Constitutional caution
We should not, I think, be all that surprised that the UK Government's collective submission to the Calman Commission is cautious and defensive in tone.
It was, after all, the UK Government which drafted and implemented the Scotland Act. We could scarcely expect them to say: "OK, it's mince, let's tear it up and start again."
Further, this is an institutional response rather than a purely political one. It bears the stamp of the constitutional caution which, for good or ill, is intrinsic to the British state.
Further still, this is not the final word. It is a submission to Calman, albeit one from a rather influential source. There is more, much more, to come.
All of which said, there are voices raised against today's document. The SNP - which is not in membership of Calman - excoriates the publication.
The Liberal Democrats - who are members - condemn its over-cautious approach.
Perhaps more significantly, there are one or two well-placed folk on the Labour side who wonder whether the UK (Labour) Government might not have evinced a little more daring, having accepted the notion of the Calman review in the first place.
I draw three broad lessons. Firstly, look at the submission from the Department of Energy and Climate Change.
They raise, again, the issue of potential tension between energy strategy (reserved) and planning law (devolved).
This, they say, may "provide challenges to the implementation of reserved policy objectives".
Translated, that means they want a new generation of nuclear power stations across the UK - and that perfect pest Alex Salmond won't allow them to build one in Scotland.
To be fair, the submission merely notes the existence of a potential problem - and advances "the need for close co-operation".
And remember that the previous First Minister, Jack McConnell, was comparably pesky on the subject. His position, broadly, was to reject new nuclear in Scotland - while offering a substantial (and potentially controversial) increase in renewable generation as Scotland's contribution. Wind farms anyone?
Don't see this objection going anywhere, frankly. The Department of Energy may find it exasperating - but there is no point whatsoever to devolution if planning isn't included.
How, pray, are you going to implement UK nuclear strategy in Scotland if the Scots object through their devolved government? Send in the Army to build a new power station?
Secondly, that caution. I think it is understandable that the UK Government would tread softly. From their perspective, the devolved settlement is just that: a settlement, carefully negotiated and legislated.
They remain to be convinced of the need for substantive, legislative change.
However, read more closely.
The document also cites examples where executive devolution has gone further than the original Scotland Act: for instance, transferring day to day control of railways to Scotland.
In essence, I think the underlying mood of this submission is: there can be more executive devolution - but we don't intend to open up the Scotland Act for fear of stirring unwanted consequences.
Thirdly, the caution on transferring further powers shifts the focus of Calman back to the real issue: money.
The submission from the Treasury is largely historical: setting out in detail the nature of devolved funding including Barnett and the principle of equalisation. That is, explicitly, what was promised by the Treasury when the commission was first mooted.
Essentially, the Treasury is trying to provide a factual basis for further discussion. It is, at this stage, offering no view on how to proceed - although, separately, the document notes the desirability of providing financial responsibility to Holyrood.
So don't be surprised at the caution here. It's what Whitehall does. Consider instead where the debate goes next.
Look out for the publication next week of Anton Muscatelli's first report on the financing of devolution. He was tasked with this by Calman.
Look then for the interim report from Calman by the end of the year. Look, further ahead, for the final Calman report by next summer.
Today is not the final word by any means.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~45~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Please, no more powers for Holyrood, I don't trust they have the electorates interest at heart it's self interest, which is evident on a daily basis.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone expect anything of any importance from this silly commission which abandoned any semblance of significance or impartiality by barring the largest political party and party of Government from its deliberations?
Why they had to go through this charade when everyone knew the predetermined result of their meetings is anyone's guess
Only the tame Scottish media will treat its mutterings with any respect.
Complain about this comment
#1 MaliceTown
"I don't trust they have the electorates interest at heart it's self interest"
And the Westmidden government doesn't?
When they start by claiming spin is evidence, you wonder why they bothered to submit anything at all.
Complain about this comment
Brian (or any mod who actually reads this),
As neither the main Politics nor the Scotland politics pages link to it, couldn't you add a direct link to the PDF on your spiel above?
We can't link to it directly because of the house rules re PDF links.
Complain about this comment
#1 Are we assuming that Westminster acts in a completely selfless, transparent, open and altruistic manner when it comes to exercising powers over Scotland? Or that Westminster acts with nothing but regard to the best interests of the electorate, who are the prevailing concern?
Gimme a break....please.
I can fully understand the caution of the UK Government in this matter. It is a very slippery slope. Granting more devolution to Scotland, whilst trying to preserve the essential integrity of the Union and tradition and identity that is so important to Unionists, will be extremely difficult - if not impossible to implement without opening pandora's box. David Cameron has suggested ramping up the powers available to the Scottish Parliament, should he form a government. Expect him to quickly change his tune when he enters Downing Street.
Two countries that have gone down this route of more powers or asymmetric devolution are Belgium and Spain. Belgium reconstituted itself as a federal state - from a centralised state - in 1993. I think it is pretty much agreed that Belgium is now largely ungovernable. (Incidentally this idea of transforming the UK into a federal state is one I have heard some Unionists seriously proffer as a solution - the case of Belgium should hopefully provide a reality check, though).
Spain has gone down the asymmetric devolution route which has only inflamed tensions between Madrid and the extremities - Catalonia, the Basque Country in particular.
If Belgium and/or Spain are the models that Unionists in Scotland wish to follow - then as a committed supporter of independence, all I can say is ROCK ON!!!!
Complain about this comment
All institutions including the "Scottish Parliament" have to evolve, lest they stagnate and disappear.
Unfortunately, the much vaunted Calman Commission's report appears to be conservative in the extreme, with adjustments rather than fundamental changes in the remit of devolution.
Complain about this comment
"Nevertheless, there are areas of policy where the inevitable overlap between devolved and reserved matters has the potential to cause difficulty. Some of these relate to the devolution of land use planning powers, and analogous powers under the Electricity Acts which are the subject of executive devolution (i.e. they are exercised by Scottish Ministers even though the Scottish Parliament does not have legislative competence over them). It was clearly not the intention of Parliament in passing the Scotland Act that the use or threatened use of devolved powers should undermine the delivery of reserved policies. The Government suggests that the Commission may wish to consider how such problems might be avoided."
i.e. we didn't like it when you said we'd deny planning permission for nuclear power stations, so we'll have our ball back please.
Complain about this comment
I've now skimmed all 126 dire pages of "Sir Humphrey speak".
It would of course have been equally valid and positive to say -Actually, this is a useful document since the highly skilled Civil Servants have collected every possible argument for the status quo.
As one would expect, the general line is that the present arrangements work well whether they are devolved or not. Hence anything that is reserved should remain so, as the alternatives are administrative difficulties" and a risk if they lose control -
Complain about this comment
#6 BillBeattie56
This is just HM Gov's submission to Calman.
Complain about this comment
"Look out for the publication next week of Anton Muscatelli's first report on the financing of devolution. He was tasked with this by Calman."
Thanks for the tip Brian - that's what we pay you for!
I must admit I hadn't heard of him. His career summary is here.
I don't know whether to be hopeful or fearful that he was "Vice-Principal (Strategy, Budgeting and Advancement), University of Glasgow 2004-07".
Was he the guy who got them into deep problems, or the guy who got them out?
Complain about this comment
Quote, "Devolution is a process, not an event" - Donald Dewar.
In comparison Gordon Brown now treats Scottish devolution as a threat to his rule from London.
I understand that many members on the Calman commission have already taken their direction from Westminster and have come to the same conclusion as Gordon Brown.
With a SNP government at the helm Scottish devolution is now considered a direct threat to Unionism.
That in itself is not only a slap in the face for the Home Rule movement but also the majority of Scots who voted YES in the 1997 referendum.
Forget the Calman Commission it is a waste of money, it will only do Labour's bidding. What is more important is to protect the Scottish parliament from being emasculated by Westminster.
Complain about this comment
Brian
You state the obvious, regarding tensions in the planning system. It is bound to happen, it is the reason for devolution. If we agreed that Westminster always delivered in our best interests we wouldn't have had devolution.
Scotland has the right to say to nuclear. Nothing wrong in exercising that right. Personally i think this is wrong and will be proved wrong in time.
the federal structure that Globaltraveller doesn't like is worthy of proper debate and consideration. It is an alternative to complete divorce and allows a degree of self detemination that would deliver a lot of what we want.
Why would we want a separate foreign policy for Scotland. Along with the expense of a string of embasies and staff for them? Are our asperations in this area all that different from the rest of the UK?
The same with Defence, will our welfare state be all that different from the rest of the UK after independance? Will our border controls not be better served as a UK wide service along with things like transport planning and other infrastructure issues?
I think when this is fully considered a federal or condferal structure is very sensible. We can have self determination on all areas we need, and be part of the UK when we don't need self determination.
Also we will retain an influence in the EU, an important consideration for the future, given the ideas that europe is thinking of, like a presient, enlargement and some of the other things floating around. At least we would retain some influence.
A couple of things are very clear, there is little appetite for divorce, as represented by the Glenrothes result, the status quo is not delivering as represented by the last holyrood elections, so other options need looked at and debated properly.
Complain about this comment
so your colleagues on radio Scotland are quoting the Scottish secretary as saying that the Scottish parliament is the envy of the world. as far as i am concerned the status quo is no longer acceptable and even more powers should be transferred to the Scottish parliament. full fiscal autonomy should be the goal . glad to see the lib Dem's beginning to reappear from the shadows and start finding their voice again. you will never get the Scottish secretary to admit the real reasons why Britain needs Scotland . if Britain did not have Scotland signed up it would be an even bigger economic basket case than it is just now.
Complain about this comment
#8 oldnat
"I've now skimmed all 126 dire pages of "Sir Humphrey speak"."
If I hadn't nooded off half-way through, I'd have beaten you to it, but extremely well put.
Complain about this comment
1. MaliceTown
Trust in top politicians 'falls'
The survey suggests 22% of people think government ministers tell the truth - down from 27% in the 2006 survey.
I've more trust in Holyrood than Westminster politicians.
Complain about this comment
Re 15 Cynical highlander
If you asked the question "are all politicians prone to untruths and manipluation of the system where it suits them, who will say anything to win a vote? I suspect 90 plus percent would agree.
Complain about this comment
'I've more trust in Holyrood than Westminster politicians.'
Would that be Holyrood politicians who take public support for granted and say they will win a Westminster byelection and then don't.......Just thought I'd ask?
Complain about this comment
# 12
What border controls? Border controls in Scotland were obliterated some 30+ years ago when HM Customs numbers were radically reduced.
It is a fact that Scotland has a third of the total coastline of the UK but no policing. I would expect an independent Scotland to protect our shores.
Indeed our foreign policies may differ from the rest of the UK. An obvious differing policy is that Scotland didn't agree with the Iraq war. We were ignored.
Relying on another country to give back some of the tax they have taken isn't good for either country. We need to be able to grow our own economy and get the Scots out of the mindset that they are the poor relatives, which they are at present.
Truthfully I can't see how unionists can make such defined judgements until they look at Scotland from a broader perspective. The argument that we're too small a country has been blasted out of the water. Now we're being told Gordon Brown wants to change our planning laws so as he can bring nuclear to a country which has refused it over and over again.
This is only the beginning.
Complain about this comment
# 16 northhighlander
# 17 strongertogether
Holyrood puts Scotland first, Westminster below the Watford Gap.
Complain about this comment
#12
Please don't misunderstand me, it isn't about "not liking" a federal structure, I like it - very much indeed, I just think it is completely incompatible with the idea of a political United Kingdom - which I why I love it!!! That is all. The UK didn't develop as a federal or confederal state, it is a centralised state. It sustains itself through the centralisation of power in Crown in Parliament. Tinker with that constitutional principle, and you have problems. The UK also has increasing and competing nationalisms at play - English, Scottish and Welsh - all at the expense of Britishness (superglue) which is in terminal decline. In this way, the UK is analogous the problems of Spain and Belgium, that I posited above.
Why would we want a separate foreign policy for Scotland. Along with the expense of a string of embasies and staff for them?
Why would we not? Why should the UK have a foreign policy? Surely it can't be too different from that of our European allies? Following your logic right down the trail, you would be an advocate of a "pan-European one-size fits all, lets get rid of the UK Foreign Office once-and-for-all" foreign policy then?
Secondly we already pay for our share of UK embassies and diplomats in Scotland. The difference Scottish independence would bring, would be that it would allow us to have overseas relations proportionate to our needs. Not being part of a declining world power with delusions of grandeur, should save us a ton of cash in the long run.
will our welfare state be all that different from the rest of the UK after independance?
This is likely. Indeed in several key welfare policy areas, Scotland already differs from UK centric welfare policy. Scotland has an far worse ageing demographic, it has poorer health and worse problems with long term sick. A welfare policy with a system of incentives, relevant to our needs knitted through the already existing shared Scottish institutions that define our country, would surely be a much more efficient use of our resources?
Complain about this comment
Since we're all about throwing names at each other - I'll call myself a devolutionist - not a unionist or a nationalist. The last election gave more scots votes for "devolutionist" parties than for Unionist or Nationalist parties put together.
The Scotland act was a good start - based on many years of hard work by the Scottish Constitutional Convention - decried by the SNP and Conservatives as "not enough" and "too much" respectively.
Is it asymmetrical ? Yes. (look at the map - so's the border).
Does it need revision ? Probably. (But I'd rather see the time and effort put into addressing more urgent matters, such as bad housing).
Is it mince ? I'd beg to differ, though I'm sure that a good many of your more excitable correspondents would disagree with me. Empty vessels etc.
Complain about this comment
As Brian suggests, finance is the key element.
These are the specialists who will make the recommendations for Calman. We are paying for them - and their services won't come cheap!
Does anyone know if any of them have political affiliations?
Independent Expert Group
There is also an independent expert group, established to advise the Commission on financial accountability. It is chaired by Professor Anton Muscatelli, Principal and Vice Chancellor of Heriot-Watt University. The other members of the expert group are:
* John Aldridge, former Finance Director at the Scottish Executive
* Professor David Bell, Professor of Economics, Stirling University
* Professor Robin Boadway, Professor of Economics, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada
* Professor Julia Darby, Professor of Economics, University of Strathclyde
* Dr Sandra Eden, senior lecturer in tax law, Edinburgh University
* Professor Clemens Fuest, Professor of Economics, University of Cologne, and Chairman of the Scientific Advisory Committee of the German Federal Ministry of Finance
* Professor Andrew Hughes-Hallett, Professor of Economics and Public Policy, George Mason University, Virginia, USA, and Professor at St Andrews University.
