The Scottish Government

Would Steve H (#153) like to explain what he means by “nationalise the oilfields at massive expense”???

The oilfields are already a national asset – regardless of how and by whom they are exploited – and around 95% of exploited oil revenues flowing into the London Treasury just happen to be in Scottish territorial waters.

Unionists often talk as if oil as a natural resource already belongs to the oil companies, instead of to the country from which it is extracted – hence to the people of that country. So, Steve, what would you imagine we could ‘nationalise’? The multinational consortiums and corporations upon whom we have no claim, but who already pay the massive extraction revenues to London?

Crucially, if Scotland had control of even a fraction of the oil resources in its own territorial waters, this additional asset alone would augment the Scottish spending budget by several millions.

Under Scottish control, our oil reserves to date would have been extracted at a significantly slower and more controlled rate – responsibly managing and preserving the resource as a vital asset for future generations – as against the thoroughly exploitative manner in which they have been virtually squandered to date, as disposable currency in a boom-and-bust economic strategy.

Further, an Oil Trust Fund could have been established at the outset, which would have invested the value of an inevitably finite resource into a permanent national financial reserve which, like that established by Norway, would have become self-perpetuating well before the oil extraction itself even went into decline.
Equally crucially, there is still the time and potential to invest in such a fund.

Steve, as you demonstrate, the Barnett formula is a transition mechanism designed to systematically reduce Scotland’s ‘subsidy’ to the same level as the more populous parts of the UK – inevitably and relentlessly reducing Scotland’s total budget in favour of already super-wealthy regions, led by the south-east of England.

Scotland has around one third of the UK’s landmass, with 9% of the population. We are rich in essential resources such as water and electricity, with a particularly remarkable potential for the development of renewables. And we are endowed with exceptional industries such as whisky, which also pours massive resources into the UK treasury.

However, these things are conveniently excluded from the overall picture favoured by those who wish to paint us as hopeless subsidy junkies within the UK.
Conveniently, that same picture also ignores the hugely disproportionate number jobs and perpetuated wealth based south of the Border as a direct consequence of the location of so many major UK national institutions, comprising Government departments and military facilities, as well as the countless public and private businesses and industry that thrives on the wealth based around such institutions.

We have seen over generations how industry after industry has been dismantled in Scotland – largely against the background of a London Government which is either indifferent, or actively favours industrial interests in the south over those based here.

We have seen, and continue to see, obscene amounts of money spent over and over in London and the south-east, while relatively smaller expenditures in Scotland are the subject of disproportional negativity and frenzied media obsession.
And, although Scottish Labour’s present problems are entirely of their own making, it is highly revealing that the Leader of the Opposition at Westminster receives 30 times more funding than the largest opposition party at Holyrood.

So the unionist prospectus runs something like this:
“You must be mad to consider a future as an independent nation, when you are (a significant?) part of this world-beating political union. Look at the (purported) power and influence we generate, and the benefits we can acquire together!
Of course, your membership of this ‘union’ will be on our terms, and your level of recognition and share of any influence or benefits will be perpetually squeezed on a strictly pro-rata population basis. All statutory matters, and overall control of resources, are reserved. You have no future without us.”

In light of all this, and also of the mendacious deception by Westminster over the projected value of Scotland’s oil over a 30-year period, as revealed in the McCrone Report, it should be crystal clear that the London Government puts London interests first.

It is time for us in Scotland to put Scottish interests first – a basis on which this ‘union’ has historically and persistently failed us.

#159

It is undeniably telling that the Dutch, among others, can tend to regard the Scots as the quirky inhabitants of a largely unknown 'region' – though hardly surprising, given the tendency of people, even on the BBC, to refer to “England” when they actually mean “Britain” – a tendency which becomes increasingly symptomatic of some people from “South Britain” when they travel to other countries.

Interestingly, our own geographically diverse and stunningly beautiful country (Scotland) is the same size as the land areas of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands combined.

And while the Dutch themselves have had a disproportionate influence on the modern world, it speaks volumes that they might register so little recognition of the Scots, whose achievements and global influences arguably surpass that of any ‘small’ nation.

A couple of personal anecdotes:

Once, in Australia, I travelled with a Dutch inhabitant who objected to my use of the term ‘Holland’ for her country. Meanwhile, she habitually used the term ‘England’ in reference to the UK!

On a rare visit to the Isle of Lewis, I was speaking to a fellow traveller – a resident of France who was travelling with his French family, but, from his speech and accent was clearly an Englishman. At one point, he announced “I was born in England” – with the context and emphasis of the phrase clearly indicating that his ‘England’ meant the UK as a whole, including the Isle of Lewis!

