The Scottish Government

Craig Cook - Glasgow

Hats off to you Craig, your comment must take the prize for either the funniest or stupidest!,

""And please don’t be so naive. You know as well as I do that all Britons would eventually diverge along different paths until we reached the point when all of our shared customs and histories became inconsequential. We would all just be neighbours smiling kindly, exchanging a few nice words here and there while watching suspiciously from a far to see what that ‘lot’ next door were getting up to""

So Scotland's and England's history and customs started and will end with the union!, lol what a joke I'll have to tell my brother who lives in Manchester that when were independant I'll not be able to visit him or go to Old Trafford as our whole history is over and inconsequential, no more tea/John Smith drinking sessions or watching soaps or football, no more 6 nations.

Mmm I think not Craig, next scare story please.

153 Stevie H.
I will get back to you later on your scare story about the Barnett formula, but were do you get your rather strange figures from?

I must also say a you seem a tad out of touch with what the people of Scotland want,who cares about politically, and militarily might!
Yawn the days of "great britain" are well done and dusted pal.

Your wee rant about back of halls howver was a bit amusing but in Scotland we are more interested in sorting out or health and social problems.
If more time/money was spent on our appalling health, high levels of suicide, depression, crime, obesity than building 10 Billion shining nuclear Subs or pampering to England's war we would be so much better off.

Scotland is number one in heart disease, strokes, teenage crime, life expectancy, teenage pregnancies etc etc in Europe the list is rather scary.
I think that's more important than having a bigger army than the bogey men.
Today's Military should be high skilled and trained why should that change and Scotland can contribute to Nato.
I think your well behind the times mate, size today doesn't matter, more intelligence and taking ourselves out of the firing line is more preferable to
spending Trillions having the second or third or what ever most "powerful" navy/army in the whole world!.
It is to me a playground argument for staying tied to the union.

How about the opposite? Scrap devolution as it has failed completely and give greater power and responsibility to councils. Then politicians can concentrate on running public services instead of wrapping themselves in flags in a bid to for a place in history.

Now, instead of national legislatures concentrating on national matters, we instead have this petty in-fighting of the most immature kind.

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. Scotland's GDP (incl oil) is just £95bn, a fraction of the remainder's of £1.1TRILLION and growing fast.

If Barnett was removed and each UK citizen received equal funding, the total England allocation would rise by just 2% while the Scottish, Welsh and NI allocations would fall by 20-30% (give or take).

And as for this precious oil; taxes totalled just £1.28bn throughout the UK in 2005/06 so why nationalists think this will replace the £7bn+ 'subsidy' is nonsense (I prefer to call it 'redistribution'). People throw around figures of £10-20bn but Scotland will not see that unless they nationalise the oil fields at massive expense.

And oil reserves? Production peaked in 2000 at 6.4mbd throughout the North Sea. In 2010, it will be down to 2.4mbd. By 2030, 1.1mbd. That "half has not been tapped yet"...with prices as they are, why haven't they? Because they are too difficult/expensive to reach perhaps?

Then I read that Scotland will have a louder voice as an independent nation....how?

Today Scotland is a major component of one of the richest, most powerful and influential countries in the world, playing a dominant role in the UN, EU, NATO, Commonwealth and G8. And to restate the obvious, Scotland are actually running the UK right now!

As an independent nation, Scotland will be as politically, economically and militarily significant as Ireland and Portugal. It will rank alongside Ireland in EU votes, just above Luxembourg and Cyprus and the tiny Baltic states but 19 places behind the UK, the second most powerful economy after Germany (with or without Scotland).

It will be a voice at the back of the hall in the UN, no longer part of the Security Council nor any of the major forums.

It will have to watch G8 summits on the tv having one of the smallest economies in Europe and therefore not even an observer let alone a participant.

With just a few army light brigades to offer alongside a handful of patrol boats from a defence budget of less than £2bn (see Ireland), it will be of little significance in NATO. Today, Scotland is part of one of the best equipped, highly trained and experienced armies in the world, the RN is the second most powerful navy in the world and easily Europe's strongest & the RAF has some of the most advanced equipment in the world.

So how can people argue that Scotland will be better off out of the UK than within?

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

With regard to the above - hear hear!

The attitude of most scots towards the English, if aimed at any other race or country would generally be regarded as racist so why is it so openly accepted as being the right attitude. I was regularly heckled and abused for supporting England during the last World Cup. For a country of people who wants to be 'free' we are very quick to deny others the right to personal choice.

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.

