The Scottish Government

In response to livilion, Livingston (An Independent Scotland, #19)

It is unfortunate that the White Paper makes no mention of establishing a Scottish National Charm School of which you might be appointed principal, but no doubt the White Paper’s authors will not let go unnoticed your attempts to win friends and influence people.

Might I draw to your attention the Foreword of the White Paper:-
“……..
The political debate in Scotland concerns the 1707 political Union, the amendment or repeal of which would still leave the Union of the Crowns intact.

I therefore propose that we have a national conversation ……”

You may notice that the Union of Crowns was preserved before the conversation began. The First Minister voted against discrimination in 1999 and has been assiduous in courting the favour of those against it. It is given some prominence when discussing what we could not do under “Extending Scottish Devolution”:-
2.24 Scotland could also have full responsibility for equal opportunities legislation and enforcement agencies, which are almost entirely reserved to the United Kingdom. This would allow Scotland to deal appropriately with those issues which particularly affect Scotland, such as sectarianism. However, the ability to alter the discriminatory provisions of the Act of Settlement of 1701, now incorporated in the Act of Union of 1707, could not be devolved within the current framework.
It is never again mentioned in the White Paper, most notably being omitted from the “Independent Scotland” section.
I may object to being included among the unscrupulous you mention, but am quite happy to head the queue of the scrupulous in this matter. If you read my contribution at FM Blog, p50, #1232 you will see that I made a reasonable suggestion as to how the Executive’s proposals might be modified to ensure that an independent Scotland does not come with some discrimination built in.
The First Minister is an economist and a few more words in the White Paper on the euro and its introduction would not have gone amiss. On Day 1 of independence, will we be using pounds or euros? Could there be a flight of capital from Scotland in any hiatus between pound and euro? My point is that (again) the only mention of something, this time the euro, is in the “Devolution” section where timing is criticised but it never features under “Independence.”
Isn’t this an odd sort of conversation piece, where controversial items are sidelined or receive snide criticism under the possible extension of devolution but never mentioned when we get round to independence? Surely the White Paper is an honest attempt to have a discussion about devolution or independence, not just a shallow exercise for the Executive in party appeasement and election promise box-ticking?
The UK Parliament usually issues Green Papers when it wants to discuss options; White Papers generally outline the direction the government is taking and foreshadow legislation along those lines. Perhaps the Executive’s White Paper is really a “Green & White” Paper; all the more reason to include at least one sentence on matters such as a written constitution, a bi-cameral legislature, the ultimate court of appeal, nationality, etc.
If we were an oppressed people we would rise up and demand independence at any cost; we are not. Misunderstood, slighted and ignored we may be at times but downtrodden we are not. Most will see possible independence as a lifestyle choice, to be accommodated and juggled alongside career, education, faith, family, friends, health, housing, income, etc. The First Minister knows this. There will, of course, be some who say, “Independence at any price,” and want it now. I respect fully their desire for statehood; perhaps they will forgive me for preferring to know a little more about the destination before boarding the train. If there are many others like me, you may indeed find the independence train stationary, no matter its livery.

*3 craig cook

could you tell me what paper you are reading craig because i am having trouble finding a paper apart from the broadsheets that are actually printing any politcal info at all never mind anything about alex salmond. Take for instance wendy alexanders husband explaining how independece is better than fiscal autonomy the only place that was mentioned was the times. Could i also ask craig exactly how much money comes out of scotland and how much comes in. Does he know. Does he know who calculates it and how. Also what is he basing his opinion on. Does he have facts about countries that have recently become independent that i dont. I will listen to what anyone has to say all i ask is give me the facts. Has craig actually looked into countries who have become independent and what happens. As for the above detailed question of course each parliament would stop being involved in each others legislation. I have been reading about the republic of irelands change to independence. It was quite a long process i think.

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

Oh dear got out of bed on the wrong side?

Scottish nationalists will give you a conversation on why they want independence restored to their country.

