The Scottish Government

Gordon MacAuslane (1732), responding specifically to my post 1728, wrote "The usefulness of history, which you seem to have missed"

I am sixty six years old. Although most of my working life was spent in the building industry, all of my life, the study of history has been a major "hobby" or interest of mine. In late middle age, I went to university as a "mature" student and studied history more formally, graduating with an honours degree in the subject. Although I never expected my studies to lead to a new career late in life, I am well aware of the usefulness of my chosen subject. And like I said, "in any country, at any time, the re-evaluation of history should be a continuous process, as new evidence comes to light, and as the re-examination of previous assumptions reveals just how flimsy the evidence is on which they are based". What I was objecting to was (1) the obviously loaded implication that this re-examination should ONLY apply to the past three centuries, and (2) any implication that this re-examination is a matter of greater urgency than holding a referendum on independence.

Gordon MacAuslane (1732), again responding specifically to me, asked me "why are you agitating for a referendum?"

Because I am consistently in favour of the right of self-determination. I was the very first person to propose the idea of a single-issue, non-party-political, campaign for a referendum on independence, back in September 2004. (Note that I stress "non-party-political" rather than "cross-party". There is a difference. The difference is that the first implies a major role for folk who are NOT in any political party, while the second implies some sort of co-operation BETWEEN certain political parties.) That idea, proposed by me, caught on with others, and we did in fact press for such a referendum. We wrote to the British Government in June 2006 putting the demand for a referendum, and at the same time we also wrote to the First Minister Jack McConnell, and through him the Scottish Executive and the Scottish Parliament, putting this demand. Although the answer from the Scottish Executive was buck-passing, and the answer from the British Government was negative, that was to be expected, and we continued to press this demand through petitions, demonstrations, and so on.

The demand for a referendum is in line with the internationally-recognised basic right of self-determination. The United Nations lays down three conditions for the United Nations REQUIRING a government to hold self-determination referendum in any particular case, and Scotland fulfills these three conditions better than any other territory on Earth which is not already independent. The UN conditions are (1) that there should be a recognisable 'nation' for whom this self-determination applies, (2) that there should be a recognised 'territory' within which this community lives and within which the self-determination referendum will take place, and (3) that there should be evidence of a 'significant' demand for independence. (Note that there is no requirement to prove 'majority' support for independence, whether it is majority or minority is for the actual referendum to establish, so far as the UN is concerned it is sufficient to prove 'significant' support.)

If a referendum on independence for Scotland is not held, then it is only a matter of time before this goes to the UN and they REQUIRE one to be held. Anyone who considers themselves a democrat, regardless of which way they would vote in such a referendum, has no excuse for NOT backing the demand for a referendum.

Oh, by the way, I have been consistently in favour of independence for Scotland. When we finally get the referendum we have been demanding, I will campaign for a vote in favour of independence. But that is no reason why people who would vote differently should not also back this demand.

"What's the hurry?" - this year, 2007, is the three hundredth anniversary of the Act of Union. Three hundred years of NOT being asked whether we want to be independent or part of a united kingdom. And YOU, Gordon, are in favour of slowing things down still more??????!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Are you frightened the good governance of the SNP over time will win more supporters" - I don't give a damn which political party has more supporters. This is NOT a party political question. Yes, there are plenty of members of both the Labour Party and of the SNP (yourself included) who try to turn it into a party political question, but the whole point of a referendum is that there is plenty of evidence that, in a referendum, people do NOT automatically vote on party political lines.

"Like Gordon Brown re-his election, Alex Salmond will pick his own time" - I think the British prime minister being able to CHOOSE when to have an election is a disgracefully un-democratic way of doing things, and I am not in favour of any First Minister of Scotland being allowed to get away with imitating the disgracefully un-democratic ways of Westminster. In Scotland, the people are sovereign. Let's prove it by demanding

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

#1744

As signatories of the non-proliferation treaty we are required to reduce our nuclear arsenal, which phase 2 Trident subs WILL do.

As signatories of the non-proliferation treaty Iran undertook NOT to develop nuclear weapons and reneged on that promise, which is why the UN are upset.

Personally if they want to go that route I have no difficulty with that either, it just makes the case for keeping Trident stronger.

Mr Salmond was very vociferous about his objection to Trident BEFORE the election but became very muted AFTER the election when he realised just how much the Scottish Executive, oops Government, and economy benefitted from the subs being sited in Faslane. (Remember the £80 million bill the UK government were to be presented with? What happened to it?)

His argument that the British government would keep the submarine facility at Faslane to provide service facility for the hunter / killer class subs only is someway short of naivity in the extreme.

The idea that Scotland can ditch the whole of the benefits of supporting the army, navy and air force bases is also a VERY long term project and needs some real debate, not smart one - liners from our First Minister.

