How the Union benefits Scotland and the Scots.

A triangular badge, perhaps?

 

Or a tartan star......with Schotte in the centre?

 

I live in Scotland and I've been looking at this thread. As things currently stand I'm undecided on the independence question but I do want to raise a point. You've been asking for unionists to provide reasons why Scotland would be better off in the union. However, to justify independence, even if there are no reasons to stay, a reason to leave must be provided.

I've followed the conversation in this thread but nothing I've read so far constitutes a reason to leave. Even if I grant the pro-independence posters on this thread all of their points, every single one can be addressed with devo-max. The crux of what's been argued here is Westminster's dominion over Scotland on so many important issues. I've not seen anything which goes beyond this point.

Breaking up the union is a long-term decision that likely couldn't be reversed for generations. Doing it solely on the basis of the political climate of the last SINGLE generation to me is not a good reason. Even the rate at which the world is changing is increasing. While political thought in England might not change considerably over the next few years, who's to say what it'll be like a generation from now?

I'll keep an eye on this thread. After a closer look at the arguments, I'll consider the case for devo-max, as you have made it quite convincing, but the case for full independence beyond that has yet to even be addressed.

 

That however was not the point of this thread. You will see there are two threads on Independence. I seem to remember Oddquine started this thread to try to get some more structural debate. It is virtually impossible to discuss things when they simply are responded to with made up stories and fake statistics and abuse. The point of this thread was then very definitely to get people to provide any reason why there is benefit to Scotland on being part of the Union as history does not present that as reality - us having throughout the last 300 years the worst emigration in the world.

As I see it, even if you had devo Max, you would still be stuck with England's foreign policy and long term economically.

On a political level, I personally want well clear of England's foreign policy. I am not sure exactly how devo max works so possibly you can tell me a bit more. Does it give Scotland full charge of her resources and how she uses them? If it does, then taking that without also taking foreign policy and independence seems a silly move. Foreign policy effects your world position and you economics - paying for all the wars, the upkeep of nukes and so on. Devo max seems to fit in with the English whine of us wanting our own way but still wanting to be dependent on England. If I am wrong there correct me. It also, in my view, does absolutely nothing about allowing Scotland to create her own genuine identity and policies.

what exactly are you wanting? Clearly only when free of such dominion is there any room to start actively creating a Scotland creatively addressing the needs of the Scottish people and uniquely attuned to them.

It isn't though on just one generation. The Union was never popular and Scotland has been working towards independence since we received Universal suffrage. That is the key. Union only came from a vote of the Scottish Parliament who were the elite. Even with them it came with bribery at a time when Scotland was near bankrupt through the Darien scheme. A situation largely caused by England. The Union was not a free choice even for Scotland's elite, which always wanted a Federal Union.

We have two things here. Right from the beginning it was recognised that anything other than a Federal Union would not allow Scotland to have a loud enough voice to get sufficient priority for her own needs. This has shown to be true. People of Scotland have produced much for the world but Scotland herself has seen weak input leading to the vast emigration I spoke of. Scotland has always had a feeling of having been cheated. That being said of course when countries are in Union for so long, people will be afraid of change.

Now when you add democracy to this you get a different situation emerging. From the very beginning of democracy there were Scottish people working for Independence. I think prior to WW2 there was a fair interest in Home Rule. The shared experience of WW2 seems to have muted that for some time which is understandable. Scotland was the place where Labour was created and within that is a long tradition we have which is not shared with England - working for the common good as well as individual achievement and rights. Any belief that there was democracy in the UK was destroyed in the 1980's when Scotland had no political representation within the UK. There is no way out of that. If you want democracy in Scotland and Scotland to be part of a Union then the only way which this could have been created was by us having our own Parliament, which we got and Scotland being a part of a Federal UK for issues which effect the whole of the UK. Now this is what John Smith (Labour Leader for whom we can thank having the Scottish Parliament) envisaged. However this did not happen. Having given Scotland and NI their own Parliaments and Wales it's National Assembly, all stopped there. England remained as one voice.

The situation concerning democracy for Scotland if remaining part of the UK on many of the most important issues remains nil simply due to the far greater combined English voice. Now, had England gone for Regional Assemblies, we would have far more democracy coming from England which is not one homogeneous entity. That would have created a different UK, a Federal UK, a Democratic UK. That did not happen. Instead Tony Blair sold England's democracy off to Global fly by nights.

IMO a Federal Union was the only possibility for a Union once we had Democracy and now that England has no possibility of Democracy - it is not politicians who make the decisions of the UK Parliament but those who hold the power of money (which of course is not real money). The time is past imo. If England had moved too far to the right for Scotland and democracy in Scotland in the 1980's, it has moved off the scale now. IMO independence is the only possibility left for Scotland to create a decent democratic country where her children will want to live and put in for their own.

so what, you want to hold on hoping that one day a situation will arise where Union is good for the Scot's. If such a situation does arise I am sure we will all vote it in but this time with a democratic vote to make sure such a union is equally good for all the people and Scotland is not forgotten and left to be the dumping ground as Oddquine has spoken about in a recent post in the other Independence thread. It doesn't look like England is going to move anywhere I would like to go, but as you said, things might change. Change occurs all the time and is met as it occurs.