I have in-laws in South Africa who also habitually use the term ‘England’, and my travelling experiences inform me that many nationalities, including many Americans and even some Irish(!) have little or no recognition of Scotland as a country.

On that basis alone, I take strong issue with those who claim independence would do little to improve our international standing.

Roll on the Referendum!

I have been a supporter of the SNP since the first day I became interested in politics. I support basically all the policies that have been put forward and perhaps other, more radical, that have not yet. I do support independance but with exceptions.

I do not accept that we need to cut all ties with our "British" counterparts. For example, an independant Scotland would be unlikely to want a advanced defence force like that of the UK as a whole. I cannot accept that in todays volatile world, we remain (i am over exagerating, but you'll get my drift) defenceless. I believe that the SNP Government need to remain in some sort of union for the defence of our common island.

Further, I agree with many of the comments on this board that we do not need closer European integration. I am currently a law student and see the day to day implications of our attachment to Europe and it is not, in my opinion, in our best interest. Why can we not do as the swiss have done?? They have all the privaleges of free trade and talk etc with Europe but none of the ties that dillute autonomy. The Swiss have all the economic beneifts of the EU without even having to be a member of the EU.
If we remained outwith the EU, we could then ACTUALLY control our fish stock,no European interferance....and make decisions that cannot be overruled due to illogical European directives and Human Rights cases.

I do truly believe in independance, and I don't wish for anyone to doubt that. But i do not see the point if closer integration with Europe is the end result. The goverment want Scotland fish for Scotland and so on....this wont be possible in the EU.

Hi all, I'd just like to say that I'm in total support of independence for Scotland, I think you deserve this at the very least, being such a proud nation. I only wish other members of the UK were so patriotic, I think it's healthy to have a strong national bond.

Scotland : if, or more likely _when_ you get full independence and control of foreign policy, would you retain a strong alliance with England and/or be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations?

I want my Scotland to be independent so that my daughter has something to look forward to, other than immigration. The Westminster quangos are traditionally anti Scottish. London love nothing better than to bad mouth the Scottish population, when they need to score political points.They treat Scotland with nothing but contempt.Scotland needs a government with conviction and a 'backbone' that will fight for us. If we want to survive as Scotland, now is the time.

The SNP is the only party that puts Scottish people before British profits in Scotland, and I strongly feel that the only way forward for the Scottish people, is through and Indipendance from the Westminster spinning machine.

Hi Gavin

Sorry it’s taken me so long to get back to you. I've been busy you see running around the country draped in my Union Jack trying to show nationalists the error of their ways. It’s tough you know - trying to get through all that nationalist propaganda...but hey I’ve got to try!

Anyway here I go. The fundamental difference between you and I is that you view 'that lot down south' as our colonial overlords, people not to be trusted. They use Scotland and disregard the will of our bonny wee nation. Over the last 300 years 'that mob south of Berwick' have used every trick in the book to undermine our sense of national pride and identity.

Unsurprisingly I don’t accept such nonsense but hey my views coloured by my red, white and blue specks, right?

Now you say that 'surely it is a second class nation that has no effective expression for its political will'. Are you calling Scotland a second class nation? On a nationalist website. Tut tut.

Just out of curiosity what is Scotland's political will? Independence? I touched on this point in an earlier thread but I notice that you have conveniently ignored it so I’ll ask again. Do the majority of Scots want independence? I think we both know the answer.

So I’ll put it to you this way. You’re standing in the street one day with a survey in your hand. You stop 100 Scottish people and ask them ‘do you consider yourself to be Scottish/British’. Most say Scottish but if pressed would also say British. You ask the same 100 people 'do you believe in independence'? The majority say ‘no’.

Now you say that today with the EU (and I presume globalisation) independence does not mean separation. So where exactly does that leave you and your argument? Are you saying that an independent Scotland would still be British in some way? Because if that’s what you are saying then you a ‘monumentally naive’ my good friend.

You are correct however when you say that Scotland is different from the rest of the UK. We always have been and it is for precisely that reason that Britain has never been a unitary state. It also explains why our so called ‘Scottishness’ has remained with us over the last 300 years.

I must say though that it has been funny reading your threads. You are so anti-British it’s unreal. There’s no in between with you. You’re either Scottish or British. It would appear that you look at those who see themselves as both as some sort of hybrid weirdo, not truly Scottish or British. You also say that ‘we unionists’ are xenophobic folk who sneer at every other nation in Europe. So how is this for an answer. Polls have shown that Euro-scepticism north of the border equals and in some cases exceeds that shown down south. Just add an extra question into your survey and ask the same 100 Scots their views on Europe.

