The Scottish Government

Hi all, I'd just like to say that I'm in total support of independence for Scotland, I think you deserve this at the very least, being such a proud nation. I only wish other members of the UK were so patriotic, I think it's healthy to have a strong national bond.

Scotland : if, or more likely _when_ you get full independence and control of foreign policy, would you retain a strong alliance with England and/or be a member of the Commonwealth of Nations?

I have been a supporter of the SNP since the first day I became interested in politics. I support basically all the policies that have been put forward and perhaps other, more radical, that have not yet. I do support independance but with exceptions.

I do not accept that we need to cut all ties with our "British" counterparts. For example, an independant Scotland would be unlikely to want a advanced defence force like that of the UK as a whole. I cannot accept that in todays volatile world, we remain (i am over exagerating, but you'll get my drift) defenceless. I believe that the SNP Government need to remain in some sort of union for the defence of our common island.

Further, I agree with many of the comments on this board that we do not need closer European integration. I am currently a law student and see the day to day implications of our attachment to Europe and it is not, in my opinion, in our best interest. Why can we not do as the swiss have done?? They have all the privaleges of free trade and talk etc with Europe but none of the ties that dillute autonomy. The Swiss have all the economic beneifts of the EU without even having to be a member of the EU.
If we remained outwith the EU, we could then ACTUALLY control our fish stock,no European interferance....and make decisions that cannot be overruled due to illogical European directives and Human Rights cases.

I do truly believe in independance, and I don't wish for anyone to doubt that. But i do not see the point if closer integration with Europe is the end result. The goverment want Scotland fish for Scotland and so on....this wont be possible in the EU.

#159

It is undeniably telling that the Dutch, among others, can tend to regard the Scots as the quirky inhabitants of a largely unknown 'region' – though hardly surprising, given the tendency of people, even on the BBC, to refer to “England” when they actually mean “Britain” – a tendency which becomes increasingly symptomatic of some people from “South Britain” when they travel to other countries.

Interestingly, our own geographically diverse and stunningly beautiful country (Scotland) is the same size as the land areas of Belgium, Luxembourg and the Netherlands combined.

And while the Dutch themselves have had a disproportionate influence on the modern world, it speaks volumes that they might register so little recognition of the Scots, whose achievements and global influences arguably surpass that of any ‘small’ nation.

A couple of personal anecdotes:

Once, in Australia, I travelled with a Dutch inhabitant who objected to my use of the term ‘Holland’ for her country. Meanwhile, she habitually used the term ‘England’ in reference to the UK!

On a rare visit to the Isle of Lewis, I was speaking to a fellow traveller – a resident of France who was travelling with his French family, but, from his speech and accent was clearly an Englishman. At one point, he announced “I was born in England” – with the context and emphasis of the phrase clearly indicating that his ‘England’ meant the UK as a whole, including the Isle of Lewis!

I have in-laws in South Africa who also habitually use the term ‘England’, and my travelling experiences inform me that many nationalities, including many Americans and even some Irish(!) have little or no recognition of Scotland as a country.

On that basis alone, I take strong issue with those who claim independence would do little to improve our international standing.

Roll on the Referendum!

Would Steve H (#153) like to explain what he means by “nationalise the oilfields at massive expense”???

The oilfields are already a national asset – regardless of how and by whom they are exploited – and around 95% of exploited oil revenues flowing into the London Treasury just happen to be in Scottish territorial waters.

Unionists often talk as if oil as a natural resource already belongs to the oil companies, instead of to the country from which it is extracted – hence to the people of that country. So, Steve, what would you imagine we could ‘nationalise’? The multinational consortiums and corporations upon whom we have no claim, but who already pay the massive extraction revenues to London?

Crucially, if Scotland had control of even a fraction of the oil resources in its own territorial waters, this additional asset alone would augment the Scottish spending budget by several millions.

Under Scottish control, our oil reserves to date would have been extracted at a significantly slower and more controlled rate – responsibly managing and preserving the resource as a vital asset for future generations – as against the thoroughly exploitative manner in which they have been virtually squandered to date, as disposable currency in a boom-and-bust economic strategy.

