BBC Blog Network

User Profile

Maxanim

Listed below are comments made by Maxanim between Thursday, 16th October 2008 and Tuesday, 16th June 2009.

«Newer
Older»

Calman speaks 12:00pm on 16 Jun 2009 #54

If for the sake of argument one were to accept your list for the purposes which you recommend, I think that one might find it beneficial to focus upon no. 2 primarily, while not wishing to underestimate the importance of the other points.

"A prosperous indigenous Industrial, Commercial and Manufacturing base that delivers high levels of quality employment opportunities for all ..." is more or less what may be said to exist in the area that I live in (although, admittedly, the full range of desirable enterprises is not present). What consequences seem to derive from this relatively blessed state of affairs, aside from the fact that I do not anticipate leaving this area unless dragged from it kicking and screaming?

Well, your point no. 1 is satisfied ("A safe, clean Environment in which our people can work, rest and play without fear of intimidation, violence or abuse ..."), because, or so it seems to me, the community of the area is rendered healthy largely as a result of the provision of what is listed in point no. 2.

Your point no. 5 is dealt with too, as there is not much crime and the community spirit means that people feel responsible for one another, and an atmosphere of harmony prevails, which in turn enhances the quality of life resulting from the prosperity and self-respect associated with livelihood derived from local industry.

As for your point no. 3, there is a degree of developing social diversity, which appears to be working out rather well. Prosperity and associated self-respect seem to dispose people to be tolerant and generous-spirited on the whole. No religious friction is detectable.

As for your point no. 4, the availability of employment opportunities obviously provides incentive for people to acquire qualifications which may be expected to maximise their chances of taking advantage of these. Academic education, however, may be safely conceived of as a one-way ticket out of the area for most who are capable of benefiting from it. These are liable to end up in England in many cases, or, at least, so it would appear, in view of the gravity pull of the South-east, against which Scotland appears currently to have few effective defences.

So, if one accepts that the key to the creation of a Scotland-wide demi-paradise such as I have described is your point no. 2, which constitutional framework may best be expected to be most conducive to providing the necessary "prosperous indigenous Industrial, Commercial and Manufacturing base that delivers high levels of quality employment opportunities for all"?

Frankly, I think this is the point at which most of us who are particularly interested in the constitutional debate have already arrived. I may be mistaken, of course, but my impression is that most of us have concluded that the necessary constitutional framework is independence. Why might that be? What is it about our situation which might require such radical constitutional change?

If one postulates, for the sake of argument, that the creation and retention of a sufficient "indigenous Industrial, Commercial and Manufacturing base that delivers high levels of quality employment opportunities for all" is militated against and undermined by the gravity pull of the south-east of England, which tends to draw away from Scotland our most able and enterprising people, then it would seem to make sense to put in place some mechanism which might reasonably be expected to be capable of successfully counteracting this trend on a continuing basis.

If one then asks whether the powers of devolved government, whether as currently existing or as Calman proposes that they be amended, are suitable for this task, and if one concludes that they are not, it would seem to follow that one should consider whether the powers of an independent government are required.

So, what can an independent government do that a dependent or devolved government cannot do? It can, among other things, establish a taxation regime designed to create a competitive advantage so as to encourage investment that may be expected to result, with suitable care and attention, in the creation of a "prosperous indigenous Industrial, Commercial and Manufacturing base that delivers high levels of quality employment opportunities for all", from which numerous blessings may flow such as have been alluded to.
Anger management 00:35am on 28 Feb 2009 #181 aye_write

Anglophone's response to you on the subject of your estimation of his intellect are worth taking seriously. You are embarrassing the fellow.
I put it to you . . . 11:46pm on 10 Dec 2008 #71 SKaufman

Sorry I couldn't get back to you earlier this evening.

I am so pleased that we can communicate without launching thermo-nuclear missiles at one another. How refreshing. A spell-checker is definitely worth considering, by the way. Try not to wear it out. I never use them myself, as none of them seems to be able to spell as well as I can.

