The Scottish Government

In answer to Robert of Edinburgh
Entry 53

Robert you start your analysis with a very negative assertion that 'the parties are all the same', and being independent would change nothing.

If you take your arguement to its conclusion no-one would ever vote at all and ultimately we would all go out and shoot ourselves.

Your first point regarding laws is utter nonsense. Do you not realise that all laws passed in the UK, require a separate Scottish version requiring a separate signature from the Queen ?

Contributing nothing ????? It is Scottish oil that has contributed countless billions to the UK economy over the last 15 years.

I am not going to dignify the racist point about too many Scots in London - except to say there are around 15% of English born living in Scotland. I doubt if the percentage is anywhere near the same for Scots in London. The key difference is that we welcome diversity rather than sneering at it like you do.

In your analysis,you compare Scotland to the Southwest of England - however I have never heard of the Southwest of England being described as a nation.

Your comparison is entirely spurious and ignorant. Scotland was an independent nation for hundreds of years and retains a distinct legal system,a number of other trappings of independence and a distinctive culture.

Scotland is a nation in its own right with the right to re-assert independence whether you like it or not.

Independence is a very real option. Unless you abolish democracy Scotland is very likely to vote for independence.

I don't think the fact that you bleat on that you do not recognise their right to choose the option will make a whit of differance.

In fact it is exactly your kind of arrogant nonsense that drives Scots increasingly towards nationalism.

It has been a while since I was last on this site however it is refreshing to see that there are now more people on the pro-union bandwagon as this makes for a healthier debate. I particularly enjoyed the debate between livilion and David from London. I agree with you David that there are certain values which the Scots and English share and of this we should be proud. To livilion I would suggest that you lighten up a bit. I understand your passion but the tone of your replies can come across as quite arrogant and aggressive.

Again David I agree with you when you say that there is a crisis in our notion of Britishness (a term which I would accept is hard to define). However, in thread 60 livilion says 'tell us what Britishness means to you, what you understand it to be, and why Scots should value this above their own Scottishness?’ Can I ask you what exactly Scottishness is?

I also believe John from Kirkcaldy hit it on the head when he said that instead of focusing on independence we should be trying to find ways of improving the way the Union works. I have said it before and I shall say it again, historically the Union has served Scotland well. From being the workshop of the Empire to the present day, I believe that, with the exception of de-industrialisation and other lows in the post war era, Scotland has benefited.

There is also no reason why we cannot benefit from the Union in the 21st century. Get a good working relationship going between Holyrood and Westminster, pool the resources and talents of this island and there is no reason why Scotland and the rest of the UK cannot benefit. You can lynch me if you want but that’s what I believe and that’s that.

Taking up the argument about Scotland being a colony let me just say that such comments are utter nonsense. Scotland was not over run by an army of occupation. Our ancestors, for controversial reasons ill agree, opted for the Union. Even then however, Scotland retained some freedoms the most notably of course being our legal systems. It is for preciously this reason that Britain has never been a unitary state. Knowing this as historical fact was Scotland only an extension of colonial England? I think not.

I would like to say that I found Mark Dawson’s comments on how independence would be managed insightful. These are questions which have (perhaps conveniently) been left out of the debate thus far.


Finally, I feel compelled to ask some of you to watch the tone of your arguments. I understand that you are passionate about your cause but when you start talking about 'English' rule and the 'Hijacking' of 'our oil' and so forth this can be interpreted as anti-English sentiment. I am not saying that you are anti-English but such tones undermine the integrity of this debate.

Speaking on Radio Scotland yesterday, Dr Mark Horton (Bristol University) gave real credibility the historical view that in the 1690’s, the deliberately obstructive actions of the English government in regard to the Darien Scheme, backed by economic and political chicanery, had been pivotal in engineering Scotland’s coercion into political union with England, against the background of the resulting economic disaster.

It is my own belief that those who claim London’s intentions then were equitable, and that the resulting Union was not the culmination of England’s ages-long historical objective to bring Scotland under ultimate English command – are being naïve.

