The Scottish Government

The abolition of the 10p tax band was surely proof, if proof were needed, that Scottish Labour is no longer synonomous with 'social democracy'.

The anger and resentment that it engandered in the minds of the voters of Glasgow East and beyond most certainly contributed to the humiliating defeat of the Labour candidate Ms Curran.

However, a fiscal policy based on robbing Peter to pay Paul, particularly when it takes from poor Peter to pay better off Paul runs contrary to the innate instincts of fairness held by the majority of ordinary scots.

And anything short of the full restoration of the 10p tax band, introduced by PM Brown on the basis of fairness but later removed on the spurious reason that it was only a temporary measure, will fail to heal the hurt so many justifiably feel.

for further reading start at #13, John Swinney on Scotland performs

243. Gordon Murray

I notice you didn't give your location, this was probably a good idea since your knowledge of geography is clearly not the best. Devonport is in Devon. This may not come as a surprise to everyone, but that is nowhere near the home counties. Anyway, Bryony has already pointed out the genuine flaw in that argument.

Concerns about a lack of investment in infrastructure are reasonable, but not sufficient to break up a profitable union. It's misleading to suggest all the oil revenue goes to London, it simply doesn't, that's just the location of the government and could be anywhere. I feel the London Underground has equally suffered from a lack of investment, and it is within the M25, is it not? Our democracy is supposed to listen to these type of concerns and I encourage everyone to be more involved. In fact, if the general population is not involved, then democracy does not work. The electorate must be well educated and active.

The case of the unions and Thatcher are important, so let's discuss what happened. The unions proved to be their own worst enemy demanding more and more from Labour. It got to the point where the actions of the unions were so self-centred that the general electorate had had enough and voted the Tories into power. Thatcher then set about breaking power of the unions. This was not a particularly nice affair, but the unions were not looking after the long term interests of the workers. While it was good that their power was reduced, it is a great shame that they were unable to exercise any self control as there have been many disadvantages to nearly two decades of conservative rule.

This event should act as an important reminder to both Labour and the electorate, especially since the recent by-election in Glasgow East. They have not vowed never to vote Labour again, as you claim Gordon, but it should be viewed as an important protest vote. Labour should take the criticism to heart and work on improving. However, for the Scottish people to reject Labour on the basis of a global down turn in the economy would be as shortsighted and as ill calculated as the SNP banking on North Sea oil.

I propose a few questions which I view are important for the nationalists to answer. Does the Union or does it not provide Scotland with greater economic stability? Does the Union or does it not provide Scotland with a stronger voice in world politics? If this Union is not good enough for Scotland then how will Scotland be better served as one small state member of the European Union adding it's voice to the chorus of others? Or, if isolationism is your preference, how can Scotland pursue it's interests in an increasing globalised world if it is turning in on itself?

Well I would imagine, Gordon, that we need aircraft carriers because of the 10,000 Scottish jobs they support. If you don't think this is important please feel free to chat with the welders at the two yards on the Clyde over a pint or two. I'm sure they'd love to hear your views on why an independent Scotland is a much better idea than keeping their jobs and providing for their families.

Incidently the people of Belfast remember well the awarding of the contract to Rosyth as the lead assembly yard so what goes around comes around.

I agree, the public purse does spend quite a lot of our money on pointlessly extravagent and useless projects. The building of the Scottish parliament springs instantly to mind.

As with most of your kind, you base your pursuit of independence on a grievance. Maybe you should have a nice talk with the miners of County Durham or the smithies of Sheffield who also lost their jobs and their industries due to government mismanagement and - dare i say it, the fact that other countries did it faster, better and cheaper - or do you think that Scotland is alone in experiencing de-industrialisation?

London 'got rich' on its financial sector which leads the world in trading and investment. This growth has also led to Edinburgh experiencing a similar expansion.

What has the United Kingdom done for you and yours? Well, you're not speaking German or French as your first lanaguge for starters.

238. David - Edinburgh

You would love to hear from someone who has become a Scottish nationalist after having carefully considered the possibilities for Scotland's future. You are pretty convinced such a person does not exist?

Might I suggest you ask the voters in Glasgow East, their parents, and grandparents, who have supported unionism all their lives and now sworn no more and never again?

Some of us look at the way our communities have been ridden over rough-shod by successive Westminster governments since even before universal suffrage was introduced between the two world wars.

Miners in Blantyre, resisting cuts to starvation wages, evicted onto the street with only what they stood up in and their homes and jobs given to imported Irish famine victim strike breakers. This at the height of Victorian Empire building and unprecedented national wealth.

From tanks deployed in Glasgow against the local population during the Great Strike, a home supposed to be fit for heroes after WWI, to the wholesale destruction of our manufacturing industry and the asset stripping to our continental rivals at rock bottom prices during the Thatcher era.

This happened while London re-invented itself as the world's greatest bookie, bankrolled using oil money from the North Sea which Whitehall repeatedly reasured us in Scotland did not exist.

Thirty years later we learned that our own government was ready to contemplate force to keep 'greedy' Scottish hands away from North Sea Oil revenues.

Facilities in the UK capital have had £billions upon £billions lavished on them.
Not enough to build a train station or an airport, or an enormous tent, they have had to be ivory castles, the envy of the world.
Transport infrastructure 'investment' inside the M25 can seemingly write its own cheques - because apparently they're worth it.