If you want to discuss N.Ireland or Wales, they each have their own political voices to explain why they believe their part of the British Isles would be better off without supervision from Westminster.

This is not 'xenaphobia' but a hearty disregard for the motives of Whitehall in hanging onto what is in effect it's first colonial conquests.

Most of England shares our view of Westminster and hold it in no higher regard.

Thank you for your warning about using the example of Eire, but my recallection is that for the first fifty years as an independent state she had access to 95% of her traditional market denied by trade embargo,ie Britain and its Empire/Commonwealth.

Eire's economy only got going when the markets of the EEC opened up to her and she was no longer relient on Britain and the Commonwealth as markets for her exports.
The same Commonwealth that Britain unceremoniously dropped from a great height when she too joined the EEC.

While we're about it, are you not aware of the constant begging bowl Britain presented to the USA from WWI up to 1976 when instead she went begging to the IMF to bail Great Britain out of bankruptcy?

The same economic situation that saw Whitehall contemplate using force to deny Scotland her North Sea oil revenues if subterfuge should fail, the people of Scotland chose independence, and took control of the continental shelf and its resources off her coasts.

How would Scotland support herself?
The same way other countries with similar sized populations and economies as Scotland's do throughout the world.

5 million people and a GDP of approx £115-130bn puts Scotland in with the likes of Portugal, Greece, Austria, Israel, Eire, New Zealand.

None of which to my knowledge are looking for Spain, Italy, Germany, USA, UK or Australia to run their economy or parliament for them because they are too wee, or too poor, to do it for themselves.
We alone are the only ones that have people who think our countrymen are too stupid for the task.

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

To carry on your 'concrete' analogy:

Who would try decorating and laying down carpets before you've done the plumbing and plastering?

Only someone who really didn't want the job finished?

You seem to be labouring under the misapprehension that the White Paper is the definite article upon which the referendum will be based in 2010.

The whole point of letting you air your views like this is that we can gain an appreciation of the mood and 'settled will' of the Scottish people.

What we think now may not be the same in three years time.

Who knows? you might have convinced us all in that time.

When was the last time a government asked for your views and then published them for review by your peers?

#21. Andrew Cowe - Lanarkshire
Wednesday, August 29, 2007 14:46

Perhaps you could share the details of the charm school you attended Andrew?

The SNP manifesto lays out quite clearly their position regarding day 1 of independent Scotland and her currency.

i.e. The Scottish pound will follow established international precedent and shadow sterling, until such time as the Scottish Chancellor is satisfied that we are ready to adopt the Euro, the currency of our biggest potential market.

There may be a run on sterling, as on Black Wednesday, which forced Britain out of the ERM but that would only reinforce the desirability of joining the protection of the far more powerful and stable Eurozone.

'Treaty' of Union 1707
>>>
II:
That the succession to the monarchy of the United Kingdom of Great Britain, and of the dominions thereunto belonging, ....

..., being Protestants, upon whom the crown of England Is settled by an Act of Parliament made in England...,

...entitled, "An Act for the further Limitation of the Crown, and better securing the Rights and Liberties of the Subject :" And that all Papists, and persons marrying Papists, shall be excluded from, and for ever incapable to inherit, possess, or enjoy the Imperial Crown of Great Britain, and the dominions thereunto belonging or any part thereof, and in every such case the Crown and Government shall, from time to time, descend to, and be enjoyed by such person, being a Protestant
<<<

This being reserved to Westminster, Holyrood can only express its disapproval of the measure.

Scotland on its own would be way too small to move the bulk of the English establishment on the Act of Settlement.

Only an independent Scottish administration would have the power to alter this in Scotland, and frankly most of us could care less who gets the Queen's job in Scotland so long as we're not asked to pay for it.

If a slave was unaware that he was a slave because everyone he knew was also a slave, would he not still be a slave for all that?

We are free to decide on building some roads and railways but not allowed to raise the money for them.
We watch the English news sport and current affairs from their perspective.