Dr Horton went on to highlight the prominent roles played by Scots in so many areas throughout the British Empire – their actions at the very heart of that Empire’s success in so many ways – underlining the potential achievements of a successful Scotland under less hostile circumstances.

Finally, Dr Horton – an accomplished archaeological historian – suggested that, 300 years on, the circumstances were entirely different from those that brought Scotland into the union, and that modern Scots may decide that the best constitutional option for their country’s future is one in which that union (having outlived any historical relevance) is consigned to the past.

Though in no way expressing a political opinion, Dr Horton has neatly and clearly debunked, from both ends, the notion of the union as some kind of eternal space-time continuum, beyond whose boundless bounties no mortal mind can conceive.

In this modern world, where so many smaller and less accomplished nations have successfully seceded from archaic and obsolete empires and political blocs, why should Scotland be uniquely unqualified to rejoin and play a full part in the global family of nations?

To David Robertson Inverness!

An Independent Scotland would be automatically within the EU-based on the internationally recognised rule of responsibilities of successsor States and the lack of any facility in the various EU treaties for 'expelling' a member. (we would also automatically be within NATO also) In the wake of 'seperation' it would be the status of an independent Scotland, especially in relation to any derogations etc which would be up for negotiation!

Stewart Stirling

So sad. Can I give you an example of anti English Xenophobia? Back in 1992 I was canvassing for the SNP in Maryhill. On knocking a door I was greeted by a very cheery middle aged working class (remember them?) man. He welcomed me to put my case. In conversation he explained his antipathy and general dislike of the English. There were more of them than us though. He was proud to be Scottish, pointing to various tartan artifacts around his home. I pressed him to explain his determination to vote Labour (that was in the days before new scottish labour). He was quite determined that by voting Labour he was putting one over the English because Scotland was too poor to survive on it's own and by getting a Labour government at Westminster Scotland would keep it's subsidies and he would be better off!

It could be you Stewart!

In response to Crig Crooks missive 29.

I note with interest that Craig describes himself as a 'patriot'. However I am curious on this point and would like to expand on what I think he means.

The best analogy would probably be visiting the monkey house at the zoo.

You empathise with the monkeys, and want them to be happy and have good conditions.

You laugh at the monkeys, particularly when they itch their bum in a funny way, and here we pick up the thread originated by Harry Lauder lifting his kilt or more recntly by Billy Connolly imitating a Glasgow drunk - the Scots are good for a laugh, to laugh at that is, not with.

There's also an element of Disney's 'Song of the South' here, to quote Uncle Remus 'The white massa knows bes. We jus do as we's told and evrythin'll be alright'

This view is benign and paternalistic...its also pretty insulting.

Ultimately you know you are distantly related to the monkeys, but you are a bit better than them.

So it is with Craig Crich's 'patriotism'. Oh yes he's Scottish, but he's also British and thats what he's really proud of. He brings out the other identity at parties to entertain the children.

I would defend absolutely Craig Crich's right to hold these views and maybe there are some Scots who, like Uncle Remus think 'the white massa knows bes' -all luck to them.

Given the choice between the two identities I know which one I would choose. I leave it to all the rest of you with an IQ greater than 12 to make your own choice.

In answer to Craig Crich's missive 72

I am not surprised Craig Crich has latched on to several other ill-informed unionist contributors to bolster his case.

I'm not sure the 'I've got more in my gang' approach is particularly edifying either.

I think the debate can only benefit from the introduction of a few accurate statistics and facts - that have been introduced aplenty by a wealth of nationalist contributors. You never know Craig you might learn something.

I was a little taken aback by his comment at the end where he asks us nationalists 'to watch our tone'.

Presumably too many unwelcome facts are giving him a headache - people have no respect for their betters any more, tush tush.

#74 Gavin Roberts - Glasgow

Thank you for the information. Can you point me to a source for confirmation? I am interested in this subject.

