The Scottish Government

I am totally behind an independent Scotland - and I mean TOTALLY independent, NOT part of the EU. Membership in the EU costs Britain and Scotland far too much, not only in cost but also in independence and recognition of our own laws and governance. Scotland needs to control its own fisheries, legal system, education etc., without interference from the EU and London. Scotland's education system used to be the leader in the world, much admired (and copied) by many countries - LET IT BE SO AGAIN. Only an independent Scotland can bring about the necessary changes to make us the successful, strong, vibrant, admired nation we once were - and can be again.

Looks like some people in the labour party actually do support a referendum on independence. As can be seen from the article below from todays scotsman.

Council leader's surprise call for a vote on independence
THE Labour leader of Midlothian Council has called for an immediate referendum on independence.

Councillor Derek Milligan told a meeting of the full council that, although he did not support the idea, if there was to be a referendum he wanted it to be held as soon as possible.

He added yesterday that a national poll would "get that question out of the way so that we can get on with our job - delivering services to the people of Midlothian."

His comments come despite Labour's parliamentary party being against a referendum and after Councillor Peter Boyes, Midlothian's education leader, said last week that the Labour party should "call Alex Salmond's bluff".

Midlothian's SNP group leader Cllr Owen Thompson admitted he was shocked at the comments. "We thought when Peter Boyes said a similar thing it was just one member of the party but when the council leader says it in the chamber it must be the party view."


http://news.scotsman.com/politics.cfm?id=1393392007

the link for the disbeleiving among you

What'grudge and grievance'policy???
And pray tell me how Scottish kids came last in the poverty stakes when labour has been in power for 10 very looooong years?
There is no doubt in my mind that our voice has to be heard and Westminster has been slinging us a 'deafie' for years.

the uk is not happy with the eu,because of its law making.its the same with holyrood and london.the uk is a rip off to its people with sky high taxes and greedy retailers.overheating economy surely does not apply to scotland but they dont care because we are part on the union.airport surcharges from scotland thats ok too cos were part of the union.we pay higher vat on energy cos of the colder and darker climate but that does not matter either.the sooner we kick oot the union the better for scotland.letalso join the eruo and get lower loans for our people.i want more from my country and so does scotland.

#19. Ant - Argyll
Friday, August 31, 2007 23:22

If your resistance to removing dependency on Westminster is the basis for your unionism you will be heartened by Labour in Scotland's revised view of the Scottish economic realities which they now realise have been performing as well as the UK but only they'd been misinterpreting the data.

The Adam Smith Institute reports that:
Quote
""...Scotland’s growth rate might be expected, over a five-year period, to move closer to Ireland’s trend growth rate of 7 percent. Given a further five years of Scottish growth at that trend level, and before diminishing returns set in, Scotland’s growth over the ten-year period would put its index 71.5 higher, more than a two-thirds increase in GDP.(£115-135bn)

By contrast, says Stein, the rest of the UK would be expected to have grown rather less, by just over a quarter. The result would be dramatic for Scotland. Measured in household income per head, Scotland, which started £1,700 behind the rest of the UK, could be expected to be £6,000 ahead of it at the end of that period...""
End quote
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/publications/Independent_Scotland_Riches.pdf
More than enough to fund infrastructure investment, £95-100bn in those 10years, and to fuel further growth in future.

One of the initial moves by the new First Minister has been to involve himself with the reconvening the 'Council of the Islands' which brings together all of the major elected heads of the British Isles; The UK(85%English),Scotland, Wales, Eire, N.Ireland, Isle of Man and the Channel Isles.

Far from 'breaking up the UK' we are seeing more power devolved to the people of the British Isles, away from self serving London interests, and a drawing together of the constituent bodies on a more equitable basis.

Anyone would think the SNP had announced reinforcing a new Berlin wall from Gretna to Berwick.

Dublin and Belfast trade quite amicably, their families have never been 'ripped apart', although investment and jobs does seem to be flowing more in the direction of the independent Irish than their cousins in the north.