* Professor Charlie Jeffery, Professor of Politics, Edinburgh University
* Iain McLean, Official Fellow in Politics, Nuffield College, Oxford, and Professor of Politics, University of Oxford
* Jeremy Peat, Director of the David Hume Institute, former Group Chief Economist at the Royal Bank of Scotland and a former economic adviser at HM Treasury and the Scottish Office
* David Ulph, Professor and Head of School of Economics and Finance, St Andrews University
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander:
#12.
"Why would we want a separate foreign policy for Scotland. Along with the expense of a string of embasies and staff for them? Are our asperations in this area all that different from the rest of the UK?"
Question(s): In what way does the UK foreign policy benefit Scotland? If the Union were to continue then how would we settle disputes which includes our foreign policy? England has a larger share of the vote in the House of Commons, will Scotland be forced to follow what the people who reside in England want?
"The same with Defence, will our welfare state be all that different from the rest of the UK after independance? Will our border controls not be better served as a UK wide service along with things like transport planning and other infrastructure issues?"
Question(s): Defence will be difficult to share. The Iraq war and increasingly the Afganistan war are becoming issues of concern for the people of Britain. If Scotland says no, lets get out who will have the final say? Again, shall we have to wait and hope that the English MP's allow us to leave or shall we carry on? Trident? Well we know how the Scots feel about nuclear. It's made worse that Trident costs billions yet, Scotland still has major problems. How can Scotland and England share defence? How can disputes be settled? I believe that the SNP have suggested we share border controls. However Scotland has more of a demand for skilled immigrants. How can Scotland allow immigrants in when England may have a different need?
"Also we will retain an influence in the EU, an important consideration for the future, given the ideas that europe is thinking of, like a presient, enlargement and some of the other things floating around. At least we would retain some influence."
Again, influence for who? Britain? Scotland? England? Tell me how Britain has managed to benefit Scotland through the European Union please. Would Scotland not be better served in the European Union as an Independent country? We would have more representatives afterall and surely if Scotland manages to get more representatives we could become more influential?
Complain about this comment
The main subject surrouding devolution is economics.
If Scotland is given the powers to raise her own income, then will Scotland actually have a surplus or will she overspend?
Will London be shown to be the City where British taxes are spent? All these things classed as to benefit the 'whole' of Britain, such as Government buildings which are not apart of the London budget show that London overspends in reality also?
If Scotland has the powers to raise her own taxes. Will Scotland then be allowed to set her taxes at the same time? Could this effect the competitiveness of England?
Complain about this comment
In just a few short hours Calman has gone from being a learned gentlemen whose report on the extent of devolved affairs was eagerly awaited in these pages...to a boring establishment stooge promoting the status quo. Such fluidity in opinion from the selfsame group of punters speaks volumes of the much praised "nimbleness" of the independent Scottish economy. You guys can turn on a sixpence...sorry 5 Eurocents.
It's painfully clear to everyone that Calman has been got at by the same dark forces that fixed the Glenrothes by-election and bought down the global financial system just to clip the wings of the Bank of Scotland. Maybe the real Calman is imprisoned somewhere in some celtic gulag, damning his captors eyes and shouting FREEDURRM!
Complain about this comment
Calman - waste of taxpayer's money produces ... next to nothing.
UK Govt. contribution whould be negligible if invited at all, what do we really expect these people to add ... they are the very same who created the current problem and refuse to compromise.
Complain about this comment
Re 19
Another take could be
Westminster looks after everyhting south of watford, Holyrood everything south of Perth.
As I have said before I don't want to replace Westminster domination by Holyrood domination which is all that is on offer at present from the SNP.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7720248.stm
This shows it. Scotland should be given the ability to control her Energy policy.
The problem I find is that Westminister is quick to suggest nuclear power, but why can Westminister not focus on renewables for Scotland? Scotland is not in the same postion as England. Our population of 5 million is hardly the same for England, at 50 million. Plus Scotland has more coast and land per head then England. So why nuclear?
I understand that people believe we should have a mix of energy. But UK-wide can Scotland not happen to have mainly renewables with England happening to have more nuclear then renewables compared to Scotland?
Scotland has the potential and until London makes use of that potential I do not believe we should have nuclear at all.
Complain about this comment
Either we have a parliament with full parliamentary powers, or no parliament at all. What we have now is what Edward 1 gave Baliol at Alnwick. Substitute Tony Blair, and Donald Dewar playing Baliol and we're back to the fourteenth century, still vassals of Westminster. Better to either be independent or full members of the union with a share of power at Westminster , what we have now is a charade of either ; a play parliament run by the nationalists but controlled by the three unionist parties. At the moment Holyrood is a collossally expensive debating society populated by political midgets.
Complain about this comment
Westminster hasnt learned a thing, its like the response the Irish got when they were negotiating the Irish Free State. Its seems to have escaped everyone that The Isle of Man has more independence than Scotland.
Complain about this comment
i used to think a federal uk would be the best solution for scotland
but then i thought what powers would i want to give to westminster were scotland has less than 10% of the seats
answers on a postcard please
Complain about this comment
The Scottish media continue to try to bestow credibility and relevance to this clearly cobbled together Unionist chat show.
The opinions of at least 35% of the electorate are ignored, there are also the many who slip under the radar of the pollsters, those who never vote in elections but do vote in referendums.
This commission has been set up in order to provide a decoy for the compliant Scottish media who gleefully report on it's musings as though it were seriously looking at radical change ... it isn't.
The Scottish media have been the de-facto opposition in Scotland since the SNP were elected. Their credibility as a body of scrutiny of anything Unionist is roughly on a par with Calman's commission's desire for change ... and Glen Campbell's objectivity.
Oh, one other thing Brian, your Fraudian slip on by-election night when you mentioned the "Stupid wee hill" where the SNP held their last photo shoot, was noticed as was your own uncomfortable realisation of what you said.
Complain about this comment
27 northhighlander
Thats why Perth would of been a much better place to build our parliament building able to be accessed by a wider population.
Just in passing could you list the benefits of nuclear as I can't see any.
Complain about this comment
28. Thomas_Porter
"The problem I find is that Westminister is quick to suggest nuclear power, but why can Westminister not focus on renewables for Scotland? Scotland is not in the same postion as England. Our population of 5 million is hardly the same for England, at 50 million. Plus Scotland has more coast and land per head then England. So why nuclear?"
Because nuclear has to be subsidised by the tax payer as that is the only way anyone can afford to build one. If we have no nuclear then why should we susidise it.
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander:
#27.
"As I have said before I don't want to replace Westminster domination by Holyrood domination which is all that is on offer at present from the SNP."
This does not make sense. Explain the logic behind it better being dominated by London, from London rather then Edinburgh, from Edinburgh please.
I would suspect that all though we may be dominated from Edinburgh at least its local. It's far better then from a room two hundred miles away. Besides its not Edinburgh domination we have to worry about. It's the gap between West Scotland and East Scotland. I believe certain political parties have their main strongholds in each side of Scotland, so depending on who is in power it will be either East Scotland controlling West Scotland or vice versa.
Complain about this comment
#27 northhighlander
I can't see that you have much of an alternative but to vote Green.
See their submission to Calman.
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
I should have added to my #36 that I wish the SNP would adopt this aspect of Green policy, as well as the Green Land Value Tax.
Complain about this comment
On renewables.
Precisely what renewables are in place at this very moment?
What percentage of the power needs do they supply.
Are they available 100% of the time?
From what I read on hydro power, although we have a lot of mountains and hills and rivers, there is only a small amount that is practical to use.
If we cannot have nuclear energy, and the SNP wants to be "green", then what will be power Scotland for the next twenty years?
I'm all for renewables, but not at the expense of covering every hill with wind farms.
And a small point re Lottery funding. If Scotland goes independent after a 2010 referendum, what will replace the funding currently received from the National Lottery?
Complain about this comment
27 northhighlander:
"Westminster looks after everyhting south of watford, Holyrood everything south of Perth.
As I have said before I don't want to replace Westminster domination by Holyrood domination which is all that is on offer at present from the SNP."
No, Independence is what the SNP has to offer. How Scotland is governed after that is conceivably then up for debate. You could start a "Devolution for Everywhere North of Perth" Party if you fancied.
Complain about this comment
38:
"And a small point re Lottery funding. If Scotland goes independent after a 2010 referendum, what will replace the funding currently received from the National Lottery?"
Erm, funding from our own National Lottery??
Complain about this comment
northhighlander & Neil_Small147
Let me remind you of a question that I asked you a couple of threads ago, which you have ignored (and I'm not going away on this).
northhighlander you said
Neil_Small147 you saidWould you care to furnish the list of examples where this has actually happened?
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#38.
"If we cannot have nuclear energy, and the SNP wants to be "green", then what will be power Scotland for the next twenty years?"
The real question is, should Scotland choose nuclear or renewables? Which should be our main priority? Should Scotland neglect her potential and lead the way in terms of nuclear? Should we do what we can with renewables untill we believe there are no other options but to go nuclear?
Complain about this comment
#38 Neil_Small147
I'm surprised that you don't remember the discussion on renewables that took place on a previous thread.
Have you looked at the National Lottery data on source of sales and distribution of spend?
Your question suggests that the National Lottery transfers resources to Scotland from the rest of the UK.
Even better, look at the transfer of resources from the North of England to the South.
While the lottery is a "voluntary" regressive tax, it remains a mechanism for the transfer of resources from the "have-nots" to the "haves".
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
"In just a few short hours Calman has gone from being a learned gentlemen whose report on the extent of devolved affairs was eagerly awaited in these pages..."
Since when? Calman is an irrelevance foisted upon us by a Westminster government and their Scottish stooges completely ignoring the democratically elected Holyrood government.
If Brown thought he could quosh discussion about independence then a cursory glance at this forum would show him how wrong he was.
Irrespective of your views on independence, Westminster is wrong not to allow it to be discussed and not to involve the present Scottish government. Calman should be ignored.
Complain about this comment
38. 147 Neil_Small147
"If we cannot have nuclear energy, and the SNP wants to be "green", then what will be power Scotland for the next twenty years?"
Any new build nuclear wouldn't be onstream until 12 -15 years time and by that time the available uranium would only keep them running for maybe 10 - 15 years at most. Then we are in deep trouble as we will have to build more fossil fuel plants just to provide energy for decommisioning and waste storage.
THE LEAN GUIDE TO NUCLEAR ENERGY - FIRST EDITION
If one scrolls down to bottom of page and download as that is the only way to get the link to work.
Complain about this comment
12. northhighlander
"Also we will retain an influence in the EU, an important consideration for the future, given the ideas that europe is thinking of, like a presient, enlargement and some of the other things floating around. At least we would retain some influence."
You seem a bit nervy about not relying on the UK for our foreign policy. Is the fear of no longer being viewed as part of the UK, that we may drop our dressing gown and the world will be left to see our inadequate nakedness?
The word Britain does carry some gravitas, but nothing like it did before WWII and so on and overall it now has a very mixed reputation in international relations.
To make best use of what is left of it's (dwindling) importance on the world stage, it would be better to have separate soveriegn states who with multiple voices, as opposed to one fading voice, could form alliances as The British Nations or something like that.
You don't loose your British badge, you can exercise some control over your national affairs (unlike now) and you gain a greater, more powerful voice on the international stage.
Complain about this comment
Im really don't know if Neil_Small147 really believes the verty silly questions he asks or whether he is just trying to annoy.
Why does he think renewables are wind farms? They are only one small component part of the renewable portfolio. Wind farms will never supply more than a small percentage of our power needs and nobody is saying anything else. Did he not notice the recent opening of another large hydro electric scheme? Tidal power properly developed around Scotland could leave us with huge surplus to seel to the rest of Europe.
On the National Lottery does he not understand that the Scots buy their share of tickets and are getting back a bit less than the sales would suggest we should get?
Complain about this comment
41. At 9:31pm on 10 Nov 2008, oldnat
Perhaps my wording could have been better. What I am trying to say is that the implication in some cases is that the Westminster Government is the reason for something not being done.
Glenrothes - one issue appeared to be the home care charges. The SNP response was that Westminster was witholding funds.
Alex Salmond the other day was accusing Westminster of witholding Lottery money.
When oil prices were at record levels, Alex Salmond was demanding the share of the VAT. Correct me if I am wrong, but Scotland represents 9% of the UK population. We're not independent yet, so technically speaking (and I'm playing devils advocate here) it's the UK's oil.
Glenrothes again - Nicola Sturgeon immediately after the result blamed negative campaigning by Labour - "not our fault". Erm, yes it was Nicola as you failed to have a more effective campaign.
While the SNP have some justification about funding, they cannot keep using it as an excuse.
They were going to sort out public transport. Anyone who is unfortunate to use trains out of Central Station will have noticed in the past year a marked decline in services across the board: cancellations, poor maintenance etc. Not once or twice but worringly more often. What are they doing about that? People getting in late for work affects the economy.
The media certainly do not help matters at time, but understand what people are experiencing. At the moment for most; no change.
Complain about this comment
42. At 9:36pm on 10 Nov 2008, Thomas_Porter wrote:
The real question is, should Scotland choose nuclear or renewables? Which should be our main priority? Should Scotland neglect her potential and lead the way in terms of nuclear? Should we do what we can with renewables untill we believe there are no other options but to go nuclear?
--------------
If renewables are a realistic proposition, then we should go with it. But we must have a safety net. Take away a reliable power source and you have got major problems.
Complain about this comment
#49 you forget Neil_Small147 we have Reluctant Expat his wind power will keep the lights burning brightly in Scotland for many a year.
Renewables or nuclear? Why not offer to write off Iceland's debt in exchange for a soverign base on Iceland, we then build our own geothermal power stations and either transmit the electricity direct to Scotland / UK or use it to produce hydrogen in Iceland and ship it to Scotland / UK......it's just a thought......
Complain about this comment
As I've said before, federalism is very much the way to go, offering the best of both worlds, and a bedrock against tyranny to boot. The only question is what sort of federalism is applied to England.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#49.
