The Scottish Government

#20. Stewart - Stirling
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 10:01

With regard to the above - hear hear!

The attitude of most scots towards the English, if aimed at any other race or country would generally be regarded as racist so why is it so openly accepted as being the right attitude. I was regularly heckled and abused for supporting England during the last World Cup. For a country of people who wants to be 'free' we are very quick to deny others the right to personal choice.

The majority of scots who call for independence are suffering from the braveheart mentality and have no idea of the real issues involved in independence.

How about the opposite? Scrap devolution as it has failed completely and give greater power and responsibility to councils. Then politicians can concentrate on running public services instead of wrapping themselves in flags in a bid to for a place in history.

Now, instead of national legislatures concentrating on national matters, we instead have this petty in-fighting of the most immature kind.

Why nationalists can deny the Barnett Formula is baffling. To read 'facts' stating Scotland actually subsidises the UK, and especially London and the South-East (two of the richest regions in Europe) is just ridiculous. Scotland's GDP (incl oil) is just £95bn, a fraction of the remainder's of £1.1TRILLION and growing fast.

If Barnett was removed and each UK citizen received equal funding, the total England allocation would rise by just 2% while the Scottish, Welsh and NI allocations would fall by 20-30% (give or take).

And as for this precious oil; taxes totalled just £1.28bn throughout the UK in 2005/06 so why nationalists think this will replace the £7bn+ 'subsidy' is nonsense (I prefer to call it 'redistribution'). People throw around figures of £10-20bn but Scotland will not see that unless they nationalise the oil fields at massive expense.

And oil reserves? Production peaked in 2000 at 6.4mbd throughout the North Sea. In 2010, it will be down to 2.4mbd. By 2030, 1.1mbd. That "half has not been tapped yet"...with prices as they are, why haven't they? Because they are too difficult/expensive to reach perhaps?

Then I read that Scotland will have a louder voice as an independent nation....how?

Today Scotland is a major component of one of the richest, most powerful and influential countries in the world, playing a dominant role in the UN, EU, NATO, Commonwealth and G8. And to restate the obvious, Scotland are actually running the UK right now!

As an independent nation, Scotland will be as politically, economically and militarily significant as Ireland and Portugal. It will rank alongside Ireland in EU votes, just above Luxembourg and Cyprus and the tiny Baltic states but 19 places behind the UK, the second most powerful economy after Germany (with or without Scotland).

It will be a voice at the back of the hall in the UN, no longer part of the Security Council nor any of the major forums.

It will have to watch G8 summits on the tv having one of the smallest economies in Europe and therefore not even an observer let alone a participant.

With just a few army light brigades to offer alongside a handful of patrol boats from a defence budget of less than £2bn (see Ireland), it will be of little significance in NATO. Today, Scotland is part of one of the best equipped, highly trained and experienced armies in the world, the RN is the second most powerful navy in the world and easily Europe's strongest & the RAF has some of the most advanced equipment in the world.

So how can people argue that Scotland will be better off out of the UK than within?

153 Stevie H.
I will get back to you later on your scare story about the Barnett formula, but were do you get your rather strange figures from?

I must also say a you seem a tad out of touch with what the people of Scotland want,who cares about politically, and militarily might!
Yawn the days of "great britain" are well done and dusted pal.

Your wee rant about back of halls howver was a bit amusing but in Scotland we are more interested in sorting out or health and social problems.
If more time/money was spent on our appalling health, high levels of suicide, depression, crime, obesity than building 10 Billion shining nuclear Subs or pampering to England's war we would be so much better off.

Scotland is number one in heart disease, strokes, teenage crime, life expectancy, teenage pregnancies etc etc in Europe the list is rather scary.
I think that's more important than having a bigger army than the bogey men.
Today's Military should be high skilled and trained why should that change and Scotland can contribute to Nato.
I think your well behind the times mate, size today doesn't matter, more intelligence and taking ourselves out of the firing line is more preferable to
spending Trillions having the second or third or what ever most "powerful" navy/army in the whole world!.
It is to me a playground argument for staying tied to the union.

Craig Cook - Glasgow

Hats off to you Craig, your comment must take the prize for either the funniest or stupidest!,

""And please don’t be so naive. You know as well as I do that all Britons would eventually diverge along different paths until we reached the point when all of our shared customs and histories became inconsequential. We would all just be neighbours smiling kindly, exchanging a few nice words here and there while watching suspiciously from a far to see what that ‘lot’ next door were getting up to""

So Scotland's and England's history and customs started and will end with the union!, lol what a joke I'll have to tell my brother who lives in Manchester that when were independant I'll not be able to visit him or go to Old Trafford as our whole history is over and inconsequential, no more tea/John Smith drinking sessions or watching soaps or football, no more 6 nations.

Mmm I think not Craig, next scare story please.

It is disappointing that after the wide range of contributions to this ‘conversation’, many of which are quite detailed, that some people apparently don’t take the trouble to carefully read what has gone before and therefore incorrectly make sweeping generalizations and simplistic, if not naïve, statements.

