The Scottish Government

Gordon McAuslane (1749 and 1753) wrote "As a scientist, I rely on measurable evidence and ignore events that can be given different import or quality according to the observer" and also "I considered only emigration and relative wealth" - well those are DEFINITELY open to interpretation! "there are certain facts in history that are not open to interpretation (re-evaluation)" - fewer than you might think. For instance, most people believe the American Declaration of Independence was signed on the Fourth of July. It wasn't.

"Re-evaluate history all you wish, going back to before 1707. It will be totally irrelevant to those trying to make a decision on independence for Scotland in a referendum" - my point was that, despite being extremely interested in history, I think the re-evaluation of history (of ANY time scale) is a LOWER priority than a referendum on independence for Scotland.

"The only party offering a referendum is the Scottish National Party" - that's strange. I remember being at a pro-referendum rally last year, which was addressed by speakers from the Green Party, the Scottish Socialist Party, and Tommy Sheridan of Solidarity, as well as by Eileen Campbell (now an SNP MSP). They all said they were in favour of a referendum. Are you SURE the others have since then changed their minds?

"It is a party political issue" - opinion polls have shown clearly that what a MINORITY of SNP voters want is not independence as such, but a pro-Scottish devolution government.

Opinion polls have also suggested that 20 to 25 percent of Tory voters, 30 to 35 percent of LibDem voters, and as much as 40 to 45 percent of Labour voters, WOULD be inclined to vote for independence in a referendum.

"I still do not understand the strange logic of anyone supporting any of the Unionist parties whilst wishing for a referendum on Scottish Independence" - you may find this baffling, but your puzzlement about this won't change the facts. The ONLY way to get all pro-independence voters voting the same way is through a non-party-political referendum.

" 2010 is what Salmond said. In setting a date, he is not picking his time according to opinion polls. He is betting that he will perform better than any Unionist government. It is you that wishes him to renege on this and have the referendum early." so, are you saying that it is not valid to argue for a referendum as soon as possible? I thought the whole point of this National Conversation (unlike the "commission") was that all views on such matters were to be considered?

"He has already picked his time" - so, are you saying, Alex's mind is made up, and there is no point arguing? In that case, what is this National Conversation for?

Fortunately, the first minister is a smart Alex. I don't believe he is quite as rigid in his attitude as you are.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

#1751 #1759 Stan Grodynski - East Lothian

Why do want to get hold of peoples names? In fact are you honestly telling us that'Stan Grodynski' is your REAL name and do we believe you?

The content of the submission is more important than the title of the sender.

Your denigration of 'Oor Wendy' and the lack of transparent and open government by Labour and the Lib-Dems has now been bypassed by the current administration.

First Minister meets Donald Trump, no way did he expect the decision to veto Mr Trump's development to be 'Called in' by Finance Minister John Swinney the very next day. The Minister for the Environment has also been surprisingly silent on the subject.

As for the Edinburgh trams project, was that not found to be accurately costed and is currently beating cost projections? Is it not also true that it was subjected to over 200 hours of scrutiny by the previous Executive and Parliament.

It's called Democracy when a project is properly debated and subjected to scrutiny as this clearly was.

The right to anonimity is tacit in our law provided comments made are within the bounds of decency.

Your concern about finding out WHO said WHAT is precisely why the SNP will not get the support of the voting public.

In the lead up to the referendum, I think it is vital to its success that the Scottish government make it very plain and clear that if (when!) independence does occur they will hold an election immediately, without implementing any of their other policies such as getting rid of nuclear power, staying in the EU etc.

Seems to me in any case, the then incumbent devolved government at Holyrood would have no legal or democratic status to use any new powers achieved via independence, but only to act as "caretaker" government until the results of an immediate election - and the will of the Scottish people - were known.

A vote for independence is not a vote for the SNP, nor is it a vote for any of its policies apart from independence, nor even for its people!

If this is not done, the chances of a referendum producing a vote in favour of independence will be greatly reduced, and that will be a tragedy.

#1760 - Dave Freshwater.

Yes, I agree. Everyone will come up with their own statistics as to how much Scotland contributes to the UK Government, how much subsidy we get, whether we could stand alone as a nation, whether we would prosper or decline economically. The answers will be in our own hands.

We are a modern technological nation and we will prosper roughly on the average European level, which is better than we are doing right now. With good stewardship, we may even do better than this. It would not be a dive into the unknown.

"Why is becoming an independent sovereign state seen as the solution to Scotland's problems?", you ask.

I can think of a few reasons:

The peerage system and its abuse by all the political parties.

The tax system which has widened the gap between rich and poor.

The lack of social mobility because of education policies and the above.

The welter of unnecessary legislation coming our of Westminster making policing impossible.

The chaotic criminal justice system and the burgeoning prison population (caused by above two).

The weak or non-existent representation of Scotland's needs in negotiations with the EU.

Our Westminster MPs becoming "Londonised" and decoupled from their constituents.

The cost of keeping them living and working in London. (£180,000/yr with expenses).

The cost of all government departments dealing with Scottish affairs in London.

Foreign policy which dictates who will be our allies and who our friends in the world.