Renewables appears to be the most realistic option, energy security is of major importance at the moment. Nuclear power still relies on natural resources, Britain is not capable of using nuclear power while ensuring that our energy is secure.
The wind will always blow (depending where you are of course), water will continue to flow, in the long-term I believe renewables to bring the best energy security to Scotland. The main area of worry is that we would have to store electricity for the times that the wind may stop blowing etc.
Complain about this comment
Brian
The unfortunate holding of Glenrothes by Labour seems to have given them "courage" to attack devolution. It will be one of these nice ironies that the evident return of the "Scottish cringe" instead of the healthy self confidence will actually expedite independence. Aw weel,that might be a good thing.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#48.
"Alex Salmond the other day was accusing Westminster of witholding Lottery money."
I believe that the Scottish Parliament recently voted in favour, that Westminister should re-allocate lottery money for the Glasgow Commonwealth Games. You may have heard Salmond shouting at Westminister but the majority (apart from Scots Labour) have acknowledged that Scotland should be handed back the lottery funding that is currently being spent in London.
Do you agree or disagree that Scotland, or more specifically Glasgow should be given extra funding for hosting the Commonwealth Games?
"When oil prices were at record levels, Alex Salmond was demanding the share of the VAT. Correct me if I am wrong, but Scotland represents 9% of the UK population. We're not independent yet, so technically speaking (and I'm playing devils advocate here) it's the UK's oil."
According to your own theory that technically it's the UK's oil then since Shetland appears to have her own oil fund, why is Shetland, legally apart of Scotland, allowed her own oil fund when the rest of Scotland is denied? Scotland the reason why you have the right to say that it's technically the UK's oil is not allowed extra benefits from this wealth but one small part of Scotland is?
"Glenrothes again - Nicola Sturgeon immediately after the result blamed negative campaigning by Labour - "not our fault". Erm, yes it was Nicola as you failed to have a more effective campaign."
Nicola is entitled to her opinion. Are you suggesting that the lies and scaremongering led by Labour had not helped their victory? I have already wrote my opinion about the SNP loss at Glenrothes so please don't attempt to paint me as blaming the electorate or something like that.
By the way Oldnat asked you to explain your claim.
Neil_Small147 you said
"Anything that goes wrong is blamed on England"
You have not actually provided evidence to support your claim that anything that goes wrong is blamed on England, but I humoured your comment with a response anyway.
Complain about this comment
Calman is a waste of time. It was set up by Labour to thwart the SNP. The Libdems and Tories, as Unionists, were talked into this ploy. That's fine. I want the debate to move onto a Nationalist/Unionist platform.
Calman, as we all know, will not deliver anything.
Lets stop messing around and bring on the 2010 referendum.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
#48 Neil_Small147
Thanks for your response. I didn't think you were an Expat!
The reason I felt this issue was worth pursuing was that your original wording "Anything that goes wrong is blamed on England" was resonant of the denigrative campaign that Unionists have consistently mounted. I think there is a huge difference between
1 blaming England
2 blaming Westminster
3 blaming the party in power at Westminster
I'll leave it to others to judge, but my feeling is that the points you raised in your response either fell within 3 above, or were irrelevant to your reworded charge.
Complain about this comment
#50 InMyKip
If the Mldives can relocate their nation .....
:-)
The current crisis may have delayed the project, but Iceland was seriously investigating the export of geo-thermally produced electricity to mainland Europe via undersea cables.
Complain about this comment
#51 Anaxim
More than one question.
Why should our ambitions be restricted to a Federal/Confederal vision of the UK, and not Europe?
Complain about this comment
I would love to see the end of Devolution as I am fed up to the hind teeth with having to pay for two Parliaments, one of whom is a toothless scottish mischief maker that comes up with more hairbrained ideas than Heath Robinson, the other parliament at least has some teeth even though its 500 miles away and dances to an even bigger Parliament still...that being the EU parliament.
Imagine that...I have three MPs from different parliaments at my disposal..none of whom i can name.
Complain about this comment
Some say the up-and-coming power in international relations is the EU.
But I wonder, why not look into both: "Hang out" internationally (prefer soveriegn over federal/confederal ) with our near neighbours from the UK, as the common ground we would inevitably share would make that a good idea, and use that stronger combined voice to amplify our influence within Europe.
If you just concentrate on Europe only, it is more like starting from square one, as far as having an international voice goes.
Complain about this comment
Calman and Federalism are a waste of time. I just saw Murphy on Newsnight. What ludicrous non-answers he gave. Scotland needs to end this nonsense altogether and have a referendum and vote Yes and become a normal EU country with all the powers are responsibilities that go with that. Westminster wants Scotland as a useful asset to milk for what it can and nothing else. How anyone can believe otherwise to me is ludicrous and nothing more than a perverse sentimentality about a Union that does nothing for ordinary Scots. Insult after insult, slight after slight, ignorance after ignorance is offered Scotland and her people and still they defend the indefensible. It's sad and deplorable.
I think Brian is a very good writer or blogger but like all at the BBC he's a dyed in the wool Unionist. BTW Glenn Campbell's performance on the Politics show was excruciating. Imagine asking Americans of any any description whether Washington had "concerns" about Scotland becoming independent and implied that they had in his usual Unionist way. It was pathetic and embarrassing. No wonder one of the Americans was laughing. If I wasn't crying I'd have been laughing too.
Complain about this comment
#59 boodnock
Did you mean your username to be boondock "rural or provincial region"?
It's a term often used cynically to suggest people who are ignorant of the realities.
Judging by your total misunderstanding of the number and styles of political representatives that you have, this cynical use of the term may well be an accurate description of you.
Complain about this comment
#59 yes I'd like to see the end of devolution also ;-)
#57 yes oldnat I read about the plan to export electricity, but I think export of hydrogen might be more a more efficient method.
#52 instead of consumers using the electricity directly you produce hydrogen with the electricity and build up supplies of hydrogen, therefore when the wind isn't blowing you still have a reserve energy source.........yes it sounds simplistic I know but the basic principles are there.
Complain about this comment
What certainly does appear clear from the UK Govt's response to Calman is that unlike our American cousins it certainly does not support the concept of change.
Complain about this comment
Now, boodnock (59), I know being excessively taxed is extremely vexing, but in what way does furthering a fair future for Scotland equal:
"a toothless scottish mischief maker that comes up with more hairbrained ideas than Heath Robinson"?
Why is it hairbrained to seek to do the best for Scotland?
Why is it mischevious to actively seek better for Scotland?
Your bluster implies that you are embarrassed by your country. Why don't you think enough of it?
Why are your country's future and best interests so offensive to you?
And (general), why are Scots do down on their own democratic abilities?
We do have pride, albeit sometimes latent. Why don't we pride our country?
Most other nations on earth would find the same concepts if applied to them, alien in the utmost.
Complain about this comment
59. At 11:35pm on 10 Nov 2008, boodnock
Imagine that...I have three MPs from different parliaments at my disposal..none of whom i can name.
------
I'm lucky, I can name all three since I've written to them on two occasions with regards to my local (Labour) council.
Yet I have not had a single one ever come round my street. A Labour councillor did prior to the 97 election, and answered a few awkward questions, but not a whiff of any other party. I don't exactly live in a dangerous area.
Perhaps if politicians went round knocking on doors more often when the tv cameras aren't about they might, just might get a few more votes.
Complain about this comment
Spend 300 years telling people they're no good and you'll end up with people thinking that they actually are no good.
Complain about this comment
The responses to HM Government's to Calman are interesting.
The Herald "The document may not bark itself but neither does it take a bite at what Calman is trying to achieve - how to make devolution work better."
The Scotsman - no report at this time.
The Times suggesting that "the UK Government was accused of preparing the ground for the imposition of new nuclear power stations on Scotland."
Doubtless Brian is right that the critical issue will be Muscatelli's report.
Complain about this comment
#66 Neil_Small147
How come you have only 3?
You have
1 Constituency MP
1 Constituency MSP
7 List MSPs (from the Highlands & Islands Region)
7 MEPs (like the rest of Scotland, since we are all one constituency)
Complain about this comment
#66 Neil_Small147
Would you care to furnish the list of examples where this has actually happened?re my #69
Apologies - I don't know which Scottish Region you live in. I confused you with northhighlander.
This was inappropriate, as you answered my question which s/he didn't. (However, you do have a similar number of list MSPs)
Just to remind him/her -
northhighlander you said
Complain about this comment
Re 35 Thomas Porter
Thomas you indicate a view that it is not a north / south divide that bothers you but an East / West one.
You make my point perfectly. We need decisions to be made by the communities directly affected by them.
As to edinburgh bing 200 miles away it is over 300 to where I live and is just as inconsiderate to our way of life as Westminster is or was.
Politicians always go for populist stances with the voters, there are few votes in the Highlands therefore our views or problems get precious little thought.
Complain about this comment
If you're from the Highlands and Islands the best bet obviously is Edinburgh versus London. If you think Edinburgh doesn't care then take it from someone who grew up in London that they really really don't care.
Complain about this comment
71
Michty! How parts of Scotland are represented after independence may well be a worthy cause for debate, after independence, but let's not break down before we've started by bickering about it already. When is Scotland going to learn to come together as a nation?
("It's a good half hour to my council tax office, but really I think it should be moved to the council building in my town, as how can officials in A-ville really have an understanding of B-ville's situation?" = not helpful.)
Complain about this comment
67 Bluelaw
OK...if it makes you feel better.
You are a nation composed entirely of highly intelligent philosophers, artists and engineers.
Despite your comparatively small numbers you are responsible for the bulk of the UK's GDP.
You are universally admired and loved wherever more than two people gather together to eat shortbread.
Using the SRFU's nationality guidelines, Scots have been responsible for all the major scientific breakthroughs of the 20th Century.
A Scot is now the President elect of the USA!
It's such a no-brainer. If only people had the confidence and self-esteem to recognise it. An independent Scotland leaving a political union in which it has 10% of a democratically elected legislative parliament would become richer, more powerful, more influential by joining a currency union in which it had 1% of a rubber-stamping talking shop. But then again, using the Obama argument, deployed tongue in cheek by Wee Alex, most of the current EU Commissioners must be Scots as well.
The future is bright, Europe will soon be dancing to your song.
Complain about this comment
The UK's energy strategy is an oxymoron.
Currently renewable energy generating station are given a subsidy if their power output is below a certain threshold. This is understandable up to the point to provide incentives for new investment in wind farms, tidal power etc. Personally I am not sure that the environmental impact of wind farms are that positive: if you are a bird of the feathered variety, and make the mistake of flying through one it will be your last mistake..
Unfortunately the Westminister legislation was written to the exacting standards of most NuLabour Acts of parliament - poorly. What has transpired is that there was now a fiscal incentive to replace existing turbines in hydro electric stations with smaller ones producing less power so as to get the benefit of the subsidy. This has now been realised to the benefit of the owners of such power stations.
So net result: more taxpayer's money shelled out and less electrical power produced. Some strategy! You could not make it up!
Complain about this comment
That's quite interesting nonsense Anglophone :-) Very naughty.
But....
We just want independence. In other words a chance to decide for ourselves on those points or any or all of the others you or anyone else can think up.
The points themselves aren't the issue. A chance to debate them and have an equal say is. My Scottish vote doesn't count as the UK system overrides it.
Complain about this comment
The recent bits of this thread point to an issue that should be of concern. The SNP, whilst operating adequately in government, is nonetheless at heart a single issue party. It's an entirely respectable position and no different really from UKIP or the now defunct Referendum Party funded by James Goldsmith (I'm not equating the politics here, rather the objectives). They are all basically seccesionists.
What happens in the post referendum world, assuming that a majority want independence and Scotland secedes from the UK (we'll assume that EU membership etc goes through on the nod)? How many spin-off political parties can be expected? We can assume that something like the Conservatives might still exist in smallish numbers. A Scottish Labour party would survive, moving to the left a little. Something like the Libdems might survive to mop up the voice of middle class sanctimoniousness. Would these parties retain affiliation with the main UK parties? Presumably their funding would certainly have to remain seperate.
But what of the SNP? Would it cement its position permenantly in power like some tartan ANC with Alex as Nelson Mandela? Or would it fracture into many parts,
Highlands and Islands represented by Runrig types,
A hard left party for Glasgow and Central Region,
A right wing Edinburgh/Perth based grouping. Possibly merging with the Conservatives,
Maybe even a small Islamic party,
A residual Sinn Fein type grouping to permenantly play the oppression card.
There could be many more. It seems like a subject worthy of debate. Everything on these pages revolves around a Big Bang followed by Nirvana. Scots should perhaps wonder how their political masters will realign themselves in the new world. Would it just be more of the same?
Complain about this comment
Re 70
I had answered you previously on the last post, but here is a reply.
What I said is that the SNP seem to be more concerned with creating the right environment for a referendum than governing the country.
I stand by that. Alec Salmonds rhetoric is always how westminster is ripping us off and embezzeling our funds. An example is the tirade he gave on Council tax benefit. The rhetoric was all about picking a fight with Westminster. This language is not condusive to constuctive minority government.
To balance this I do not feel that the SNP should just accept what wesminster says, they have a right and a duty to question but it can be done in a way more likely to produce results. They also have a duty to work with the settlement and make it work.
To expand on the quote you provided, if the devolution settlement was widened then one obvious disadvantage for Westminster is that tere would be a wider range of issues for Alex to fight on. He may be right to fight on some of them but the fact remains that is a significant disadvantage to handing over more power at this time for Westminster. Obvious really.
Complain about this comment
Re 73
We can only come together as a nation if the proposal on offer addresses all the needs. I repeat I see little positive difference to my way of life if I am dominated by decision making in Westminster or Holyrood. Neither address the problems of the Highlands adequately.
Just to say that we can get on with it after Independance is wrong. I would only want independance if it offered something I don't have. Not more government but less more meaningful government.
Complain about this comment
I suggest to the nay sayers and doubters of Scotlands worth ...have a wee read of an excellent book I just picked up
How the Scots invented the modern world: The true story of how western europes poorest nation created ourworld and everything in it.
by Arthur Herman.....
no he isnt Scottish , he is american ....but for once history is seen from an unbiased viewpoint....slightly less partisan and "british" than neil olivers view on sunday night...