Further, an Oil Trust Fund could have been established at the outset, which would have invested the value of an inevitably finite resource into a permanent national financial reserve which, like that established by Norway, would have become self-perpetuating well before the oil extraction itself even went into decline.
Equally crucially, there is still the time and potential to invest in such a fund.

Steve, as you demonstrate, the Barnett formula is a transition mechanism designed to systematically reduce Scotland’s ‘subsidy’ to the same level as the more populous parts of the UK – inevitably and relentlessly reducing Scotland’s total budget in favour of already super-wealthy regions, led by the south-east of England.

Scotland has around one third of the UK’s landmass, with 9% of the population. We are rich in essential resources such as water and electricity, with a particularly remarkable potential for the development of renewables. And we are endowed with exceptional industries such as whisky, which also pours massive resources into the UK treasury.

However, these things are conveniently excluded from the overall picture favoured by those who wish to paint us as hopeless subsidy junkies within the UK.
Conveniently, that same picture also ignores the hugely disproportionate number jobs and perpetuated wealth based south of the Border as a direct consequence of the location of so many major UK national institutions, comprising Government departments and military facilities, as well as the countless public and private businesses and industry that thrives on the wealth based around such institutions.

We have seen over generations how industry after industry has been dismantled in Scotland – largely against the background of a London Government which is either indifferent, or actively favours industrial interests in the south over those based here.

We have seen, and continue to see, obscene amounts of money spent over and over in London and the south-east, while relatively smaller expenditures in Scotland are the subject of disproportional negativity and frenzied media obsession.
And, although Scottish Labour’s present problems are entirely of their own making, it is highly revealing that the Leader of the Opposition at Westminster receives 30 times more funding than the largest opposition party at Holyrood.

So the unionist prospectus runs something like this:
“You must be mad to consider a future as an independent nation, when you are (a significant?) part of this world-beating political union. Look at the (purported) power and influence we generate, and the benefits we can acquire together!
Of course, your membership of this ‘union’ will be on our terms, and your level of recognition and share of any influence or benefits will be perpetually squeezed on a strictly pro-rata population basis. All statutory matters, and overall control of resources, are reserved. You have no future without us.”

In light of all this, and also of the mendacious deception by Westminster over the projected value of Scotland’s oil over a 30-year period, as revealed in the McCrone Report, it should be crystal clear that the London Government puts London interests first.

It is time for us in Scotland to put Scottish interests first – a basis on which this ‘union’ has historically and persistently failed us.

Interesting threads.

Barnet formula,
1 we never get to see the true facts, obfuscation by London Manderins to conceal the truth perhaps
2 I have never believed we are subsidised
3 If we are we should not be, we cannot move from a state of depenednecy if we are depdendent. In the 60's we were raised to be self suffucient, educated, responsible, pay your way and neither a lender nor borrower be. Where has it gone wrong.

The British Government needs Wales, N Ireland and Scotland for their international power games. They have lost the entire empire that was their legitimacy to sit at the whoigh table of world power. If they lose their vestigial colonies their legitimacy is further undermined.

Now consider a Government tending 65m people. They must cater for the majority regardless of party in power. Small communities of les than 10% cannot gain preferential treatment and do not. They are simply a resource to support the majority. As an engineer we were taught in our maths to disregard any variable in an equation that was less than 10%.

Tis perhaps time that we do take control over our own affairs, it will be hard and there remains many unanswered questions but be sure we face serious social and economic unrest as a conequence of the environmental and world oil and gas supply issues. We cannot affect world outcomes directly but we can deal with our own issues but Wetsminster expressly stifles action in this area.

I have heard said by many N England people the border is too far north. They have values and kinship with us similarly treated with contempt by the SE.

Time to get of our backsides and look after ourselves, stop winging and whining, congratulate England on their rugby success and wish them well and support them to win.

Answer to Craig Crook -re various previous missives...

Hello Craig,

I've now had a chance to read you're earlier missives. Yes you are eloquent and erudite in your praises of Scottish contributions and achievements in the realms of science, the arts, engineering and commerce but...

Oh dear! - whenever politics is mentioned its... Wheeech, off with the scientists overalls, and businessman's suit and on with the fluorescent kilt and twirling musical sporran playing an endless loop of Andy Stewart singing 'I belong to Scotland, and Scotland belongs to me...'