Foreign policy which makes us wage war with peoples who mean us no harm, putting us at risk.

The imposition of nuclear power on us - depending on energy policy - and the dumping of the waste here.

Immigration policy which is based on the wishes of the south east of England, not the needs of Scotland.

The denying of education to the children of asylum seekers. (This was claimed to be a Reserved issue).

The welter of London news and Establishment views propagated by the electronic media.

The under-exploitation of the North Sea, which could be encouraged by reduction of oil taxes.

The setting of the minimum wage.

The closing of post offices throughout Scotland where need is greatest, especially in rural districts.

The freedom of taxing, spending, borrowing and lending in Scotland for Scots.

The removal from our shores of the most destructive device in the world, redundant and clearly designed for attack or threat, not defence - The Trident nuclear weapon system.

If we had control of all these things, which is only possible through becoming an independent sovereign state, we might become a more benign, more integrated society, (No such thing, said Thatcher) working together to solve the problems in our nation rather than pouring vitriol over each other and those who perhaps do not fit in.

1760 Bruce wrote:
"....My concern is that the debates for and against will be centered around statistics, "facts" and "evidence". Those on both sides of the debate will, as they do currently, produce all sorts of figures that support their argument. These figures will, I'm sure, all be true and accurate, but they will be "cherry picked"....."

On the face of it a reasonable point. However, it is not difficult to analyse the historical data from each side together with any propensity for 'fabrication' and come to a conclusion over who is most likely to be lying.

It can be stated without fear of contradiction that the Unionist establishment and politicians have been guilty of both withholding information and of fabrication, they're figures are anything but true and accurate. I asked one Unionist poster on this thread his opinion of the thouroughly discredited GERS document, citing two examples (amongst many) of blatant ommissions and errors regarding Scottish expenditure and generated revenue (i.e. whisky and oil). The poster could not argue with my points, instead used ignorance of GERS as an excues to avoid addressing them.

The accountant Niall Aslen has already produced, using treasury figures, an excellent report demonstrating that Scotland is in strong fiscal surplus when comparing generated revenue with the block grant. That no Scottish newspaper has covered this report, despite it being widely circulated and the treasury finding nothing remiss with the methodology, is telling and perhaps explains why so many people remain ignorant regarding the relative wealth of Scotland.

Using fabricated and imaginary figures and scare stories(remember the ever increasing 'black holes', tax and turmoil, businesses leaving in droves etc, etc during the recent election campaign?) has been a tactic used by Unionists for decades. Therefore it is not surprising that statistical evidence of this nature is so prominent in the debate, a debate that the Unionists are now losing thanks to the dissemination of facts on the internet.

There are other facets to the independence debate. The call for news to be produced in Scotland is one of them. Why we have to be content with seeing the world as interpretted through London's eyes is mystifying.

It would be interesting Bruce to know what criteria *you* think should be used when weighing up the pro's and cons of both the status quo and independence.

Finally you ask why independence is seen as the solution to Scotlands problems. The honest answer is that it isn't. What it *is* seen as in this context is a return of those powers currently devolved to Westminster together with control over our own revenue that will allow us to take our own decisions always with Scotlands best interestsat heart. It may not solve every problem in Scotland, however I am sure that by Governing ourselves then the positives (some unquantifiable) will outweigh the negatives.

[1760] You make some very good points and ask some valid questions but I guess, like many in-depth analyses, one’s conclusion comes down to a question of ‘judgement’. As someone who has travelled extensively, and perhaps lived abroad, you will no doubt have concluded that there are economic and/or social areas where Scotland has been slow to progress over recent decades in comparison with other countries, and such experiences have probably contributed to ‘your judgement’ that a Federal UK is the best constitutional arrangement to bring about greater progress in Scotland. Certainly such an arrangement seems more logical in today’s world than maintaining the current constitutional arrangement, but in ‘my judgement’ this is only a sustainable proposition if the UK is to withdraw from the EU, unless you believe people in general wish even more government control over their lives. As none of the major parties are proposing withdrawal from the EU, I would return to the point I made in #1147 of this ‘Conversation’ that given the reality of our continuing membership of the EU, Independence is now the way forward if we wish to maximize Scotland’s potential.


PS By-the-way I do believe there are significant differences between states or provinces of the ‘New World’ and the historic ‘Nation State’ of Scotland. One such difference is that these states and provinces only have one further tier of higher government decision-making, not two, as would be the case of a Federal UK within the EU (in other words "the total is greater than the sum of the parts" would seem a valid view in respect of a UK Government, or an EU Government, but not of both governments operating over an enduring period). Another difference, which is also not insignificant, is the strong positive drive to compete internationally that is derived from individual passion for a country that has a strong ‘national identity’ – a passion that one can see at major sporting events is certainly not lacking in many Scots!

#1748

Thank your for comments.

Firstly,

Your response touches on one of my primary concerns (not a concern about independence, but a concern about how to form the basis for making the decision for or against independence).

My concern is that the debates for and against will be centered around statistics, "facts" and "evidence". Those on both sides of the debate will, as they do currently, produce all sorts of figures that support their argument. These figures will, I'm sure, all be true and accurate, but they will be "cherry picked".

