The Scottish Government

#1753 - Dave Coull - Balnabreich.

Quote: "Supporting independence isn't supporting the SNP"

I still do not understand the strange logic of anyone supporting any of the Unionist parties whilst wishing for a referendum on Scottish Independence. Nor do I understand the logic of any Unionist voting for the SNP risking a referendum on independence.

The only party offering a referendum is the Scottish National Party. If everyone at the last election had voted in the traditional way, we would be back in the same position as we were before the election with a lazy, un-ambitious and dishonest Labour administration deferring to London for fear of offending Labour Central Office.

You are calling vociferously for a referendum, yet you don 't support any party. Other voters, therefore, have delivered your wish. Simply put - no SNP government, no referendum, no good fairy - and NO CHANCE OF CHANGE TO THE CONSTITUTION.

After the referendum, we return to supporting the party of our choice - inside or outside the Union.

It's time a new law came into effect: that only money raised by the Scottish parties can be used for Scottish elections.

This would prevent large subsidies from the London parties interfering with politics in Scotland, and would greatly level the playing field.

#1743

You may have noticed that I am one of those keen to monitor the SNP's honesty and integrity, which is precisely why I am "banging on" about their broken promises!

That you are unconcerned as Salmond reneges on his manifesto commitments can only suggest contempt for the average voter.

This, along with Scottish Labour's present how can I say difficulties, highlights EVERYTHING that is wrong with politics and politicians today. It also explodes any illusion the average Scottish voter had that Salmond's arrival would mean higher standards in politics.

But at least you acknowledge the broken promises. That, at least, is something.

Dave Eastabrook from Largs (1740) says "If breaking election promises, or being a 'party' to breaking them, were to be a capital offence, there soon wouldn't be a single politician alive".

Exactly. All the idiots who have been posting on this forum about which political party has broken more promises are completely missing the point. This "national conversation" is supposed to be about CONSTITUTIONAL matters, about how best to arrange things for the better government of Scotland regardless of which political party happens to be in power at any given time, NOT about which political party folk should vote for!

Dave Eastabrook also says "Supporting Independence isn't supporting the SNP" - completely agree. I am neither a member nor a supporter of the SNP but I am in favour of independence. Some folk are in favour of independence and yet continue to vote for the Labour Party. On the other hand, some folk vote SNP as a way of "getting the best deal for Scotland" and yet they wouldn't actually be in favour of complete independence. In party political elections, folk decide how to vote because of their views on dozens of different issues which are irrelevant to whether Scotland should be independent or not. Also, in party political elections, folk are electing a politician, they are actually choosing some particular person to get the job as their MSP, so they can be influenced in how they vote by which candidate they think has a nicer smile. There is really only one way to settle whether support for independence is a majority or a minority view amongst the electors of Scotland, and that is to separate the issue from party politics, and separate it from voting for any particular politician, through having a simple, straightforward referendum on independence.

However, I'm not so keen when Dave Eastabrook says about an independent Scotland, "Who knows, one of our first laws could be to ban political parties completely?" - politicians break promises and political parties can get up to all sorts of dirty tricks, but actually banning them altogether would be a kind of dictatorship. Let's keep things democratic, starting with

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

# 1741 Trident - Yes or No? (Fifey) - Fife.

I see that you have been gullible enough to swallow the weasel words of Tony Blair when he pushed Trident through an unwilling Parliament. £20bn, he said, to replace the submarines, which is about 2-3% of the total defence budget, as you said.

Des Browne has recently come up with a revised figure of £100 - £110 billion, about 10% of the 25-year defence budget. This would make the whole defence budget of the order of £1000 billion. (Is that a trillion?)

This is broken down into:

Buying and operating a successor to Trident - £70bn
Maintaining the existing warheads until 2023 - £30bn

Two things follow from this:

1. No contracts go to UK companies. We only supply the warheads in the UK, and the Aldermaston
facility is part-owned by Lockheed Martin, a US company.

2. The British total budget for defence is £1000 billion as stated above, over 25 years. That means that
Scotland's share is about £71 billion over 25 years i.e. about £2.8 billion per year.

If we had our own army with conventional modern weapons, it could be the best-equipped in Europe on this money. What's more, most of the money for protective equipment could be spent here in Scotland. We might buy some of our military hardware in England, BUT THE MAIN THING IS, OUR LADS WOULD NOT HAVE TO BUY THEIR OWN BOOTS!

Get this straight. Britain since the end of Empire has been a tinpot regime with an economy on a par with France and with less potential. We cannot even afford proper protective equipment for our troops. What are we doing investing billions on a weapon that is totally useless in the face of modern threats?

# 1745 Trident - Yes or No? (Fifey) - 2 - Fife.

NNPT - the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty was designed to get states to forgo nuclear weapons in return for the existing nuclear powers reducing their arsenals. The Trident system installed in 1992 was designed to combat a massive Soviet threat. That threat disappeared in December 1991. Yet we still have the weaponry to match the mighty Soviet Union. We have in Trident the means of making the world uninhabitable for mankind. To say that we will be reducing the number of warheads by 20% is laughable and insulting to the nations who feel threatened by this abomination with its ability to kill indiscriminately men, women and children - ANYWHERE ON THE PLANET- overkill on a massive scale.

To use diplo-speak, it's for the 'protection of our interests' . Interpret this as 'armed robbery' of any nation whose mineral wealth we covet to increase our already sufficient prosperity. In this, we are the lackeys of the most dangerous nation on earth , bent on world domination.

If we were threatened with pre-emptive strike by one of these weapons, would we not wish to have something in reserve to at least deter such an attack? It was ok for Israel to go for it, wasn't it?