Scottish interests are sidelined to the margins, e.g. BBC show Scottish Premier League highlights on a Wednesday evening after most young Scots football fans are in bed and down south they are already watching previews of the following Saturday's fixtures on digital satelite and cable channels.

We have no say on retention of WMDs on our soil or the commissioning of new nuclear power stations or the disposal of them and their incredibly toxic waste products when they're done.

We have no say in if, when and where our sons and daughters are sent to war.

We have no say in the provision of equitable pensions for our elderly.

Craig Cook of Glasgow (3) says "This whole independance debate is really beginning to annoy me" - it's called free speech, Craig. People expressing opinions you don't agree with. There was a time when I was young when, like you, I sometimes got quite irritable about things said in debate, but sooner or later we all have to learn to live with the fact that people will say things we don't agree with.

You say this independence debate is all about Alex Salmond and his pals in the SNP, but it isn't. Personally, I trust Alex about as much as I trust any other politician, which is to say, not a lot. I'm not a member (or even a "supporter") of the SNP, I have reached "senior citizen" age without ever having been a member of any political party. But I welcome this debate which is seeking to involve the people of Scotland as a whole.

Craig, you say that you "believe that independance would be socially destructive". I don't think there is any evidence at all to support this belief of yours. In your message you describe yourself as a "Unionist" (with a capital "U"). But the vast majority of the people of Scotland are neither "Unionist" (with a capital "U") nor "Nationalist" (with a capital "N"). The reality is that, when we finally have a referendum on independence, the vast majority of folk in Scotland will accept the verdict of that referendum. Even the ones who voted against the outcome will just shrug their shoulders and say "okay, Scotland as a whole has decided".

This isn't Ireland. In Ireland, it may be a case of protestant equals Unionist, while catholic equals Nationalist, but it doesn't work that way in Scotland. Here, there are hundreds of thousands of protestants who support independence, just as there are hundreds of thousands of catholics who support staying with the Union. The religious division on independence just doesn't apply here.

While acknowledging the possibility that I could be wrong, I think that the verdict of a referendum on the future of Scotland will be for independence.

If the verdict IS for independence, then I am absolutely certain that "diehard" Unionists (that is, those who would quite literally die - or kill - in order to oppose the democratic decision) will be a totally insignificant minority. There will be no "polarising society into two opposing camps".

In responce to livilion (thread 10) While I admit that the whole independance debate does annoy me I accept that it is good for Scottish democracy so in this respect we are in agreement. However, your claim that I contradict myself is innaccurate. Indeed, not once in my origional statement did I say that Scotland could not survive economically outside the UK and I did not even mention the EU at all. I accept that given a period of readjustment Scotland could 'find its feet' however I firmly believe that in the short to medium term the Scottish economy would suffer. Forgeting for a moment what you believe the Scottish economy could achieve in the longer term do you, or others who share your views, truely believe that tearing Scotland out of the Union would not effect our economy in some way or another? I do, and while you and others like Alex Moffat (thread 17) may be willing to make sacrafices i'm not sure that others, especially the worst off who would no doubt suffer most, would accept such a situation simply because there fellow Scots believe in the noble cause that is independance.

You say that the 'mighty Great Britain' is too small to defend her interests and that the British economy is hindered by her massive debt and market forces. This is true. Its called Globalisation and all economies, even the most powerful, are effected by market jitters in far flung corners of the globe. You must surely accept that the economy of an independant Scotland would also be subjected to such forces. You will also note that I did not claim that the British economy is the strongest. I merely calimed that Britain is a strong and established economic power. Even the most nationalistic minded economist would agree that Britain is a strong economic player.

