The Scottish Government

753 - Dave,

I agree why are the MSP's & Mp's for that matter not in here defending/justifying their record and views on these matters, we all know the various party lines but there are broader issues here associated to the independance debate that it would beneficial for us and for them.

Over emphasis on Big business not business creation, agree wholehartedly with that Dave.

I'd like to see two new forums, one solely for MSPs, and the other to which MSPs would actually contribute to this conversation, rather than posting a prepared statement and departing. They need to really embrace this "new" technology of "interweb" (never mind just tweeting like spuggies or tits).

Both Ken and tomk - I agree that business support is woefully inadequate, has been, and still is, not just for new starts, but for established small businesses that want to grow.

The only interest any government seems to have is for the 2% (I think this might now be 1%) of businesses that are large yet employ around 50% (steadily dropping in this recession). The other 98% of businesses and 50% of employees or sole traders are almost completely ignored. Bye bye future, hello national bankruptcy.

Tomk - If you want further proof of how a SNP led Scotland would treat our cities have a look at their budget proposals for urban regeneration, they are cutting the budget by 40%. They have been systematically dismantling Scottish Enterprise since they got into power, so large regeneration programmes are no longer under their umbrella of responsibility, the skills that the economy require are no longer under their umbrella, small business support is no longer under their umbrella. The resultant confusion of such massive change without funding the local authorities properly and restricting their ability to raise revenue means we are less likely to achieve the goals of a more entrepreneurial society, better skilled society, or better physical public environment and housing.

I am all for improving local control and responsibility, but the way this has been done (and with one arm tied behind local authorities back), has led to a reduction in opportunity even if you take out the impact of the recession. This policy is creating a fragmented service on economic development so even when everybody knows their responsibilities the service will be sub-optimal.

Tomk, I was referring to the Role the SDA, and subsequently Scottish Enterprise had in promoting Scottish Economic growth and Enterprise over the last number of decades. Which I accept there has been a fundamental bias from the Edinburgh Scottish Office. The real story is how the SNP are trying to undo the fairer distribution of public service spending away from those areas with higher levels of forms of multiple deprivation to other areas with similar but by no means as severe or endemic as say Glasgow and the west of Scotland, which coincidentally have SNP MSP’s/Council’s / MP’s.

You seem to think I am doing down Glasgow, it is not just an issue confined to this area although it is particularly acute in Glasgow and other places along the Clyde. I only bring this up because I have seen the data on business start-ups, business policy, and personal experience of trying to get information from the agencies that exist to support business in Scotland.

I do not understand your problem with having your MP's in a Westminster based Parliament, there is actually a forum called the Scottish Parliament that also deals with policy issues, so the governance of your community is not solely determined in Westminster by Non-Scots!!!

Kev, I accept there is a risk balance to be struck with having Nuclear weapons. Given that in the last 10yrs at least 3 other countries have acquired Nuclear weapons and who knows how many in the next 20-30 years it could be a little bit premature to begin unilateral disarmament. The French would no doubt kick up a bit of stir if they were the only country prepared to finance a nuclear deterrent for the whole of the EU, as you assert your right to be protected by why not the responsibility to pay for that protection.

from who?

If you think we have nothing to fear whatsoever why do you not call for there to be no Army whatsoever? Long term strategic military issues are not about planning another war it’s about being practical about the threats to global stability and security. With a rather large number of issues entering the mix of potentially destabilising factors which might include – Global Climate Change – Global Population Explosion – Diminishing Fossil Fuel Resources – Diminishing Agricultural Land For Food Production – Nuclear Weapon Proliferation. You might recognise that if the world is unstable and unpredictable then so is Scotland and the UK’s future. Unfortunately capability is a pre-condition of not being railroaded into agreements that harm your interests to the benefit of others, if you do not believe this is how international negotiations really work in the real world then your would likely not enjoy a career in this area. Regarding Al Qeda threat or other groups, they set bombs off all over the world, killing innocent Muslim/Christian alike, I think your justification is based on the notion that these people somehow deserve to get bombed, I disagree. Radioactive material is used in a host of industries not least medicine, should it be banned from there also, at the moment the world is almost completely dependant on the Canadians for the resources for this, should we give up all nuclear research? I agree risks are there and I do not believe in either a massive arsenal or major nuclear power building program, I do think the just say no response, is too simplistic and a Luddite attitude. The Research agenda for these technologies are still in their relative infancy and we will lose a lot of good jobs and technology leadership if we take the Luddite approach. As I said/accepted before the benefit or insurance payout of having nuclear weapons is hard to cost in an accountant ROI sense as it’s best return is that it never gets used.


I love the way you guys are bringing up the British Empire… its 2009 not 1909. lol :-)

Ken,

I'll will try and keep it simple for you, because I don't think you get the "bigger " picture, and the concept on what things would be like for Scotland not to be chained to the UK.

