The Scottish Government

The latest EU constitution will require all who sign up to it to uphold and promote the values above all other such treaties and constitutions. It will also enforce the regionalisation of any countries brought together in a previous union, T Blair and G Brown have started the process of bringing this to a reality. If the unionist don't get their fingers out then all constituant parts of the Union of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will disapear, perhaps this is what they want?

Its high time we were independent. Its funny - we have increasingly been treated like a colony, an English aferthought. But whenever we vote for independence the same pundits all become British again - for a day.

The truth is we are increasingly treated like 2nd class citizens, as real power continues to concentrate in London, despite the fig leaf of devolution. All this at a time when it is Scottish oil that has enabled the UK economy to achieve record growth - The position is completely absurd.

It is more than absurd, it is obscene that Scotland still suffers record poverty and relative deprivation. All of this while the South of England sponges from the proceeds of Scottish oil.

All the Scottish Labour Party does in the face of this is peddle negative messages - more or less saying that Scots are 'too stupid to run their own affairs'. Why do they do this ? To protect their entrenched power in local authorities, unions etc.

Obviously the recent election results have put that hereditiary power in jeopardy - but they are so entrenched in their loathsome toadying, its become part of their psyche.

Their 'jobs for the boys' approach has traditionally been far more important to them than the welfare of the Scottish people. What a pathetic bunch of self serving wasters.

Thank God time is running out for Labour however. As the younger generation come to voting age, the older voters are being outnumbered by the young. The old mantra that scots are 'just too stupid to tun their own affairs' is giving way to a positive message that we are a nation that demands a voice - the future is positive and full of hope.

We can run our own affairs in our own country, and must take full responsibility again amongst the family of nations. Yes, we may make mistakes but they will be our mistakes - Never again should Scots go to fight and die in wars initiated against Scottish popular will.

PS - I agree with most of the items already submitted, with the exception of Craig Crook.

I have a question for Craig - Just what is his positive message ?

Does he accept that Scotland suffers higher levels of child poverty, poorer housing etc than England; after all these are statistical facts ?

Does he not accept that we are a nation that has the right to do something about these issues - or are Scots too inadequate to improve their own lives in their own country ?

Is the future just to put up with whatever falls from London, cap in hand ? Wow there's a future to look forward to. I'm sure we'll all flock back to Labour if that message gets out.

I strongly disagree with contributors No 1 & No 6. we need further intigration with Europe not less. We are bottom of the lists in nearly all things compared to the European average (Health,education, housing, wealth, productivity), and I for one blame it on the British attidude which has infected Scotland. We hear a lot about fishing but it was the London goverment that has passed on the rights. Anyway would we use the bounty or sell it on as the population are more interested in eating out of a microwave. We go over to the continent and admire how they live but by some perverse reason don't vote for it.

#13. John: European, Scot - Falkirk
Sunday, August 26, 2007 11:13

Bounties in the microwave?

Is this an idea inspired by the deep fried pizza or Mars bar.

My English mother in law puts Mars bars over Rice Crispies in the microwave.

Sorry, but as #1. David Robertson - Inverness started by spouting nonsense about a Franco-German alliance out to subjugate Europe I just felt I had to fall in with the mood.

To answer #6 and Norway's relationship with the EU:

Yes Norway does 3/4s of her trade with the EU but then she is trading from a position of strength that the UK does not have.

She has a positive balance of trade, she is not carrying a trillion pound plus national debt around her neck guaranteed against equity on domestic housing.

The Norwegian Kroner is much more sound than a pound in your pocket, because as we know for decades she has put away money from her oil bonanza and is in the position where the interest accruing on that fund is now greater than the receipts from the oil.

Britain used her bonanza to impliment the 'Reganomics' of the Thatcher era.
John Pilger's recently released film 'War on Democracy' has an interesting take on this, and although it is focused on Latin America the examples he uses to illustrate his film strike some startlingly familiar chords closer to home.

Norway can choose whether she wants to be in or out of the EU, because she is so 'loaded' she can demand favourable terms, much like a caricature of your average Arab potentate.

We blew that opportunity, or unwittingly permitted it to be blown for us, but we should be able to apply the lessons to ensure that our kids at least derive some benefit from what is left to us.

Jeremy wrote:
"Independence can only be achieved if it is outside Europe otherwise we are just replacing one master, or mistress, with another. ...Independence means being free of all outside control and that includes Europe. If Norway can do it then so can we.
"Scotland in Europe" is without validity, we would just be another small subsection of Europe reliant on handouts and subject to economic controls that suit the bigger nations."

The way that the EU is set up is fundamentally different to the workings of the UK. Within the UK, Scotland has no sovereignty. The Scottish parliament is loaned sovereignty from Westminster. The EU is the reverse of this situation. In the EU, each constituent country is a sovereign state, passing some legislative competence to Brussels. Since each state is sovereign, it can, at any point, reduce, repeal, or re-adjust the legislative competence given to Brussels. That is their right as sovereign nations. Scotland cannot do this within the UK. All we can do is beg for more powers. If Scotland were sovereign, even within the EU, we would have full control and be our own masters seeking our own interests.

Besides which, Norway currently implements hoards of EU regulations without having a drop of say in the matter. Why? Because, believe it or not, the majority of EU regulations are about the harmonisation of very mundane things like road signs and it makes sense to do that when you share a land border with the EU. Norway spends an awful lot on the EU for very little in return. Are you sure you want to go down that route?

Further to. Eddie Foirbeis Climo, Devon (FM Blog, #1322) and David Robertson, Inverness (Continuing Debate, #1).

