The Scottish Government

Post 1684:

Have you ever been needing consular assistance abroad? Well I have and let me tell you, they are absolutely garbage! If anything UK consular assistance is another reason to wish you had another passport.

Alas! Have I often said to myself, what are all the boasted advantages which my country reaps from the Union, that can counterbalance the annihilation of her Independence, and even her very name!...Nothing can reconcile me to the common terms, 'english ambassador, english court, etc.....Tell me, friend, is this weak prejudice? I believe in my conscience such ideas as 'my country; her independence; her honour; the illustrious names that mark the history of my native land;'..to Mrs Dunlop...R Burns 10th April 1790.

#1704. Bruce Freshwater - Edinburgh
Sunday, November 11, 2007 11:38

""...So does this mean that the voters in Scotland, who might vote for independence in a referendum, will determine the constitutional status and nationality of the entire population of (what is currently called) the UK?...""

Yes.
Just as the people of Eire determined their own destiny, the tides still ebbed and flowed, the sun came up again in the morning.
Would the Irish now be independent and more prosperous than us if we on the British mainland had voted on their status?
What right should I have had to insist that the Irish should remain part of Britain if they did not wish to be?

btw England without us would still be called England, saving all that annoying confusion as to what is English and what is British?

My passport says I'm European, I'd prefer it also to say Scottish but in effect it makes little difference within the EU where we originate.

The Scandics all share embassies and consulates, why shouldn't we?

There is a risk that if Scotland does not start playing more for its own citizenry we will progressively become more and more marginalised on our bit of the Atlantic Archipelago.

I see the difference that winning the Commonwealth Games has made to our national confidence, the buzz now is 'what can we go for next?'

Having a First Minister at last willing to roll his sleeves up on our behalf, get stuck in and none of this 'we're too wee, we need somebody else to hold our hands' like we did with our Euro'08 bid, which we failed to secure with our previous, Metrophylic First Minister.

The bigger risk, I believe, is that to remain and hide under Britannia's apron, we will fail our children's aspirations to fulfill their own potential.

Dave Eastabrook:

You are correct; The question was perhaps loaded, my apolgies to Fifey.

#1728 Dave Coull Balnabreich.

I disagree with Seumas MacKinnon that a re-evaluation of the last three centuries of history is necessary. Nor would I agree with you that interpretation is dependent on political view. There are certain immutable and measurable facts. Those concerning depopulation and the economy being the most salient.

Fact: Scotland has been depopulating for 3 centuries, taking our most intelligent and enterprising people.
Fact: Scotland has been one of the poorest nations in Europe during this time.

Rewriting history books will not change these facts. The usefulness of history, which you seem to have missed, is in its lessons from the past. In this case - what has persisted for 300 years is very likely to continue. We will languish in Europe while all the new independent signatories to the EU overtake us and the recent short-lived increase in immigration reverts to the old pattern of emigration as people look for better opportunities in England or abroad.

By the way, why are you agitating for a referendum? What's the hurry? Are you frightened the good governance of the SNP over time will win more supporters to the cause of independence? It said in the manifesto: Early in the period of government, they would "publish a White Paper encompassing a Scotland (Referendum) Bill" and that the "likely date would be 2010".

Like Gordon Brown re-his election, Alex Salmond will pick his own time, depending on the polls. Brown got slated by the opposition for this. But why not, if you have the authority?

One wag pointed out on Question Time last night that the government spent more on propping up Northern Rock than the annual budget for a nation of 5 million people. Let's get out of this house of cards economy based on house prices and credit before the whole thing collapses, giving Scotland the hardest fall of all.

1730. george alexander: "Do you support the renewal of Trident against the wishes of the majority of Scots?"

If the poster from Fife supports the renewal of Trident, surely it is his right to have such an opinion.

"against the wishes" is a confrontational way of talking. It seems to me that those of us who want independence for Scotland will do our cause more good if we respect the views of others, and respect their rights to have views different from our own on any subject, rather than trying to bully, ridicule, or marginalise them. If independence is the best way to go, then we should present the points in favour such as: "if we are independent, then will be in a position, not only to have a debate about the implementation of Trident, but to take action based on what turns out to be the wishes of the majority. Then rather than engage in futile debate, we will be in control of our own destiny". This is positive.

The question would have been better asked: "Do you support the renewal of Trident?".

Fifey

It is clear from your posts that you are not a supporter of either the SNP or Alex Salmond, fair enough, but who DO you support?

Also, other than a monologue on 'Broken Promises' do you have anything constructive to offer the debate on whether Scotland would be better off if independent?

For instance what is your view on my points regarding the GERS report?

Do you support the renewal of Trident against the wishes of the majority of Scots?

#1723

Why not, No tax, No National Insurance, Free petrol for all, free diesel and we'll deliver free prescriptions as well?

There is a difference between making adjustments to manifesto commitments due to changing circumstances, and another to abandon manifesto commitments wholesale, then blame the opposition for not supporting the revised measures as the reason. The arrogance of the First Minister is reflected in the attitude shown by the councillors in posting #1722.

Seamas MacKinnon (1627) wrote "A radical re-evaluation of the last three centuries is required".

I disagree.

Yes, of course, 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. But in suggesting a "radical re-evaluation of the last three centuries" you appear to be suggesting something like the radical re-writing of history which happened in Russia when Lenin and co came to power. The problem is not that the old Tsarist histories got torn up (a fate which, for the most part, they deserved) but that a new party-line was imposed on the study of history. Furthermore, in specifying "the last three centuries" you give a hint of the kind of re-evaluation you are meaning. You appear to be implying that there is no need for a radical re-evaluation of Scottish History BEFORE 1707.

The most urgent need today is a referendum on independence. No, that cannot wait until after you have re-written all of the history books. It is needed now . In that referendum, the question should simply be "independence - yes or no?"; it will be about the future of Scotland, not about the past three centuries.

In that referendum, the people who vote "yes" to independence will probably have widely differing views on history. A minority of independence supporters might swallow the whole Jacobite myth as being respectable "history". But probably most independence-supporters won't. There will even be some independence supporters who think that the Act of Union was actually quite a good thing back in 1707, that it was the right thing for Scotland then, just as independence is the right thing for Scotland NOW. There is no need to try to get everybody to agree about Scottish history. Our task is really much more simple and straightforward than that. All we have to do is to convince enough people that independence is the right thing for Scotland now. Talk of a radical re-evaluation of history is at best irrelevant, and at worst positively harmful to the cause of independence. We don't need a re-evaluation. We need a referendum.

REFERENDUM NOW - INDEPENDENCE - YES OR NO

Annis (1694) wrote "Only SOME of the people of Scotland voted for your party".

Who are you talking to, Annis?

I have seen posts on here from members of several different political parties, as well as from folk like myself who are neither members nor supporters of ANY political party. If you are responding to a particular post from a particular person, then the sensible thing to do would be to specify the number of the post to which you are responding. If you are NOT responding to a particular post from a particular person, then at least try to make it clear who you are addressing!