The Scottish Government

In response to my previous postings in this discussion board in reference to Mike King's point I am still not convinced by the independence argument and I still don't support it but I voted for the SNP as a protest vote and I intend never to vote for that party ever again.

But it was Conservatives who committed "political suicide" just several years after I was born when Scotland and the North of England was imposed an illegal tax namely the Poll Tax that was unfair and unjust. It was this bold move by an already unpopular Tory government in the late 1980's that actually increased support for Scottish independence.

Ever since then the vast majority of Scottish people have never trusted the Tories. So I defend my decision for changing my vote. However this does not mean I support independence.

In relation to PMK's point as I have repeatedly said Scottish independence is not going benefit or change the disgraceful situation that Glasgow faces with serious socio-economic issues such as unemployment, poor health and poverty.

More power given to parliament in Edinburgh will have little or no impact at all. Since the Scottish Parliament was formed nearly a decade ago the face of Glasgow might have changed but Crime figures in relation to murder rates are still the worst in Western Europe, we still have the lowest life expectancy of any European nation and poverty rates are still as bad as a third world city.

What Scottish independence will inevitably provide is more bureaucracy and inequality within society. Although the point that I am trying to make is that if Independence is going to bring more power and autonomy as well as the management of more so called 'resources' then surely it would make more sense to make Glasgow an Independent City with it's own independent parliament allowing Glaswegian's for the first time ever to make their own democratic decisions themselves without being dictated to by bureaucrats who live outside the city and fail to understand many of the key concerns that the city has to endure.

As history has illustrated the Holyrood Parliament has had little impact in tackling Glasgow's socio-economic problems therefore an independent parliament for Glasgow would in reality perform much better in dealing with those critical issues.

first minister is right to set in motion an oil fund for scotland.oil money wasted now will not help in future.

It's quite interesting how different unionists bring Europe in to the discussion on Scottish independence. For some of them (what you might call "ideological unionists") independence will be a disaster because Scotland may not be recognised as a successor state and may have to reply from outwith the EU. (In actuality, this is far from clear).

For others (what I am tempted to call "British Nationalists", as opposed to Unionists – as their belief is not consistent that “unity brings strength” but only applies to the (British) “Nation State” level) independence would be a disaster as it would relegate Scotland to the status of a mere "region" within the EU. Surely then same logic would apply to Scotland's place within the UK currently if it is to be applied to the much looser Union of Sovereign European States where its destiny would not be defined by any, one neighbour?

Mike King - thanks for your reply. The Tories are really verging on becoming a fringe interest-group up here. If it wasn't for Annabel Goldie’s undoubted leadership skills they probably already would be!

Obviously, I can't agree with your analysis of the choice facing Scotland. However I would say that, in your own terms, it is better to be an "autonomous region" of Europe [The EU] (where the largest country – Germany – represents only 16.5% of the Union demographically 82 million/495 million; rather than the UK where England represents around 83-5% of the Union c50 million/c60 million), which for my money is a mere tyranny of the majority. Leaving aside arguments around self-determination, and the beneficial financial implications for Scotland following independence; it is better to be part of a (looser) Union without an entrenched winning majority on every issue, as opposed to the status-quo.

Finally, the EU leaves all member states with a great deal of their sovereignty intact, unlike our current "Union". Considering Scotland now only "enjoys" a totally unsustainable form of devolved power, with no financial clout, EU membership and a seat at the big table where Scots' interests could be represented directly – would be a great step forward. Thanks again for taking the time to reply.

669. PMK - Ayrshire
Wednesday, July 30, 2008 10:53

Re: "The Tories remain an irrelevance in Scotland ...."

I don't deny it mate, I was simply pointing out that there is only 1 party to vote for now if you don't want Scotland to be reduced to a geogaphical 'region' within the EU.

#665 David Mccallum - we do indeed agree about fundamentals, I just dislike the argument about the current scenario being "undemocratic". If a majority of the populace consider themselves "British" (which is - I would argue - no longer the case, then it is perfectly democratic) just very harmful to Scotland's interests.

#666 Neil Anderson - I am glad to hear you sought to hold Labour to account for it's record in government, and the lack of action in Glasgow East in recent years. No doubt - now that constituency has punished Labour - it will be rewarded in much the same way Govan has been for decades because it gives London Labour, and the Glasgow City Council variety, the odd kicking!

I think that the comparison you draw between an independent Scotland with great reserves of oil, gas, and unmatched renewable potential in Europe is rather different to a landlocked independent Glasgow with 500,000 people and lacking in much of the infrastructure required to sustain it. Glasgow is no Singapore (neither can it be what Hong Kong once was). In addition, neither Singapore or Hong Kong are truly democratic the people's will is not what matters there. An independent Glasgow may well run more efficiently and produce better outcomes for the people than the current scenario unionist reality. However, it would not fare as well as it could as one of the two twin centres of an independent Scotland.

#667 Mike King - The Tories remain an irrelevance in Scotland. The Cameron effect stops dead at the border. This was demonstrated in Glasgow East where various Conservative politicians were reduced to claiming a marginally lower share of the vote was a "triumph". Remember the Tory vote share was 6.9% from 2005 in GE. "Things could only get better" for them in Glasgow East, they didn't. The Tory candidate managed only to retain 6.3% of the popular vote. Equally in areas which used to be straight Labour-Tory battles (such as Ayr) the SNP is increasingly becoming the party most likely to unseat Labour encumbants partially due to their time in Government at Holyrood.