At the current rate of recruitment it looks like the nuclear deterrent, or MAD option may be the only realistic option left to us.

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

As a matter of interest, what do you think we might need Trident for? Maybe to finish off the terrorist who tried to blow up Glasgow Airport? It would be quick - only two minutes from Helensburgh - and you would have nailed him good and proper.

May be you have forgotten that we are signatories to the Nuclear Non Proliferation Treaty. This means that in return for other nations not developing nuclear weapons, we are supposed to reduce our nuclear arsenal.

Personally, I think the likes of Iran has every right to develop nukes and the means of delivery. They have not threatened us, and on the other hand, we and the Americans have threatened pre-emptive nuclear strikes against them.

Maybe you do not realise that if just one of the Trident D-5 missiles, each with 12 warheads and each of these with a power of 100 kilotonnes of TNT( Hiroshima was only 16 kilotonnes and killed 140,000 people) was targeted on a country in the Middle East, the debris kicked into the atmosphere would darken the planet for a period of years producing a nuclear winter resulting in global starvation, radiation sickness and death, especially in Europe and the UK. It may destroy the enemy, but it would rebound on us big time. Remember Chernobil?

Scotland does not need a nuclear arsenal or the perils of nuclear radiation or terrorist attack on the facility. It is a weapon of the last century and should be abandoned. As demonstrated in the Iraq war, we have plenty of conventional weapons powerful enough to raze a country to the ground without the nuclear option.

You can have your nukes if you like, but go and live in the US where they really love 'em. Alex Salmond has my vote to abandon them.

#1730 Yeah or Nay.

I for one and I am sure there are many others who were not too concerned that Alex Salmond would or would not deliver his election promises. We just wanted to get away from the sleazy, uncaring, money-grubbing Westminster lot. To have a government CLOSE TO HOME that understands Scotland's problems and WHO CAN BE MONITORED BY US FOR THEIR HONESTY AND INTEGRITY.

Every post you come out with, you bleat about broken manifesto pledges. I take it from this, you have no other complaints about the conduct or governance of the SNP-led parliament. Might I remind you that they have 4 years to fulfil their manifesto commitments. So far, they have had 100days, and have delivered quite a lot. You, yourself sound pretty desperate if this is all you can offer. Bit like Scottish Labour - no constructive criticism - all destructive - and very vague to boot. You're obviously bemused by the rapidity of change effected by the SNP over the last few months and, like the Labour and the Lib Dems, can't keep up.

1741
#

A rather school boy argument I think, perhaps we should look to act like grown up's before speculating on who doesn't like us, and spending a fortune on WMD.

Remember the "empire" is over, lets grow up and act more like other responsible nations and look to spending our money on things that Scotland better needs.
Health and education Fifey I think so.

# 1733

In answer to your unspoken question, YES, I do support the replacement of Trident. Given that the replacement cost is spread over 25 years and represents less than 2% of the total defence budget it's probably a cheap form of insurance against possible future threats.

When we consider that the present state of Zimbabwe is maintained by Chinese exploitation, plus the regimes in Sudan and Burma are tacitly supported by China, Russia and India, all nuclear powers. With other potential members of the nuclear club in the wings who may consider us as a threat. Value for money? I think so.

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. We'd have dictatorships - or anarchy - not sure which I'd prefer!

As a general point, I fail to see exactly what party politics have or should have, to do with Independence for Scotland.

Supporting Independence isn't supporting the SNP - it's believing in an Independent Scotland, capable of discussing and making our own future. Who knows, one of our first laws could be to ban political parties completely?

#1736

My husband and I have, several years ago, and were extremely grateful for their assistance I can tell you.

Unless you have been terribly unlucky, I expect your experience of the service will have been similarly very limited.

If this is the case I don't understand how you could possibly make such a judgement of the overall service.

Well, not fairly, anyway.

#1735

Unfortuneately you have just quoted Scotland's most famous son who is revered the world over despite not being independent!!

# 1724

I fail to understand why Iain MacWhirter, (or anyone else for that matter) should be expected to put a good spin on your party's cynical post-election mass dumping of manifesto promises.

One wonders if his views would irk you so much if they had put the SNP in a good light. I suspect not.

With regards to the litany of broken promises, I simply cannot understand why any self-respecting Scot, however desperate, would wish to defend such sleekit opportunism.

I would remind you that these pledges were central to the SNP getting elected.

A a result many Scots who put their trust in Salmond's promises to play fair, have been betrayed.

Disturbingly, I note that the prevailing seperatist opinion on this forum is merely to shrug and insist that nothing's wrong.

Your collective ambivalence towards Salmond's broken manifesto promises is simply amazing.