The Scottish Government

I have Scottish blood on both sides of my family; I have been to Scotland more than a dozen times; I support independence for Scotland; and I think Scotland should be free of England and English influence forever.

In response to Stan Grodynski - Thanks for the compliment Stan. You too present your argument in an eloquent fashion! It just goes to show what can happen when you make the most of a good British education.

From reading your last rebuttal I get the impression that you believe that the current constitutional settlement benefits me in some way and that my defence of the union is merely a defence of my own personal interests. This is something which my good friend Gavin Thompson touched on in an earlier thread. Let me make it clear therefore that I do not benefit any more or any less than the average Scot. My defence of the union is based on my pride in Britain, our shared culture and history and the naivety of the nationalist argument. You know the one I’m talking about, no? It’s the one that says that independence is some magical cure, a cure which will solve all of Scotland's socio-economic ills.

Now you say that many Scots are looking towards a brighter future. This I do not deny. But can I ask you to paint me this brighter picture. Can you guarantee that every Scotsman and women would live more rewarding and fulfilling lives in a post-independent Scotland? Would we all be much better off? Would there be no social or economic hurdles to overcome? In essence what is the SNP's grand plan? Because if you say that we are all going to have an extra few quid in our pockets, that a nationalist government would provide world class services, no one would be homeless or some other noble and idealistic sentiment then please warn me beforehand so that I can get my sick bag ready.

Now you also say that Scotland has little say on specifically Scottish issues. But can I ask you to cast you mind back to 1999 when the Scottish people were asked if they wanted a Parliament to be established and equipped with power to govern over the most important aspects of their lives. The Scottish people backed the Yes campaign and now we have a parliament with extensive powers, powers which those in the constitutional reform campaigns of the 1980s and early 90s could only have dreamed of. I put it to you therefore that your nationalism has coloured your judgment and that you don’t fully appreciate the power and influence that Holyrood actually has.

Now you ask what changes I would make within the Union which would allow Scotland to move off in a new direction. Well in recent weeks I have warmed to the idea of Scotland receiving more favourable returns from North Sea oil and gas and if we would have to tweak some powers then so be it. But don’t be fooled into thinking that I am somehow moving towards the SNP's way of thinking. We are after all talking about Britain's oil, not just Scotland's.

Anyway I’ve got to go but to Gavin Thompson I say don’t think I’ve forgotten what you’ve said. When I get the chance I’ll post a thread detailing just how naive your last comments were. And I tell you this now. Before I am finished with you you will be a card-carrying, flag-waving unionist who loves everything read, white and blue and who watches the Queens speech every year at Christmas.

#126. Davie - Cheshire
Tuesday, September 25, 2007 17:15

Independence, you ask: what does it mean?

I'd say:
It means a lot to many people.
It means different things to as many different people.

It means it not being embarrassing or offensive to fly the national flag.

It means not having to stand silent and be offended while the national anthem is played.

It means not having to apologise for our country's or our countrymen’s behaviour abroad.

It means not having to put up with patronising sports reporters/commentators telling us how 'we' won a world cup etc. ad nausium, and willfully ignoring or worse, Scotland.

It means not saying: 'if only' we were the same as other nations.

It means not watching TV weather reports telling us: what a lovely day it's going to be, the same as 'we've' been having all week, but up in Scotland it has been miserable all week and is likely to stay that way.

It means not taking the begging bowl to Downing Street to ask for dole money that is rightfully ours to keep our country running, and humbly being sorry for having the temerity to please ask for some more.

It means not keeping WMDs, which morally can never be used anyway.

It means not being forced into building any more power stations producing nuclear waste that will be toxic to life for many generations into the future.

It means not being involved with invasions of other people’s countries, illegal or otherwise, just to help our selves to their natural resources.

It means being responsible for raising the money we spend for ourselves.

It means being proud of our nation and our people, wherever they come from.

It means celebrating our true heritage, not discovering it by chance or accepting propaganda intended to stunt our ambition.

It means using our individual and collective talents and characters that have shaped the world, to do as good a job of building and shaping Scotland.

To only involve ourself as a nation in other folks’ business only when they specifically request our aid and assistance.

To have no axe to grind with any or all of the other ‘Home Nations’, but do not wish our country to be run by any of them, especially as an afterthought to any other.

To want our elected representatives to have only one object and that to make Scots and Scotland all that they can be and as happy in Scotland as possible, without having to play 'Tail End Charlie' for anyone else.

It means being Scottish not the poor man's Englishman,ie British.

Some years ago the Conservative Prime Minister Ted Heath was asked by Robin Day on National TV what he thought of Scotland seeking Independance. Will his reply be shown on tv during the days before the next election ??

