there would have to be negotiations, every country which has moved to independence, India, Nigeria, Ireland, yes, even the USA, has involved a negotiations stage. But I think the referendum really has to be kept as simple and straightforward as possible. It should be an "independence - yes or not?" type question. A "yes" vote to that straighforward question would be the authorisation for negotiations.

Keep it simple and straightforward. Independence - yes or no?

The anti SNP campaign ran by Labour during the last election was deplorable, i can only imagine they lacked conviction in their own policies that slander and scaremongering were the only means of securing a public vote. This 'new' discussion on independance has Labour and all other parties running scared...what will happen to scots mps in England following the break up of the union? What will happend with the monarchy? How will it affect the independance movements in Wales and IReland? If we move to England will we be effectively immigrating? Will it effectively break up Britain? How will the pro unionists react? Can we settle the question of North Sea Oil? Can we justify selling drought striken English counties scottish water at 2quid a litre? What about division of state wealth? How will it effect Englands power in the European Union? These are not questions we should ask ourselves, the only questions we need to answer is Do we want to govern ourselves? do we want to remain part of a larger state? Will we be better off on our own? What will happen if it all goes pear shaped? Will taxes go up? Will industries move elsewhere? The most honest answer i think anyone can give would be i dont know. However I for one will be voting yes...on the basis that i dont believe we are particularly better off under a foreign power, a scottish parliament would be concerned with Scottish issues, we would have a voice of our own, and if and when we make mistakes it will be our mistakes, we will have only ourselves to blame, i would prefer to make my own mistakes than leave my fate in the hands of others many of which have never set foot in this country (how quickly we forget 18 years of Tory iron rule even though almost the whole of Scotland were voting Labour). As for those who are arguing that we should not even discuss this issue i would say the SNP won the last election (however you like to look at it) albeit marginally, but they won...get over it, enough people in Scotland have made it be known that they would consider independance in order for the question to be raised. Its my belief that if the First Minister does a fair job over the next few years that the swing to SNP will be greater in the next election. Perhaps the opposition parties should be more concerned with listening to the people and applying relevant issues to their policies and avoiding scandal in an effort to keep their voters rather than resort to an 'anti' campaign, its bad sport and not very british now is it?

If Partition happens can those Scots living in london form a mini scotland, lets call it Scotland South (a la East Pakistan - now Bangladesh)? And will the flooding be as bad?

btw, Salmond reminds me of Gandhi..(a bit fatter mind you)

No. 1248 Gabrielle H.
*** NB: Pragmatism: A practical, matter-of-fact way of approaching or assessing situations or of solving problems. ***
Surely in order to solve a problem you need to know as much of the relevant facts as possible and not base a decision on heresay evidence. You quote various web pages that are inspired by the BBC which like yourself shows more than a little bias towards unionism. Your selective arguments are partially based on third party evidence. There was a saying in N. Ireland in the 70's "Loyal to the Crown...but more loyal to the Half Crown" Unfortunately thats the impression I have of your position and believe me, I have left out the passion.
I am saddened that you think Scotland too poor to fund essential services and can only presume that you will emigrate to our better of neighbour. I would hope though that perhaps you might travel to some of the other INDEPENDANT countries that make up the EU and just simply use your pragmatic skills to observe how they cope without being under the benign umbrella of this wonderful system that you so heavilly admire. Can I suggest that you start with the Cancer treatment available in Holland and compare with here, but again, the Dutch actually beleive that the Belgains have it better. I could repeat the true story of ********** and the sole Cancer treatment centre in Hamersworth London. They had the gear but no staff, so where did ********** receive treatment? in one of the 4 dedicated establishments in Holland. This was widley reported in the Dutch press who enjoyed pointing out the hypocrisy of The UKs official lies. I really believe that your views are set and that although you hide behind this adopted title of pragmatism that your soul is unionist, therefore there is no hope for you.

Malcolm *1273
"I think Scotland is better off as British, its sporting teams should be disbanded and placed under the UK banner."

Great stuff Malc. Fully agree with you. A British team might actually win something, like the Ashes (although if memory serves there aren't that many good Scottish cricketers - except Dougie Brown and Gavin Hamilton of course). Can you think of any others?

Ref Louise #1285 suggesting taking the conversation into the workplace etc. Must agree as I did that very thing today advising workmates about participating into this conversation and got "what conversation?". By engaging them into the conversation, people will be more empowered to make informed judgments and stimulated to read beyong the cynical tabloid comments. We owe it to ourselves to encourage greater awareness and participation.

Final comment, please can the conversation continue in the main to rise above the occasional personal and negative threads that appear?

I am firmly in favour of Independence but fully respect the debate and the differing points of view and keen to follow the arguments.