The Scottish Government

It is time for Scotland to have it's Independence back after 300 years of a one sided Union. Scotland is one of the oldest countries in the world and we should be controlling our own affairs.

I support further devolved powers to the Scottish Parliament, especially on tax raising. It is a nonsense that 129 MSP sit deciding how to spend taxes but have no responsibility for raising the money. This means there is no direct accountability; nor is there the ability of our elected members to increase or decrease the overall and/or specific taxes to reflect the situation in Scotland. Taxes are set based on the UK economic situation which is heavily distorted by south east England and an entirely different economic reality may be the case in Scotland.

Where I am less sure is on full independence and I appreciate this consultation opportunity to explore the options. I have just listened to David Cairns, UK junior minister for Scotland, on the radio demonstrating a lack of understanding of the devolved situation (claiming credit for devolved areas) while at the same time talking down Scotland's ability to manage the regulatory framework for North Sea oil. It's time the English branch of the Labour Party got with the reality on the Scottish ground. It took a change of leadership in the Scottish Labour Party finally to accept they had actually lost the election. Scottish UK Ministers would do well to adopt some of that same humility if they don't want to drive those unsure of the way forward into the arms of the Nats!

IN OUR NAME.
The following letter was printed in the Guardian, dated 3rd August. Entitled: ' MPs MUST DEBATE US MISSILE DEFENCE', it goes on to say 'We are greatly concerned by the government's announcement that the communications base at Menwith Hill is to be used for Missile defence, alongside the Fylingdales radar,both in Yorkshire.
The continued and increasing involvement in US missile defence potentially puts the UK on the frontline in future wars. It has already contributed towards increased tensions with Russia. US missile defence is provocative, allowing the US to lauch first-strike attacks without fear of retaliation, and increases the likelihood of a new nuclear arms race. We therefore believe that any UK support for the progrsmme should be fully debated and agreed by parliament (Westminster), RATHER THAN BY MINESTERIAL ANNOUNCMENT'.
Signed by, among others, the following MP's: Angus Robertson, Clare Short, Micheal Meacher, Peter kilfoyle,out of a total of 23.

Foreign Policy is a statement of a nation's values,what it stands for and its aspirations. Within it an implied invitation to other countries, big or small, to join in advancing shared values. The question is 'With Westminster free to shape foreign policy for us Scots without reference to Holyrood is our status within the UK much different to that of the Isle of Man?'

I think that independance is a terrible idea! I won't be surprised if you do not post this as you wouldn't want any negative comments. I hope those who support independance aren't doing it for the sake of 'hating' the english.

I'm a pro-european Welsh nationalist. Recently there has been speculation that the UK government may hold a referendum on the new EU constitutional treaty. Under these circumstances, would the SNP seek a seperate Scottish referendum? It is possible that the result of a UK-wide referendum might not accurately represent Scottish public opinion on this matter.

I'm afraid to say that I'm thinking of leaving Scotland. I'm sick of the injustice - penalizing the masses and rewarding the Drug Addicts, Alcoholics and Single Teenage mothers.

My Mother is 62; she has worked all her life and paid her National Insurance. She is living in rented accommodation as she is on the waiting list for a council house and has been for the last 12 years. She has been told she isn't Priority. Alcoholics, Drug Addicts and Single Mother's who have never paid a day's tax or National Insurance in there lives take Priority!! Please someone tell me how that can be right?

I'm ashamed to call my self Scottish.

"All comments are moderated in advance of being made public."

I wonder whether someone gave Alex Salmond a copy of Orwell’s 1984 recently?

(That was a joke, for those of an oversensitive persuasion.)

I am disappointed by the nature of the discussion on this blog, (and naturally the spelling), if we are to have this debate I believe that we must do so rationally, calmly and sensibly. Some people who are posting on this blog really ought to not get as belligerent as they are getting towards people who disagree with them.