How long for example has the main A82 trunk route from Glasgow to Fort William been waiting for the landslide at pulpit rock, which took away half the two lane road, to be repaired?

Half a century and more since the first Motorway no two cities in Scotland have a motorway linking them or each other or to the rest of Great Britain.
Euro Central at Coatbridge, enough said?

Royal Navy Aircraft carriers? Leaving aside the thought of what does Scotland need aircraft carriers for? The people at Rosyth remember well Whitehall taking the RN nuclear submarine work away to Devonport in exchange for 'Home'Counties votes and leaving behind on the Forth their old rusting radioactive nuclear subs hulks by way of a thankyou.

Is that really all we're worth?

I wonder what the United Kingdom of Great Britain its Empire and Commonwealth has done for the benefit of my family and friends that an independent Scotland could not have done better?

If only the SNP would drop its silly notion of "independence" from the UK and focus on what would be needed to achieve prosperity and social justice for the people of Scotland, the party could achieve very widespread support among all sections of the Scottish people.

What we've got to lose:

A permanent seat at the Security Council in the UN.

A much diminished GNP per capita when we can no longer rely on the Barnett forumla.

Membership of the EU- do not kid yourself, the EU of today would not be as favourable to a new poor Member State like Scotland, as it was for Ireland when it first joined.

Our protective nuclear arsenal, or at least much thereof.

Independence would cost huge amounts of money, and economically would be a disaster for the people of Scotland. We would be paying to satisfy the xenophobic, narrow-minded views of uneducated Scots who probably wouldn't mind the diminished validity of holding a "Scottish passport" as opposed to a British one.

For the above reasons, and many more, I propose staying in the Union.

This whole business of jockeying for advantage in the timing of a referendum is a recipe for regret and chaos. Major changes in the Constitution should only be made after the settled will of the electorate is shown to be substantial and prolonged.
It would be better to have something like a referendum every 10 years, with any change on devolution or indepedence requiring to be endorsed by a majority of all the electorate and in succesive, identical referendums. No timing for transient advantage.
We play fast and loose too often with this issue. The electorate can be fickle, and distracted by other issues.
The last referendum on devolution was followed by the building of the unnecessary Parliament with indecent haste. The Parliament functioned fine without a building, and could still be doing so now, and meeting around Scotland rather than always in Edinburgh. Instead we had a rush to construction of a dreadful building.
If your argument if compelling it can weather delay.

A well argued and thought out rebuttal of the seperatist agenda from David in Edinburgh.

Its interesting to note that not one of the challenges/questions asked of pro-independence supporters have been answered.

Any response to Roberts post (229)?

what about John Steeles post on the GERS report? Why is it propaganda? Or is it proaganda just because the SNP says it is? As he points out, this is a civil service report so are you saying that they're not inpartial?

John Murphy seems to have a thing for defence - so why can't someone respond to his comments about how Scots defence jobs would suffer with seperation? Given that the massive aircraft carrier contract was signed today I think that would be a nice place to start. Would a rest of UK government give 3 billion to a foreign power to build carriers that could be built in barrow or belfast?

Any takers?

235. Thomas Porter

Holding a majority in Parliament is not what it means to have representation. Every adult in the UK is entitled to vote for one representative from their constituency, from amongst those who stand, to representative them in Westminster. This member of parliament then has the responsibility to voice the concerns of the members of their constituency in Parliament. This is representation.

If you were to introduce a system like the US Senate you would be abandoning any idea of proportional representation. Why should the inhabitants of Wyoming, at less that 0.2% of the US population, have the same number of senators as California, with over 11% of the US population? This reminds me of the Cornish town of Looe, which in the 17th and 18th centuries had a total of four MPs. Scotland would not benefit from being turned into one big rotten borough.

237. Ian Innes - Elgin

Given that, as a consequence of the Barnett formula, Scotland received extra money intended to be spent on school trips to Auschwitz, as it was in England and Wales, why would the SNP redirect the money elsewhere? Regardless of the fairness of receiving the money in the first place, that public money, which could have benefited Scottish children, presumably patched holes elsewhere in the SNP budget. That strikes me as a great shame.

I very much want a sustainable and prosperous Scotland, but this cannot be achieved if our FM is fixated on independence at all costs. This stance is echoed in you comment that Lord Barnett's input was 'reason enough in itself for going our seperate [sic] ways'. Would you really break up a country for that small reason? Your world would be a very unstable one.

Such a conclusion should be reached only after a careful analysis. The Scottish nationalists have started with that conclusion and are trying to work backwards. I would love to hear from someone who has become a Scottish nationalist after having carefully considered the possibilities for Scotland's future. I am pretty convinced such a person does not exist.

#234 David-Edinburgh

Lord Barnett, the creator of the Barnett formula, has called for it to be scrapped (Press and Journal 8/4/08)and replaced by a block grant for Scotland, courtesy of Westminster, based on need.

I estimate the average Scot could get by on approximately 2500 calories a day.

The serious point being made by Barnett is that he considers Scotland is being treated too generously under the present arrangements. But successive Westminster governments have failed to reform it for fear of "upsetting the Scots".

In response a spokesman for Mr Salmond said that:
" The proper and sustainable arrangement for Scotland is to be responsible for our own spending and revenue...Full fiscal autonomy for Scotland is the only acceptable alternative to Barnett".

In addition we this side of the border would not have to put up with being insulted by the likes of Lord Barnett.

Reason enough in itself for going our seperate ways.


Over to you David.