As such, I am very cynical of such "evidence" (regardless of which side of the debate it is designed to support).

This makes the decision harder to make.



Secondly, and this is a genuinely objective question (because I'm interested in people's answers)...

Why is becoming an independent sovereign state seen as the solution to Scotland's problems?

Again, your response is a good example of this. You cite a problem (falling standards in education) and suggest a solution (independence).

I'm interested in this because, in Canada, the USA and Australia (I've spent extended periods in all 3 countries), there are similar reports, statistics and news headlines, where states/provinces are compared with each other (just as sovereign countries are compared with other). In these reports, there will be states/provinces that do worse than others.

However, when a particular state/province reacts to these reports, seceding from the parent federation or commenwealth is NOT suggested as a solution. Instead, other solutions are proposed, where the state/province in question will take its own steps to address the issue.

Even Quebec, historically the most "restless" of the Canadian provinces, is far less inclined towards independence today as it was 15-20 years ago (largely as a result of more and more powers being devolved from the Federal government to Provinces during this period).

In Canada, the USA and Australia, for all the differences between the states/provinces in those countries (and there can be very marked differences), there is a geniune belief there that "the total is greater than the sum of the parts".

Why are we so different here?



Fundamentally, I'm a pragmatist. I want to keep day-to-day practicalities as straightforward as possible. I frequently travel all over the UK, as well regularly visit other EU countries, for both business and pleasure.

Based on experience, I feel it is true to say that travelling from one sovereign state to another is not as straightforward as travelling within a single sovereign state. Even in the mainland EU (or travelling between Northern Ireland and the Republic), whilst physically crossing the borders is easy, there are sill practicalities to be considered

- Which ATM network do I use here?
- What mobile phone network is best/cheapest?
- What are the licensing hours?
- What are the smoking laws?
- How much is petrol?
- Do convenience stores stock that particular item here?

... etc. (to suggest a few off the top of my head)


With these practicalities in mind, my preference would be for a fully federal UK, where England, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland, have far greater fiscal and legislative autonomy than they do today (so that each state has the powers needed to solve problems specific to them), yet the day-to-day practicalities of being a UK citizen would remain as straightforward as they currently are.

[1758], [1754], [1745], et al

In these days of ‘transparency’ and more ‘open government’ (terms with which “Oor Wendy” still appears to be struggling) and when we are contemplating whether we as a nation have the courage to rise to the possible challenges posed of an Independent Scotland, it is disappointing that some still seem to be lacking in the confidence of their own opinions and feel the need to hide behind ‘self-anointed labels’ in a ‘conversation’ such as this, but perhaps old habits die hard?

Returning to the subject of contributions to this Conversation, it appears that some have regrettably failed to grasp that minority government means ‘compromise’ so by definition the government is unlikely to be in a position to implement all of its plans. Funding an unplanned tram system of course means cutting funding elsewhere, such as in education and policing, and those that are genuinely upset with this outcome should perhaps focus on lobbying the opposition parties to allow the SNP to implement its plans rather than berate the SNP even for short-term concessions to those plans.

If anyone indeed believes that the SNP have initially performed very badly, they should ask themselves why a reportedly “bright person” such as Wendy Alexander has now called for a Constitutional Commission and more constitutional powers for Scotland, which is the opposite policy from the one she was supporting only a few months ago? Surely even the most ‘one-eyed’ supporters of Labour, Old or New, must concede that this would not have happened had the SNP not come into power via the last election and performed with reasonable competence?

But regrettably I suspect that some are less interested in rigorous analysis of the facts than they are committed to obstinately defending the Labour party (read attacking the SNP) irrespective of whether such support is likely to lead to a more broadly successful Scotland in the future, or not. Those that are sincere in wishing to improve the health, education and prospects of future generations should at least attempt to take an objective look at the current constitutional arrangements, without any perceived obligations to past alliances, and should face up to facts and admit that decades of ‘sticking-plasters’ have not worked (as evidenced by our slide down various tables of socio-economic performance). The logical conclusion would seem to be that fundamental changes are necessary for Scotland to be successful in tomorrow’s world and that Independence should indeed be seriously considered by the Scottish people in a Referendum!

Number 1757

Sorry my freind, the complaint was that the Labour administration was run from the centre, and held up to ridicule by the current administration. You are suggesting that the SNP adopt the role closest to that of a dictatorship that I have seen to date. NOT in a month of Sundays.

The Independance of Scotland will be won or lost not by a referendum but by how well the SNP manage the country and deliver a new landscape for Scotland. It is time not just to reform but to radically change the economic and civil service environment. SE and HIE must be accountable direct to parliament, no boards, no quango's should exist, they should be a department and they should directly run all the economic services of the Country with a direct report to Alex Salmond, John Swinney and Jim Mather. Why are we paying for all these board members and CEO, HR Departments, Finance staff and subsidiary companies (see Moragh McDonald entry in Nicola nad Jim Mather's blogs) etc. Surely these functions exist and are already paid for in the Civil Service. Where is the shared service and economies of scale agenda? At present we are surely just wasting tax payers money.