The Scottish Government

FREEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEDDDDDDOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMMMMMMMMMM!!!!!!!!

"I'm William Wallace, and the rest of you will be spared. Go back to England and tell them... Scotland is free!".... Its hard not to think Alec would have wanted to say that line. And maybe he will, if he gets his way (changing the name of course).
Well, I'll put in my tuppence worth, even if the devolution review doesn't want to hear it.
I would like to see more powers for Scotland, especially economic ones. The main reason for my willingness to see our nations sovereignty restored is because fundamentally, I belief in localised power. Scotland's democratic record is one of the best in the world, but it still doesn't compare to the ideals of the greek 'demos-kratos'. In my view, a truer sense of democracy can only be achieved with smaller amounts of people than the UK's 70 million odd. I am against the centralising nature of the currrent UK government, and I belief its easier to govern small amounts of people. isn't it?
As a journalist, I feel the other parties are going about their campaign against independence in the wrong fashion: I'll explain, its perhaps foolish to go on an all out attack against the SNP administration for suggesting the idea of a referendum. When you have a scottish NATIONAL party in government, with an open track record of wanting independence, its not hard to see why their pushing this agenda. But to condemn it, and for the review to not allow it as an option, will only compound scottish elements of society that want it. And whatever the polls say, there's a hell of a lot of people (not necessary informed) who would want independence just as a matter of principle. It's seem like a reaction of parties who fear its success, to bashfully deny it even as a topic of discussion! If I were a pro-unionist, (which is not a bad option either), I would stand strong and say 'the snp can do what they like, the referendum will go our way' or something like that. If it does happen, a referendum of independence will be dead at least for a generation. Then we can move on.
But, as i said, I would like to see an Independent Scotland, that would and should, in my opinion, prosper both culturally and economically. I look west for an example, The republic of Ireland. The economic boom of the last decade there is something to be admired, and to take tips from.
There is possibly a fear, like the UK has with the States(in certain respects), that if i don't have big brother watching over me, what happens if i go wrong. Small nations can and do prosper all over the world, we have resources, a good education platform and hopefully a will of the people to show a'body else we can do it.
For me, Its not just a sense of wanting to be independent for the sake of it, like your local pub alki might say, its a chance to prosper and set our own agenda, and importantly, move our society in a direction that WE want to. Its not like England control us, or even pay too much attention to us, but we are still governed by them. (for major issues, defence, economy etc)
I've rambled on far too much, but I'll leave with you all with this: An independent Scotland need not diminish its ties with the UK both finacially and socially. The big difference is, when and if we need to be separate, we can be. Its not about losing a neighbour, its about gaining control.

(sorry about my typo's, bad grammar etc, shocking I know for a journo, needless to say this comment is rushed (in typing, not thought))

529 - Dave

Naturally, everything that the UK government does for us at present will become exclusively Scots competences. The departments in London which are, at present, responsible for governing Scotland will be relocated north.

Now, this can only be a good thing. It means that Edinburgh will become base to a number of highly paid civil service jobs which previously would have been based in London. More money spent in Edinburgh stays in Edinburgh, and within the Scots economy as a result. Our talented young folk will be less likely to relocate south looking for well paid jobs. To some extent, this would almost certainly offset the loss of the UK's "economy of scale".

As well as which, with full control over our own finances and spending, we would be able to pursue policies uniquely suited to Scotland. For example, Scotland won't require half the army or navy proportional to what the rump UK will. Colonial jaunts overseas won't be an issue anymore, so we can stop funding our share of the £30-a-second Iraq War just for starters.

Consider that the UK govenrment is planning to spend between £15 and 20 billion on replacing Trident. Scotland, with 9-10% of the UK population, will be funding this project to the tune of roughly £150-200,000,000. With independence, we could put that money anywhere else we liked - a conventional military deterent, better schools, infrastructure, whatever. The point is that it will be our decision to make.

One last point I would make is that oil is not the be all and end all of independence. Scotland without oil could survive quite comfortably, as other small nations do. The oil, however, is a natural bonanza whose profits we should be saving for future generations as the Norwegians do. The only way we can impliment such a policy is with independence from the United Kingdom, which has shown itself incapable of spending oil tax profits prudently.

Within Scotland, we hold an economy of stability full of potential for growth, an education system and industrial sector of strength and an ability to sustain ourselves through time.

Let our will be heard by our Nationalist government and let them lead us to our constitutional right....The Right of Independence from the Union!

