The Scottish Government

#96. George Steel - Fife
Monday, September 24, 2007 14:25

All of the Scottish Islands,Ireland and Mann became Norwegian by conquest.

Harald Hårfagre took control of all Norway, and then in about 875 he and his forces took control of Shetland and Orkney.
Alexander III of Scotland in 1262 sent a formal demand to the Norwegian King Håkon Håkonsson for the return of his Scottish islands.
The Norwegian King responded by invading the Scottish mainland at Largs where he was defeated and put to flight.
That October he returned to Orkney with his army where he died of a fever in December 1263.
His death halted any further Norwegian expansion into Scotland.
With the Treaty of Perth in 1266 Harald's successor surrendered the furthest Norwegian possessions including Man and the Hebrides to Scotland in return for 4000 marks sterling and an annuity of 100 marks.
In return the Scots agreed to recognise Norwegian sovereignty over Orkney and Shetland.

One of the main reasons behind the Norwegian desire for peace with Scotland was that trade with England was suffering from the state of war.
In a trade agreement between England and Norway in 1223 the English demanded Norway make peace with Scotland(!).
In 1269, this agreement was expanded to include mutual free trade.

King Christian I was newly crowned joint King of Norway, Denmark and Sweden when his daughter Margaret became engaged to James III of Scotland in 1468.
Christian I was in financial troubles and needed money to pay her dowry.
He entered into a contract in September of that year with the King of Scotland in which he pawned Orkney for 50,000 Rhenish guilders. In May the following year he also pawned Shetland for 8,000 Rhenish guilders.

He never 'redeemed his ticket' so in 1468 Orkney and Shetland became Scottish.

It is a basic human right for every nation to demand self-determination for its people.
If the Northern Isles demand this then they would be entitled to the same rights as anybody else.
They have never shown any inclination to do so in the past but perhaps you would know why they might now?

By the same token the Western Isles, Ireland and the Isle of Man might also want to throw in their lot with the Norwegians and maybe Northumbria in with the Danes?

Somehow I don't feel that is likely seeing as not having had the same relative cultural isolation from outside influences by being out in the North Atlantic, the draw of the 'old mother country' has probably faded a bit more than in the Northern Isles.

#95 livilion

So the Northern Isles were Norwegian 500 years when they became SCOTTISH did they? Under what circumstances? and what makes Scotland right to claim sovereignty over these islands and refuse the inhabitants the same option as you are demading for us? On the same theme can they take the rights to oil and gas back to Norway with them when and if they secede our sovereignty.

Our method of government is first past the post for pariamentary elections to Westminster which means we are governed by a party which has a minority vote in the country but a majority in the House of Commons for most terms of office. This means the government in power should be more attentive to the needs of the populace as a small swing in voting preference can have a dramatic effect on the outcome. Not ideal but in the main effective.

The Scottish parliament does not have the same default, so the percentage of the vote a party gets will be reflected in the number of seats it has in Holyrood. To govern effectively the party with the most seats HAS to discuss its proposals for governing the coutry be discussion with the opposition parties in Holyrood as well as satisfying the needs of the population. It is also required to listen to the voices who disagree with their proposals and act to persuade dissenters to their views by reasoning, not wrapping themselves in the Saltire and blaming all of our deficiencies on Westminster. I wasn't aware that Scotland was the only part of the UK that suffered under Thatcherism! Didn't the mines of England and the Shipyards of the North of England suffer as badly as any of our own heavy engineering.

As for the Celtic tiger, why is it that the UK was responsible for oppressing the poor souls who wanted independence, but were also responsible for their inability to progress in the modern world after they had got their own way!!! Come on. I was not aware of a border being erected to prevent free flow of labour from the Republic to the UK and back, it wasn't and those who couldn't find work in England or the Republic ran off to the good old US of A as I described.

#94. George Steel - Fife
Thursday, September 20, 2007 14:02

Ok auld yin you've got nearly 20 years on me, but you are at the wrong end of a demographic for change.
Each successive generation is more pro-independence than the one that preceded it.
Time it ticking against the Union.

I left Scotland when the Thatcherite experiment destroyed my living.

I missed out on the 1997 referendum and the celebrations but I got myself home so's not to miss out on the Independence Day celebrations.

The Northern Isles were in Norwegian hands for 500 years.
They have been Scottish for the last 500 years, but if the islanders wish to return to a Scandinavian government then fair enough that's their choice.

The ties between Scotland and Wales, England and Ireland go back into prehistory, before written records.