1) Nuclear deterrent - from who?

If Independent Scotland at a stroke saves Millions each and every year.

2) "Regarding resources for troops in Afghanistan, I worry that focus on current Army requirements comes at the expense of longer term strategic security resources,"

I know this bores you Ken but troops are dieing each and every week, this has to be the priority in funding end off, and what longer term strategic are you referring to??, surely we should look to sort out the mess in Afghanistan first, or are you already planning "great" Britain's next war.

Independence would save lives and money, this money would then be used to " maintain territorial security " in the context of an Independent nation.

3)

"To suggest that Scotland would be immune from the threat of Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is actually contrary to all evidence"

Nonsense, what evidence!!?? If Scotland was independent we would have had the opportunity to NOT participant in the lies of Tony Blair, thereby saving Scottish lives from the current crusades. Terrorists may have many faults and false beliefs to some, but they will not waste resources or there own lives to attack a country which does not pose a direct threat to them. Very Simple Ken, .

Btw in case you were ignorant of the fact or trying to mislead people the last al qaeda attack in Europe was Madrid in Spain, who at the time had troops in Iraq, Spain has subsequently remove troops from that theatre of operations..

4)

"I am saying you are naive if you think it is an absolute certainty that at no point in future of all mankind and the UK,...
It is a matter of insurance"

Mmm Insurance, its a rather expense insurance policy Ken, and when do you expect this "dividend" to bare fruit, 10 years - 40 years - 100 years, or never, and you are happy to spend billions year after year after year?

You expect the people of Scotland to fund, upgrade, and worse of all, have the risk of any potential radiation accident, spill or waste contamination!?? for an insurance policy?

Can you tell me! with absolute certainty that at no point in future of Scotland, that there will be no accident or incident that endangers the lives of its citizens because we house your nuclear insurance policy??

Independence again would save money and remove the possibility of any nuclear meltdown, are you aware that Faslane has already had issues in terms of safety and "incidents", do you really want to gamble that your insurance policy does not blow up in your face on the slim chance that in some far distant future date it may actually be off any use.

Lastly do you really believe that in the your hypothetical future of war and invasion to blight Scotlands door, that our friends, neighbours and Ally's both in Engalnd and Europe would do nothing ! and our only hope and salvation lay in having nuclear weapons based in Scotland??

745, Ken

Ken, you're a rewriter. Historical rewriters like yourself is just what the British Empire needs just now.

What on earth do you mean by "Economic Policy has been independently administered in Scotland for the last 30 or 40 years." It's a bit like saying nothing factually germaine at all. What was administered here (strange, you used the word independently) was not developed here.

And you have tried to slouch out of an abonimable set of assertions about Glasgow's and Scotland's inability to generate wealth in the west coast of Scotland without the generous help (except, you were being brutal about it) of the economy of the South East of England.

I pointed out to you Scottish Office policy. You don't like the interpretation, well, I'm sorry you have no intention of taking the facts at face value.

Still, once the people of Scotland get all the facts of Scottish Office governance, (do you remember the days of 1 hour a week for Scottish Questions in Westminster?) Westminster, and it's sorry apologists for the Westminster juggernaut in Scotland will go the way of the British Empire.

Scotland will then be a small independent country on the fringes of Europe with 300 years to catch up on.

Barry 747. Wow someone who wants to raise question of empowering real people not politicians and parties. Not sure mayors are the answer, although they do appear to avoid in many cases to favour people promising Bananas rather than political parties.... but a revitalised accountable local government that can have some control of its funding, borders, and the policies that communities live with would be a huge step forward from this nonsense about independence/devolution, which is a red herring in the attainment of better representation and more accountable democracy.


Kev 746. I accept that Nuclear weapons is a funding issue where outcomes are hard to measure, although some do accept as a deterrent it is quite effective, the power to indiscriminately blow-up another country, I think the outcomes regarding a nuclear deterrent that is held as a vindication of having them is that they do not need to be used. However I appreciate the discomfort they create.

Regarding resources for troops in Afghanistan, I worry that focus on current Army requirements comes at the expense of longer term strategic security resources, such as Naval and Aircraft which are actually what is most clearly required to maintain territorial security in the UK, should a first world power attack the UK itself. I think everybody accepts the MOD needs to pull its finger out its bum, one thing you need to remember is that these generals all over the world are trying to promote their service over another, so you will find a general in the RAF saying what we need is shiny new planes or money to be spent on training there, Army generals saying the same about their resource requirements.