#521 - I must forward that argument to the 190-odd independent governments in the world! "Independence is fundamentally flawed", no explanation just a bald statement of opinion! At 5 million Scotland would not be one of the smallest countries in the world, we would be medium-sized in European terms certainly: Denmark, Norway, Ireland, Sweden, Switzerland, Croatia, Czech Republic, Slovakia, Portugal, Belgium, Finland etc ... etc ... are all of comparable size, as are many more. Also, many other economically successful states in Europe are far smaller, for example: the Baltic States and Iceland. And every single one of them has more say on the international stage than Scotland, despite the UK Security Council seat. As for oil, as The Herald's Oxford-based study has shown, Scotland could comfortably survive without oil. Many forget that the UK is currently running a deficit of £20 billion or 5.7% GDP, at a time when study after study has shown Scotland would run a surplus.

#528 Mike King - I wanted that made explicit, that you accept participation by all. Partly because your last post you backed-up the poster with no set name from fife who has been shouting down pro-independence contributions from the rest of the UK, Ireland and America while welcoming anti-independence ones from anywhere.

I have no doubt you would be affected in a limited way by Scottish independence, but ultimately - as the Scottish people are sovereign - it is only they who will decide their constitutional future.

Thanks for taking the time to reply.

My heart has always told me that Scotland should be independent. Now the but, If I were to be asked to vote in a referendum in the near future I would lack the information on which to make a logical,well founded decision. Where is the information about the costs of actually running the day to day business of the country. How many costs are hidden in the provision by the UK of administrative services. A few that spring to mind are, in no particular order, passports/ID, driving licences, vehicle registration, consular services,social security administration, benefits administration, pensions administration, tax administration etc. So can any one help me, what are the hidden costs that will have to be borne by a much smaller taxation base. No doubt we can learn a lot from other smaller countries, the point is that this work has to be done now, so that there are answers to the questions when the referendum comes. When Ireland won it's independence the world was a much simpler place and they went through unbelievably hard times to reach their present position. So please Alec, get the work done and the answers out there on the street.

517. PMK - Ayrshire "I hope you can agree with that stance of welcoming all (regardless of the position they take)?"

Already done so in the very post you refer too, which you obviously didn’t read closely enough!

I wrote “For the record, I have no problem with him/her commenting but its clearly factually incorrect to think he’s as effected as me”

Thanks for acknowledging I will be effected if Scotland eventually votes to leave the UK.

No 521

So being in the UK gives us representation on the UN Security Council. Wow can you feel the benefits everyone?
Only obvious impact is the fact it helps us be draged into innapropriate conflicts that make us unpopular throughout the world. As an indepenedent nation we would be on the UN.
I really cannot see how we would be losing to no longer be on the Security Council.
Would we be taken seriously? Well I do not think we are at present and I am sure we would be taken as serioulsy as any other small country. Good enought for me.

Pure and simply, tired of feeling like I'm considered 2nd after England.

I want a country that has me as it's priority. The powers to make Scotland the best it can be. The only way forward is independence.

Alex Salmond and the SNP have my full support.

#514

Why should Scotland be the only place entitled to a referendum on independence?

As I predicted many postings ago independence for Scotland would become independence for Shetland, then Outer Hebrides?, Inner Hebrides? Why not re-instate the Lord of the Isles? Angus Og’s descendants can come into their own. They won’t need the Queen as their head of State, they’ll have their own.

In my plooky youth, well even earlier, my very favourite primary school teacher, Miss Cairns, was rumoured to have stood guard while her fellow conspirators stole the Stone of Destiny!!! It is even rumoured, in fact it is recorded in song, that the original Stone was never returned to Westminster, a substitute was given in its place. This would mean that Stone of Destiny is out there somewhere and the Stone that came back to Scotland is a fake!

Of course if you go back even further it was rumoured that the original Stone of Destiny was made of black granite and covered in Egyptian hieroglyphics and was brought over by an Egyptian princess at the time of the pharaohs! The king to be sat on this stone and had his claim to the throne, in deeds and other attributes read out, then acclaimed by the attending nobles. This stone was hidden from the invading English, who were presented with the cover for the monastery’s toilet as the Stone of Destiny.

What has this to do with the claim of the Shetlander who insists he is not subject to Scottish law because his part of the world was part of the kingdom of Denmark and under Danish law could not be surrendered by the king of Denmark to a third party? Well the story of the Stone is impossible to verify, whereas the claim by the Shetlander CAN be substantiated. When Napier, he of the Napierian Logarithms, who devised a mathematical method of calculating loan interest on a DAILY basis, and took the islands as collateral for the dowry of the princess who married James’ son, he KNEW the Danes could never repay the loan. Of course asking a SCOTTISH court to uphold this claim is expecting too much, therefore I expect Shetland to remain part of Scotland, whether the natives like it or not! FREEDOM on YOUR terms?, No thank you.

Expect, in the fullness of time that the islanders will be able to work out the £5 billion from North Sea oil will go a lot further among the population of the islands, than the 5 million people on the mainland.

Loyalty? who needs it when we can look after number one?