Extracts from the White paper::-
3.9 …. re-establish the Scottish Parliament ……Initially, however, it would not be necessary to change the essentials of the framework laid out in the Scotland Act, and legitimised by broad consensus in the country following on the work of the Scottish Constitutional Convention and the referendum of 1997. Membership, elections, chamber and committee structures and proceedings, standing orders and legislative procedures could all continue in their current form
3.10 Similarly, the current provisions for an executive branch laid out in the Scotland Act would also provide an initial model for the government of an independent Scotland
3.21 An independent Scotland would continue in the European Union and bear the burdens and fulfil the responsibilities of membership.
3.25 On independence, Her Majesty The Queen would remain the Head of State in Scotland.

So many doors slammed shut before the conversation begins. Why has the Executive gone down a particular route (Europe, Queen, same Parliament, Executive and voting structures) rather than leaving the options open on the type of independence if a referendum was carried in their favour?

The current parliament and voting system were not designed for independence; they were designed to provide more local decision-making with a brake on partisanship. Would you enter a standard family saloon in the Indy 500? If you are going to enter new territory it is best to be equipped properly. This means that the parliament and voting systems have to be designed from first principles, not just retaining what we have and bolting on the euro. These building blocks should be attributes such as accessibility, accountability, democracy, equality, honesty, robustness etc. A commission could take time to frame such a set of principles and then design structures (e.g does a modern, independent state not need a second chamber or a written constitution?) and processes (e.g. is AMS voting still appropriate?) which would be fit for purpose, as the saying goes.

The word “euro” is only mentioned twice in the White Paper, twice in the same paragraph (2.18) and within four words of each mention, in an implicit criticism of devolution. An independent Scotland in the European Union would have to use the euro and the timing of its introduction would not be dictated by economic judgment but by a political timetable, much like the devolution option being criticised. Many are happy to be European, albeit with reservations about its form of government; other Scots will want to put a case for an alternative.

I have already commented on the head of state (FM Blog, p50, #1232).

“Ah!” the White Paper backers may exclaim, “we will sort out all those things when we are independent.” Once the concrete is poured it is difficult to stop it setting.

#3. Craig Cook - Glasgow
Friday, August 24, 2007 16:36

I can understand the anxiety expressed by you even thoughI don't share it.Of course independence is a big step and it is sensible to expect difficulties to begin with, I'm not sure that I would go as far as to say it would be a "struggle". If, however, it was a struggle I for one would be prepared to make sacrifices for the Scottish people to have the right to self determination. Life is about growing up, that can be difficult, the growth process eventually leads to a person (or "a people")being able to stand erect, accept responsibility for themselves and feel confident, even proud, and at ease within themseleves knowing who they are. None of us can survive "alone" we all need friends, preferably ones we can rely on and who will support us as we would them. I believe throughout Europe (including the British Isles)and indeed the World, Scotland has such friends. We will not only survive independence we will thrive and grow with it.

I feel a point that is being missed in a lot of the discussion on independence is the satisfaction that would be achieved by Scots in having their country recognised as an entity by the rest of the world instead of as at present being assumed to be a part of England. The fact is that foreigners referring to the UK speak of England (although the B.B.C. always translates as "Britain" or "United Kingdom"). The other fact is that the Diplomatic Service, Civil Service and Military higher echelons when abroad also refer to "England" when speaking of Britain or UK. Little wonder foreigners have no knowledge of Scotland as an entity or as a country. Scotland can exist and prosper as an independant nation, of that there is no doubt but in the words of the song "we must rise now and be a nation again" and be recognised by the world.

#16. Andrew Cowe - Lanarkshire
Monday, August 27, 2007 14:25

No the White Paper is there to start the conversation.

If you don't favour the Monarchy, the Euro, or the Holyrood set up, by all means let us know.

That is the idea after all of a consultation or a 'Conversation' on Scotland's constitutional future.

However these could also be used by the unscrupulous to get us chasing our tails ad infinitum.

Why stop at the few you mention?
We could have a good going debate on eg the finer points of new government stationary or the exact proportions of the Saltire, we've already done the colour.

Could I suggest we first get our country back, then worry about the role of the Queen or what to call our money?

Then we could be sure that everyone engaged in the process has Scotland's best interests foremost.

I am Scottish and I am a British Citizen. I am proud of our joint heritage between our islands, and like the majority of my fellow Scots, Northern Irish, Welsh and English, believe that we are stronger and freer together than apart.

For too long, so called nationalists have been peddling petty nationalistic xenaphobia against the English. They never say there is anything wrong with the union with Ulster or with Wales. "Its time" for the petty nationalists to grow up and join the community of individuals in the 21st century.

I would warn anyone about using the Republic of Ireland as a model for a successful independent country. It remained impoverished until the EU started giving it handouts. There's no money left for Scotland. Should the Scottish nationalists seek similar handouts, it would be a disguised admission that we are as impoverished a nation as many of the poorest eastern bloc of Europe. Socially the Republic of Ireland has also many many flaws. Abortion is illegal, and the Roman Catholic Chruch have a VERY special relationship with the state. That would not go down well with the majority of Scots.

How will Scotland economically support itself, with a very small working population? It would be highly reliant upon the high-earning individuals that live in Scotland. They would disappear very quickly in a disagreeable tax environment.

People talk about us being free when we are independent. I am free just now. People talk about Scotland being sovereign. What they forget to tell you is that at present, Scotland's people are sovereign. Democracy gives people that sovereignty. Why do we need to vest it in a new government in Edinburgh? Where is the need for a Scottish sovereign nation, when the people are already sovereign?