The Scottish Government

I am conflicted by the stance taken by most Scottish unionists. On the one hand, I wish they would engage and stand up for what they are supposed to believe in. Naturally, as a convinced nationalist, I reckon their arguments are the weaker - and this would be exposed by an open debate. Perhaps their [Labour, Liberal and Tory] refusal to engage betrays a lurking fear that this may be the case? On the other hand, their current strategy - which seems to be hoping the problem goes away - is thoroughly counter-productive for their cause, and therefore welcome.

Incidentally, I also wish that many more Scottish unionists were advocates for something rather than mere opponents (of the Jackie Baillie/Gordon Brown/Wendy Alexander variety): rubbishing change, and offering very little in terms of an alternative vision. Until they engage fully in debate, I doubt the current dynamic (slow decline in support for the union) will change very much.

#573, Mike King - While I recognise we are both advocates for our respective and overlapping, nations/countries/polities (take your pick); I would personal shy away from the term "patriot" which you used earlier. I am quite happy with "nationalist" myself. "Patriots" tend to be either dead, or willing to kill. A purely semantic point - but I feel "patriot" has some rather unfortunate connotations linking it with physical conflict. Clearly you view it as a neutral descriptive term, I do not; perhaps you feel that "nationalist" is tainted in a similar way?! As I say, I agree with the idea that we are both advocates for our chosen countries, but I find that particular term problematic.

Independence will come
do not doubt it
Unionist politics failed Scotland
now Unionist leaders are failing England
old Labour are what the Who might be singing about
"Here comes the new boss
same as the old boss"
Wont Get Fooled Again
Independence is the future.
You will see.

572. PMK - Ayrshire
Monday, April 21, 2008 21:13

Re: “It really is the crucial point isn't it? The national interest argument ultimately comes down to: is Scotland/England "your nation"/"your country", or do you identify with the larger "British" tag?”

You are absolutely right. You & I are both patriots & probably feel the same about our countries as each other.

Unfortunately I don’t think I could ever feel about England the way you do Scotland; for me the Union flag touches me in a way I don’t think the cross of St George ever could.

Personally I despair of Labour everywhere & of the Scottish Tories specifically!

If the Union is going to go then I’d rather see it go down fighting taking on the SNP head on in a referendum (stressing the positive aspects of being British) then quietly creeping away from it …..

569. Mike King,

It really is the crucial point isn't it? The national interest argument ultimately comes down to: is Scotland/England "your nation"/"your country", or do you identify with the larger "British" tag? Much of the discussion in the past months has returned to that ... and here we are again.

The Tony Blair point I made earlier was partially in jest, but I am sure you knew that.

I wish more Scottish Unionists were able to engage - in the terms you often do - of feelings of belonging, community and loyalty. It might lead them to rely less on negative stereotyping. After all, both sides can do that very easily, and it gets us nowhere. Then again, I wish more Scottish Unionists were willing to engage generally; and not hide away in their exclusive "constitutional commission" refusing to discuss the very issues and possibilities that cause them to meet. However, I will be very surprised if that exclusive/isolationist stance lasts to the next Holyrood election – it would be political suicide for Liberal, Tory or Labour to enter the 2011 contest denying the need for a referendum on meaningful change. Therefore (as an advocate of independence), I hope they do.

North Sea oil 'could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Switzerland'
12:00AM Thursday December 15, 2005
By Ben Russell and Paul Kelbie
It was a document that could have changed the course of Scottish history. Nineteen pages long, written by Scottish economist Gavin McCrone, presented to the Cabinet office in April 1975 and subsequently buried in a Westminster vault for 30 years.

McCrone's paper, written for Ted Heath's Tory Government and only just released under the Freedom of Information Act, revealed how North Sea oil could have made an independent Scotland as rich as Switzerland.

Earlier this week, Chancellor Gordon Brown underlined the vital revenue stream that North Sea oil still is in the context of British politics.

In his pre-Budget report, Brown extracted an extra £6.5 billion (NZ$16 billion) in tax from North Sea oil and gas producers, to be taken over the next three years. Imagine then, what the oil could have done for a Scotland which chose independence in the mid-1970s and claimed ownership.