You must also be some sort of psychologist because you constantly make assumptions as to what I believe without any form of psychological consultation! I mean you say that I see all great Scots as Britons first. So here is another answer for you. Pre-1707 all great Scots were Scots post-1707 all great Scots were Scottish AND British! Crazy talk I know!

Now Gavin, you know as well as I do that last May’s election results had more to do with dissatisfaction with UK Labour, and to a smaller degree Jack McConnell. People did not vote for independence. They voted because of their anger at issues such as Iraq, trident and so on and if you believe otherwise then its time to take of your tartan specks.

Cheers

This is a thought for those who have no political interest in independence: SUSTAINABILITY. (and Scotland)

Scotland is the only country in the UK which can actually support its own population from its own resources. There are over 60 million people in the U.K, and there is not enough land, enough water or wind oil or electricity to provide those people with the food and fuel they need to survive. There is quite simply not enough land in Britain to feed its people. If you take Scotland out of the equation, with its relatively small population, open spaces significant natural resources, and the picture for England-and-wales looks a lot worse. England is massively dependent on food shipped in from outside its borders. Has anyone sitting in their ivory tower of global invulnerability actually considered what would happen if this external flow dried up?

A country which cannot support its own population from its own resources is a time-bomb waiting to go off. It is not sustainable - it is a land leaning on a crutch, and all that needs to happen is for that crutch to be removed. As a samll, independent nation, Scotland is the only country in the UK which has sufficient natural resources and a samll enough population scattered over a wide enough area to actually support its own people on its own land. Why do you think that so much money, time and effort is spent by the establishment-controlled media in damnning the idea Scottish independence? The future for England without its fine Scottish garden to draw from is not bright at all.

Small, independent nations are best able to look after their own interests and the interests of their people*. A country which can support its own population need not fear times of global famine,war or embargo**. It can be secure in knowing that its realtionship with the environment is healthy and of course Sustainable.

*they also tend to be so busy looking after themselves that they have less time to play global c**k-ups, a favourite pastime for some other countries.

[that's just one reason to vote for independence!]

Hi all,
I firmly and passionately believe in Scottish independence. This is on the
basis of Scotland's unique history, heritage, ethnic mix, language, culture,
topographical geography and mindset.
Scotland transparently sits apart from the rest of it's UK neighbours in
these aspects. From Pictish roots to Viking invasion, to clan warfare and
the unusual (for its time) "consensus incorporating diversity" style of rule
that Scotland has experienced, it is clear to me how profoundly it differs
from "Middle England" from where much of Scotland's woes have originated.

However, in embracing that very diversity that is do doggedly Scottish, I
think the SNP should tread carefully in pursuing the independence issue.
While it their' stated aim and preference and thus their responsibility to
the electorate to deliver movement on the issue, I am afraid that too
aggressive gestures may frighten off undecided voters.
I think a referendum it vital and the only democratic way forward. I think
one should be called. The SNP however must learn to eat the elephant of
Independence "one bite at a time" in a way that is more digestible to the
masses. Thus a fall back position of enhanced devolution should be aimed for
by the Government in the first instance. Loss of Yes / No referendum would
be a tragic loss of momentum and credibility for the SNP, whereas a win on
enhancement would set stage for a further referendum, perhaps in the next
term of the Scottish Parliament.

Thoughts?

Martin.

In answer to #141 Gordon Murrey's interesting comments on my statement about the sources of Britishness I would refer him to Hume et al at the time of Scotlands greatest period- Scottish Enlightenment- when, as part of a push to have the Union accepted in the first place - the modern aproach to "Britishness" was very much concieved north of the Border, whether for good or bad.

The matter is also discussed at some length in that brilliant book on "How the Scots Discovered the Modern World and Everything in it". It is put forward there that the drive to "Britishness" was fundamental to the surge of Scottish Thinking at the time.

Further in the first volume of "The Edinburgh History of Scotland- the making of the Kingdom" Duncan comments on what made Britain and Scotland. This is the History of Scotland from ancient times until the Middle Ages. The term Ancient Britons usually refers to the Welsh but there seems to be truth in the fact that these peoples were Picts or Celts but not "English".

The first "British Convention" seems to have been in the late part of the Enlightenment period, in Edinburgh in 1793.

Anyway to finish. I hope that Scotland have a good win over the Ukraine on Saturday!