We ought not to let our partisan passions dictate the discussion. I am disappointed that this blog has become a party political point scoring exercise, maybe it's time we all acted like we deserved the right to be listened to, instead of insulting each other?

To run through some of the posts:

#1, must you accuse those you disagree with of lying? Does that add anything to the discussion?

#6 must you say that the press is biased if they do not appear to support your own views all the time?

# 8 you must be delighted with the £100,000 it cost to implement your wish.

#10, #13, #14, #16 not that I agree with everything you’ve said but thank you for an honest expression of your opinion, devoid of ad hominem or part political point scoring.

#17 I suggest that you read and correct your post- it’s contradictory. You suggest that the opposition parties ought to participate in the SNP ‘Conversation’ because it “their democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people,” which would also include those who voted SNP, as the SNP would have a similar “democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people” they would, in your bizarre view, have to represent those who do not agree with independence. The result of this would be that there would be no need to have the opposition parties involved because if the SNP lived up to their “democratic duty to represent the views of ALL of Scotland's people” they would make sure that they spoke up for those who disagreed with their position.

#21 spelling aside, your post is not really helpful; why not ask #19 for a reference instead of attacking him for not doing it in the first place? But to end your post by quoting a bumper sticker, surely since we’re no longer ‘The Best Small Country…,’ you’d agree we’re too big for bumper sticker slogans to run our national debate?

#22 Thank you for the history of William of Orange- very helpful to our current debate.

#23 Thank you, your post is very helpful and I learnt something from it. I don’t agree with everything but I benefited from reading your post.

#24 “letalso join the eruo and get lower loans for our people.” Could you explain your reasoning for me? I’m honestly quite interested in this idea.

#25 Issues like child poverty transcend party politics and anyone who thinks that any one party can solve the problem on their own is delusional. I’m not arguing that more couldn’t have been done, but to whittle such a large issue that has many different causes into an attack on a single political party is I’m afraid, rather meaningless.

Just some thoughts…

I agree with the sentiment in John Swinney's comments above. The bulk of what is said, however, amounts to little more than could be read in an election manifesto. I think John needs to start telling us more about "how" he intends rectifying the problems and the issues highlighted in the blurb. I believe in Independence and want to vote "yes" when the referendum comes around but I'd like to know beforehand HOW these issues will be tackled and WHAT SUCCESS there has been elsewhere using the methods which he thinks will be used.

Dear Mr Swinney,

So much for a NEW political status with your party taking new initiatives to make Scotland more prosperous than it currently is, even more prosperous than it will be under your enlightened guidance when you get even more fiscal powers passed down from Westminster. My recollection of the last three decades were that Britain's economy collapsed under Thatcher and Major for the first two, and only made substantial improvement when Labour took charge in 1997.

In 1999 a devolved parliament was created in which you and your merry band have participated, from the outset, with the exception of your exalted leader who scurried off to Westminster, to build up his pension?, when you failed to win a majority at the outset. It is also a fact that the Scottich parliament has been run by a minority party since its inception, only the Labour party's willingness to compromise of some policies allowed the Labour and Liberal parties to form a coalition government.

Your inability to modify your stance on any point that would allow you to create another coalition government for the next four years is a sign than you are engaging in confrontation politics of the worst kind.


If we want to start a conversation perhaps you should give us some information that would allow us to assess the merits of your arguments, instead of spinning the facts you want to promote and hiding those you would wish not to be known. e.g. Ms Sturgeon claiming that the SNP would halt the 'closure' of A&E's in Ayrshire, when the proposal was only to downngrade them. Let's skim over that the proposal also include the opening of two MORE A&E's in the area AND opening a new cancer clinic. (But these points are not for publicaion.)

Four years is a long time in politics and you are going to get enough rope!!!

My reasons for wishing Scotland to be independent, outside the EU, are practical and flow from principle rather than patriotism and passion.