In all of that time their relationships have adapted to the circumstances of the day.
Wales and Ireland were subsumed into Greater England before the Union of 1707 but hey ho, what our grandfathers did is not our fault.

The Union came about because of political and economic expedients 300 years ago.
At first it was to Scotland's disadvantage as trade with her traditional partners was halted due to conflict with our new partner, but after a century or so some men became very wealthy and influential on the back of it.
Some of these men were also Scots.

Circumstances again have changed, post Thatcher there is a great need for investment to repair communities and hopes destroyed in the monetarist experiment of the 80's.

Today the EU is replacing the role of the UK for the home nations.

England by and large is suspicious of this union, possibly as it implies relinquishing UK top dog status.

Scotland is tending to take a more pragmatic approach and generally embracing the potential to expand her horizons to mainland Europe and beyond with this younger, much more virile partner.

When the Republic of Ireland split from Britain it suffered a succession of bloody conflicts, and dirty tricks at the hands of Whitehall.

From 1922-1973 Eire as she became was cut off from her traditional markets with which she conducted 95% of her trade as Britain placed embargoes on her trade in the hope of starving the young republic back to the bosom of Britannia.

We know how that story ends.

livilion

When you have a political party who's only raison d'etre is the severance of the ties that have existed between England, Wales and Scotland for over 300 years, then EVERY election is a referendum on their appeal to the Scottish people. It's not me that has a problem on this issue, but you. For the record I was born in Glasgow over 65 years ago, and have successfully educated myself, raised a family and worked for over 50 years to fund my retirement without any problems in a Scotland that has been part of the Union. If we are to follow your logic, and that of the SNP politicians, perhaps we should be looking at releasing those islands, that belonged to DENMARK before Napier accepted them as part payment for a dowrie required when the king of Denmark's daughter married a Scottish prince! On this basis the oil and gas belong to Denmark and the islanders be accorded the same opt out that you (outnumbered) separationalists demand for yourself.

When the Republic of Ireland separated from the Union it reverted to a peasant economy a la 'The Quiet Man', and remained as such for half a century. (until bailed out by the EU.

88. George Steel - Fife
Monday, September 17, 2007 16:05

Just meant to say independence was not an option at the May election, but it will be at the next General Election.

Whether that comes sooner rather than later you'll find out then what support there is in Scotland for the non-dependence option.

I'm ferr looking forward to finding that out, aren't you?

#88. George Steel - Fife
Monday, September 17, 2007 16:05

A wee bit of perspective on the Celtic Tiger and the EEC for you:

Celtic tiger/Celtic kitten

Donald Adamson, lecturer in economics and politics at Cambridge University, compares the economic performance of Scotland and Ireland and concludes that Scotland needs to end its dependency on England


Quote
>>>
One of the popular myths about Ireland’s remarkable economic growth since the 1990s is that much of it is attributable to EU subsidies.

If this were true, Ireland really would have performed an economic ‘miracle’ in this period!

But as the Economist put it, in a survey of the Irish economy in October 2004:
“The most authoritative studies suggest that EU subsidies may have added around 0.5 per cent a year to Ireland’s growth during the 1990s – useful but modest in the context of average growth of 6.9 per cent.”
It’s not difficult to identify some of the main reasons for Ireland’s improved performance in the last ten years, they include:
Impressive increase in Irish exports,
Sustained production led growth,
The EU’s single market and single currency,
Huge increase in employment.
<<<
End Quote
http://www.scottishleftreview.org/index.php?action=article&docid=352

btw How was the UK economy doing before it joined the EEC?
Handouts from the USA and begging bowls sent to the IMF kept UKplc solvent, from WWI until the advent of significant North Sea Oil revenues in 1980 baled out Thatcher's administration.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pound_sterling#History

I suggest that your 'two to one' hypothesis is invalid.

The Labour party in Scotland was the only party to reject increased powers for Holyrood, back in May, so your status quo was also rejected two to one.

As much as 40-odd percent of labour voters have indicated support for the idea of independence, with lesser degrees of the support from other parties also in favour.



A similar proportion of UK voters rejected the government of Tony Blair at the last general election.

We invaded Iraq and Afghanistan, we are committed to renew UK's WMD program and have given the go ahead to construct more nuclear power stations generating nuclear waste which will be extremely toxic for thousands of years into the future.

I heard no complaints about his mandate to do so on account of the majority of the electorate in the UK rejecting his party.