If I had you're attitude to my fellow Scots I wouldn't be campaigning for independence I'd be completing a mass application for the Scots people to join Billy Smarts Circus.

The problem is that the joke is wearing a bit thin. I am starting from the premise that Scotland IS a nation with all the rights and responsibilities that goes with that. You're basic premise appears to be that Scotland is a kind of 'lucky region' with an amusing colourful culture. In you're eyes all those great Scots of the past were first and foremost British and Scottish a poor second.

I simply ask you to consider what the majority of Scots consider themselves today. I think if you took 100 Scots at random and asked what nationality they were, they would say Scottish first not British - nor would they ever allow the latter to take priority. Ask 100 people from anywhere else in the UK and I think you would probably get a different answer i.e British first.

And there is my point. It may have suited the Scots to have been part of the Union in the past, but not any more, and frankly the emotional glue which was never very strong in the first place has all but failed completely now.

You're fundamental premise is therefore wrong - you're on the wrong side: face it and move on!!!

As apposed to joining in the ongoing discusions I would like to take this oppertunity to give a new viewpoint.

I live in Holland where I teach English to Dutch kids. The Dutch, together with most mainlanders, know next to nothing about "Great Britain". They basicaly find it quite amusing the way a Scot reponds to being called English. "oh yes, so I heard. Don't call a Scot English!" Most of the people I've come across in the 15 years I've lived here think Scotland is just a funny little province, that all Scots wear nothing but kilts, that we all love whiskey and that we all play the bagpipes.

When trying to explain to these people that which we often take for granted, our heritage and right to freedom, it allways receives some comment about Mel Gibson and bare bums.

It's time for us Scots to stand up as one and say "Hello world, this is Scotland. And England: we'll take it from here!"

Its time to give the world a history lesson, and then set things straight.

Answer to Craig Crook, Missive 151

Hello Craig

You say that Scotland did not cease to exist in 1707 but were '...absorbed into a larger and more powerful body within which were retained our 'uniqueness'.

Although we retained certain institutions and trappings of being a nation this does not stretch to political power - for example however can you justify or defend the 'poll tax' foisted on Scotland against their will by a Tory Westminster government, before the same legislation was enacted in the rest of the UK ?

Surely it is a second class nation that has no effective expression for its political will. You see whenever we start talking politics your scottish identity begins to waver a bit.

While acknowledging the 'granting' of devolution by the benevolent the great white Queen in Westminster you don't want this to extend too far, although you don't seem sure how far.

You foresee extending powers, even more power over oil revenues, 'so long as the Union is not called into question', but called into question by whom. I think you would be satisfied with full independence so long as we all signed an open letter to Westminster...

'Dear Westminster while we have now got powers over most aspects of life here in Scotland we still acknowledge you as our protector and better than us, and your views will take precedence in all international relations. When talking to other countries we promise to still call ourselves British and not Scottish'

Something like that should be enough for you...

You also say '...for the life of me I cannot see the Britain as I know it surviving post-independence. Surely you can accept that?'

This view may have been slightly relevant before the EU, but surely you can accept that nowadays the idea that independence means separation just does not stand up. Ask the 200,000 Poles if they had difficulty getting into Britain, or the Irish or umpteen other nationalities freely traveling throughout the UK and Europe.

Of course there may be political divergence, that is the point of independence - but why should that be a bad thing. We can have different policies on 'social care' for example, without declaring war on each other - it is you that are being monumentally niaive here. To some extent we already have differences with the rest of the UK - You don't see street riots either side of the border 'because we're not exactly the same'. Why should it suddenly change when we get more powers and become independent. Doing our own thing is our national right which we can exercise. It comes with democracy.

I think you first of all need to come to terms with the fact that we are all part of the EU now, and all that means in terms of free movement, common market etc - that has changed the goalposts. Once you truly accept that then your other argument about the 'Great Wall of Scotland' collapses.

You also say that the Scots voted for the SNP for reasons other than independence, some perhaps - but they must have known independence was also part of the package. Clearly, the prospect of independence did not scare them off. Opinion polls consistently show that the Scots want considerably more powers, and that is what all the parties are currently debating. Nor will it just 'stop'. As you have already admitted, devolution is a continuum with independence approaching ever closer. As for what the Scots want? - can't tell until we are independent and a full political entity in our own right.

