The Scottish Government

Roll on full Independence let there be no more doubts about what may or may not happen this aint no fairy tale this is born from people who have been stifled for three hundred years with little say in their destiny.where is it written that only the Union will serve the people best?can any writer here recall the blatant way that the Thatcher Government ignored Scotlands call over the totally rip off Poll Tax?that is but one mere example of Scotland requiring to reassert her Independence so that the people of this nation feel that they matter that they are heard in the hall of political power.if you ever wrote to politicians who either delay in replying or dont reply you will know why people must be heard by those elected into office thereby to SERVE the people it is not about what they want it is about how Scotland can realise a way to collectively go forward and create a more enlightened and equal society.if you see the injustices around you then you know why Scotland has to change.if you dont see the injustice around you take another look and see the disparity in people haves and have nots lovely houses and squalid dumps elderly people who die in their thousands every winter men and women sitting in doorways or selling the Big Issue then look at yourself ;are you happy with the way the politicians and big business puts profit before people?the cherished Unionists have wasted illions on nuclear weapons(which must never be fired at anyone)money which would mean a home a decent wage and financial freedom for every person in this nation.so let noone be hoaxed any longer;the Union has failed and time marches on and on and on. Scotland waken up.you are perfectly right in seeking freedom. that is what every nation on Earth aspires to.

[358] You have certainly expressed some good arguments for moving from the current constitutional arrangements to a federal structure for the Union, yet while suggesting I am “pessimistic” you do not apparently share my optimism that Scotland can actually stand on its own feet in the modern world, or at least within the EU?

Also, when referring to “Scotland’s relative decline” you suggest that I be “realistic”. Perhaps I am a little naïve, but does the ‘counter-evidence’ of low unemployment figures necessarily translate to a better-off or even healthier society? The fact that both parents may now have to work in order to survive financially is perhaps not the most desirable outcome for those concerned about quality of life issues and about matters such as the lack of positive parent time spent with many of our children today.

As most people familiar with statistics are fully aware, they often don’t tell the full story and sometimes even mask the truth. While the ‘economic juggling acts’ of Gordon Brown and his predecessors are to be admired, most people who have travelled extensively over the last two or three decades can point to countries whose ‘visible progress’ has been remarkable over that time. A country like Singapore for instance, while it may have been relatively ‘poor’ a few decades ago, now has caught up, and perhaps overtaken Scotland in a number of areas. Certainly the US is still an important economy, but the major changes that will challenge European economies in the future are more like to arise from decisions made in China or India, no matter how fervently some believe Britain’s elevated status in the world should continue indefinitely.

Of course there is an economic strength in numbers, but why does Scotland need to pay the ‘membership fees’ of two economic clubs when one is much larger and growing much faster than the other? Maybe the argument is that we can ‘have our cake and eat it’ if we continue in both clubs, and that because the smaller club will be better run in a Federal UK, this will make the total cost worth paying? However, when one considers that a significant component of the ‘cost’ would still be a smothered voice in the EU decision-making process, then I return to a rationale expressed earlier in this conversation that if the UK were outside the EU that Scotland would be best served by remaining in the Union (admittedly with the Union redrafted along federal lines as you have suggested), but if the UK is to remain in the EU (the position advocated by most major political parties within the UK), then Scotland should represent itself and fight its own ‘battles’ if necessary.

With all due respect, the remark that the ending of the Union would present a comparatively “highly uncertain future” for Scotland does not do justice to your fellow Scots or to your other well thought-out and cleverly presented arguments.

#360 and #359
Sorry Robert but Independence IS about facts and figures. As a Taxpayer who is now reaping the dubious benefits of a pension, and who is hoping to do so for many years to come, we do need to be told how we are going to be able to live in this Utopia of an Independent Scotland. So far all we have had is a stream of broken promises which is just not good enough.

'Feel good' factors do not put food on the table, roofs over our heads or heat the rooms we live in. HOW these are going to be acieved needs to be spelled out clearly and succinctly.

Bonjour Monia, your opinion is welcome, albeit misguided. I believe the Treaty of Versailles broke the Auld Alliance of common citizenship between our two countries, but many of us still remember the alliance with fondness. However since the Union of the crowns and the Union of the Parliaments we have worked with the English, Welsh and NI to our mutual benefit. Indeed Scotland has played a role in the success of the UK far in excess of its size, a point tended to be forgotten by many of my coutrymen and women. e.g. the monetary (capitalist) system was promoted by a Scot, the Russians claim Communism was also promoted by a Scot, and if I continued I would soon run out of space.

Thanks for your sentiments, but as ever, we Scots will be capable of making up our minds, as we have in the past.

Post 353 - congratulation you've managed to prove that the UK's population is 60 million and Scotland's is only 5!

The UK may well have the strongest military in the EU etc ... but I dont want to invade anywhere! I just want decisions to be made in Scotland so they are appropriate to Scotland, and not designed solely for the benefit of London and the South-East corner of England as is currently the case.

