The Scottish Government

hahaha-ha-ha. to all those people who said the SNP couldnae dae it...! The SNP GOVERNMENT has achieved more in 6 months in power than Jack McConell did for Scotland in 8 YEARS!Why would we want a Labour Government in power that can't even COUNT?? First of all they cant seem to garsp the fact that even if the SNP recruits only 1 police officer it's still 1 more than Labour did. Secondly, the Labour Government in Westminster can't even count the number of people in their country. And who exactly would trust that mathematically challenged westminster Government with the future of our Scottish nation?
Th anti scottish bias in the media here is terrifying but the SNP seem to consistently rise above it. MAYBE THAT'S BECAUSE WITH EVERY DAY IN gOVERNMENT THEY PROVE TAHT THEY ARE THE ONLY PARTY WITH scotland's INTERESTS AT HEART. INDEPENDENCE? BRING IT ON AND THE SOONER THE BETTER!

[205] “In today’s ever smaller world, of globalisation and the like, it makes no sense for the countries which make up the British Isles to go their separate ways. We have a proud history, we have shared customs and common values why waste that?”

Please let me ‘beg to differ’ - it is precisely because the world has changed and globalization has opened up more direct links to many international markets that it is sensible for the countries which make up the British Isles to go their “separate ways”, assuming of course the UK is not likely to split from the EU in the foreseeable future!

Let me support this proposition by posing a couple of questions:

1. As more and more of our legislation is passed to Brussels, and Westminster has less and less say in the day-to-day running of our lives, at what point will you decide that government via Westminster is effectively irrelevant, or do you simply prefer to indefinitely have three tiers of government along with all the attendant bureaucracy and costs that will effectively diminish monies available for public services and desirable future Scottish projects?
2. If you are not working for the government so are more likely to be ambivalent about a possible need for three tiers of government (not including our local councils of course), should Scotland wait longer before it seeks Independence while our economic growth struggles to match that of our competitors (never mind the UK average over the last thirty years) and the UK runs up even more debt, sells the last of our gold reserves, and drains more of our natural resources, such as oil and gas, while at the same time funding major UK infrastructure projects in the South East of England (Chunnel, Dome, Cross-Rail, Olympics, etc)?
3. Do you really think Britain today has the influence it enjoyed up to the middle of the last century and do you seriously think that away from the coat-tails of the US, and outside of the possible deployment of nuclear weapons, that the UK is likely to continue to ‘punch above its weight’ politically in tomorrow’s world?

If citizens of the UK are not given a referendum on the new ‘Constitution’ (sorry ‘Agreement’) now, it is likely to be a long long time, if ever, before our continuing membership of the EU is voted on, so, if we are realistic, we must conclude that the erosion of UK ‘sovereignty’ will diminish for the foreseeable future. Therefore, logic would seem to suggest there is no time to lose in going our own “separate way” and voting for Independence if we wish to give Scotland a stronger voice in Europe and more direct control over its role within Europe, and beyond.

Our “shared customs” and common values we have developed together within Britain, if important to us and future generations, will not be “wasted”, but will survive whatever Scotland’s constitutional state, and as two (or more) countries in an increasingly influential EU we can help to infuse these values in future EU policies and administration and thereby positively supplement any independent influence we may have in our ever-changing world!

Three hundred years is a long time. Do you not think we owe it to our children to at least spend a little bit of our time to attempt to objectively evaluate what constitutional arrangements will best serve Scotland in the “smaller world” you have referred to in the coming centuries, without the overriding imposition of current emotional attachments to an increasingly irrelevant Union?

210. Stuart Rivans - good posting, and yes, Alex Salmond should stay "softly softly" you catch more bees with honey

(never did understand that expresion!). Don't forget RET, I've wondered for years why RET disappeared from the curriculum, glad to see it back. Only thing is Calmac and others would need to double their fleets in a hurry.

209. Kevpb - Cold War. 1914-18 WWI, 21 years of tension later 1939-1945 WWII, 62 years of tension later no WWIII,

but a succession of "theater conflicts" including the mess the West left the Middle East, and uprisings in USSR

"satellite countries" any of which could have led to WWIII. I personally believe the nuclear deterrent prevented

that global conflict.

207. Gordon Murray:
1). Agreed; unfortunately we do need energy, and for decades ignorance and politics (same thing!) has led to

under-research and lack of investment. Short term only, we're already late building new nuclear stations, I think

Hunterston and Torness are due to reach the end of their lives 2020 or so, and alternative sources can not meet our

needs for a long time to come. Toxic waste - this needs a lot more money thrown at it globally, and perhaps fusion a la Back to the Future could be an answer - chuck in a block of irradiated concrete, light a city for a day. At last fusion is on its way again with a bit more funds (Iter programme in Cadarache), perhaps if more money had been

thrown at our own guys in Culham we'd be further along already. Unfortunately it's likely to be 30-50 years before

we'll see benefits, so medium term we need to maturely consider all power sources to fill the gap, including dirty

nuclear. As for the "baddies", the Soviets considered us to be the baddies, and were just as frightened of us as we

were of them. Even now, Russsian Nuclear missiles in Cuba = American Nuclear missiles in Poland and the Czech

Republic, very recently RAF intercepts eight Russian bombers as Putin provokes West

(http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/article2400345.ece), Cold War II. Note, by the way, the one-sided

rhetoric "Putin provokes West", rather than the other way around about the American missile defence shield. Let's all take sides and refuse to empathise with the other side's POV. Back to my tin hat and gun, though a bit further East now!