Is there some specific reason you can give to explain why this would be any different for Scotland?

The Treaty of Union of 300 years ago no longer benefits Scotland as it did during the short period of the Victorian era and the British Empire.

It did not serve Scotland when it was enforced on us and certainly does us no favours now.

The McCrone report of 1975 shows that Whitehall was ready to consider using force against us when it realised what the bonanza of oil fields found off our shores would mean for an independent Scotland and a bankrupt Whitehall Treasury, forever grubbing for handouts from the US and the IMF.

Dependence on the UK has been restricting Scottish horizons and stifling our aspirations.

We as Scots are now looking to widen our opportunities with the European Union.

Ripping ourselves out of the past and rejoining the world community of nations.

ant argyl says the union gives scotland a powerfull voice,tell that to the scottish fishermen who have had their industry traded off by westminister in order to get in to the common market.before the so called union came about the english parliament under william of orange passed a bill declaring the scots to be alliens and not allowing them to trade with english merchants.the english army were massed at the border ready to invade if the scots did not sign the treaty, the people did not want to sign but the duke of hamilton and the nobility took bribes and sold the people out.it's time we got out of this so called union and allow scotland to prosper so our pensioners can have adecent living instead of living in poverty,,,,,,

#19 ant

You do not provide the link to this article how are we to make a decision on it without a link.
More over this article completely misses the point. You say your unionism is based on economics. Economically scotland is better off independent. There are a number of reports which uphold this veiw and are easily found if you google them. For example the mccrone report. The adam smith institutes report among others including ecnomist Professor brian ashcroft (wendy alexanders husband) veiw on the matter. There are no reports that confirm scotland is better off under the union. Google them if you dont beleive me. The article you mention is an opinion not sound financil reports. There is a difference.

FACTS NOT FICTION
REFERENDUM NOW.

WITH THE UNION COMES THE POWER TO KEEP OUR BRITISH NATION SAFE FROM THE HANDS OF A CONDEMMING EU WHO WOULD LIKE PAYBACK FROM OUR GREAT NATION.LONG LIVE THE UNION LONG LIVE SCOTLAND

Whilst my unionism is more than based on economics, i believe the following article is worth mention

it would not make economic sense for Scotland to break away from the Union with England and Wales.

Trading links have helped create 200,000 more Scottish jobs since 1997 and more Scots in employment than ever before, says the publication.

Scotland is a country advancing towards full employment instead of a country weighed down by high unemployment and its social consequences.

the SNP's politics of "grudge and grievance" refuse to recognise these economic realities.

Not only is Scotland linked economically with England and Wales, but the countries' populations are linked by migration. A million Scots live south of the border and more than three quarters of a million English people live in Scotland.

The Union gives Scotland via and in Britain - a powerful international voice, at a time when many political challenges are international, not local.

Issues such as climate change, international terrorism and poverty need collective not individual action, say the authors.

There was a time when saying you were British meant you were probably white and probably a Protestant. Now saying you are British will not indicate the colour of your skin, your creed or culture. It must mean that you believe in fairness, in equality and in social justice-to be British is neither shameful, it is an identity that certainly exists and it is a positive one-it is a reacting, evolving identity-evolving and reacting in response to changing politics, ideals, social concerns and institutions

As the nations and regions of the world seek greater integration but at the same time strive to retain their distinctive identities, the Act of Union is not a historical curiosity, but a blueprint for international co-operation in the 21st century."

Put simply were strong, louder,richer togehter, we have more ability to do good,a nd get good done to us, when applifying our voice via the strong Union that is Britain

Improving our economy is obviously very important. However, my concern is that any significant improvement would be offset by Westminster cutting the money they give us.

What I would like to see is:-
1) A strengthening of the Audit Office, who monitor public spending with the aim of ensuring value for money,

2)A strenghtening of the Statistical Office, who record data about many facets of the economy - thus having the relevant information available when required.