As to principle, it is my firm conviction that, with few exceptions, government, imposed from without, is the source of many, if not most, of our problems, rather than the solution to them. The only truly effective government is self discipline founded on recognised virtues. When we seek to have discipline imposed upon ourselves from without, we are, in effect, demanding to be enslaved. Seen in this light, our system of democracy becomes a means for us to define the kind of slavery we prefer. This is what we blindly call freedom. In order to begin our journey as a nation back to true freedom, it is essential to clearly perceive this truth.

At the present time Scotland has four layers of external government: local, national, UK and EU. At the stroke of a pen, if we are clear headed enough, we can lose two of these layers. Then, with a modest effort at reorganisation, we can eliminate a further layer by combining the national and the local tiers.

External government has always preferred to be centralised. This will still be true when we are independent. It is the nature of the beast. Only poor communications in the past rendered it difficult. Today this is no longer the case. I see no reason why we should not abolish elected local government altogether. This will reduce us to one layer. The MSP's we elect to the Scottish Parliament should be responsible for administering local affairs in the context of a national vision. Where they actually do their work would be determined by circumstances.

The nation must take the direction of monetary policy out of the hands of the Bank of England and place it under the control of the Scottish Treasury. There must be no private banks lending fiat money to the people of Scotland and earning interest on it. Fiscal autonomy would come with independence. (Entering Europe and adopting the euro would place the economy under the control of international bankers whose priorities are far removed from Scottish needs.)

Scotland should have an internal currency based upon the productive value of our land and territorial waters. This would be deposited by the Scottish Treasury, as needed, in chartered banks for lending on to their customers at no interest. Banks would earn their profits through fees for services, including money management and trading in equities through an independent Scottish Stock Exchange. The external currency for trading would be gold. The true economic value of gold would be determined by the Scottish Treasury. This would be greater than current international market values that have been depressed by central bank actions. The gold price would be set for one year and aligned with the productive value of our land and territorial waters. This value would be used to determine a land value tax which would be the only tax levied on the citizens of the nation and on companies chartered to do business in Scotland. Income tax, National Insurance, corporation tax, VAT, council tax, inheritance tax and all customs and excise duties would be abolished. This fiscal and monetary arrangement would initially give Scotland significant advantages in trading and have a liberating effect on the economy.

Ownership of land in Scotland would be restricted to citizens and companies chartered to conduct business in Scotland. Only landowners would pay the land value tax and only citizens and their children would qualify for any social benefits. Citizenship would be granted to anyone at the age of majority who accepted the duties of citizenship as defined in the Scottish Constitution and Charter of Rights and Responsibilities, after completing successfully a citizenship course of study. This course would have the objective of imparting the truth of personal freedom and how it is attained.

Children of citizens would have an educational trust account set up for them, at birth or when their parents become citizens. Both parents of the child would have to be named as joint trustees. This trust account would be funded by the Scottish Treasury and used for the purpose of child care and education at the discretion of the mother and father of the child. In a similar fashion, every citizen and the children of citizens would have a medical account set up for them, funded by the Scottish Treasury. Every citizen would be responsible for the use of these funds for their own and their children’s health care. The National Health Service and the Scottish Department of Education, as presently constituted, would be dissolved. Schools, hospitals and other education, training and care agencies would continue as private non-profit societies with boards elected by their members and be run in the manner decided upon by their boards and staff to meet the needs of their communities. They would set their own fee structures and receive payment directly from parents and patients, from the education and medical accounts, or from private insurance companies. Hospital insurance premiums would be paid from medical accounts.

The basis of law of Scotland would be changed to recognise criminal actions as incurring a debt to the victims of crime rather than Scottish society as a whole. If the debt can be repaid, as in the case of theft, fraud or damage to property, then compensation would be paid by the thief, fraudster or vandal, to the victim, in the amount of double or four times the damages incurred, depending on whether the property involved is recovered. If it is impossible to make recompense, as in the case of serious crimes such as murder, then, unless the closest relative of the victim authorises leniency, the murderer would be executed. The guiding principle of the law must always be reconciliation, recompense and restoration of the lawful order.