We have been 'in the faces' of and exploiting the so-called 'rogue states' two centuries now. We have not been exploited by them. This weapon is only needed to persuade them to continue fulfilling our needs.

An independent Scotland will not be indulging in the exploitation of any nation on earth and will, I hope, deal with every nation fairly. This way, we will need a minimal defence force and maybe we could divert some of the money to improving the general well-being of our country.

#1750 (perhaps not surprisingly still reluctant to 'reveal' himself/herself !)

Hopefully most neutrals reading contributions to this Conversation will see beyond the comments of those with narrow perspectives and limited visions, or perhaps sinister motives, to divert this debate away from reversing Scotland’s relative international demise in recent decades to analysing the short-term failings of a minority government that has less funds to work with than it anticipated, especially as it had essentially no option in the circumstances but to fund a not inexpensive Edinburgh Tram Project that it did not support.

With regard to the simplistic question of “who was right and who was wrong” I think most objective analyses would concur that the SNP have got off to a reasonable start without the ‘cataclysm’ predicted in some less rational quarters.

But, the time to judge the SNP’s performance in government will be at the next election, and if those same people that continued to support an uninspiring Labour party in Scotland through many many years of dispiriting underachievement extend a fraction of that ‘good grace’ to the SNP, then providing they continue to adhere as closely as practically possible to the principles espoused in their election manifesto, the SNP should be re-elected, perhaps to lead an Independent Scotland.

More important however than the question of which party will be governing Scotland after the next election is the question of whether we will have the best constitutional arrangement for today’s children to realise their dreams in the future – I personally think we can do much better for all of our children if we focus Scotland’s resources, including its primary resource, its people, on Scotland, than relying others to look out for Scotland’s interests if we pass our resources to them, and I believe recent history suggests such thinking is indeed logical!

#1748

I completely agree, it is imperative that the Executive invest in education. Which begs the question - Why didn't they do it when they had the chance on 14 November?

That they didn't, even though Swinney and Salmond had previously promised university principals that they wouldn't be shortchanged is why it is such a betrayal.

It is also why Hyslop's backflip on the clear commitment to reduce class sizes is so hard to bear for many Scots.

And as for "irrational scaremongering", well, it's a told you so sort of scenario, isn't it?

If memory serves didn't the opposition parties, business leaders, etc all have doubts on it happenening, precisely because the SNP couldn't find the money to do it. Then as now, people like yourself called them scaremongers.

But in the cold light of day - who was right and who was wrong?

# 1746 Dave Coull - Balnabreich.

We are old codgers of about the same age and wisdom, I guess.

All I was saying in my post that there are certain facts in history that are not open to interpretation (re-evaluation). As a scientist, I rely on measurable evidence and ignore events that can be given different import or quality according to the observer. I considered only emigration and relative wealth.

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. Only recent history will count as far as determining what is likely to happen in a future within the Union - say, since WWII.

As far as your disagreeing with Gordon Brown having the freedom to choose the election date - I agree - that is wrong. But this is the first non-union government to be in power and the people have a right to judge its performance before plunging into independence. 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. He has already picked his time and he is betting that the public will have seen enough of his style of leadership to say yes to independence.

I beg to differ. It is a party political issue. The SNP, is a broadly left-of-centre party incorporating differing political views, but it is the only party offering a referendum on independence. No SNP government. No independence. After Independence, it may well split into new parties of the right and left, according to which path they wish to see Scotland follow. You can then choose to support (or not) any party you wish. The name SNP will probably disappear for fear of being associated with the BNP - or as it will probably be then - the ENP.

#1747 Of course if one is content for Scotland to continue to slide down the various tables indicating relative socio-economic performance in the meantime (no doubt you have seen the latest table indicating that we are now even falling behind in basic reading skills – 26th), it perhaps makes sense to wait for the case for Independence to be 'proven'. However, throughout the history of the human race there have been few certain outcomes when contemplating any decisions, never mind decisions that could determine a nation’s future (although even the most persistent sceptics now appear to at least admit that Scotland could indeed stand on its own feet economically if Independent in spite of the irrational scaremongering that was conducted before the SNP came into Government). Therefore, I personally would encourage those who continue to have doubts about Independence to reflect on the progress made throughout history due to the belief and courage of our enlightened ancestors to take on new challenges, and not simply to settle for mediocrity in a status quo founded on a lack of long-term vision in some of our career politicians and a lack of ambition amongst others to create a much brighter future for all of Scotland’s children.

1734. Gordon Murray - Livingston

I don't follow your logic, wrt. Irish independence.

After that referendum, the rest of the British Isles (excl. the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands) was still called "The United Kingdom", with its citizens still "British".

However, you seem to be saying that the wishes of (potentially) only 3.3 million people, if we assume that a referendum on independence would need a two thirds majority (referenda on constitutional matters usually do) would determine the nationality of 60+ million people.

Also, I don't believe that a potential "yes" result, for Scottish independence, would result in the 1707 Act of Union being repealed. The 1707 Act would still stand, and be superceded by a new act or bill, which would have entirely new details (or "small print").

As far as risk management goes, I feel that it is most likely that people will base a decision on independence on "the heart" or "gut feeling", rather than "the head".

I want to do my best to base such a decision on "the head", using the available facts and/or logical argument. This will help me determine "what I believe to be the better option and, therefore, which of the options 'I want'".

I believe that "the facts" and/or "the truth" will be impossible to come by (as they will inevitably be presented to us by those with strong views one way or the other), so cannot be relied upon.

This leaves logic, as the remaning basis upon which I can base the decision.

Logically, what is known is less risky than what is unknown.

Surely then, the onus is on those that are pro-indpendence to reassure us all that their proposed "unknown" is as "safe" as the current "known".

A challenge!