2). Love to dump the nukes. My house at 20 ft above sea level would have been 80 ft under water if Holy Loch had

been obliterated. An independent Scotland would have to consider our position in Nato, and wrt to mutual defence

treaties or whatever with the remains of the UK. It might take a time to dump the nukes and allow alternative

relocation of suitable geographical maintenance facilities. The ideal has to marry the pragmatic.

3). I guess you agree with my point as you attacked the poster, not the posting (i.e. an ad hominem).

4). "Retain the Union". Ummmm, I guess you got me mixed up. Mine and my wife's vote were 2 of the 42 majority for

SNP in North Ayrshire, which we would claim put the SNP in government, even though plainly I don't support all SNP policies. The strength of my support for independence greatly outweighed my dislike of the SNP's nuclear and "stay in the EU" policies, but now at last is the time Independence will probably happen and we control our own destiny. "Newest Nation". In the eyes of the world we'd be the 195th nation / country or thereabouts (http://geography.about.com/od/politicalgeography/a/scotlandnot.htm), and the newest.

As a different point offers were made to other parties to share in govenmental positions; these were rejected and I can understand that motivations for these offers could be suspected, possibly justifiably. I'd like to see these offers regularly repeated and soon accepted. In Scotland we need the best people in government, whether devolved or

independent, regardless of party or political persuasion. I'd also like to see a complete discardment of the "whip"

in British politics, and not to see its use in Scotland. Elected MPs, MSPs, MEPs should vote according to

constituents and beliefs, not party politics.

(Last long posting, honest .gov)

FROM THE HEAD AND FROM THE HEART ONLY INDEPENDENCE. ITS NATURAL AND ITS RIGHT I CAN NOT BEGIN TO SEE THE CASE FOR THE UNION. ITS DEAD IN THE WATER.

i am an english person and the idea of an independant scotland is pure stupidity. for a start Shetland is the richest in oil money and if scotland did go independant then Westminister would stop giving scotland money and then SNP would dry shetland dry from its money
SO I SAY DOWN WITH SCOTLAND
who agrees with me?

What a mature, intelligent idea, asking the Scottish people their opinion on their own destiny.

I've not doubt that us Scots must 'play it long.' I find most of my friends' fear of independence tiresome, depressing and showing a complete lack of ambition.

I believe that our Scottish Gov. is going about things the right way. Show it can govern competently, win votes through popular policies which bring about tangible change in the lives of Scots.

Show it can be trusted, minimise the dreadful 'tit for tat' Holyrood slanging matches of old by never rising to Labour's bait. Be business-like.

In a word, govern quietly and effectively, building up trust, showing how independence will greatly improve quality of life by making the population BELIEVE IN ITSELF.

The question is, how do you do that, without terrifying them?

One answer may be to govern well in the first term and don't bang on about independence too much during this time, while making critical statistics available to the press at regular intervals. Clever TV/Press campaigns
MUST be used.

Talking to my friends, they want policies which will improve their lives, from day to day. Period.

Scrapping prescription charges, free school meals, making the M8 all-motorway are superb moves, as is banning the building of nuclear power stations, keeping A&E units open and scrapping bridge tolls.

How do we leave this suffocating, unequal Union? In a phrase,

'Softly, Softly Catchy Monkey.'

Best,



Stuart Rivans.

203. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire

Dave,

I have to disagree with you on your first point, most people I know are against nuclear power stations.

Your second point is a tad weird to say the least , this is 2007 not 1914, what western front are you talking about??

--

Craig 205, take a look at the clown in the previous post 204, and yes your unionist rants are rather nazi like, no?

All this debate does is polarise opinions, Do you want your own Armed forces ? I for one think Mr Salmon is doing his best to wind up Westminster - free prescriptions etc. If you Scots think life will be better without the union - I say go for it. Guarantee ours will.

203. Dave Eastabrook - Largs, Ayrshire
Monday, October 29, 2007 02:22
1)Nuclear power is being punted as green and low carbon but it will leave a legacy of highly toxic nuclear waste for generations to pay to keep safe.

Face it the reason that Labour has changed its position on nuclear is because it wants to upgrade our WMD delivery capability and return to the good old days of the Cold War.
At least back then you knew where to find the baddies.

Weapons grade nuclear material comes from....nuclear power stations, ask any Iranian.



2) Dump the nukes. That might not play well in the Home Counties but in Scotland there's not many would argue against removing the nuclear bullseye from the Clyde.

Who do they deter?
Ask the Iraqis. They had nukes and chemical/biological WMDs ready for launch within 45minutes, according to Honest Tony.
Wasn't that the reason we attacked Iraq?

3) You're starting to gibber.

4)Retain the Union, for the sake of English tourists?
Is the reason we have so many English tourists not got more to do with travelling distances and family ties rather than the complexion of the government?
How often do you check up on the state of the local parties before heading off to the Costa del Sunshine?

Perhaps you might also consider that I'm pretty certain it has been SNP policy for many years now not to vote on purely English matters at Westminster. Shockeroony

Newest nation?
As I understand it Scotland never stopped being a nation and, I stand to be corrected, Scotland is one of the, if not actually the oldest, modern western nation.

As a visiting American associate commented when I explained some of the history of Edinburgh Castle, Mary's Chapel in particular:
'Sh!t, back home we don't even have dirt that old!'

202. Sean Dady - London
Sunday, October 28, 2007 23:47

Expell?

The Union of the United Kingdom is between Scotland and England(incorporating the Welsh and N.Irish).

Like in a marriage it may comfort you to think in terms of expelling your spouse from that marriage, but to expell one you in effect expell both.

Without Scotland there is no UK.

I think a term you might be looking for is 'dissolve', as in dissolve the Threaty of Union 1707.
Yes I'd vote for that.