I have read different views on this, not least from a think tank in Switzerland that seemed to have the opposite view based upon the fact that Scotland is presently merely a Region within the State of the United Kingdom. It was part of a post somewhere. The only comparable situation I believe was Slovenia in the old Yugoslavia, which State eventually dissolved into its constituent parts. I believe the UK is a somewhat different case but the legal niceties are a little beyond me I am afraid.

In any event, whatever the outcome of that particular controversy, I believe there are many in Scotland who would prefer to be apart from the EU and associated with the EEA, like Norway. Those who believe this should be given an opportunity to express their preference in a referendum, and the attendant issues made public and discussed, as we are doing now with independence.

At present 63% of Scotland's exports are to England and only 17% to the other countries of the EU. Compare this with Norway's exports to the EU of 79%. Ireland's exports to the EU are 46%. These are two nations used ase comparisons with Scotland since they are both similar in population size. Significantly, the one outside the EU is the one with the highest exports to the EU. Therefore being outside the EU does not threaten our ability to trade with Europe.

http://www.scottishleftreview.org/php/public/pastissues.php?action=article&docid=352

One of my chief concerns is with the stability of the Euro and the likelihood that Scotland could well be seriously disadvantaged if she opts to join the Eurozone. The one size fits all usually doesn't work. Other concerns of course apply to the British Pound since Mr. Brown has maintained a strong pound to give London an advantage in the financial markets but has thereby undermined Scotland's export prospects outside the UK.

My own preference would be for Scotland to have her own currency and her own Reserve Bank, apart from the Bank of England. Post #28 under John Swinney's blog indicates the kind of arrangements I would prefer to see. After all Scottish political economists have pretty much written the book for the modern capitalist system so we should be able to handle our own affairs in that regard.

In response to Gavin Thompson - It would appear that my pro-British views have upset you and as one of this sites token unionists I am satisfied that I am doing my job correctly. Before I begin my 'rant' can I ask if there a reason why you continue to spell my name wrong? Is there a joke in there which I have missed?

Anyway, I must say that I found your monkey analogy very amusing, a bit off topic but amusing nonetheless. However, one thing confuses me (unsurprising I know given that I have an IQ of 12). You ramble on about Harry Lauder and Billy Connelly, again amusing, but are you suggesting that non-Scots view 'those' people north of the border as nothing more than a joke? Considering the contribution of Scots throughout the world, our sporting, technological and scientific achievements do you really believe that we are just seen as a nation of drunken, kilt lifting entertainers? Come on man!

Now if I have got the wrong end of the stick here then I apologise. I have a hangover you see from playing the drunken Scotsman at a weans party last night.

You also seem quite hostile to the fact that I consider myself British as well as Scottish. A Texan can consider himself a Texan and an American and many of our continental neighbours see themselves as European, as well as French, Dutch, German and so on. What’s wrong with having a duel identity? I know supporting the union is somewhat unpopular in today’s world of Braveheart, Alex Salmond and John Smeaton but what’s wrong with Britain and being British? And don’t give me the whole 'there holding us back' speech. I've heard it one too many times.

You also mention that 'people have no respect for their betters any more'. Are you suggesting that the English, and I’m assuming you mean English people, see themselves as better than us? Please!

Now my IQ of 12 may have hindered my interpretation so if I have misunderstood then I apologise. However, if I am correct then I say tush tush to such comments.

there is a pervading selfishness in much of what the SNP and its supporters promote. Nationalism, whether it be in UK, British or Scottish/English form, is an exclusory concept that also seeks to establish determined cultural and historical patterns. to simply place debates about independence in economic and and constitutional contexts belies the plural and diverse nature of the UK. Many in (northern) England and Wales are deeply distraught at the lack of concern or consideration of the SNP to stability provided by the current constitutional arrangements. Moreover, there is no consideration of the culturally-reductive implications of Scottish independence. You may reap what you sow