[# 152] “The majority of scots who call for independence are suffering from the braveheart mentality and have no idea of the real issues involved in independence.” No further comment necessary here as with such statements objective readers can readily make their own assessments of who actually has no idea of the real issues involved!

[#153] “Why nationalists can deny the Barnett Formula is baffling. To read 'facts' stating Scotland actually subsidises the UK, and especially London and the South-East (two of the richest regions in Europe) is just ridiculous.” What is ridiculous is that some still consider the Barnett Formula in isolation from historic spending on a ‘UK infrastructure’ centred on London and the South East of England and that these same people clearly fail to understand that this spending has contributed greatly, both directly and indirectly, to the economic growth of that region (besides the Westminster government itself, examples such as the Channel Tunnel, Millennium Dome and London Olympics have already been previously referenced). This is not a denial of the Barnett Formula but a sensible and logical attempt to put it in a wider perspective (which is especially important for those that appear to have missed the ‘bigger picture’ as already outlined by others in earlier posts)!

Future oil production from the North Sea is certainly important although not critical to our understanding of the bigger economic picture in an Independent Scotland, but it is also “ridiculous” (unless you do indeed possess a ‘reliable crystal ball’) to state exact levels of oil production from the North Sea in 2010 and 2030 without pertinent qualifications (as anyone with a working knowledge of the oil industry and the uncertainties inherent in that industry is aware). Even more “ridiculous” is to ignore the current plight of our fishing industry in countering arguments for Independence with statements emphasizing the power and influence of the UK, and Scotland’s control through the UK, in the EU and in today’s global economy. More “ridiculous” still is to introduce a projected lack of future military influence of an Independent Scotland when Scottish soldiers are currently dying in a conflict that in effect they were pushed into on the strength of misleading information presented by a UK Prime Minister attempting to have influence on a world stage without sincere consideration either of his mandate or of the extent of the regrettable consequences of his actions.

With a wider perspective and such observations is it not obvious how people can argue with some justification “that Scotland will be better off out of the UK than within” even if one does not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions?

Re. Ex-patting in the Netherlands.
What is, for want of a better word, amusing about observations such as yours is this belief that the UK is somehow a powerful nation.
For the past few decades the UK has been losing its status - it is not the global player it once was and the British will be gradually looking to other European nations if not to China and India - to take the lead.

Nation envy: The size of the nation state does not translate into power wielded. Norway does well on its own - and is active on the world stage including taking an active role in ie: Sri Lanka discussions (between the govt and LTTE).

There is no shame in Scotland being like Luxembourg or the Baltic states - as a regular visitor to Luxembourg I would be quite happy to see Scotland enjoy a similar standard of living - instead of, as it currently does, appear to tread water just above third world status. After all, it says something when Indonesian volunteers end up in Glasgow on work experience.

The UK might sit on various councils - but how does that realistically serve the people of Scotland - far less other parts of the UK (Wales and N.Ireland)? Given the nature of the UK nation state - the smaller consituent parts continue to lose out as successive governments initiate policies designed only really to benefit the South East.
Meanwhile, as the South East siphons up all the wealth, Scotland's infrastructure get worse, health poorer, etc.

Only as an independent state will Scotland truly have the power to rectify the wrongs - as it currently stands all Scotland can do is bump along the bottom of a succession of league tables (OECD etc) that serve only to point out that it's about the worst wee country in Western Europe.

Answer to Craig Crook, Missive 151

Hello Craig

You say that Scotland did not cease to exist in 1707 but were '...absorbed into a larger and more powerful body within which were retained our 'uniqueness'.

Although we retained certain institutions and trappings of being a nation this does not stretch to political power - for example however can you justify or defend the 'poll tax' foisted on Scotland against their will by a Tory Westminster government, before the same legislation was enacted in the rest of the UK ?

Surely it is a second class nation that has no effective expression for its political will. You see whenever we start talking politics your scottish identity begins to waver a bit.

While acknowledging the 'granting' of devolution by the benevolent the great white Queen in Westminster you don't want this to extend too far, although you don't seem sure how far.

You foresee extending powers, even more power over oil revenues, 'so long as the Union is not called into question', but called into question by whom. I think you would be satisfied with full independence so long as we all signed an open letter to Westminster...

'Dear Westminster while we have now got powers over most aspects of life here in Scotland we still acknowledge you as our protector and better than us, and your views will take precedence in all international relations. When talking to other countries we promise to still call ourselves British and not Scottish'

Something like that should be enough for you...

You also say '...for the life of me I cannot see the Britain as I know it surviving post-independence. Surely you can accept that?'

This view may have been slightly relevant before the EU, but surely you can accept that nowadays the idea that independence means separation just does not stand up. Ask the 200,000 Poles if they had difficulty getting into Britain, or the Irish or umpteen other nationalities freely traveling throughout the UK and Europe.