As for the separatism thing, no apology is desired, merely understanding. To wish to separate one's country from a constitution which constitutes an obstacle to greater union can, of course, be viewed either way: as separatist or unionist or indeed as both. As the separation in question is a means to achieve membership of a larger union and also to engineer a rapprochement with the entity of which Scotland is currently a dissatisfied and disadvantaged member, as I would argue that it is, I claim to be essentially a unionist, a European Unionist, in spite of not being a British one, and make no apology for that.

On the subject of national identity, I am unaware of UK nationality, although the concept of UK citizenship is one with which I am quite familiar. It is unrealistic to suppose that the world at large considers your nationality to be UK. The world knows you as English by and large, whether you like it or not.

As for membership of the EU, that is quite a different kettle of fish from membership of the UK, as I am sure you know. For a country to be in the EU as a region of a member state, furthermore, is to be deprived of the decision-making and negotiating rights enjoyed by the central governments of member states. Why Scotland should be so generous as to cede all those rights to its southern neighbour in the present day and age and disadvantage itself in relation to both it and the Republic of Ireland among others seems to me to be peculiar rather than appropriate.

As for your remarks concerning sweeping generalizations about people's backgrounds, I believe we have stumbled across something on which we can agree to agree.

Enjoy your posting.
I put it to you . . . 4:55pm on 10 Dec 2008 #58 youngerap

I do not recall stating anything about assassination. Nor was I referring only to heavy industry. There was a rich mix of small, medium and large enterprises of various kinds in the extensive area to which I referred. If you wish to introduce the concept of crime, that is a matter for you, with which I do not care to be associated.

The point that I would make is that no government of an independent Scotland could have afforded to allow such a state of affairs to develop and, like the government of the Irish Republic, would not have done so. It would have made use of the economic levers that the government of an independent state has at its disposal and would doubtless have done so in response to the requirements of the electorate to which it would have been responsible.

If there is an enormous area of comparable extreme and unconscionably enduring neglect of any description in the Republic of Ireland, we would all be interested, I am sure, in knowing where it is so that we might inspect it.
I put it to you . . . 10:12am on 10 Dec 2008 #48 SKaufman

Very nice to hear from you again. Do forgive the waxing-lyrical reference to your references to gearing, which I am always happy to hear about, in fact. I do not underestimate the importance of taking it into account where appropriate.

Although not insensitive to infelicities of spelling, punctuation and grammar, incidentally, I for one appreciate that these in themselves do not necessarily invalidate a person's argument. Sometimes in such cases one's tolerance is stretched pretty far, however.

As you have confessed sins, I shall confess mine. Like others who have a lifetime of concern about Scotland's position in the UK, I abominate the term "Seperetists", however you care to spell it. The term 'separatist' does not describe me or advocates of Scottish independence generally. Its pejorative connotations are, of course, relished by those who defend the union with England, which resembles, to wax lyrical for an instant, the sort of union which a monkey urges on a banana. "Unite with me and all your troubles will be over." True enough. But it is not much of a union if you happen not to be the monkey.

Now you will be saying that I am trying to make a monkey of you. Why would I do that? All that I am trying to say is that there are those of us who are in favour of union that does not have such unfortunate consequences for the smaller participants in the union. Like others who post here, I favour independent Scottish membership of the European Union and the eurozone, in which the Republic of Ireland has prospered, deriving prosperity and strength in the unity of European partnership upon a fair and equitable basis.

Independent Scottish membership of the European Union and the eurozone will not separate Scotland from the UK entirely, provided that the UK joins the eurozone and does not leave the EU.
I put it to you . . . 11:32pm on 09 Dec 2008 #46 sneckedagain

I am afraid that I have had to take SKaufman to task myself for unsubstantiated assertions. The unsubstantiated assertion is certainly a recurring weakness in his or her politically biased posts, whatever familiarity he or she may have with the dismal science.