The debate on independence seems to have taken a sidestep into the wonderful world of facts and figures, and while these numbers may or may not be accurate, the statisticians appear to be missing the point. The truth of the matter is that, although statistics are important, when the referendum comes (and it will), Scotland's future will be decided, not by the number-crunchers, but by the people who know very little of and care not a lot what the numbers say. While statistics can be impressive, nothing impresses more than a hard lesson learned - and our long relationship with our southern neighbour is littered with such examples. The first and most obvious lesson concerns the Treaty of Union in 1707. There appears to be a great deal of misunderstanding surrounding its birth (along with no small amount of misinformation).

Although the idea of a union had been a moot point for many years before, it really took hold after the failure of the Darien venture (Scotland's modest attempt to build her own “Empire”). The project, begun in the 1690s, failed due to two things. First, the naiveté of the settlers themselves about what they were getting into. Second, and most significantly, English opposition to the venture. With William III (our own king!) and the all-powerful English East India Company set against it, we had no chance of success. William issued orders expressly forbidding any assistance being given to the Scots. The end result was failure, over 2000 dead settlers, and Scotland all but bankrupt. Then, to compel Scotland to negotiate for Union, the English Government threatened to pass the “Aliens Act”. The passing of this bullying Act would have meant that any Scot holding property in England would have it taken from them - and, strangely, those Scots who owned estates in England were, for the most part, the voting elite of the Scottish Parliament.

When negotiations finally got under way, those who had something to gain began to angle for privilege, promotion or further holdings in England. Then, having wielded the stick of the Aliens Act, the carrot was produced. Up from London came a train of twelve wagons laden with what was termed “the equivalent” - cash and bonds totaling almost £400,000 (the “Price of Scotland”) - some of which was earmarked to compensate those investors who lost their all in the Darien venture. Some of those investors also had a vote in the Scottish Parliament.

All over Scotland the people raged against what they saw as a betrayal of the independence principles of Bruce and Wallace. English soldiers were moved north to the border in case of rebellion, and money changed hands to persuade the reluctant and “smooth the path” of the Treaty. Once the Treaty had been ratified and the Scottish Parliament dissolved, the new Scottish members proudly took their places in the House of Commons. They soon witnessed, however, what would be a sign of things to come. Some English members, unable to get their heads around the title of the newly united countries, would unthinkingly refer to Great Britain as “England”. Such lack of thought, as we know, has been present in all the years since, in effect reducing Scotland to a province of England with a simple trip of the tongue. So ends the first hard lesson learned - charity begins at home; i.e. London.

666. Neil Anderson - Glasgow
Monday, July 28, 2008 16:21.

Re: "Although I did vote SNP for the first time in the Glasgow East By-election I did so like others as a protest vote against the present Labour government not for Scottish independence"

Neil, do that in a general election & you may well get independence whether you want it or not!

Some protest!

By all means vote SNP if you really want independence from the UK/England & don’t mind being subservient to the EU but please don’t vote SNP as a "protest".

With Labour in free fall across the UK & the Liberals flat lining everywhere there is only 1 party for Unionists to vote for & that's the Conservatives!

In response to my previous postings I am not opposed to Scottish independence but I'm still not convinced by it.

Although I did vote SNP for the first time in the Glasgow East By-election I did so like others as a protest vote against the present Labour government not for Scottish independence. In fact over the past five years support for independence as increased by a small amount of the total population.

But if the nationalists argue that independence will bring more wealth and economic prosperity then why not make Glasgow an independent city free from Scottish or British Control.

For instance if Glasgow was given full control of power and political autonomy for the city then surely Glasgow can deal with it's own socio-economic issues more effectively in comparison to the status-quo.

As history has illustrated both the Edinburgh and London governments have systematically failed to tackle these serious issues so why can't Glasgow have its own independent parliament with its control over Education, Health and Law.

Therefore Glasgow with its new "city-state" status could have its own democratic parliament and will finally be able to make its own decisions made at a local level which could have a more positive impact in transforming the city.

For example cities such as Singapore and to some degree Hong Kong have full independent power and are successful so why can't Glasgow be independent from Scottish and British control as well.

As the nationalist's argue we could still maintain Scottish or British Citizenship the only difference being Glaswegian's would decide there own future not dictated by bureaucrats in Holyrood or Westminster.

In reality splitting up Glasgow from Scotland sound's crazy but surely independent autonomy for the city would be better or would it?

662, PMK.
Im glad you agree on the need for independance.
My point re westminster representation is that it's only fair if you believe yourself to be a british citizen first and foremost,and you also believe that people south of the border think likewise.
The whole thing ceases to be in anyway fair however if you think yourself a Scot or English or Welsh or Northern Irish.
I think that favoratism has no place in a democracy and that the tendancy for English mp's to grab all they can for their own electorate is probably inevitable given the circumstances.
Change however is also inevitable it's the only constant thing in the universe and to try to hold it back is usually counter-productive.
Well done to the SNP for their latest victory - im begining to find hope in my heart for the future once again.