( on thing is ...this book isnt published in this country , so you might have to trawl to get it) thank goodness for ebay
Complain about this comment
Hurrah, at last someone sees the point. We'd get to choose!
Personally I rather fear the remnants of the Labout party. Tax anyone who has the audacity to earn a good wage and use it to buy a better house etc. Reds resent that big style. There is some myth that higher earners have a load more disposable income.
Post independence the Tory party might end up being the best option! If I were English I'd potentially vote for them now. Obviously their pro-unionist stance is a bit of a stumbling block.
But Cameron is much more upbeat about the merits of Scotland than Brown.
Complain about this comment
One question...not on this topic but nonetheless .... How come all these tax cuts are now being brought about ..... is it to save Gordons bacon ..... if the money was there why hang on to it till now.. ok two questions..well three . It will be interesting to see if his generosity swings some voters before the election . I doubt it will save him in England but Scotland might be bought by money . Then again maybe not .
Complain about this comment
76 Aye-write
I have sympathy with your view but it raises two questions. The first is, presuming that you see all roads leading to Europe,...how will your voice be heard any more than it is now? It just doesn't add up. I wish that someone could explain this to me.
The second point is...and I don't know your politics so it's hard to tell...will your view be heard at Holyrood any better than via your existing MP?. There is a tendency to assume homogeneity in these things with a "Scottish Voice" or an "English Voice". In truth they are just "voices" and they span a wide range of beliefs, values and expectations. Simply Balkanising in the expectation that your personal beliefs will come to the fore is probably a mistake and will leave a lot of people very disappointed.
Complain about this comment
Scots have an impressive CV no doubt. But that's despite Union not as a result of it. And the undermining of our self-esteem by the cultural Imperialism we endure is there for all to see.
Complain about this comment
The proposal on offer does address all the needs - it addresses everything to do with the popution of and running of the nation, like all sovereign states do. Any problem you have, it can address.
Not so in the present set up. Lets say you want to vote for a party that wants to heavily tax bagpipes, thistles, scones and homes with lochside views (for the sake of argument) and at a UK general election you vote for a party who is against this.
It only takes roughly the same no. as the entire population of Scotland plus a few, English voters (and there are over ten times as many as Scottish), to vote the opposite way from you, and your oppinion is nullified.
You might say it could be the same in an independent Scotland, more others not voting the same as you. But our national interests would not be so easily cast aside and overrided.
Complain about this comment
RE #79 northhighlander
One thing which cannot be disputed or fudged is that you would have 10x the influence / power / say in an independent Scotland as you do now.
Of course politicians will look to listen more closely to the larger numbers of people, so while everyone has thier say, it's proportional to the power of your local vote.
Yes, in an independent Scotland, Edinburgh and Glasgow would have the most influence, but whereas at the moment the highlands of Scotland are an irrelevance within an irrelevance for Westmister, within a Scottish parliament at least you would carry a bigger stick.
I would also hope you could see the advantages of having policy areas such as immigration aligned to Scotland's needs, including the highlands, where our need to encourage immigration of young skilled people is at odds with the concerns in England for over-crowding in the South East.
Just for the avoidance of doubt, I do not live in the central belt, but still feel I would rather see a Scottish government setting policy for the benefit of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Re #82 Rabbiehippo
Gordon's bacon - I'm sure I saw that on sale at Tescos
Complain about this comment
#62 oldnat
Toujours la politesse.
Complain about this comment
Re 86
When I was at school 10 percent of nothing was exactly the same as 90 percent of nothing.
rural iisues just don't feature even on blogs like this. Energy costs for example. In rural scotland the cost of travel is extorionate. Public transport is not and never will be an alternative. Therefore rural folks are taxed totally out of proportion to city folks. This questions the whole viability of rural communities and is the main cause of rural depopulation. Which main party has or intends to do anything? Answers on the rear of a stamp please.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone, I must nip and collect son no. 3!
I will try and answer your question when I get back. (I posted something about Europe - will look.)
Just read 86 blogger. Tend to agree with hiim/her aswell. Practical illustrations are helpful.
Complain about this comment
84 Bluelaw
Calm down, you don't even live in Scotland. I seem to remember that you emigrated as a toddler and have been fanning your resentments from a distance ever since.
Cultural imperialism...now what does that mean? Is it because Question Time isn't based in Glasgow yet? Is it because the weather forecast occasionally leads off in the South-East? If you can think of one real piece of cultural oppression I would be very interested to hear it. A hint here...I don't think that hearing English news items really counts as oppression. After all the boot is frequently on the other foot. I have heard that there is a whole department in the BBC dedicated to replying to letters from fans of Lincoln City FC or Cheltenham Town who wonder why their team is never mentioned while we have to listen to the report on Inverness Thistle.
If I was genuinely worried about cultural imperialism I think that I would be looking across the Atlantic rather than South of the Border
Complain about this comment
Brian - The power stations and planning consents is an interesting issue. Wind Farms are generally supported by Westminster and sometimes Mr Salmond (except when there is a bandwagon in the opposite direction as in Lewis).
On my local council there is a Conservative tendency who frequently get wind farm planning applications over turned when some elderly ladies and fellow travelers "don't approve".
I've always thought it odd that these people should be allowed to subvert UK energy policy. I expect Comrade Stalin knew how to deal with these reactionary elements!
Complain about this comment
I am calm.
Cultural Imperialism as in being presented with another culture as being your own and presuming that you accept it as being your own. I think such presumptiousness is often benign but often it's reinforced with an arrogant disregard for the feelings of those on the receiving end. I could give you a endless list of slights in this regard but I'll presume you know exactly what I mean. I think it is damaging in many ways and logically (note the absence of emotion again) the only way to counteract this is independence. It's the only true way we can be a confident happy people at ease with ourselves and importantly with our neighbours.
Complain about this comment
Re #89 northhighlander
Yes, nothing like exaggeration to make your point less valid.
Your vote is not nothing - oops, doubt negative -, and neither is the vote of the other people in the rural areas of Scotland.
I know, I live in a rural area of Scotland with poor to non-existent public transport and all the other issues that rural folks have, but I would still rather see my vote as counting for more than it does now.
It is too easy to see rural areas as being the poor relations of cities, but there are many advantages such as lower levels of violent crime and more green space, lower levels of traffic etc.
I am not saying it is not hard to be heard above the noise of the big cities, but you are still heard, and many of the issues which are central to the growth of Scotland as an economy are the same for the entire country, but are frequently at odds with the priorities in Westminster.
I would suggest that independence for Scotland would be of benefit for both Scotland and England - no more West Lothian question - as both nations would be able to pursue the policies best suited to their needs without any compromise or sniping from the other side of the border.
I have no hatred for the English people and I would hope that we could have a special relationship with them in the future, but both countries have different needs and priorities and these can only be resolved to the maximum benefit for the people through independence.
Complain about this comment
93 Bluelaw
errrr...yerwhat?
So the examples of cultural imperialism are...oohh...to many to mention.
Yeah right!
Complain about this comment
89 Northhighlander
You have my sympathy but I don't think that this is an independence issue. Exactly the same thing happens to rural communities in England and Wales and the government doesn't bother because it's a cynical votes equation.
I can assure you with great confidence that the same equation applies whether it comes from Westminster or Holyrood. Factor in the inevitable post-independence schism of the SNP and you will be no further on.
I think that you would have a better bet getting the UK government to sort out the whole cost of transport and fuel thing with the oil companies, rather than sending Wee Alex in.
Complain about this comment
Energy strategy is a reserved issue, but planning is not - so far so clear.
But if the Scottish Government can frustrate the will of the UK Government of a reserved matter, then the devolution settlement is clearly not working.
Far better - and fairer - if the UK Government was in a position to demand that Scotland provide a prescribed proportion of the UK's electricity requirement, and then leave it to the Scottish Government to determine how to satisfy that demand.
Of course, nuclear is a relatively easy way of producing a high electricity output in a small area - contrast with the vastness of wind farms to produce relatively little output - but if Salmond et al think their strategy is better, so be it.
If the Scottish Government failed to produce its quota, then the financial settlement should be reduced by a corresponding amount.
However, this would 'bite' ONLY if the Scottish Government had full taxraising powers (and responsibilities), so that failure to deliver would crystallise as a liability of the Scottish people - virtually ensuring electoral defeat for the Scottish Government at the following election.
--
The UK Government should not be trying to micromanage Scotland (or Wales, or Northern Ireland) but should be setting agendas and prioirities, to be satisfied by the devolved executives respecting their constituencies' concerns.
--
If the Scottish Government was to persist in its opposition, what chance of a new 'Hadrian's wall' - comprised entirely of nuclear power stations, ranged along the border (but JUST within England)?
Complain about this comment
94 Blogger
I have always been puzzled by these "different needs" of the Scottish and English people. What does this mean? Do they have have different dietary requirements, does one not breathe air or something? I can't see that Scots or English people have any divergence whatsoever in what they need in terms of health, material wealth, quality of life...you name it.
So what is this "difference"? England and Wales too have agricultural communities, industrial communities, some close to main population centres...some not.
So are your needs just political needs? You want to live under a different political model...which, of course, just happens to be closer to your own political beliefs. So seccession is simply to create a smaller pond in which your "fish" suddenly becomes much bigger. That used to be called Gerrymandering.
Complain about this comment
Re #96 Anglophone
- Factor in the inevitable post-independence schism of the SNP and you will be no further on ? not sure what you are suggesting here. Do you think that Scotland would be better of with a one party state, or do you believe that a vibrant democracy would not be beneficial to Scotland?
Now this one - I think that you would have a better bet getting the UK government to sort out the whole cost of transport and fuel thing with the oil companies, rather than sending Wee Alex in ? is a peach. I haven?t laughed so much in ages. The UK government sorting this out with the oil companies??? It would be hilarious if it wasn?t so tragic
(sarcasm)
This will be the same UK government that ignored the vote in the Scottish parliament for a review of the Lloyds/TSB HBOS merger sighting some unspecified liquidity issue that was so great as to allow them to put aside their own rules on competition ? yeah they are listening alright
(end sarcasm)
Complain about this comment
97 The Forfarian
I don't see the problem here. If Scottish people via their MSPs don't want nuclear power then so be it. It's your problem if the lights go out which they probably won't.
Other than my fanciful notion that the future President for Life Tartaninajad may wish to acquire nuclear weapons (don't forget where you read it first) there is no particular need for nuclear power generation Scotland.
So what's the issue? Would Wee Alex be trying to pick a fight in order to demand more powers. That wouldn't be like him at all
Complain about this comment
Re #96 Anglophone
- Factor in the inevitable post-independence schism of the SNP and you will be no further on? not sure what you are suggesting here. Do you think that Scotland would be better of with a one party state, or do you believe that a vibrant democracy would not be beneficial to Scotland?
Now this one - I think that you would have a better bet getting the UK government to sort out the whole cost of transport and fuel thing with the oil companies, rather than sending Wee Alex in - is a peach. I haven't laughed so much in ages. The UK government sorting this out with the oil companies??? It would be hilarious if it wasn?t so tragic
{sarcasm}
This will be the same UK government that ignored the vote in the Scottish parliament for a review of the Lloyds/TSB HBOS merger sighting some unspecified liquidity issue that was so great as to allow them to put aside their own rules on competition ? yeah they are listening alright
{end sarcasm}
Complain about this comment
#98, Anglophone wrote:
"That used to be called Gerrymandering."
... or, alternatively, Democracy.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
"I have always been puzzled by these "different needs" of the Scottish and English people."
Which probably explains the uninformed nature of a lot of your contribution on these topics.
Complain about this comment
97 Bloggger
Before you go off on one about the evil English only wanting Scotland as a comfortingly distant place in which to locate dangerous technologies...just consider the number of nuclear power stations in the rest of the country. From Sizewell A and B to Dungeness to Hinckley Point, the South of England has plenty of nukes to worry about.
I've got one less than 10 miles from my house and it doesn't seem to be doing me any harm ;-)
Complain about this comment
Firstly, 89 northhighlander wrote:
"rural iisues just don't feature even on blogs like this. Energy costs for example. In rural scotland the cost of travel is extorionate. Public transport is not and never will be an alternative. Therefore rural folks are taxed totally out of proportion to city folks. This questions the whole viability of rural communities and is the main cause of rural depopulation. Which main party has or intends to do anything? Answers on the rear of a stamp please."
---
I can see Westmister pushing through (at some point) tax increases for so-called polluting 4x4s. It suits them more (having so many congested urban areas, adds to their green crudentials...).
I can't see an independant Scottish government doing the same. We have far too much rural space for it to be considered a credible or appropriate approach and so I can't see the Scottish electorate accepting it - there would be a stink.
But under the current UK voting system you have no say if the majority of people in the rest of Britain want a policy that's bad for our rural areas.
Maybe you believe you will still have no say in an independant Scotland, but at least in that situation there will be a chance that you will, a chance for things to change (versus no chance now).
Maybe you are right to be pessemistic and assume that the Scottish electorate will just plough on aimlessly with one of the main parties. Maybe they won't attempt to tackle the question of how best to govern, after independence. I'm rather hoping that in the elections, parties will spring forward with their ideas and at least have an influence on this.
I can't see into the future, but with the current system as unfair as it is, I think it is worth attempting to find out. It might be more productive than moaning, although also coming from a rural area, I certainly sypathise with your gripe.
Complain about this comment
98. At 12:29pm on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone wrote:
"I have always been puzzled by these "different needs" of the Scottish and English people. What does this mean? Do they have have different dietary requirements, does one not breathe air or something? I can't see that Scots or English people have any divergence whatsoever in what they need in terms of health, material wealth, quality of life...you name it."
Em, imigration for a start. Scottish economy could have been doing with it, English view was they "couldn't be doing with it".
So much to type... (no, Scottish people aren't worse at typing...!)
Complain about this comment
Re #98 anglophone
Different needs such as different policies on immigration, nuclear energy, defense - who to go to war with etc., transport infrastructure to name but a few.
There is also the significant question about the future of Scotland and the building of a strong economy. We should be looking to secure the future of key industries in Scotland and attract new indistries and foreign investment. This can only be done once you have the levels of financial power so that you can create attractive conditions for growth in these areas. I do not see any prioirity coming out of Westminster to build a new economy for the future of Scotland. The policies on the economy are centred around the income in major English economic sectors.