Thirty years ago, McCrone's conclusions shocked his political masters. An independent Scotland's Budget surpluses, wrote McCrone, would be so large as to be "embarrassing". Scotland's currency "would become the hardest in Europe with the exception of the Norwegian kronor".

Scotland would be in a position to lend heavily to England, a situation that could last "for a very long time".

The study was judged incendiary by London and classified secret. The mandarins demanded that McCrone's analysis be given "only a most restricted circulation in the Scottish Office because of extreme sensitivity".

It was the comparison with Norway that particularly worried. In the mid 1970s, Norway was fully independent and about to take advantage of an oil boom that has generated huge prosperity to the present day.

In Scotland, however, heavy manufacturing was in deep trouble. Between 1970 and 1974 the number of coal mines in Scotland slumped by a third, while steel production fell by a fifth.

The Government refused to bail out four shipyards in Upper Clyde in 1971, leading to a work-in by unionists and a march by 70,000 people.

And so the call for independence became louder. The 1970 general election saw the Scottish Nationalist Party poll just 11.4 per cent of the vote and one seat. By the 1974 election their support had risen to the all-time high of 30.4 per cent of the vote, and 11 seats.

At last an intelligent first minister who could lead us to an independent

REBUBLIC OF SCOTLAND.

Roll on.

Re: 563. PMK - Ayrshire - Monday 14 April - “It is not that Scotland is "unfairly represented" in terms of the make-up of MPs and/or Cabinet posts. It is more that the concerns of Scotland are constantly, and in one sense "democratically", overlooked as we can only ever have a weighting of 8-9%. The objection is that decisions are not being made in the national interest of Scotland - precisely because of the "democratic set-up" where eighty-odd percent consistently over-rules the other constituent nations within the Union”

I think that is a fair point if you define ‘national’ interest in terms of Scotland or England.

As a Unionist I don’t, but as (I presume) a SNP supporter, I absolutely accept you are free to do so.

And I certainly don’t hold Scotland responsible for Tony Blair; that is a burden too big even for the whole UK to carry, & I say that as a Unionist!

Mike King - comparing Scotland with Zimbabwe to support an argument rebounds very quickly and easily. Zimbabwe also were free to vote, and did so.

On the subject of "freedom", one person's freedom is another's prison. We do have the freedom of thought to decide what we regard as being - freedom - and no-one should decide for us what we personally mean by the word free. To do so is an arrogance, or worse, totalitarian control, puppetry and indeed slavery. For me, being under Westmonster and Britain is not being free for Scotland; others have the right to think differently. I support their Right.

On the subject of powers of MPs, I partly agree in that party Whips should be illegalised as infringing on the rights of properly elected public representatives - MPs - to decide on what they think, and what way they want to vote on any issue, not just the "conscience" issues like hanging and abortion.

On the other hand, MPs are indeed elected by their constituents, and therefore do have that given right, and should therefore have the courage and strength of conviction to vote according to their conscience, whatever their Whip may demand and decree, and whatever loss of privilege may result frm their "disobedience". To do so is not being a "rebel", to do so is to have integrity and honesty and strength, and is indeed their duty.

Sadly most MPs are cowards, or self-serving and so we do not have a democracy in Britain, by the People, for the People.

#564 - It should also be mentioned that Hong Kong is not independent, and is in fact seeing its limited autonomy increasingly subverted by Communist Party control from Beijing.

#564 - you expect the SNP administration to have successful solved all Glasgow's endemic social problems (which have outlasted the tenements and many of the high-rises), with only devolved powers, against a hostile Labour-dominated council and a very hostile UK Government (determined to prevent local tax reform which would favour the poorest) ... in a total timeframe of 10 to 11 months?!

Why not try Scottish independence? Then the Scots Parliament would have all the powers of a sovereign state to shape the economic and social environment in Scotland's largest city. The only other European country I can think of where the largest city is not the capital is Switzerland (where Zurich does very nicely). Perhaps you should advocate a federal or confederal structure within a newly independent Scotland?

PS - A more direct answer to your question is: "because no-one would vote for it [an independent Glasgow]", whereas if recent polls are to be believed 40% plus would vote for Scottish independence. Intriguingly, even more would should the Tories win the next General election (which again is starting to look like a very real possibility)!