I think Scotland should give it a go as a fully independent functioning country.
With roughly the same population as New Zealand, Norway and Ireland, we’re clearly not too small because they manage fine. All we need to have a bit of self belief and the desire to make it happen. Some would say we’re fine as we are but for the past 300 years, we’ve been a subsidiary of a parent corporation that took us over when our stock was at a rock bottom price. It’s never really been a natural union, more of an opportunist acquisition by a much bigger organisation that had its eye on the bottom line. The takeover of Scotland is one of the best business moves England has ever made. Scotland has been good for England. Our military and engineering skills, our pragmatic pioneering spirit, our excellent seats of learning and oh, the oil has been pretty good as well.
However, what goes round comes round and I think now is the time for a change. I’ve been trying to think of an example to represent the relationship between Scotland and England and I think it can be best put by comparing it to a married couple who stay together because they don’t have the get up and go to admit they may be better off going their own separate ways. Don’t forget, people often get on a lot better after they stop being an item.
Post independence won’t be all plain sailing but it doesn’t have to be an ordeal. All we need is a bit of courage, of which the Scots have always had plenty and the will to make it happen.
I think that once we make the break, we’ll all wonder what the fuss was all about.

As a French citizen I think Scotland should be independent, not only because my country supported you in 1295 (auld alliance) but also because the UK is taking decision that many scots don't approve, like supporting the US gvt and its stupid decisions. The SNP leaders are right, stop spending your money on weapons, your children need it.

Anyway, it was just my point of view...

[356] Happy to.

First of all, none of those rankings are “sliding”. After slowly climbing up the pecking order over the past decades, our economy continues to be stronger than our competitors.

Anyway, I am certainly not condoning the unitary system of government that has existed in the UK for so long. As so many people have said, you cannot govern large countries, with such varied social and economic needs, from the centre with 'one size fits all' policies. The vast majority of the citizens of all UK nations want greater local control and I am certainly one of them.

For starters, UK-wide economic policy since 1979, although brutal at first, has since allowed the entire economy to be rescued from the brink of bankruptcy (‘sick man of Europe’) to become Europe's strongest, overtaking all our major competitors. However, that growth, while steady in the past 10-15 years especially, has not been equal with the SE regions (and also parts of Scotland) outstripping many others. Scotland may have lost much heavy engineering to the far cheaper and more productive Far East (which would have happened regardless of Thatcherism) but hi-tech industry, IT and banking has taken its place with Edinburgh now the UK’s second financial city after London.

As for your comment on “Scotland’s relative decline”, try to be realistic instead of pessimistic. As I said before, Scotland’s unemployment rate is the lowest in 33 years and growth is steady. The Scottish economy exceeded the UK average in the 90s but dropped behind in recent years mostly due to a downturn in the global IT market which is still recovering. However, a benefit of being part of the large UK economy is that should major sectors of Scotland’s economy splutter, public spending is far more stable than if Scotland was permanently self-financing. And so while IT is a major component of Scottish commerce, it is a smaller percentage of the UK economy which was less affected by the downturn. And with the banking crunch initiated by the US sub-prime market expected to worsen considerably in the next few years, the trillion+ pound UK economy will again soften the blow for Scotland.

All nations of the UK clearly need an element of fiscal control over income tax, corporation tax and VAT (maybe down to regional level within England). I wouldn’t recommend full fiscal autonomy as that can only lead tax competition as we all compete for businesses and shoppers, leading to the low public spending seen, for example, throughout the USA (have you seen their roads, public transport, public healthcare, public education, crime levels etc.?). In unrestricted and unregulated tax competition, the wealthier areas of the country will always win as they can afford to have lower taxes than poorer areas. Again, compare California to, say, Louisiana or Alabama for an example.

Barnett’s days are numbered, thank God. This was only meant to be a temporary policy and has long out-lived its usefulness, creating pointless and self-destructive resentment throughout the country. The sooner it is scrapped and replaced with local fiscal control, the better.

Secondly, England should get its own Parliament (whether several regional or one national seat or both) and NI and Wales should have their Assemblies 'upgraded' to Parliaments of equal powers and responsibilities.

This would create a truly 'United' Kingdom of equal partners.

You ask about Scotland’s poor social and health rankings – Well, that is what devolution is all about. Now Holyrood, Cardiff and Belfast each have the ability to spend budgets as the local environment dictates and not based on the broad-brushed UK-wide statistics. Due to the UK’s economic success, public spending in Scotland this year is close to double that of just eight years ago.

As for Westminster, reinvent it as a pseudo-federal parliament with truly UK-wide responsibilities alone.

Suggesting that the highly uncertain future of independence from the UK is the solution to Scotland’s social ills is the sledgehammer-to-nut scenario. You don’t see Alabama, California or Texas wanting to break away from the USA. Neither do you see Bavaria or Brandenburg trying to break from Germany.

353. Paul Johnson - UK
Please don't take this as a cynical or sarcastic attack, it's meant to try and put a perspective on statistics and rankings in general versus the meaning of those statistics for component parts:

x) planet earth ranked 1 on GDP on planet earth. Says nothing about rrelative disposition within planet earth, of personal wealth, services, quality of life, water, health, etc. etc.

I'd be interested to see where Monaco (as a very wealthy nation for individuals) stands in world rankings on GDP, and also where the EU as a whole would stand, considering the relative standings of the poorer individual nations that make up the EU.

But your argument is clearly a valid and well put together contribution to the debate: union v independence.

[353] The detail presented of support for the Union appears impressive.

However, to put this ‘positive spin’ in perspective, most of the rankings quoted are already sliding along with the UK’s standing and influence in world affairs, and Scotland’s economic growth has generally lagged that of the UK in recent years.

Perhaps most notable though is the lack of comment on Scotland’s relatively poor health and social rankings and the lack of argument on how remaining within the Union is going to turn things around and give our children better prospects for the future.

Would welcome a contribution that presents arguments on what fundamental changes could now be undertaken within the Union, that have not essentially been tried before, to reverse Scotland’s relative decline of recent decades?