Here is a final thought for all unionists - what would happen in the future, once the oil runs out, if the English decide they have had enough of these pesky Scots and want their own independence from the union.
If we have not taken the income we are receiving today and invested it in the future of the Scottish economy, we are potentially going to be in very bad place indeed.
This is the key difference. We have little or no say in these key areas in Scotland, relying on Westminster to do the right thing for us when, by your own argument, we are too small a block of voters to matter. If we have an independent Scottish government, then we have a parliament that is focused on providing benefit to the Scottish people and securing the future of Scotland
Complain about this comment
Re #104 anglophone
re 97 blogger -
Before you go off on one, you should check who writes what.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#51 oldnat
"Why should our ambitions be restricted to a Federal/Confederal vision of the UK, and not Europe?"
A confederal Europe will probably collapse due to the competing demands of nationalists. For example, the SNP earnestly believes it can renegotiate the fishing policy. If such arbitary rule-bending takes hold across the board, collective action will become impossible. Europe is not an infinitely flexible vessel than can cope with endless balkanisation. It's having enough trouble with the real Balkans.
A separated, non-sovereign Scotland within a federal Europe could work. Though there would still be small reason to stay within the UK, namely the disproportionate power wielded by large states in federations.
Why stop at Europe? Roll on world government.
Complain about this comment
103 Snecked-again
Ha Ha! But what difference exactly?
Complain about this comment
#107, blogger wrote:
"We [are] ... relying on Westminster to do the right thing for us"
We're all doomed....
Complain about this comment
#68 oldnat
It's a little odd that the Herald's How Whitehall managed to do its Machiavellian best has disappeared from their politics section, apparently to be replaced with their rather more upbeat Westminster 'wants to give' Holyrood greater financial clout. Along with comments, could some of their hacks have been withdrawn for appropriate political re-education?
That said, there's one good quote in the new article from Tavish Scott as he "voiced disappointment at the Westminster submission": "The two extreme parties on this issue [NuLab & SNP] need to accept that strengthening Scotland's Parliament within the UK - a real home rule settlement - is the preferred choice of the majority of Scots."
Could this be the first real sign of the LibDems coming to their senses after the disappointing 2007 election?
Complain about this comment
106 Aye-Write
I can see that immigration i.e. rejuventaing depopulated areas is important in some parts of Scotland but I cannot see how seccession solves this?
Immigrants have come to these shores in droves (predominantly a good thing in my view) and they have caused issues in some towns due to the sheer impact on local services. But here's the rub...there is absolutely nothing in current UK or EU law that prevents UK immigrants going to Scotland...as some have.
People have freedom of movement in this country. It's not as though the evil English have picked out the youngest and fittest and chained them behind the counter of fast food establishments. If immigrants found Scotland attractive they would go there...legal or otherwise. Equally, there is nothing to prevent the Scottish Executive from implementing policies to attract immigrants within the current arrangements.
Don't see how seccession would change the weather or the problem of cultural isolation for new arrivals. But roll out the welcome mat with a few housing grants or something like that. If you build it they will come!
Complain about this comment
107 Bloggger
Hmmm as suspected. It's political differences rather than real differences. Again it's the assumption that all Scots share your world view on which you base your "different needs".
The need you seem to be articulating sounds a bit like isolationsim to me.
Complain about this comment
108 Blogger
Sorry! When the red mist descends you know!
Being close to a nuke might have affected my short term memory!
Being close to a nuke might have affected my short term memory!
Being close to a nuke might have affected my short term memory!
Complain about this comment
109 Anaxim
"Why stop at Europe, roll on world government"
There are heavily armed, bearded men hunkered down in Montana farmhouses who will tell you that it's already here.
Complain about this comment
#10 Oldnat
Perhaps you could tell us who you are so that we can judge whether to be fearful or otherwise. Really, personal comments like this do not do your cause any favours - if you don't know Professor Muscatelli then there is no need for you to comment in such a disparaging manner. Someone once said that wisdom is what's left after we've run out of personal opinions. You appear to be clinging on for dear life.
Complain about this comment
Re #114 anglophone
I can only assume you either cannot read or have some sort of mental block.
At what point is any of what I say about political differences - please elaborate so we can all share in your wisdom
As for isolationism, I said no such thing, I advocated policies that benefit Scotland, it is you that are making the assumption that policies that benefit Scotland cannot benefit any other country. This is an erroneous assumption.
Lastly, I notice you managed to ignore my challenge about producing future industries for Scotland to replace oil. In typical unionist fashion you have assumed that the union will always be available to you and so are happy to advocate a strategy for Scotland that see it becoming dependent upon England in the future.
It is the short-sightedness of the unionist that is the most frightening aspect of it. The day will come when England, or at least the South East, will want it's independence, and then you will be left wondering what happened to all that security you thought you had.
Complain about this comment
#109, Anaxim:
"Why stop at Europe, roll on world government"
When there is but a single worldview, we shall have no need of government...
Complain about this comment
#118, blogger:
"I notice you managed to ignore my challenge about producing future industries for Scotland to replace oil."
Thinking long-term, how about a 'Jurassic Park'-style resurrection of dinosaurs.
Then, in 65 million years or thereabouts, we can have another oil boom.
Complain about this comment
#98 Anglophone
"I have always been puzzled by these 'different needs' of the Scottish and English people."
Who knows? But that's beside the point. Each of these peoples, along with the Welsh and Northern Irish, has the right to self-determination under the UN Charter.
If any of them choose to exercise those rights via referenda it is nobody's business but their own. Should such a referendum decide on leaving the UK then of course there would be a need for, probably lengthy, negotiations on the process of dividing assets and liabilities.
Arguing that attempting to pursue this option is "Gerrymandering" will not enhance your cause. Pointing to valid benefits to be gained or retained by voting "No" just might.
Complain about this comment
#98 I'll keep this simple just for you Anglophone.
Apart from asking you to keep the noise down and keep your dog out of their garden would you really be happy with your next door neighbour telling you how to run your household and how to spend your income just because they had a bigger house and were 'considerably richer than yow', even if that neighbour was a close relative? Anyone with any self-worth would find such a situation intolerable, wouldn’t you?
Complain about this comment
But for many brave folk over the centuries Scotland would be known as North Britain Anglophone. Many people have endeared to preserve a separate Scottish culture.
Complain about this comment
It's the Union dividend again. Too poor to attract immigrants. Too poor to keep native talent.
Complain about this comment
At last I can get this answer out.
Part One (I'll get interrupted.)
83. At 10:52am on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone wrote:
76 Aye-write
I have sympathy with your view but it raises two questions. The first is, presuming that you see all roads leading to Europe,...how will your voice be heard any more than it is now? It just doesn't add up. I wish that someone could explain this to me.
----
This was my other post:
46. At 9:59pm on 10 Nov 2008, aye_write wrote:
12. northhighlander
"Also we will retain an influence in the EU, an important consideration for the future, given the ideas that europe is thinking of, like a presient, enlargement and some of the other things floating around. At least we would retain some influence."
You seem a bit nervy about not relying on the UK for our foreign policy. Is the fear of no longer being viewed as part of the UK, that we may drop our dressing gown and the world will be left to see our inadequate nakedness?
The word Britain does carry some gravitas, but nothing like it did before WWII and so on and overall it now has a very mixed reputation in international relations.
To make best use of what is left of it's (dwindling) importance on the world stage, it would be better to have separate soveriegn states who with multiple voices, as opposed to one fading voice, could form alliances as The British Nations or something like that.
You don't loose your British badge, you can exercise some control over your national affairs (unlike now) and you gain a greater, more powerful voice on the international stage.
----
part two to follow
Complain about this comment
118 Bloggger
Well, you couldn't think of any actual differences in physical needs so you talked about nuclear power and who you would like to start a war with. All of these are political issues therefore it confirmed in my mind that you see the "different needs" between Scotland and the rest of the UK as political in nature.
Sorry, I wasn't aware that I had been challenged to identify industry when the oil runs out (how nice to see someone even admit that the oil will run out!). Here goes. Ignoring golf courses I would see the future lying in high quality foodstuffs, energy intensive industries juxtaposed to big renewable power projects, high quality design engineering, scientific research, education, naval shipbuilding, tourism, controlled export of water to dryer climes in Europe, N. Africa and even S. England.
You last paragraph suggests that S.E. England will secede from the Union...which bits exactly? I have long suspected that the SNP will do better in its aims by antagonising the English than by trying to persuade its own constituency but this is a new one on me. I can just see the triple belts of razor wire going up around the Home Counties.
But anyway...for the South East to secede just because it has been briefly richer (in historical terms) than the rest of the country...that would be a really selfish and ungrateful thing to do wouldn't it? It wouldn't happen anywhere else! ;-)
Complain about this comment
At last I can get this answer out.
Part two
83. Anglophone,
I accept that distancing ourselves from our perceived Britishness and assumed associated power in international relations is a great worry to too many Scots and a great sticking point for independence.
The idea of becoming an independent nation to become a potentially more insignificant nation seems to me to be diametrically opposed.
I'm not entirely happy that the SNP have adequately tackled this or produced an appealing option. So, in the absence of "professonal opinion" I will dare to formulate my own.
In International Relations it is accepted that sovereign states either act for the common good of all (idealist) or for their own aims in the pursuit of more power (realist). (But if one is acting for it's own gain, then you could say the others' ideals have kind of had it anyway!) So, it's a power struggle.
The options are just go for it in Europe = a small voice among many. It isn't unreasonable to say that Scotland could become one of the stronger voices out of the bunch - why not aim high? I must imagine that the SNP are somewhat guided by this line, but people won't be swayed by the premise just because it is said that it is possible. I'm not particularly grabbed by it either.
Britain has lost much if not most of it's previous world power status. Some question why Britain and France should retain permanent membership of the UN. So I think there is case to be made for strengthening Britain's power as well as Scotland's (and England's).
Therefore I think the key may be to upgrade Britain to being a number of sovereign states, whose voices combined outweigh that of soley Britain. Known as the British Nations? (There's probably a better name!)
There are a number of ways of achieving this:
1. Informally, agreement by agreement
This would require regular "summit" type meetings perhaps, or interstate visits by government officials. Could set the precident of regular meetings between the states, concentrating on and thus good for neighbourly relations. Downside: is this almost like having no common policy objectives at all? Could all dissipate into nothing perhaps over a sore point or something like that.
2. By treaty(ies). Downside: this usually just serves to drag nations into wars they don't want (so no change there then), so dangerous.
3. By International Organisation: Come up with a name and get your committee up and running. Upside: This could offer a group spokesperson, in the form of a rotaining Chair. Downside: can't see the UN being overly enthusiastic about the whole thing (maybe they wouldn't care?) and not sure how this sort of arrangement could be run on a tight budget!
I'm not anti-British - the real power is as soverign states working for our common good.
So, some thoughts. I'll not be offended if someone wishes to rip these comments to shreads. Arguments are for testing aswell.
Complain about this comment
#98 Anglophone:
"I have always been puzzled by these 'different needs' of the Scottish and English people."
Different needs, perhaps not; different wants, most definitely.
Long before Socialism, Scotland was a socialist nation - caring for the sick, the poor and the needy. So it should have come as no surprise that one of the earliest innvations of the 'new' Scottish Parliament was to introduce free personal care for the elderly.
In Scotland, the value of a person is who he/she is, not what he/she has. Note that, historically, the monarch in Scotland was the King/Queen of Scots (people), in contrast to the King/Queen of England (property).
Complain about this comment
113. At 1:19pm on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone,
No, there isn't anything to stop immigrants coming to Scotland.
But if (let's say) England seeks to slow it's immigration and Scotland to increase hers, then in policy making, the English preference would become law as they have the majority say. (No malice - both countries are right.)
That is a conflict of interests, the resolution of which only suits one country and not the other.
Complain about this comment
122 InMyKip
Of course if that neighbour had just given me a large amount of money to stop the roof falling in.....sorry, couldn't resist it.
I understand the point you are making but what exactly is this bigger neighbour telling you to do. How exactly is your privacy and self-determination being affected?
It all sounds very emotive but I'm trying to get to the bottom of this.
Complain about this comment
As we contemplate the submission to the Calman Commission which is attracting such interest and wonder what it may presage following the recent by-election turning point, if that is what it is, speculation is rife concerning the strategy which may be devised and adopted by the Caledonians for the remainder of the war with the southern Britons or Sasunnachs, as the Caledonians refer to them in their politer moments.
Retiring from the fray following the stramash at Glenrothes, which will long be remembered in the annals of Caledonian lore as the Battle of the Southern Hordes, unless it is forgotten completely in the light of subsequent events of greater moment and more enduring consequence, the army of the southern Britons sits around its camp fires contemplating the future, gazing malignly at the structures of Caledonian power and might which it has not yet succeeded in bringing down, as it slakes its thirst with copious quantities of warm beer and plundered usquebaugh, the miraculous potion of the Caledonians, from which the footsoldiers of the southern Britons hope against hope to acquire something of their adversaries' mysteriously inexhaustible strength and intimidatingly invincible resolve.
Freshly returned from a reconnaissance mission to a point so far beyond the eastern horizon that it is scarcely worth identifying, the commander in charge of Caledonian operations at the recent inglorious engagement upon the field of political conflict now sits down in general council to assess the situation and plot his course.
Beginning at the beginning, because experience teaches that this is the most effective approach, certainly the least confusing, the general principles are outlined by the principal general, who stamps his authority on the assembly by declaring uncompromisingly that a political campaign that is conducted like a military one can only be countered effectively by adopting a similar approach, the outline of which in broad terms may be represented as follows.
1. Conceal your intentions from the enemy, who has no intention of ignoring what you are up to. Forewarned is fore-armed, as those of you who have banking shares don't need me to tell you.
2. Discover the intentions of the enemy, which, if found to be predicated upon a correct understanding of your intentions despite efforts to conceal them from him, may require you to change your plans. If intending to change your plans, do not neglect, of course, to conceal that intention from the enemy. Otherwise, we shall never get anywhere very fast, shall we?
3. Form a plan of action to implement your intentions and adopt it, nurturing it as you would a child and sending it out into the world only after it has attained the requisite degree of robustness and maturity.