The Independance movement appear to want to return to the 14th century why not go further. As a McAlpine I was taught how the Scots of the West joined the other tribes to form a stronger force to keep out the Norse. Should we return to our ancient tribal lands that the Roman's knew, a land of numerous tribes that were given an artificial boundary.
Scotland is a nation constructed by feudal landowners and warlords and does not represent the culture or identity of the people.
I am Scottish and proud of it but do not need a government to prove it.
The Scottish Executive should get on with the job it is paid to do, spend our taxes wisely. Not interfere in cultural identity. Throughout history nationalism has ended in tears and bloodshed.
Politicians are meant to be wise, for goodness sake gie us a break and fix the schools and hospitals and stop wasting time and money on this petty conversation. We spoke to you in May and told you, no to Independance.

[133] I sincerely hope that none of my posts have given the impression that “independence is some magical cure, a cure which will solve all of Scotland's socio-economic ills”. In fact, I believe that Independence will pose significant short-term challenges for Scotland and I trust that anyone who has read my posts has not been misled in this regard and will recognize that, as with life itself, there are no guarantees. However, to change Scotland’s relatively poor socio-economic performance over the last thirty years (as evidenced by various independent reports) also presents significant challenges that so far the Unionist parties, and in particular the Labour Party, have not been able to overcome.

Perhaps having worked abroad in a number of countries and travelled extensively during this period gives me an ‘advantage’ over some, who perhaps have only travelled abroad on holiday or on short business trips, in that possibly I have been allowed to view Scotland’s performance over time more from a distance (and perhaps more objectively through being removed from the British media) and allowed to compare it, first-hand, with the progress of many other countries. Certainly my own experience was that although I was essentially pro-Union, and perhaps anti-EU when I first went to live abroad, I gradually became more persuaded of Independence as I learned more about the progress of other countries and also about the success of other Scots in helping to make that progress across all aspects of socio-economic development.

Having said this, I will repeat what I have said previously in that I can still also agree positive arguments for retaining the Union but these are all founded on the UK first withdrawing from the EU. As none of the major British political parties are advocating this separation, then the only logical path I can personally see to providing today’s children with better prospects for the future within Scotland than were presented to my generation, is for Scotland to forge its own path in the world, initially at least, as a participating independent member country of the EU. This does not mean trying to change history or cutting off ties with our families and friends in England (which I’m sure are important to all of us, even members of the SNP) but it does mean taking a long term view of Scotland’s future.

Of course everyone’s natural instincts are to avoid difficulties, especially if some pain may appear to be involved, and some would even rather forego a life-saving operation than agree to a one-off but painful injection, so it is up to those who are perhaps in a position to provide more objective assessments to attempt to put such dilemmas in perspective. Certainly I cannot claim that my own perspective necessarily provides the best possible judgement in the complex issues surrounding Independence, but what I can say is that through my own experiences I am now confident that overall Scotland will progress faster in realising the aspirations of its people over the next thirty years with a government independent of Westminster, and focussed on Scottish Solutions for Scottish issues, than by sustaining what appears to be a growing ‘dependency culture’ within the Union.

There is no doubt that many still derive a certain ‘comfort’ from their association with things British (and I cannot deny that thumbing through some of my old and well-worn British passports endorses this feeling), but I think even the most ardent supporters of the Union would admit that the international standing of ‘Brand Britain’ has fallen in recent times with the waning of the British Empire, the increasing influence of other countries in the global economy (such as Japan, China and now India), and our association with the conflict in Iraq. Perhaps now is the right time for all four participants in the Union to draw a line in the sand and seek to map out their own destinies in a ‘brave new world’!

#113. George Steel - Fife
Wednesday, September 19, 2007 13:40

What a nasty, bitter, wee man you must be?
If you feel the urge to have a go at one of the most popular Scotsmen in history, might I suggest you first get your facts straight?

First, Sir Thomas Sean O'Connery is a Knight Bachelor of the Order of the British Empire; it is the step up from OBE but not an order of chivalry like the Garter or the Thistle.
Whether or not it is an English honour depends on how you define 'British'.

Sir Sean is a permanent resident of Lyford Cay, Bahamas.
The Bahamas were granted independence from Great Britain in 1964 but still retain the Queen as head of state.

He-haw to do with America, unless you want to count the tourist dollars spent there by Americans.

As for contributing to the land of his birth:
In 1971 he donated his entire salary, over £1 million, (a 3 bedroom house could be bought back then for £200-£400) from his Bond film Diamonds Are Forever to the Scottish International Educational Trust that he co-founded.

'SIET' has granted £millions in scholarships to young Scots and Scottish institutions, assisting talented and worthy individuals who need help to achieve their educational objectives.

His American based charity
'Friends of Scotland' was formed,
"… To create, stimulate, and sustain an interest in Scotland and its history, traditions, and culture; to bring together people of Scottish heritage; to promote goodwill and understanding about Scotland among the general public; and to perform charitable works…"
Sir Sean serves as Honorary Chairman.