Of course there may be political divergence, that is the point of independence - but why should that be a bad thing. We can have different policies on 'social care' for example, without declaring war on each other - it is you that are being monumentally niaive here. To some extent we already have differences with the rest of the UK - You don't see street riots either side of the border 'because we're not exactly the same'. Why should it suddenly change when we get more powers and become independent. Doing our own thing is our national right which we can exercise. It comes with democracy.

I think you first of all need to come to terms with the fact that we are all part of the EU now, and all that means in terms of free movement, common market etc - that has changed the goalposts. Once you truly accept that then your other argument about the 'Great Wall of Scotland' collapses.

You also say that the Scots voted for the SNP for reasons other than independence, some perhaps - but they must have known independence was also part of the package. Clearly, the prospect of independence did not scare them off. Opinion polls consistently show that the Scots want considerably more powers, and that is what all the parties are currently debating. Nor will it just 'stop'. As you have already admitted, devolution is a continuum with independence approaching ever closer. As for what the Scots want? - can't tell until we are independent and a full political entity in our own right.

For me the greatest rationale for independence is a desire to behave like any other normal nation in Europe again and hatred of this xenophobic 'british is best' philosophy peddled by Unionists. This attitude that impels you to sneer at every other nation in Europe, and prevents you from truly participating in the EU.

I share this view with many other nationalists including some born and bred in the south of England. Think on Craig and fellow Unionists - the seeds of your own destruction lie in your own medieval attitudes to everyone else.



Cheers

As apposed to joining in the ongoing discusions I would like to take this oppertunity to give a new viewpoint.

I live in Holland where I teach English to Dutch kids. The Dutch, together with most mainlanders, know next to nothing about "Great Britain". They basicaly find it quite amusing the way a Scot reponds to being called English. "oh yes, so I heard. Don't call a Scot English!" Most of the people I've come across in the 15 years I've lived here think Scotland is just a funny little province, that all Scots wear nothing but kilts, that we all love whiskey and that we all play the bagpipes.

When trying to explain to these people that which we often take for granted, our heritage and right to freedom, it allways receives some comment about Mel Gibson and bare bums.

It's time for us Scots to stand up as one and say "Hello world, this is Scotland. And England: we'll take it from here!"

Its time to give the world a history lesson, and then set things straight.

Answer to Craig Crook -re various previous missives...

Hello Craig,

I've now had a chance to read you're earlier missives. Yes you are eloquent and erudite in your praises of Scottish contributions and achievements in the realms of science, the arts, engineering and commerce but...

Oh dear! - whenever politics is mentioned its... Wheeech, off with the scientists overalls, and businessman's suit and on with the fluorescent kilt and twirling musical sporran playing an endless loop of Andy Stewart singing 'I belong to Scotland, and Scotland belongs to me...'

If I had you're attitude to my fellow Scots I wouldn't be campaigning for independence I'd be completing a mass application for the Scots people to join Billy Smarts Circus.

The problem is that the joke is wearing a bit thin. I am starting from the premise that Scotland IS a nation with all the rights and responsibilities that goes with that. You're basic premise appears to be that Scotland is a kind of 'lucky region' with an amusing colourful culture. In you're eyes all those great Scots of the past were first and foremost British and Scottish a poor second.

I simply ask you to consider what the majority of Scots consider themselves today. I think if you took 100 Scots at random and asked what nationality they were, they would say Scottish first not British - nor would they ever allow the latter to take priority. Ask 100 people from anywhere else in the UK and I think you would probably get a different answer i.e British first.

And there is my point. It may have suited the Scots to have been part of the Union in the past, but not any more, and frankly the emotional glue which was never very strong in the first place has all but failed completely now.

You're fundamental premise is therefore wrong - you're on the wrong side: face it and move on!!!

Interesting threads.

Barnet formula,
1 we never get to see the true facts, obfuscation by London Manderins to conceal the truth perhaps
2 I have never believed we are subsidised
3 If we are we should not be, we cannot move from a state of depenednecy if we are depdendent. In the 60's we were raised to be self suffucient, educated, responsible, pay your way and neither a lender nor borrower be. Where has it gone wrong.

The British Government needs Wales, N Ireland and Scotland for their international power games. They have lost the entire empire that was their legitimacy to sit at the whoigh table of world power. If they lose their vestigial colonies their legitimacy is further undermined.

Now consider a Government tending 65m people. They must cater for the majority regardless of party in power. Small communities of les than 10% cannot gain preferential treatment and do not. They are simply a resource to support the majority. As an engineer we were taught in our maths to disregard any variable in an equation that was less than 10%.

Tis perhaps time that we do take control over our own affairs, it will be hard and there remains many unanswered questions but be sure we face serious social and economic unrest as a conequence of the environmental and world oil and gas supply issues. We cannot affect world outcomes directly but we can deal with our own issues but Wetsminster expressly stifles action in this area.

I have heard said by many N England people the border is too far north. They have values and kinship with us similarly treated with contempt by the SE.

Time to get of our backsides and look after ourselves, stop winging and whining, congratulate England on their rugby success and wish them well and support them to win.