4. When the time is right, send your forces out into positions occupied by the enemy.
5. Do not occupy disadvantageous positions. I cannot stress this point too strongly.
6. Adopt an appearance of greater strength than you actually possess. With any luck this will intimidate the enemy and induce him to consume even greater portions of our potion and put him off his stroke.
7. Set up ambushes for the enemy where he will least expect them. There is really little point in setting them up anywhere else.
8. Sow discord among the enemy. This should not be difficult, as he is given to in-fighting and back-stabbing.
9. If any of your own number should show signs of sowing discord in our ranks, take him to one side and talk the matter through. If this does not work, give him to the enemy.
10. Calm over-enthusiastic elements of your forces who would engage the enemy inopportunely.
11. When the time is right, rouse your forces to deeds of derring do, and see that they do them.
12. Re-assure your forces when evil omens are about. Make sure that they understand that opinion polls and the media are in the service of the enemy.
Having outlined these general principles, the principal general was about to move on to particulars when he paused to expel extraneous observers from the meeting, in order that his exposition might not be in vain. Suffice it to say that sufficient has been said, with due acknowledgment to the First Book of Stratagem gems of Sextus Julius Frontin, who is no more bighullabaloo than I am. Contrary to desperately wild speculation fomented by agents of the southern Britons, about whom the least said the better, I am no one in particular and particularly not him.
Complain about this comment
123/124 Bluelaw
Leading with your chin again. You've been watching too much Mel Gibson and, on your second point. If you're so concerned about the skills gap in Scotland, why don't you return and put your shoulder to the wheel of the economy.
Why not put your money where your mouth is!
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond should be BEGGING for ALL of the new nuclear power stations to be sited in Scotland so that, when the fossil fuels start to run out, he (or his successor) can say - "Give us independence, or we'll turn out the lights in England."
Complain about this comment
According to you anglophone everything's rosy in Scotland so be a good Unionist and tell me about the glorious state of Scotland and this great Union dividend Scotland apparently enjoys.
Complain about this comment
128 The Forfarian
I know we would get there in the end. Generous communitarian Scots versus mean spirited English. You guys can always be smoked out in the end.
SNP central office have cleary issued a standard rebuttal on the charge of racism..."hey how can we be racists if we come from the same race". So perhaps we have once again surfaced a wee case of "irrational xenophobia" as it is now termed.
Complain about this comment
#127 aye_write
Reasonable post I think. Although Britain, in my opinion, still punches way above its size and way above the sum of its parts.
Can't say I've ever believed in small is good. It often means unheard. Despite what people have written on here it seems that within the UK Scotland punches bigger than its size, with its parliament and its MP's and members of UK cabinet.
In Europe it is as big as it will ever be. The number of MEP's is fixed by population. It might occasionally get a commissioner but this is more likely to occur as a UK rep than as independant.
Complain about this comment
Part three:
83. At 10:52am on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone wrote:
76 Aye-write
"Simply Balkanising in the expectation that your personal beliefs will come to the fore is probably a mistake and will leave a lot of people very disappointed."
-----
Yes, that is true and, as a mechanism, cannot bring about any wanted change. But, there is a small place for it, as a handy tool to amplify your position and hopefully further increase your support, when your side is already on a roll. Some politicians seem to be better at it than others!
Complain about this comment
129
I see the point in theory but I don't see it happening in practice. There are plenty of immigrants already here. Indeed some are going home again as prospects dry up which just goes to show that market forces will always trump government policy.
There is nothing to stop the Scottish Executive appealing to recent immigrants in the country to relocate Northwards. Even granting financial assistance to those who wish to come. But it doesn't happen...I wonder why? Perhaps it wouldn't play too well with the SNP's core support, rather than its intellectual base.
Complain about this comment
127 Aye Write
Thanks for a thoughtful contribution. I share many of your views. Britain is not a global power these days but neither is it played-out third rate banana republic as the left would have us believe all the time.
I think that an extended security council at the UN is overdue but how it can be constituted is an open question at the moment. It certainly has to include India and Brazil in the near term.
If we are to submit a single EU representative then who can it be? Can it be rotated? Can there ever be such a thing as a European Foreign Policy? It's easier to herd cats which is probably HMG has always steered away from it. In the near term I don't see how this can be resolved. Maybe with more time the European Union can evolve into something more cohesive with which we can be comfortable.
Never say never, but at the moment the Union is 300 years old and broadly successful. The EU is 50 years old. Time will tell.
Complain about this comment
134 Bluelaw
I don't know...chances are that I've been to Scotland more recently that you have i.e. last week. I didn't see much evidence of the pleasant people I met groaning under the yoke of cultural imperialism, remembering the fallen heroes who died resisting Edward I, or indeed bemoaning their lot in general. These folk feature a lot in your posts but maybe I was just missed them
Then again it's so confusing when viewed on the ground rather than from the comfortable certainties of cyberspace
Complain about this comment
http://www.thefirstpost.co.uk/themole,0,will-brown-be-bounced-into-an-early-election-in-spring-2009,55102
Complain about this comment
Part four:
83. At 10:52am on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone wrote:
76 Aye-write
"The second point is...and I don't know your politics so it's hard to tell...will your view be heard at Holyrood any better than via your existing MP?. There is a tendency to assume homogeneity in these things with a "Scottish Voice" or an "English Voice". In truth they are just "voices" and they span a wide range of beliefs, values and expectations."
They do, and a great many are overlapping, lending credence to my view that our nations could work very effectively together.
However, to those who say, "But they work very effectively together as it is now.", I point to the crux of my argument, that is the current UK voting set up is unfair.
Now I suppose that can only be said if we conquer your argumment, which unless I'm mistaken, is that, as Britons, we are already (or always have been) assimilated to the point that worrying about separate nationhood is an obselete obsession.
Perhaps the fact that we have swapped fair and logical points (well, I've tried) that are so fundementally opposed, hints at the base of the matter here? I, and yourself, have sensibly determined to form our opinions unbiasedly from the way we have observed the world around us.
Why could it be do you think (seriously, I'm interested) that I and others who share my view, believe that the constitutional set up in the UK is unfair? Not just imperfect, but unfair, to the point of supporting a political party that pledges to change it. Why should supposedly rational people in Scotland believe this? Does that seem strange to you?
I ask because your views don't not make sense, they are not too much of a stretch of the imagination and I can see how many could be in agreement with you.
PS I am not racist, I know DNA research doesn't support the theory that different races exist.
Complain about this comment
Re #126 Anglophone
Anything can be construed as political as politics effects all aspects of the country, so I don't accept your argument that I was being political. My stance is that there are policies that would be different for Scotland than England and our priorities are also different.
To take your point on immigration, the UK government is now looking to restrict immigration from non-EU countries at a time when we are looking to attract immigration - clearly a difference in policy. If you can put a different slant on this, please do.
As for all the industries you name, my question remians, what are the UK goverment doing to attract these industries, how are they making it attractive for these industries to grow and settle in Scotland? what inducement have they produced?
My last para does not suggest that SE England will secede from the union, I am asking what you would do if it happened. You are assuming the eternal benevolence of England, whereas I am suggesting that we are an independent country and we should be ensuring our own future is secure by ensuring that the revenues generated in Scotland are focused on the correct priorities. England do not have to worry about this, they have the Westminster parliament doing it for them.
Try to remember that we are not a county of England, and should not believe that the union will always exist or that Scotland is the country that breaks it up, to do so is naive
Complain about this comment
#130 you’ve said it yourself Anglophone, the need is for ‘self-determination’, a basic human requirement for a healthy existence based on having the autonomy to determine your own behaviour. Expand that to a nation and I suggest that the requirement is the same for a healthy existence of a nation and its people. Of course there are other needs, being capable and competent in determining your own behaviour and relating successfully to others are fundamentals.
Complain about this comment
Re 94
I don't know which part of rural Scotland you live in but there a number of issues that you clearly don't understand.
Young families find it very difficult to live in their native communities due to one the high cost of housing and the poor availability of sites to build on. Planning regulation makes no exceptions so people belonging to an area can settle in their home village even if they can get land.
Houses that come up for sale are usually bought by retiring types from outside the community, pushing prices up beyond local means.
The cost of transport to and from work and for other family activities when combined with housing costs means that families relocate to urban areas.
That causes rural depopulation. It is happening all over the Highlands. the current recession is likely to make this worse.
So lower crime is fine, but if you have no young people in a community very quickly you have no community.
I see no party offering much to help this situation. I see no party offering fuel tax variation so people with alternatives are incentivised to use public transport.
So really Edinburgh and London are effectively the same for me. Usesless.
Complain about this comment
This blog is always full of posts from the pro-independence lobby about what "Scotland" needs, or what the "Scots" want, as if there was universal agreement on everything north of the border. Opinions differ on all manner of things in Scotland just as they do in England, Wales or just about anywhere else on the planet. Quite why all people living in Scotland would be better served by a fully independent parliament at Holyrood rather than the current one at Westminster is never explained in anything but emotional terms. As others have pointed out, the remote Highland regions would see little difference; a remote and uncaring government is just that, wherever it may be sited. The onus is always, and rightly, on those who propose a change to the status quo to justify it, and not on those who wish to preserve it.
The idea that after full independence (and following 300 years of cruel subjugation) Scotland will enter a period of perpetual sunlight and harmony is simply fanciful. If it were to happen it would be the first such time in its history. Before the union, Scotland was a nation riven by blood feuds and ancient rivalries. Much of the country was still in the grip of feudal clan chiefs who settled minor disputes at the point of a sword, and there were huge tracts where the writ of the government did not run. Contrary to the notion put about by the uber-nationalists Scotland was not robbed by the union of a tranquil and prosperous identity because such a thing never existed. An independent Scotland may not resort again to clan massacres, but political harmony would be no nearer than it is now. Apart from some emotional comfort for the Mel Gibson fan club, there would be winners and losers under independence just as there are now.
Wishing to have more political control over your own life is a modern desire shared by people in many places within the developed world. It is a by-product of greater knowledge and education, and the internet and 24 hour news plays a part in that. It is not unique. People in Cornwall express it. I have heard it said in Shetland too. Into how many tiny pieces should the UK be split? And why should Scotland remain a single, complete entity? Once the seperation bandwagon starts rolling, who is to say just what path it may travel?
Today of all days, having spent time watching the proud old veterans, burnished medals proudly worn and shining in the sun, remembering their fallen comrades who fought under a union flag, I find the very idea of breaking up the British nation slightly repugnant. I know not every Scot will agree with that emotion, but a good many do. All I ask is that those who seek to pursue that aim do not presume to speak in my name. Speak of what you wish for by all means, but please not of what Scotland wishes for or needs. Such is not yours to claim.
Complain about this comment
Nice swerve again anglophone. You know full well I never alluded to Scotland being oppressed as it was in Medieval times.
But you've defended the Union anglophone yet berated me for not helping to fill a skills gap. Why is there a skills gap to begin with? Why does Scotland need immigants if its doing so well under Union yet isn't allowed to because Westminster fears they would all go to England anyway? Why would Scotland have a declining population but for immigration if it's doing so well under Union? Why does Scotland have some of the worst standard of living indicators in the EU if it's doing so well under Union? I think it's beholden upon Unionists like yourself to illuminate us who aren't as to the great benefits of Union. What is this great Union dividend we hear about so much?
Incidentally, not that it matters but I am in Scotland at present.
Complain about this comment
Independence is not only rendered in emotional terms as stupid ignorant people claim. There's a wealth of evidence to support the basis that an independent Scotland would be better off and much richer per head, much more able to respond to its peoples needs and engage with the international community in a more satisfactory way if it were independent.
Complain about this comment
146. At 3:28pm on 11 Nov 2008, MalcolmW2.
It is about none of those of which you haver. Just to have a sytem where Scotland has an equal and fair say. If you do not feel worthy of that simple right, fine, but your self-depreciation and fear of low self-worth and lack of shame for those, should not not stand in the way of what is fair and right. Pipe down, you do not have a monopoly on Scottish history or any other thing.
Complain about this comment
145. At 3:25pm on 11 Nov 2008, northhighlander:
You are right but your cheesed-off angst against all who could possibly be responsible isn't getting you anywhere. No, actually maybe it's making you feel better - well, no harm!
Complain about this comment
144 InMyKip
Once again you make an emotive point of self determination. I struggle to see exactly how theScottish people's self determination is infringed in any way that is different to any other citizen of the UK.
Nearly all matters are devolved and the Barnett Formula provides a level of funding that is the envy of every other part of the country (nearly 2000 GBP more per head than where I live...nobody in these threads has tried to justify that).
So what's left. You reserve the right to decide whom to go to war with? Who does the seceded Scotland want to go to war with for heaven's sake. I suppose that the citizens of Northumberland and Cumbria should be afraid. You do have some previous in this department.
Complain about this comment
Aye_Right #149
"Pipe down, you do not have a monopoly on Scottish history or any other thing."
That was my point. Neither does anyone else posting on here.
Complain about this comment
143 Blogger
So if you need immigration, what's wrong with all the EU migrants in the UK who could be available should you seek to entice them? The UK government can do nothing about that.
If this was really true and not just a "grievance de jour" then the Scotiish Government would be busy attracting people right now. Why aren't they do you think?
I provided a list of potential post-oil world beaters. Can you demonstrate that the UK government works less hard to attract foreign investment to Scotland than any other part of the UK? Or is that you are simply put out that Scotland isn't necessarily always at the top of the list. Remember as well that when Scotland secedes, it will be in direct competition with the rest of the UK for that same FDI. That might see some structural disadvantages thrown into very sharp relief. The card that can be played is very low corporate tax rates. Where will that come from?
I didn't think for a second that you were suggesting that the SE would or indeed could secede from the rest of the country. You suggested it as a example of something. I was using at as parable on the notion of selfish opportunistic seccession when the "going is good". If you like, it was a poke at the surge in interest in secession when some oil was discovered.
Complain about this comment
#149 #150 Aye_Write
Aye,
After your thoughtful earlier comments is this the real you. No debate, you know it?
Complain about this comment
152. At 3:54pm on 11 Nov 2008, MalcolmW2 wrote:
Aye_Right #149
"Pipe down, you do not have a monopoly on Scottish history or any other thing."
That was my point. Neither does anyone else posting on here.
--
OK, fair point. Sorry to match your rabidity.