I also notice that you use figures very well to back up your argument. However, economic projections are, at times, very unreliable. The truth is we cannot know for certain what the rate of growth would be for an independant Scottish economy. Its all if's and buts. Look at the language used in the extract from the Adam Smith's institute which you posted. It says things like Scotland's economy 'might be expected' to be close to 7% growth and 'Given a further five years of Scottish growth at that trend level, and before diminishing returns set in' the GDP could increase by two-thirds. The language used and what is said simply portrays a possible future not what will happen, there is significant grey areas here.

In responce to Gavin Thompson it is well known that Scotland suffers from higher levels of child poverty and poorer housing than our English neighbours. This is, as you say, a statistical fact. However, we have a Scottish parliament which is equiped to deal with these issues. Surely the SNP administration has the powers to address these problems. Reading between the lines, and please tell me if I am wrong here, but it does appear to me that you, and other nationalists, believe that the solution to all of Scotland's ill's is the destruction of the Union.

Now I appear to have offended a great many of you here and I will try to respond to as many as I can however before I go I would just like to take this opportunity to let you know that I too am a patriotic Scot. You can after all be as patriotic as the next Scotsman and still believe in the Union. Indeed, I ask you all is it not possible to celebrate Scottish distinctiveness within the Union? I await your no doubt heated respoce!

It is invigorating to have a Government prepared to listen to the people. I have enjoyed many of the comments and been amused by others. Clearly it is nearing the time for the Scottish people to decide on independence or status quo. I lived for nearly 30 years in England, mainly in the London area, where they think anything north of the Watford Gap is a foreign country, needless to say, the Westminster Government operated accordingly and still do. So can Scotland survive outside of the Union - the answer is definitely yes. At least an Edinburgh based Government will have the interests of the Scottish Nation as its primary concern and no bias towards the City of London, never mind the rest of England. Scotland can survive and prosper in its own right inside or outside of Europe. Personally my view is better within the European Market, but either way we have the resources and the people capable to make a success of an Independent Scotland.

In responce to Dave Coull - I am glad that you brought up my point on the social consequences of independance. This is something which others have not and i'm glad to discuss it with you. Firstly let me make it clear that I am as patriotic as the next Scotsman and if the Scottish public so chose then I would grudgingly accept independance. However, you appear to have misinterpreted my argument as nowhere did I mention Ireland or compare Scotland to Ireland. You are correct there is no statistical eveidence as such I just happen to believe that constitutional change of such magnatude could prove socially destructive ( perhaps my language was a bit too strong last time around). Nonetheless, it is very rare to find a country going it alone where emotions are not stirred. As individuals with different views and beliefs we will never all be happy with whatever political decisions are made. I am simply painting a possible future for Scotland which has been missing from the independence debate thus far.

You have also paid far too much attention to my grammar. I have always been poor with my spelling and grammar and if it helps and am a unionist (small'u'). You also seem to have interpreted my statement as containing some sort of religious undertone. I make no reference, as you have suggested, to a 'religious division on independence' and I agree that there are many Scots from all backgrounds who support independece/union. Although the West of Scotland does have its fair share of problems with religious bigitory I make no parallells between our problems and that of Ireland and I am not sure why you have brought this topic up. I await your responce.

As an English person I fully support independence for Scotland. The time has come for Scots to stop blaming England and the UK for everything. The culture of dependency and scapegoating that blights areas such as the West of Scotland cannot be tackled until the moral, cultural, political and economic failure of the Union is recognised.

I fail to understand how Scots can regularly talk of Scotland as a 'country' when it is clearly not recognised as such under international law. The truth is that Scotland is currently no more than a region in a political arrangement dominated by London and the South-East of England (or should I say, by the City of London and international financiers).

Fletcher of Saltoun, quoting from the celebrated jurist Hugo Grotius, pointed out at the time of the 1707 Act that if two countries are joined then they both cease to exist and a new third country comes into being. If that is the case, which seems logical, then there is no justification for unionists to describe Scotland as a 'country'. It clearly is not at present, and has not been for 300 years. By becoming a country again, I believe that Scots will once again regain their self-respect, no matter how difficult the economic consequences.