As for your:
>>>As for the current 'conversation', it's supposed to be with the SCOTTISH people not any other misinformed foreigner who is ignorant of their own history. We have seen what narrow minded nationalism has done in other parts of the world, including Ireland, and we do not need it here, thank you.<<<

I don't think we need any lectures from you on narrow-minded nationalism.

Perhaps if you started with Scottish current affairs and the definition of 'civic nationalism', the guiding precept of the US constitution or the French Republic might be a good starting point.

Here's an English perspective to be going on with:
http://www.theenglandproject.net/documents/englishcivicnationalism.html

Personally if a 'misinformed foreigner' can teach me by learning from their mistakes I'm ready to listen and learn.

Always be prepared to learn from the mistakes of others, you're not going to live long enough to learn everything by your own mistakes.

#85. Caora Dubh - Dachaigh
Friday, September 14, 2007 19:45

I expect to be only one of an avalanche of responses but here goes anyway.

Should Scotland regain her independence what on earth do you think would interfere with your van and VAT model?
The only effective difference would be the addition of Scottish hands on the levers of our economy looking after purely Scottish interests, rather than considering the interests of the population centres of the southern counties of the UK first as now.

Scotland has huge natural resources.
30-40 years of oil & gas at least from proven fields and more to come West of Shetland in future.

200 years of hydrocarbons in the Forth Basin alone and astronomical reserves in the form of coal under the North Sea, becoming accessible now using technology developed by the oil industry.
http://www.coal.gov.uk/media//44435/ucgintroductiondti.pdf

The Spirit Trade.

Huge untapped energy resources in the form of wind,wave&tidejust waiting to be exploited both in the form of technology and raw energy and clean upolluting hydrogen which in the next decades will come into its own as the hydrocarbon of choice for the world.
http://www.fossil.energy.gov/programs/fuels/index.html

That's just the first off of the top of my head.

The resultant boom in our economy will permit investment in any number of industries which may already exist or may develop im future.
http://www.peterheadhydrogenpower.com/

Who could have guessed that Sir Clive Sinclair's ZX Spectrum computer back in the early 80 would make Dundee one of the foremost centres of excellence in the world for the computer games market?

One other thing that needs to be considered (excuse me if I vere off conversation a bit) is getting votes from Ex Pat scots like myself. I tried to vote in both the scottish and generasl elections for the SNP and was told that they werent on the ballot (General Election) and that the scottish election was local and therefore I couldnt register to vote in it.

Why on earth am I as a scot only allowed to vote for Unionist parties overseas? Surely I should be entitled to vote for who I like?

On subject now

Im all for independence. If you read the mccrone report (as I have) I challenge any scot NOT to weep at the betrayl, lies and conspiracy thats been placed to stop us getting independence because we would be better off, and more importantly, the rest would be far worse off.

They actually made it policy to make scots feel like they couldnt do it and that they were somehow different to every other nation in that they needed england to run them for them.

The truth is slowly emerging that unionists have been diliberately trying to put us down...and most of us still believe we l;iv e on subsidies. Its an absolute disgrace, have faith in your own ones and lets get a free and equal nation to call home.

john i have to admire your courage it could not be easy for you after alex came back and the rise of nicola you are what i would call a true patriot as many a lesser man would have buckled by now not easy juggling finances wouldnt have a clue myself so good luck and lets keep the band rolling many thanks

#75 Liam

Rose coloured glasses or what? After Ireland's achievement of independence from the UK 5,000,000 Southern Irish were so proud of their indendet status that they packed their bags and left their home for America! That's why there is so much pressure from the Irish lobby in the States! The republic did not become a Celtic tiger until it became part of the European Community and was bailed out by their policy of helping the poorest countries in the group!! For that fund you have to thank, in a large measure, the UK taxpayer.

As for the current 'conversation', it's supposed to be with the SCOTTISH people not any other misinformed foreigner who is ignorant of their own history. We have seen what narrow minded nationalism has done in other parts of the world, including Ireland, and we do not need it here, thank you.

#84 and others who make the point that 51% is sufficient to carry a referendum. Be advised that only 36% of MSP's and around 34% of the electorate who voted opted for the one party that wishes to separate Scotland from the Union.

Unionism has, therefore, a 2 to 1 majority to stay in the UK. If we had a referendum would the SNP accept that the question had been resloved, or would they push for another referendum with a slightly different question? The latter I suspect.

Get of your backsides and start taking the responsibility of GOVERNING seriously, instead of trying to pick your way through the morass hoping not to hurt too many feelings.

Use the powers you have as a parliament before demanding more.