Not sure why history has a great bearing. The current set up is unfair, whatever our history was. I say lets change it.
Complain about this comment
145 North Highlander
I sympathise with the situation, but it's no different from where I live in rural Somerset. House prices are above national average, incomes are below national average. We also get 2000 GBP less per head in public spending than you do!
I fear that this is a city/country issue that happens all over the place and it's got precious little to do with independence. I saw exactly the same thing happening in France and they have much better policies to protect rural communities than in the UK.
The problem around here is being addressed by housing associations and shared equity new builds to ensure that young people have a place to start-out. There is nonetheless a very long way to go. Manufacturing has all but vanished and there is a chronic shortage of unskilled or semi-skilled jobs. Farms are routinely closing down and being sold as holiday homes and barn conversions.
Complain about this comment
#151 nice one Anglophone, your last paragraph are YOUR thoughts and words not mines, how you come to such a conclusion about what the good citizens of Cumbria and Northumberland should fear goodness knows.
An emotive point, really? I don't feel in the least bit emotive about it, dearie me maybe I should and have a good rant, but I wouldn't want to give you that satisfaction Anglophone.
As an observation self-determination is a basic human need, like air and water, nothing emotive there.
Complain about this comment
155 Aye-Right
The current set up is unfair? It may not always deliver what you want but it is definitely not unfair. Scottish people are very well represented at Westminster and hyper-represented in Government. The idea that Scots do not get their fair say is absurd. Or are you suggesting block votes in which Scotland carries the same weight as the rest of the UK.
Complain about this comment
154. At 4:03pm on 11 Nov 2008, Pete2020 wrote:
#149 #150 Aye_Write
Aye,
After your thoughtful earlier comments is this the real you. No debate, you know it?
---
Erm, I suppose it's all the real me:
I thought I would fire a "hot" one as that chap seemed pretty raw too I thought - why should he have it so unconditionally his way? I'd offer a matched redress. (Where was the harm? You've answered.)
If flak's due, I'll take it. I'm not pretending however, whether thoughtful or otherwise. Only green - I've never, til the other day, tried to post on Brian's blog before.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
Sounds like you can't really afford to subsidise us any longer, best just to cut us loose I think.
Complain about this comment
#156, Anglophone
A sound contribution, and well put.
--
Independence may well not be the best way forward for Scotland - it would, however, be nice to be asked the question - but is there really any argument against the greatest possible devolution of powers where delivery is managed at a subnational (UK) level?
I note that Somerset County Council's strapline is "Let's make a difference"; that is the ambition of most Scots, that the Scottish Government makes a difference - a distinctively Scottish policy agenda, rather than simply administering Westminster directives.
Complain about this comment
#151 Anglophone
"Nearly all matters are devolved"
That statement is plain daft, and demonstrates that you cannot have read HM Government's 128-page submission of 10 November 2008, which lists what it does not want to devolve. You can download it from the Calman Commission's Submissions Received. It contains pleas from 15 different ministries plus, of course, the Scotland Office to retain their fingers in the pie of Scottish Government. A federal UK would need an FCO, an MoD and ... er ... what else exactly?
But in any event, sovereignty does not "belong" to Westmidden, to be doled out as a reward for good behaviour, it belongs to the people, who in a democratic society would have the right to delegate parts of it to whoever they wish at a local, regional, national, state or european level.
"[T]he Barnett Formula provides a level of funding that is the envy of every other part of the country"
You'll find few, if any, home rulers on these threads who want to retain the Barnett Formula. Full fiscal autonomy is what's needed, possibly supplemented by a programme of national aid along the lines of the EU's regional funding, if the UK continues to serve a purpose.
If, as you say, it is envied by others then surely those parts of the UK would be better advised to seek home rule themselves in order to render it obsolete.
Complain about this comment
#155 aye_right,
I agree that the present situation is unfair. It is unfair on the English who have no political, independent control over their domestic affairs whilst the lucky Scots do. Devolution may not be perfect at present, but is far more than your southern neighbours have been offered.
The constitutional settlement arrived at under this Labour government was intended for one purpose only, to silence the challenge from the SNP in the Labour heartlands of Scotland. No thought or care was ever given to the situation in England that would result. Having failed in its purpose, there is little likelyhood of labour further damaging its electoral chances by giving the English parity with Scotland in devolution terms. That is a situation which is not only a great injustice, but is a constitutional powder keg. As someone who does not wish to see the UK split asunder I believe that rectifying this anomaly is more urgent than further altering the arrangements for Holyrood, although I do conceed that alteration to the whole system of governance within the UK is now necessary. Such changes, however, should be carefully considered, fully debated and then agreed by all the peoples of these islands, and not rushed through in haste like the flawed devolution settlement we have now.
Complain about this comment
As an observation self-determination is a basic human need, like air and water, nothing emotive there.
They used to say the same about going to church.
Complain about this comment
#158 Anglophone
"The current set up is unfair? It may not always deliver what you want but it is definitely not unfair."
It is most certainly unfair that MPs representing constituencies in Scotland should vote on matters concerned only with constituencies in England, but it's only NuLab that do that, I believe.
It is most certainly unfair that all MPs are "elected" by the least fair voting system in the EU.
"Scottish people are very well represented at Westminster and hyper-represented in Government."
But that is the choice of English voters. With 529 of the 646 seats in Westmidden representing constituencies in England the matter is entirely in their hands.
Complain about this comment
158. At 4:23pm on 11 Nov 2008, Anglophone wrote:
155 Aye-Right
The current set up is unfair? It may not always deliver what you want but it is definitely not unfair. Scottish people are very well represented at Westminster and hyper-represented in Government. The idea that Scots do not get their fair say is absurd. Or are you suggesting block votes in which Scotland carries the same weight as the rest of the UK.
---
Not thought about that. Hmm.
As I see it, it's quite simple. There are less Scottish MPs at Westminster than English. Sorry if this sounds like a chid's story, but bear with me.
Therefore should all Scottish MPs, in their efforts to represent their constituencies, vote to a man/woman the same way, and the same number plus one of say English MPs vote against, the wishes of the representatives of the entire nation (of Scotland) have been nullified.
Why should Scotland get it's own way though, you might say. Because it is a nation and nations should have sovereignty.
Why should they, or should Scotland in particular? That's how it works or you get problems. Look at the history of nations, it's always been that way. It's how nations are perceived and perceive themselves. I think people will inherently always argue about it I'm afraid(- that human pursuit of power thing again? Who knows?)
Don't want Scotland to have soveriegnty, then do away with all member nations and just keep Britain. Althought I'm not in favour of it, that would work.
Complain about this comment
#163 MalcolmW2
"As someone who does not wish to see the UK split asunder I believe that rectifying this anomaly is more urgent than further altering the arrangements for Holyrood, although I do conceed that alteration to the whole system of governance within the UK is now necessary."
I'm very glad to hear that you're also a home ruler. The Tory unionists were only dragged screaming to it for Ireland nearly 40 years after the Liberal party agreed it was needed.
The split led by Jo Chamberlain's faction delayed it and created the modern Conservative & [Liberal] Unionist Party but in the meantime the tensions rose to the point where home rule was not enough and they were only assuaged by complete independence. If you see any value in the UK, I suggest you carefully consider the Liberal or LibDem positions for a federal UK.
Complain about this comment
#78 northhighlander
No one was suggesting that the complex (and administratively expensive) procedures required by the Council Tax system should continue to be paid in that form. The reasonable proposal was that that funding should be removed from the DWP budget, and paid direct to the Scottish Consolidated Fund to be added to the receipts from LIT. The rest of the UK would not have lost a single penny.Apologies. I missed your earlier response.
People hear what they want to hear - like the committed on every blog who accuse the blogger as being biased.
Your choice of CTB is an interesting one.
The DWP uses sophistry to distort the argument
It seems more reasonable to suggest that the Westminster Government is "picking the fight"!
Complain about this comment
163. At 4:43pm on 11 Nov 2008, MalcolmW2 wrote:
#155 aye_right,
I agree that the present situation is unfair. It is unfair on the English who have no political, independent control over their domestic affairs whilst the lucky Scots do. Devolution may not be perfect at present, but is far more than your southern neighbours have been offered.
Again, apologies for my earlier sharp remark, Although I meant it, perhaps I shouldn't have.
Anyway, I think you are right. The current set up is a shambles for England aswell, almost designed to stir up tension there. (I rate England and the English and so on.)
Did you read my earlier posts pondering the question of a group of British sovereign states? Most replies were of the opinion that that either Britain as is represents a stronger power or that the EU as a forum is too unsuitable.
I meant the British Nations could stand alone in their "group" and be part of international relations through that and additionally through also belonging to the EU, as Britain currently does now, with it's single voice.
I assume several separate nations in the EU would have more voting power when they chose to club together, than a lone one.
Complain about this comment
Re #153 anglophone
I'll be quick as I have little time
1- Why should we be restricted to attracting immigration from the EU only because it suits England?
2- Can I demonstrate where Westminster is working less hard for Scotland - sure, the everything from the Channel Tunnel to GBP800m to refurb St.Pancras to the Olympics to David Cameron's brave new high speed rail link that stops at Manchester to name but a few that will have no impact on Scotland and is the sort of infrstructure that attract investment. Can you name some things that the Westminster gov has done to attract all these industries you name to Scotland?
3 - Low tax rates to attract inward investment can be offset against the gain in revenue from the industry attracted.
4 - Getting out while we have the income from the oil is good with me, it has been for the benefit of the whole of the UK so far, but there is nothing wrong with ensuring that a natural resource on OUR coastline is used to ensure we have a future. I don't see a lot of generosity formthe financial boom in London heading North !
Complain about this comment
162
Brownedov
Brownedov...you're back from Africa.
I didn't say that the Barnett Formula was the envy of the land...just the amount of money. If you believe you can raise that autonomously go ahead.
A programme of national aid!!! Go and get a malaria test straight away, you're delirious. Much as I like Scotland and Scottish people, if you want to go it alone then "alone" will be the operative word.
"A Federal UK will need a FCO and an MoD and what else?"
Well how about a lot of money to pay for duplicated functions and activities, plus the small army of additional civil servants required to keep this sprawling beast of an Administration on the road. Oh...and how about a significant legal budget to settle all those little disputes.
I think that I would prefer secession to a federal solution. It would be a racehorse designed by a committee a.k.a a camel! In fact the country would become a hotbed of committees...a final giant corroborree of public servants jealously guarding their little bits of turf and their little bits of pension.
Time you went your own way and asked the nice Mr. Barrosso if he wouldn't mind making up any shortfall in the kitty.
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
#163.
"Such changes, however, should be carefully considered, fully debated and then agreed by all the peoples of these islands, and not rushed through in haste like the flawed devolution settlement we have now."
Do you believe that England, Wales or Northern Ireland should be able to stop Scotland achieving what she wants?
Your main point, "...agreed by all the peoples of these islands." would suggest that despite what Scotland may want we would have to settle for what the 'others' also want.
If England does not wish to be in control of as much powers as the Scots what will we do?
If Northern Ireland wishes for certain powers that we feel they are not ready for what will we do?
Complain about this comment
165 Brownedov
I see a few days away has done nothing to temper your leaden disingenuousness.
I recall the fevered conversations across the land, in pubs, bus queues....everywhere about the modified voting arrangements contained within the Scotland Act. It was the only subject under discussion. And with one voice we rose up demanding an alternative devolution settlement that obviated the West Lothian question once and for all. Get real...when did English voters ever get a chance to vote on this!
Complain about this comment
#109 Anaxim
"Why stop at Europe? Roll on world government."
In a globalised world, some form of world government is certainly required for issues such as regulation of trade and the finance industry. Hence the international bodies which can be seen as moves in this direction.
"A confederal Europe will probably collapse due to the competing demands of nationalists"
The difference between a Confederal Europe and the current structure, is that there was a need for shared powers between the nations and the EU to bed in the principles and practices of a common economic union.
Time to move forward to a clearer delineation of powers and embedding the principle of subsidiarity. Lisbon was a step towards this.
Complain about this comment
#164 are you saying Anaxim that self-determination is superflous to the well being of the individual?
Complain about this comment
173 Anglophone
"when did English voters ever get a chance to vote on this!"
You didn't - but then you never asked!
My parents (along with 2 million others) signed the Scottish Covenant (asking for Home Rule) in the late 1940s. This isn't new for us. We have been asking for greater autonomy for a very long time.
Sorry, but we can't wait for you guys to cotton on to a subject which you ignored for so long.
Complain about this comment
#171 Anglophone
Did you go to the same charm school as the estimable Mr Murphy, or are you perhaps a member of the "Home" Civil Service? You certainly seem to believe that attack is the best form of defence.
I note that you have not actually bothered to read the collective response of the sixteen Sir Humphreys and provide nothing but bluster to defend your #151's "Nearly all matters are devolved".
I also note that you jump to conclusions with your: "Much as I like Scotland and Scottish people, if you want to go it alone then 'alone' will be the operative word."
Who knows which parts of a federal UK would need support given that no published accounts are available, let alone independently audited ones? But can we presume that you do not support the concept of the EU's regional fund?
Given the chance for a democratic body to examine its needs from scratch, do you really think it would come up with even more bureaucracy than the leviathan that is the "Home" Civil Service? Is not one of the very reasons why Sir Humphrey and his chums are so staunchly unionist their fear of losing their own empires?
I do grant that on examination we are likely to find that many of the "modern" systems we have all collectively paid through the nose for will be found wanting when demerged, but if so then the promises of the first Whole of Government Accounts being ready soon after the 2010 general election are also apocryphal.
"I think that I would prefer secession to a federal solution."
Time will tell, but at least that's honest. Thank you. Coupled with your obvious disdain for the EU president, may we presume that you also see a future for England outwith the EU?
Complain about this comment
All these discussions actually point out is that there are only two viable and clear-cut options in constitutional terms - the status quo(which is the present weak devolved settlement) or independence. The weak devolved settlement is devolution at its permitted maximum before it becomes destablising. Any strengthened devolution sets the train going again and the next stop- probably federalism - is every bit as problematic as our present devolution. These devices are merely hurdles put in the way to hold back our progess to independence.
"If it be done, it be done quickly" as my old mucker Wullie Shakespeare you to say (or something like that).