For me the greatest rationale for independence is a desire to behave like any other normal nation in Europe again and hatred of this xenophobic 'british is best' philosophy peddled by Unionists. This attitude that impels you to sneer at every other nation in Europe, and prevents you from truly participating in the EU.

I share this view with many other nationalists including some born and bred in the south of England. Think on Craig and fellow Unionists - the seeds of your own destruction lie in your own medieval attitudes to everyone else.



Cheers

Re. Ex-patting in the Netherlands.
What is, for want of a better word, amusing about observations such as yours is this belief that the UK is somehow a powerful nation.
For the past few decades the UK has been losing its status - it is not the global player it once was and the British will be gradually looking to other European nations if not to China and India - to take the lead.

Nation envy: The size of the nation state does not translate into power wielded. Norway does well on its own - and is active on the world stage including taking an active role in ie: Sri Lanka discussions (between the govt and LTTE).

There is no shame in Scotland being like Luxembourg or the Baltic states - as a regular visitor to Luxembourg I would be quite happy to see Scotland enjoy a similar standard of living - instead of, as it currently does, appear to tread water just above third world status. After all, it says something when Indonesian volunteers end up in Glasgow on work experience.

The UK might sit on various councils - but how does that realistically serve the people of Scotland - far less other parts of the UK (Wales and N.Ireland)? Given the nature of the UK nation state - the smaller consituent parts continue to lose out as successive governments initiate policies designed only really to benefit the South East.
Meanwhile, as the South East siphons up all the wealth, Scotland's infrastructure get worse, health poorer, etc.

Only as an independent state will Scotland truly have the power to rectify the wrongs - as it currently stands all Scotland can do is bump along the bottom of a succession of league tables (OECD etc) that serve only to point out that it's about the worst wee country in Western Europe.

It is disappointing that after the wide range of contributions to this ‘conversation’, many of which are quite detailed, that some people apparently don’t take the trouble to carefully read what has gone before and therefore incorrectly make sweeping generalizations and simplistic, if not naïve, statements.

[# 152] “The majority of scots who call for independence are suffering from the braveheart mentality and have no idea of the real issues involved in independence.” No further comment necessary here as with such statements objective readers can readily make their own assessments of who actually has no idea of the real issues involved!

[#153] “Why nationalists can deny the Barnett Formula is baffling. To read 'facts' stating Scotland actually subsidises the UK, and especially London and the South-East (two of the richest regions in Europe) is just ridiculous.” What is ridiculous is that some still consider the Barnett Formula in isolation from historic spending on a ‘UK infrastructure’ centred on London and the South East of England and that these same people clearly fail to understand that this spending has contributed greatly, both directly and indirectly, to the economic growth of that region (besides the Westminster government itself, examples such as the Channel Tunnel, Millennium Dome and London Olympics have already been previously referenced). This is not a denial of the Barnett Formula but a sensible and logical attempt to put it in a wider perspective (which is especially important for those that appear to have missed the ‘bigger picture’ as already outlined by others in earlier posts)!

Future oil production from the North Sea is certainly important although not critical to our understanding of the bigger economic picture in an Independent Scotland, but it is also “ridiculous” (unless you do indeed possess a ‘reliable crystal ball’) to state exact levels of oil production from the North Sea in 2010 and 2030 without pertinent qualifications (as anyone with a working knowledge of the oil industry and the uncertainties inherent in that industry is aware). Even more “ridiculous” is to ignore the current plight of our fishing industry in countering arguments for Independence with statements emphasizing the power and influence of the UK, and Scotland’s control through the UK, in the EU and in today’s global economy. More “ridiculous” still is to introduce a projected lack of future military influence of an Independent Scotland when Scottish soldiers are currently dying in a conflict that in effect they were pushed into on the strength of misleading information presented by a UK Prime Minister attempting to have influence on a world stage without sincere consideration either of his mandate or of the extent of the regrettable consequences of his actions.

With a wider perspective and such observations is it not obvious how people can argue with some justification “that Scotland will be better off out of the UK than within” even if one does not necessarily agree with all of their conclusions?