Hi Gavin I told you I would get back to you.

It’s been a while since I was on this site so I though that I would go through some of your ramblings again just to remind myself what you had been saying. I must say that I found this part quite entertaining: 'You would still be Scottish and British, but political control would have switched completely from Westminster to Holyrood. All it would mean is that you celebrate your Britishness in the same way you have hitherto celebrated your Scottishness, that is in a non-political way'.

To be honest I can see where you’re coming from. You believe, it would seem, that post 1707 Scotland ceased to exist. I disagree. After the Treaty of Union Scotland did not disappear. We did not become a footnote in history. We were, as I have previously said, absorbed into a larger and more powerful body within which were retained our 'uniqueness'.

In a sense Scotland never really ceased being a nation. Indeed, most still considered Scotland a nation but our nationalism was fused with a form of Britishness to create Scottish Unionism. In essence we were a nation which was (and is) part of a bigger nation. However, for the life of me I cannot see the Britain as I know it surviving post-independence. Surely you can accept that?

And please don’t be so naive. You know as well as I do that all Britons would eventually diverge along different paths until we reached the point when all of our shared customs and histories became inconsequential. We would all just be neighbours smiling kindly, exchanging a few nice words here and there while watching suspiciously from a far to see what that ‘lot’ next door were getting up to. And if you think am being a tad cynical then just take a gander at the relationship between the Aussies and the New Zealanders…frosty ehh.

Now you say that it’s not a good thing for Westminster to over rule the will of the Scots. But can I ask you what exactly the Scottish people want? Independence? Aye right. The last time I checked the majority of Scots favoured the current constitutional set-up. Am I wrong? Or have I been looking at too many polls commissioned by the unionist parties? And while I’m on a role I would ask you not to get carried away with the result in May. We all know the SNP benefited from issues which had nothing to do with the Holyrood elections. Their result reflects only a short term dissatisfaction with the UK government. It certainly does not represent this so called ‘air of change’ that the nationalists have been banging on about.

Now you say that I am unable to defend the union because I cannot articulate a scenario in which it would be under threat. But I believe that I said that if too much power was granted to Holyrood then this could undermine the legitimacy of the British state – is this not a scenario? And given that this appears to be the tactic of the SNP I would say that they are a threat which could get more menacing over time. Indeed, small things like changing the name of the Executive to the Scottish Government is all designed to undermine the authority of the British government. So yes this represents a threat to the union. Why else am I on here? To make pals?

Anyway you keep mentioning a seperate missive so whatever you want to debate let me know.

Cheers

Do the English people actually know ehere Scotland is. If the question was put to them Do you want to give Scotland independance i'm sure the answer would be an emphatic YES. We seem to be tackling this from the wrong angle. We should be in England and Wales canvasing support for Scottish Independance. Get them to put pressure on their MPs'. Why should Scotland be lorded over by a morally bankrupt government whether it be Liberal, Labour or Tories.

"18. J. Docherty - Ayr
Tuesday, August 28, 2007 14:14

I feel a point that is being missed in a lot of the discussion on independence is the satisfaction that would be achieved by Scots in having their country recognised as an entity by the rest of the world instead of as at present being assumed to be a part of England. The fact is that foreigners referring to the UK speak of England (although the B.B.C. always translates as "Britain" or "United Kingdom"). The other fact is that the Diplomatic Service, Civil Service and Military higher echelons when abroad also refer to "England" when speaking of Britain or UK. Little wonder foreigners have no knowledge of Scotland as an entity or as a country. Scotland can exist and prosper as an independant nation, of that there is no doubt but in the words of the song "we must rise now and be a nation again" and be recognised by the world."

I agree, as the partner of a forigener and widly travelled wth many international friends i find this the most fustrating thing. Being asked where in england scotland is? or the queen of england?

The worst of it was when i took young girl guides abroad they were attacked by another group of teenagers because they thought we were english, unpon explain that we were in fact Scottish, they apolgised. As they say, actions speak louder than words.

Another question for those who would have us believe that Independence would be some kind of tragedy.

Out of all of the multitude of Commonwealth countries who have souht and gained independence from Britain since the days of Empire - how many have asked to get back in?

Can it possibly be that looking after your own affairs is preferable to having someone else (who may not have your best interests at heart) doing it for you?

134. Gordon Murray - Livingston.


Good Post Gordon

Before anyone asks - I don't regard my previous Q&A post as anti English.

I would consider it to be pro Independent Scottish Government over UK Westminster Government.

My references to middle England is in the context of UK Government policy making.