To suggest that Scotland would be immune from the threat of Al Qaeda inspired terrorism is actually contrary to all evidence. These terrorist cells have attacked a number of targets in Europe (not just UK), they have attacked in places right across the Middle East, Asia, US. You may say that UK foreign policy has made UK a particular target, but given the still largely indiscriminate nature of these attacks is it wise to be giving up one of the most sophisticated intelligence networks in the world. The rationale wether you support it or not for the invasion into Afghanistan was that these extremists think you along with every other western person who does not practice the Muslim faith as they prescribe it is fair game, and thus unless you are successful in transforming Scotland into a fully Muslim state you will still be fair game to them.

And regarding the possibility for war or an attack on UK or Scotland, I am not beating a war drum, or saying a particular country is a threat, I am saying you are naive if you think it is an absolute certainty that at no point in future of all mankind and the UK/Scotland/ Europe nobody will try and steal the land from underneath you or future generations. It is a matter of insurance. Last attempt of an invasion on British soil was during the last world war.

The opportunity to debate the future of Scotland is welcome but increasingly I believe that the debate is being held on the wrong level of analysis. The discourse treads a now familiar line between those who advocate: federalism (Lib Dem), increased powers for the Scottish Parliament (Tories and Labour) and independence (SNP).

But the elephant in the room remains the distribution of power between the layers of government in Scotland, notwithstanding the welcome Concordat the Scottish Government introduced. If we want to create a new Scotland and truly fulfill the participative ideals as set out in the CSG the panacea is not necessarily independence or devo-max for that matter. Rather, it is thoroughly re-examining the role of local government in a 21st century Scotland.

At the Centre for Scottish Public Policy we are currently consulting on this very issue and ask “if Scotland should consider introducing elected mayors”. All views are welcome and you can post your comments either on our blog or on our facebook page - their easy to find as I am not able to post a hyperlink:

Cheers,

Barry

Ken 745,

I neither have the time or will to debate nuclear weapons with you Ken, especially as our views are poles apart.

To be blunt your view is archaic, most modern military minds dispute the effeteness of a nuclear deterrent, and indeed many leading generals would rather funds were spent to better use, to say update and equipment the army.
This is especially true as the cold war is over, and at the moment the UK is engaged in a long bloody war in Afghanistan, nuclear arms aint much use there Ken

In case you have not kept up to date with modern events, Scotland suffered its first attack on native soil by terrorist's, who btw held British passports and lived in England. This "attack" and the possibility of others will not be deterred by your assertion "Nuclear weapons to intimidate them away" that frankly is a rather laughable
comment, & you still have not answer the question ,

Who do you think will invade Scotland? and why do you believe having nuclear weapons will intimidate them away?


" I am simply accepting that the UK, Scotland other bits of Britain have been attacked throughout history,!"

When was the last Invasion Ken, 1066 by any chance?


Finally

"Fundamental problem I have with all of this is none of you seem willing to suggest you have had any role whatsoever in your own circumstance, or UK’s."

What role do we have Ken, at the moment we are led by UK politicians who are more interested in fiddling there expenses or taking one of there 148 days of holidays!.
& we are soon to be governed once again by a political party that is totally rejected by the people of Scotland.

I take it then you will be all in favour of a referendum??

Kev 744.

I am not being paranoid about invasion (perhaps pessimistic over human nature) I am simply accepting that the UK, Scotland other bits of Britain have been attacked throughout history, I think it would be naive to assume at no point would this ever happen again (especially without Nuclear weapons to intimidate them away).

Tomk 743.

Your arguments of economic development are not borne out by the reality of the situation. Economic Policy has been independently administered in Scotland for the last 30 or 40 years. Discriminating against Glasgow needs to be put in the context of govt. resources backing an alternative location in Scotland. Even know an Inward investor does not go to the local authority for support they go to Scottish Enterprise, this is for many reasons but the key rationale is to prevent each city in Scotland entering a bidding war against each other for that funding. Yes there has historically been a Scottish office Edinburgh bias, and some political fear over the stranglehold of Politics the Labour Party enjoyed and to some extent still enjoy over the largest city in Scotland. It is hard however to view Glasgow’s story without considering the electoral local authority shifts in boundaries that have occurred in the post-war world.

To suggest that post-war planning was all some political vendetta against Glasgow is however paranoid. It was from all accounts a population living in the most squalid conditions in the UK. Glasgow was a city ripe for the New Town Experiment, you may think that was not very successful, but places such as East Kilbride would not exist if nothing had been done, and Glasgow would be very different, and I do not mean necessarily any better.

Fundamental problem I have with all of this is none of you seem willing to suggest you have had any role whatsoever in your own circumstance, or UK’s. Sounds like a bunch of people grumbling, “I have had it so hard, it was those English folks fault”…. Plenty of opportunity to take some responsibility for your own future at a personal level and as part of the UK, independence may well prove cathartic and force some people to shut-up and stop blaming their troubles on someone else, but that is not in the nature of the SNP supporters I know, who would spend the subsequent 50 yrs blaming their problems on an event that occurred in the 16th Century.