#42 SKaufman

The assertion that we, whoever 'we' in this instance may be, are "Stronger together and all that!" most certainly does not deserve to be accepted unquestioningly, for I have witnessed myself the social and economic decline of Scotland over the past half century. The electorate of Glagow East benefited, or rather did not benefit, from a particularly and uncomfortably close view of it and have rendered their verdict accordingly.

You are hereby invited to visit a mapping website and take an aerial photographic view of, for instance, a gigantic wasteland stretching for acre after acre after acre from Dalmarnock Bridge in the Bridgeton area of Glasgow to Rutherglen. There is little to be seen there except wasteland. That wasteland represents what has happened to Scotland within the so-called strong togetherness of the UK over the past half centrury. That whole vast riverside area was occupied until the 1960s by industry, which provided very substantial employment. It is all gone. All of it. Those few buildings that are left are empty and decaying. Within the UK state none of that industry has been replaced, and none of the area which it occupied has been put to profitable use of any description that I am aware of, although that may gradually change as more power is returned to Scotland.

It is no wonder, therefore, that many people come to this discussion forum to argue that within the UK desolation, economic and social decline and emigration have been the portion of Scotland. In unity is strength, indeed. That is why Scotland needs to unite to repair the damage that has been inflicted upon it within the UK. That such extreme harm has befallen Scotland within the UK is sufficient reason in itself, one may not unreasonably submit, to argue that the very nature of the UK state is such that Scotland's best interests could hardly be worse served outside it and might well be better served outside it. The example of poor little Ireland, after all, is there for us to examine.
I put it to you . . . 10:02pm on 09 Dec 2008 #38 greenockboy

SKaufman is on record as being in favour of "the takecover" and has waxed lyrical about gearing before. Although a Labour supporter, as I recall, not unamenable to reason up to a point. Unlikely to be Expat, therefore.
Taxpayer should take note of bail-out 11:59pm on 16 Oct 2008 #402 sneckedagain

That is interesting.

Before it became independent, unionists told Irish supporters of independence that Ireland was too poor to be independent, that it was too dependent on support from the UK. A response to this was: we are poor because we are in the UK; were we not in it, we would be better off. The response to that response was: tosh. Does anything there sound familiar?

After independence Ireland had mixed fortunes, of course, for a time. Joining the EU and the eurozone made all the difference. Because of the position of relative disadvantage from which it was starting, it naturally required support from the EU and, as you point out, made such good use of it that it has broadly achieved the transformation that it set out to achieve and proved that it could prosper outside the UK and stand on its own feet. It is good to know that it is in a position to preserve the economic advances that it has made.

The unwillingness of unionists in Scotland to acknowledge how considerable Ireland's achievement has been is understandable in view of its very substantial implications for Scotland and for the independence movement here.
Taxpayer should take note of bail-out 11:10pm on 16 Oct 2008 #400 gedguy2

I was confident that you were with me, actually.

It was just that I suddenly realized that, in referring to similarities between the two cases, I had not sufficiently made clear my appreciation of the important differences, for the sake of readers in general.
Taxpayer should take note of bail-out 10:08pm on 16 Oct 2008 #398 gedguy2

I did not mean to suggest that there was a close parallel to be drawn between the two cases so far as the precise nature of uncomfortable events in troubled times is concerned. I hoped to convey the idea that setbacks in troubled times can move a process forward and that, when that process reaches a certain point, a tipping point, if you like, there is a reversal of perceptions concerning what the normal state of affairs is.

If it is the case that at that point those who are not currently in favour of independence become reconciled to it in the main, then that would seem to indicate - would it not? - that allegiance could be expected to be transferred from the UK state to the new Scottish one in the main, even in the case of many of those residents of Scotland who originated on the other side of the Border, although they might not think so now.

We should not be afraid to refer to certain aspects of the independence process in other societies, with which our histories differ in important respects, because there is a dynamic that can be observed and learned from.

«Newer
Older»

^ Back to top

BBC MMVI

The BBC is not responsible for the content of external internet sites

BBC.co.uk

BBC Blog Network

Find and talk to the BBC's bloggers.

User Profile

Maxanim