On Tax, let the big man answer for himself:

The Sunday Times
March 12, 2006
Jasper Gerard interviews Sean Connery:
>>>If Scotland is so bonny, why are you never there? “I am in St Andrews every year,” he chips back.
But not, one presumes, as a taxpayer?

“I pay more tax in the UK than most MPs put together,” he erupts,...

... So if he is not, as reported, a “tax exile”, why won't he come home?
“Well, what kind of life would I have with tabloids following me?
That is down to you guys in the media.

I brought 95 people over to Scotland and held the world premiere for a movie called Entrapment, and tabloids put their heavies in the hotel just to upset me.” <<<

Your ideas on the 2:1 issues regards Scottish opinion of the constitution are well-covered elsewhere.

Your comment about American interest in N.Ireland speaks volumes about your own particular bias, brother.

That fact that large tracts of Scotland are uninhabited does not mean that they were always so.
For 'foreigners of Scottish descent'
I suggest The Heritable Jurisdictions (Scotland) Act, 1746 (20 Geo 2 c 43) for further reading and 'The Highland Clearances'
. http://www.highlandclearances.info/

As for who lives where, and where they come from, that is entirely irrelevant to Scotland's restoration to full nationhood or for that, this 'conversation'.

Why would you laughably imagine we'd have to kiss our relatives in England goodbye after independence?

If only unionists like you would be more vocal, Scotland would be independent so much sooner.

#136. Jean Henretty - Aberdeenshire
Friday, September 28, 2007 13:50

Perhaps you told somebody 'no to independence' but independence was not on the ballot papers in May.

It will be at the next UK general election though.

It may have escaped your attention but our schools and hospitals spending is constrained by the amount of dole money we are provided with under the Barnett Formula.

ie 'Here's a bawbee and don't spend it all in the one shop'

One argument is that with Scotland able to operate the levers of her own economy to her own advantage, rather than accept the south of Britain's hand me down policies, we could grow Scotland's economy more efficiently and effectively.
http://www.adamsmith.org/images/uploads/publications/Independent_Scotland_Riches.pdf

According to the Adam Smith Institute (link posted above) for example, that would fund the improvements for everyone in Scotland to enjoy a better standard of living.

Isn't that what we all want?

Nothing to do with Medieval or Picto-Scottish history.

In answer to Davie of Cheshire , missive 129

Hello Davie

I completely agree with you that a lot of our problems are down to us Scots ourselves not taking responsibility.

But can't you see, that the move towards independence is all about Scotswanting to do just that - take responsibility for their own problems and solve them.

Devolution does not provide sufficient powers for us to do this now - ie no proper tax raising powers etc - so follow the logic of your own argument and vote for independence !!!!!!!!!!!!

Awrabest

#130. Alistair Hill - Methil Fife and Hildesheim Germany
Wednesday, September 26, 2007 19:14

Alistair where do you get this idea that Britishness is a northern trait and nothing to do with London?

I contend that it is entirely a London invention imposed on Scotland and the rest of the British Empire from Whitehall.
i.e. For those not quite proper 'English'.

The one notable exception being those Ulster folk, loyal to the Queen, who 'are not Irish but British'.

I would respectfully suggest that Scots do not want to be the proud equivalent of any other nation, but EVERY other nation.

Our current population and GDP put us up with, or even ahead of, the likes of Portugal, Austria, Finland and Greece, whereas even the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man have more control over their destiny than we do.

We are important to the UK alright, we give it the critical mass to remain on the G8 and the UN Permanent Security Council.
Whoopdedoo! What benefit has this ever brought us but to put us in the center of a big nuclear bullseye?

We have gone guarantor (unbeknown to us at the time) for the UK economy with North Sea Oil.
This has had Whitehall terrified that the international financial institutions would call in their markers and flush them down the plughole if we found out and took it away.

As for speaking out loudly on the World stage:
With mass communications and internet access it is not who speaks loudest and carries the biggest cudgel who prevails, but the one who speaks the wisest words and carries world opinion.

Otherwise the USA would now dictate international policy for the entire globe would it not?

Until the current Scottish parliament, it has been possible for successive UK leaders, from eg PM Ted Heath negotiating entry to the EEC, to sign away our vital Scottish interests as bargaining chips for the UK national interest.
'Honest' Tony in Libya being but the latest in a long line.
Ask our fishing industry, I was going to add mining, shipbuilding and iron & steel industries but it is too late for those whose livelihoods depended on Whitehall or Holyrood looking out for them.

I note that road equivalent tariffs for our lifeline island ferries have suddenly been freed from EU competition rules simply by a change in Scottish administration.

Just shows what can be done with your own people ready, willing and able to speak up for you, rather than hoping for an invite to listen in next door.

450-500 states?
Deary me, you're not another of the conspiracy theorists who believe that the EU is a device of the Germans or secret world capitalist conspirators to break up 'England' into ten or more regional chunks to facilitate creating some kind of economic Fourth Reich?

Aye well...