Better go for the sensible clean cut independence option than spend the next two decades arguing over degress of devolution or federalism.
Complain about this comment
#173 Anglophone
In what way is my #165 in any way lacking in frankness, candour or sincerity?
The LibDems and their Liberal predecessors have long stood in every English constituency on a platform of electoral reform, local accountability and fairness.
The fact that voters in England have chosen not to listen to them but have voted for the broken promises of successive unionist governments since the 1920s is hardly my fault or theirs.
And sorry to disappoint you, but my silence over the week-end was self-imposed for contemplation. My absence on mission will be later this week.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone,
is your point that Britons are so (or always have been) so assimilated, that pondering nationhood is/has become an obsolete obsession?
Hence, you don't see the point in, certainly, nationalism, or any "action taken" not done together as one nation, Britain?
Only wondering, thanks.
Complain about this comment
#178 sneckedagain
The more R-E, Anglophone and a few others post, the more tempting it is to agree with you.
OTOH as oldnat and others have pointed out, it would certainly be convenient for Belgium to be the pathfinders establishing the process for a dissolution of an EU member first.
In any event, NuLab and the "home" civil service between them will make the process of unravelling so complex that a yes vote in a 2010 referendum is likely to take the best part of a decade to turn into reality.
Complain about this comment
From Iain Dale
"Tomorrow Parliament will vote on whether to give the go-ahead to the creation of thirteen regional select committees {for England}. Each chairman will have another £12,000 added to their salaries. Each committee will recruit a clerk and admin staff. It has been estimated that the cost of running the committees will exceed £4 million."
Does anyone know how this will appear in the UK "Accounts"?
Will it appear as "unallocated expenditure", and part of the general expenses of the whole UK, or will it be allocated to the public expenditure of the English regions?
Complain about this comment
#182 Oldnat
At the risk of seeming to fight England's cause (and why not I suppose - I live there) this is a classic example of modern politics. The English were offered "devolution" by way of artificial regions; they rejected it in a referendum (the only one held, and in the "region" thought by Labour as most likely to vote "yes") and yet, in a similar fashion to the EU juggernaut (and the regional boundaries were drawn up in Brussels not London after all), it will be imposed anyway, regardless of democratically expressed wishes.
I sometimes think that devolution for Scotland needs to be viewed in a similar light - Scotland is recognised by Brussels as a European region, England is not. I suspect that were Scotland to have been divided into 3 regions by Brussels, say Highland, Lowland and Island, then devolution would have followed similar lines. It is perhaps only because of Scotland's low population count that she "escaped" as a nation as well as a region.
There is a growing call in England for devolution as a nation, not a collection of regions, but I fear that she will be a long time waiting. There is pressure to apply regionalisation whether it is wanted or not, and it is not paranoid for people to ask why? The financial costs will be much greater, and the benefits in terms of democracy much less. Unlike Holyrood, the English regional asemblies will not be able to affect Education, Law and Justice etc. which will still be centrally controlled. Real, meaningful devolution is not therefore the driver. There is another agenda at work here. It matters not whether it is desirable or not. It does matter that it is being done without proper, honest public debate and agreement.
Complain about this comment
And Thomas # 172:
Your main point, "...agreed by all the peoples of these islands." would suggest that despite what Scotland may want we would have to settle for what the 'others' also want.
-----------
By "all the people's of these islands" I meant just that. Those Scots who don't currently live in Scotland are entitled to a say on their nation's position in the union too, especially those who still live within the British Isles . Not every Scot holds the same views as you so passionately do. Would you deny them a say? And if so why? Surely eveyone is entitled in a democracy to say on their future?
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2.
#184.
I would allow everyone who resides (Scottish or not!) in Scotland a chance to vote. I, however, would certainly draw the line for those residing outside of Scotland. The simple reason being that I do not see why I should allow someone to decide my future when they will not live with the consequences.
Of course why stop there? If we allowed Scots from England, Wales and Northern Ireland to vote then we should certainly allow those within the European Union or maybe the rest of the world...
I see it that if we do not say no somewhere the 'line' would expand untill everyone Scot in the world could argue that they have the right to vote...
Complain about this comment
Those not resident in Scotland have no right to vote on independence. It certainly isn't up to the people of the UK to decide Scotland's future at all.
Complain about this comment
#185 Thomas,
"The simple reason being that I do not see why I should allow someone to decide my future when they will not live with the consequences."
Except, of course, as I have pointed out before, they will have to live with the consequences. A Scot living in his / her own country (the UK) would, if you were to have your way, become an alien in a foreign land (England, Wales, NI or a UK to which Scotland does not belong) without any say in the matter. Of course, including all the Scots living elsewhere within the UK in a referendum on independence seriously weakens the chances of a "yes" vote, as they are, in the main though of course not exclusively, likely to reject the idea. That, though, is democracy.
For may part, I see no reason why I should allow someone to decide my future when they will not have to live with the consequences. See the problem? No, I thought not.
Fortunately, Thomas, despite your often intemperate posts claiming to do so, I do not believe that you speak for Scotland, just yourself.
Complain about this comment
The plain fact is there won't be a UK wide referendum on Scottish independence so there's no point speculating on it.
Complain about this comment
#187 Malcolm 2
You are already an alien. You chose to leave Scotland. If you want a vote, come back.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
#187.
I have never claimed to speak for Scotland. Back to our discussion, the claim you are suggesting is that a 'Scot' living in England has as much right to vote as a 'Scot' in Scotland... because they will also live with the consequences...
Well I do beg to differ, a person in Scotland will actually live under full rule from Edinbrugh while you will continue to live by Westminister. I use your case as an example because you do not live in Scotland. The only change for you will be incredibly small from those who actually will now have to live by what Edinburgh says.
Quite a difference is there not? If I were to live under Edinburgh then why should you be allowed to vote when you will never live under Edinburgh rule unless you decide to return home? I do doubt that every Scot will return home because Edinburgh has more powers which brings me back to my own opinion that those who do not reside in Scotland should not be allowed to vote.
"Scots living elsewhere within the UK in a referendum on independence seriously weakens the chances of a "yes" vote, as they are, in the main though of course not exclusively, likely to reject the idea."
This is more opinion then fact. If I can join the British Army then move to Leeds and still support Scottish Independence then what is stopping everyone else?
Besides, don't the SNP have 'friends' all over England, Wales and Northern Ireland?
Complain about this comment
Testing, testing!
Complain about this comment
Some really silly stuff surfacing here.
In line with international law and precedent those residing in Scotland and who have a registered vote in Scotland will have a vote on whether Scotland beomes independent.
You can of course live away from home and still register to vote in Scotland -just as long as you do not register to vote anywhere else in the UK at the same time.
While the rest of the people in the UK may have an interest in the matter that is all they will have.
(I would bet at the moment that if the English had a vote on this they would vote Scotland independent such is the level of political vitriol directed against Scotland by vast swathes of English opinion who believe we're getting huge hand outs from them)
I have mentioned this before but what surprises me most about a lot of the posts on this and other interesting issues is the infantile level of some of the unionist argument .
Complain about this comment
#188 Bluelaw:
Of course there is a point speculating. This is an internet blog, not real life. Speculation and idle comment is what blogs are for.
#189 hadrianswall
There are a good many Scots who have no choice but to move elswhere within the UK. If Thomas manages to join the British army he will soon find that out. His comments should he be stationed in Catterick or Aldershot at the time of any referendum (and such postings can last for years) would be interesting to see. A Briton living anywhere is Briton is not an alien. Sorry to disappoint you but my passport does not specify me as a Scottish citizen but a British one. If you seek to change that status then I (and every other Scot within the UK) should be entitled to a say. Sorry if that isn't convenient for you. Isn't "self-determination" the argument so often trotted out by the SNP?
Thomas # 190:
I realise that you are finding this difficult to grasp, (fortunately as I have said, this only being an internet blog, opinions posted here are simply that so it really doesn't matter), but it is the independence-seekers who are hoping to change my legal status. It is true that for those Scots like Sean Connery who choose to live abroad there would be no change to their position. However, for those Scots who live within the UK outside Scotland it would be a major change. At present (however much the nationalists may dislike it) their legal nationality is British, so they reside within their own country - Britain. Changing their status to that of a foreigner, which is the logical conclusion of Scottish independence, without their consent, would seem to me to fly in the face of the much vaunted "self-determination" so often cited by nationalists. How do you square that circle?
The whole issue is complicated, but those who simply say "move back to Scotland if you want a say in your legal status" merely display the paucity of their thought on this matter. There are a whole host of reasons why many Scots are unable, as well as unwilling, to move back to Scotland. Employment, family and legal obligations are just some of them. The dismissive way in which some (note I said some) nationalists on here approach this fundamental difficulty reinforces my view that once the emotional argument for independence is stripped away, precious little thought has been given to the substantial and complicated consequences. That alone should given sensible and undecided voters considerable cause for concern. Older and more thoughtful posters here will probably understand my point.
Complain about this comment
192. Sneckedagain:"In line with international law and precedent those residing in Scotland and who have a registered vote in Scotland will have a vote on whether Scotland beomes independent."
What 'international law'? You think the UN decides on voting rights and democracy? Not even the EU has any say in how voting is conducted in the UK.
You quite obviously have no idea what you are talking about.
Again.
Complain about this comment
Let's forget about the party politics for a moment. Try visualizing this everyday saga of country folk on a small island.
Ma and Pa Broon and family live next door to Ma and Pa Salmond and family. Ma and Pa Broon work hard for a living and decide amongst themselves how to arrange their budget to suit their needs. Ma and Pa Salmond and family work hard too but somehow Ma and Pa Broon have arranged that the Salmond wages are paid directly into the Broon bank account.
Of course, the kindly Broons ensure that they pay all of the wages due to the Salmonds into the Salmond bank account and even pay some of their own money (they say) into the Salmond bank account. (There is a small handling charge of course and sometimes the Broons use some of the Salmond money to pay for their own projects).
The Salmonds can't check on this as they don't get a pay slip. The Salmonds get a bit suspicious and worry a little about this arrangement.
Discuss:
1). Can you suggest a simpler financial arrangement for the Broons and the Salmonds?
2). Can you suggest a financial system for the Broons and the Salmonds which will improve the level of trust between them?
3). Set up your own arrangement with your own neighbours where they will take care of all your financial arrangements for you and your family and report back on how it works out for both of you.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant Expat
Don't be silly.
Tell me of any of the 150 countries which have become independent since 1945 who had their independence decided by the voting of persons in another country.
I suggest you look up the areas covering the absolute right of SELF determination as included in the United Nations Charter (to which Britain is one of the original signatories).
Complain about this comment
#193 MalcolmW2
You're wrong about the armed forces, who can choose a permanent UK address which applies wherever they are posted. See the Electoral Commission's 'About my vote' for the Armed Forces.
If you're a civilian, then I have some sympathy with you, as expats outwith the UK can retain the right to vote under certain circumstances.
OTOH, expat civilians in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would have the right to vote in "local" referenda which members of the armed forces who chose to register a Scottish address would not. Of course, there has not yet been a referendum for English voters (the EEC one was UK-wide) but that's not to say there will never be one.
Complain about this comment
#194 Reluctant-Expat
"Not even the EU has any say in how voting is conducted in the UK."
You seem to have a very short memory. The EC insisted on a measure of proportional representation in European elections when the Tories were in power and were to say the least influential in ensuring a measure of proportional representation for Holyrood.
Some day, the EU may even be able to insist on fair voting for Westmidden. The UK has no specific opt-out in that area.
Complain about this comment
The outcome of the Calman Commission deliberations come as no surprise to the world, given who is behind it's sponsorship and the aspirations they share for the contents of it's findings.
Given the minority government standing of the of the S.N.P., it was never going be in a position to influence such a union - biased document from the very outset. There is nothing to be gained from it's content which can be seen to be helpful to those of us who are determined to gain independence from Westminster.
Notwithstanding, certain important potentially transferable services with great power enabling prospects have been outlined by this report. Primarily I have in mind what must be the most potent force available to any organisation wishing to maximise it's appeal to those whom it wishes to persuade of the legitamacy and strength of it's case for change - control of
broadcasting!
The BBC having to shed it's autocratic pro-Anglified control, and reverse it's decades of regional ethnic cleansing ( I wonder how much the vaunted world service committed to democracy, cultural, ethnic and national freedom of the world repressed reflects in the eyes of those who have been fooled by this propaganda on learning of their rigourous supressive practices in "Britain", the Home Ground of the BBC) would be something akin to our Prague Summer, with all that it could mean for our future independence.
Independence, and the argument for it's
achievment isn't something which can be fought for with one or both hands tied behind one's back, but must pursued with all the vigour that can be rallied to it's support through every available channel' especially the media.
If this issue ever becomes a possibility then not least important amidst the considerations to be pondered will be the distribution of the licence fee, Scottish licence income for Scottish BBC production, perhaps the thin edge of the wedge for Scottish fiscal independence?
So not entirely fruitless, unless the toom tabard Westminster genuflectors harboured in our Scottish Parliament decide to use their collective disenfranchising weight to crush even those slim possibilities which are contained in their own biased, slanted report before it has any consequences for the future which run contrary to the dead hand of their ideal of perpetual constitutional inertia for Scotland, within the blood sucking, initiative sapping bondage of the "impartial union".
But, in the meantime, where are the proposals which we have been all awaiting as alternatives to our hated council tax?
To assume that silence on this issue means that it has been forgotten is a forlorne hope for all those "city fathers" with ambitions for rises towards their new salary/redundancy packages etc., how would such a step fit with P.M. Brown's reduction of VAT to 15% towards restimulating the economy, or the reduction of the interest rate by the bank of Noddyl....(beg pardon) England, by another 1%, these REDUCTIONS, peppered with other fringe handouts, being, in their infinite wisdom, our collective road to salvation, short of local council rebels sabotaging the Grand Plan by any unilateral action on their own part in a contrary direction. It's not the hand bearing the gift which is worthy of one's attention, it's thehand hidden from view which requires one's vigilance.
Whatever any other contributers to this blog may think of this appendage mentioning the council tax situation, I make no apology for it's inclusion.
Complain about this comment
The media broadcast and printed - is the last great obstacle to Independence.
A fair and balanced media would make inevitable independence arrive that much earlier.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS