The Scottish Government

It would appear that Stuart from Glasgow, the author of post #76 has now left the building. I quote his parting thoughts:

"I also wish to thank you; I now know what you think on a whole range of matters, and of course how you think. I can also I’m sure, be grateful that the particularly dull lesson you were teaching is now over… If only I could remember the point of it?

I think this is a pity since his challenges were, I thought, quite reasonable, and gave me the occasion to develop sound arguments based upon defensible propositions. I would have been particularly interested in his response to my post #84 on the question of what would constitute an actionable majority in a referendum.

It is now clear to me that the way in which our independence from the UK can be initiated is through a simple Act of Parliament in Westminster to abolish the Treaty of Union. It is likely that there are many who know this already; for me it was something of an epiphany and I have Stuart from Glasgow to thank for it. So, if he is listening, thank you Stuart, you have helped a great deal. It seems that the point of your presence was, inter alia, to help clarify my thinking and increase my understanding.

it,s time we stood on our own and got rid of the Labour/Unionist dependency
culture we have sleepwalked into for far too long.
it,s arrogance of anyone to maintain that we cannot govern ourselves
this is an excellent first step towards a more participative democracy

Two of my uncles ran small businesses in Scotland. Together they employed about 30 Scots. They competed for, and needed English contracts. Goodwill and little red tape were essential to their business: they operated on tight margins due to their northern location. It is difficult to compete if one is based in a country with a small domestic market. The UK offers Scots a large domestic market that is comparatively free of red tape: basically one now needs a van and VAT registration to sell goods in England. Many permanent jobs in Scotland are provided by small companies such as those of my uncles, and international red tape and a lack of English goodwill would slice their throats. Oil is a temporary panacea, not a long term economic solution, and countries are now desperate to cut back on fossil fuel consumption. Other countries such as Eire have occupied the technology Highlands. Given Alba's relative lack of mineral and agricultural resources, in which sectors can an independent Scotland compete successfully? Which SPECIFIC products will offer organic long-term economic growth, as opposed to a boom-'n'-bust oil bubble? What SPECIFIC measures will the SNP implement to support small businesses? In any case, does the amount of revenue earned by oil measure up to that earned by the City of London?

#76 Stuart- Glasgow

You wrote, quoting my previous post:

#66 "In my experience some of the clearest thinking comes from the least educated." I'm sure given the news story today about Sir Alex Ferguson, he'd agree." [Joke]

For all we know Stuart the gentleman in question may have been a down-on-his-luck Ph.D. from Glasgow University. [Just kidding :)]

Your point on the US Constitution is noted. My question in this case would be, are they directly comparable?

If we examine the way in which the US Constitution was negotiated there was far more debate on the spiritual, intellectual and philosophical foundations of the document and far greater care to achieve democratic consensus than in the case of the Treaty of Union (not a Constitution in any event). The terms of the aforesaid Treaty were dictated to the Scottish representatives who then haggled over the paltry, immaterial scraps of decisions left to them, much like today. What actually took place was the incorporation of Scotland into England with the new unitary State being given the name Great Britain. There was no provision made for amending the Treaty or dissolving the Union and the word "forever" was used frequently. However, amendments and deletions of sections and terms in the Treaty have been effected by Acts of Parliament on a number of occasions by a simple vote in the Houses of Parliament. These vote, as usual, were based on a simple majority of the Members, who had been elected by a minority of the electorate, and, in the case of the Lords, not elected at all.

In summary, there is no ground of comparison between the negotiations of the Treaty of Union and the Constitutional Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, which, while full of acrimony and compromise, was nevertheless a convention of equals. One would also have to stretch the meaning of the word Constitution past breaking point to encompass the document resulting from the English takeover of Scotland as such. The spirit and purpose of the Treaty of Union of 1707 was entirely different than that of the Constitution of the United States.

Let us be quite clear on this point, England swallowed Scotland up, with the consent of the ruling class but not the population of Scotland at large. This Treaty was not a Constitution but an Agreement of Incorporation in which the terms were dictated by the stronger party. My belief is that this Treaty can be changed or abolished, based upon precedent, by a simple Act of the Parliament in Westminster. Since such an Act would be effective if receiving the support of a simple majority of Members, who would have been elected by a minority of those voting, 37% in the case of the present New Labour Government, it seems reasonable to me that a referendum vote, in which 50%+1, of those voting, support independence, should more than qualify as a democratic majority.

#63. Stuart - Glasgow
Friday, September 7, 2007 12:56

Another interesting(for me anyway) precedent happened in N.Ireland during 1973 with what was called 'The Border Poll' which, by and large, was boycotted by the Irish nationalists.

Interesting, in that non-voters were effectively taken out of the equation, it posed two polar opposite questions:

Do you want Northern Ireland to remain part of the United Kingdom?
yes = 591,820
% valid votes = 98.9%
% electorate = 57.5%

Do you want Northern Ireland to be joined with the Republic of Ireland, outside the United Kingdom?
yes = 6,463
% valid votes = 1.1%
% electorate = 0.6%

Spoiled votes
5,973
% valid votes = 1.0%
% electorate = 0.6%

Non-voters
425,828 = 41.3%

This was taken as a mandate for N.Ireland remaining within the Union.

A promised ten yearly referendum was subsequently put into deep freeze, never to re-emerge, until what in Britain is called the 'Anglo-Irish Agreement' but what Dublin called on the ballot paper, the British-Irish Agreement.

A the fear of the unknown, Stuart (76) sums up the mindset of the campaign for status quo, like a wee school boy moving from primary to secondary he is not "certain" that he wants to move.

"I contend that those who want Independence will want it to be fairly low, perhaps a 50% +1 that someone suggested, while those who want us to remain as we are, will want it far higher. The key I think is to mediate between the two."


Why should in a democratic society the major not have the final say, your rather perverse idea is strange to say the least, what if the question was should Scotland remain in the UK?
Would you then change your tune and go for a 51% share of the vote!
And what figure would you welcome to remain in the UK, 40%, 30%?

# 63
Stuart dont mean to be rude but your point is mince!

"A 51% Yes result on a 34% turnout, for example, ought not to be sufficient to alter our current constitutional arrangement."

So if people cant be bothered to vote in the most important vote for centurie, then it will counted as a no vote!.

Now your being a wee bit silly Stuart.

#76. Stuart - Glasgow
Wednesday, September 12, 2007 14:01

My point is that everyone's opinion should carry equal weight, including those I disagree with and even those of your doubtless impressive intellectual capacity.

Why should a 'unionist' vote count more than a 'nationalist' vote for example?

Considering the substantial and manifest disadvantages that the nationalist argument has had to overcome to even get this far is remarkable in itself.

I might even give your position more time if I imagined that we were blessed with an impartial and even handed media, but that's not likely any time soon.

Should you attempt to stop the stream by sticking your finger in the dam you will eventually get soaked when you can no longer hold back the growing pressure for Scottish self governance.

A modest request for a regional assembly with very few real powers in 1979 became a regional parliament in 1997 when realisation dawned what we'd been conned out of.

The Tories e.g. telling us to reject Labour's proposal because they'd come back with a much more attractive proposition themselves, later, when they were elected to govern.
Aye right!

Having seen that we can govern ourselves responsibly, that other peoples are giving Scots and Scotland more respect in the world, and getting an idea of what things might be possible if we put our collective resources together for the better.
That we are not genetically programmed as a nation to need to be told what is good and not good for us

The reasons I believe you'll end up losing the eventual debate is your needless throw away insults to supposed inferiors, and apparent low boredom threshold, or is that limited attention span?

Now look, you've got me doing it too.

Ah well,just about time for Scotland to get it's pocket money again.Tug your forelock and say "Thank ee kindly, Sor." Canny Scots? Fanny Scots,mair like.

It is time for us as a nation to get real. For far too long have we sat, hands tied, and watched the growth of our neighbours. The arguments of the past are now seen by the majority as hollow and unacceptable. We all know the sky is not going to fall WHEN independence comes.
My contribution is this- lets have independence now. With an ever changing climate in Europe of further and further unity, we need a voice, we need a place. Catalunia can by pass Madrid and go straight to the EU on certain issues- so lets follow that lead. Lets grab our chance.
I understand that there will be difficulty in pushing through a referendum on independence. I understand that unionists argue that it is a waste of money. But there is another option. The SNP were clear at the last election that a vote for the SNP did not mean a vote for independence. What I propose is that at the next election that is exactly what it does mean! If the Snp can form a government at the next election then independence is declared.
I may sound like an idealistic student, and maybe I am, but lets not waste our chance because of the unity of unionist parties against autonomy.