You may have noticed, there has really been no possibility of debate. I bet even the Scottish pro Independence voters have massive difference in what they believe will be best for Scotland. We obviously are not going to have one voice on everything. I have been tempted for instance to put in a draft constitution I have come in contact with, but it has us as a Kingdom and I am aware of one Independence poster who I suspect would go crazy to hear that. One of the authors said that was put in rather than a Republic due to feeling it would be what was accepted - due to people's emotional feeling because of the past - though possibly even that would go to referendum after we voted for Independence. Now that, the written constitution is also something which can be seen as an advantage to Scotland setting out how we will be governed and our rights. It is quite unique and suited to Scotland and in today's world very important for maintaining justice, democracy and human rights.

What happens after independence will depend on your creativity and input and after independence you will have a chance for your voice to be heard.

P.S Welcome to the board.

 

Undecided...perhaps myou should look at it from another point of view.....you came to our national country and the residents of this nation don't want the status quo any more....so its not what you think or want.....its not for us to justify anything for you...rather the other way around!

So basically.... we want our national sovereignty back, we want out territorial boundrys back.... we want to stand by ourselfs for ourselves.

Just as you want to be English or British, we want something else!

So we have no need to justify anything to you or yours!

Regards
Highlander

 

Jesus Wept, Highlander. Nearly two months after a couple of the most decent posts on this thread, you barge in with the same kind of insults which irritate the hell out of we pro-independence supporters when written by Unionists from outside Scotland or Unionists of all nationalities inside Scotland. All that is going to do to help the Independence debate is send the undecideds hurtling into the No camp.

Which part of "I live in Scotland", did you not understand? And which part of that tells you his/her nationality, out of interest? One thing is for sure......Orygyn is an undecided voter in the Referendum, and as such deserves a considered response to a considered post seeking information, as he/she got from Alexa..and not insults just because that was what you felt like handing out.

We are the ones wanting change..not Unionists....they know that without encouragement to embrace change, by explaining what it could mean for Scotland, there will be a tendency for people either not to vote for anything, and leave it up to the more committed to decide for them....or just go with the devil they know...sorta like a Union security blanket. It is not our place to help the Unionists stifle necessary debate by doing exactly the same on this forum as they do...say nothing nastily.

 

I'll add my tuppence worth re devo-max..and because nobody can separate the Union from its history, some of that as well. Bear with me...you will understand my obvious biases as you read...but I am not (I don't think) illogical, if admittedly opinionated...though my logic, may well not be yours. It will however give something to take to bits and discuss.

I genuinely don't think we'll ever get enough Devo-max to make an appreciable difference to the lives of people in Scotland. We will only get what Westminster allows us to have..and that will be as little as they can get away with to shut us up for a generation or two. I am completely convinced, on past UK performance over the decades, that if we vote no to independence in 2014, on the promise of the undefined UK version of Devo-max, with no time scale, time limit or what it actually means we will get pretty much bugger all......anything we thought had been promised will disappear, once the Union is safe for the short/medium term, like the snow off a dyke in the sun...and I'll explain why I think that later in this post. And I don't think there is a snowball's chance in hell that there will ever be a Federal system which allows Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland to be able to outvote England on UK matters...which is why, if Federalism ever did happen, which I doubt. it will be a regional Federal Parliament, with Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland having the same voting power as Cumbria, say, in order to ensure England's place at the head of the dungheap and still dictating. What follows will explain why I think that.

As Alexa says, Devo-max, however it is set-up within the UK, won't keep us out of the Westminster Parliament's foreign "excursions" on behalf of the USA, or remove Trident, restore the closed RAF Stations in Scotland, or give us a voice in Europe to try to protect our fishing waters etc. Devo-max won't return the 6000 square miles of Scottish waters stolen by Westminster and added to England's waters along with the rigs contained there-in; Devo-max won't give us control of welfare benefits and pensions or our economy and is more than highly unlikely to give us control over the Crown Estates. I can't think of anything single thing Devo-max would give us that Independence won't give us better and in a more grown-up way....except the security blanket of never feeling obliged to stand on our own feet and make independence work for us "Mother England" has spent 300 years gradually convincing us we are too poor, too wee, too stupid etc to be anything other than another English colony/region until many of us have a cringe factor verging on a personality disorder...just as it has spent 300 years gradually convincing those in England that we are an expensive, rebellious irrelevance to the smooth running of their lives, to the extent that we are now viewed solely as subsidy junkies sucking off the South of England teat.

We tried for Federalism at the time of the Union....but were only allowed to keep our religion and legal system (more or less). We got the Scottish Office in 1885, having been, until then, controlled by the Secretary of State for the Northern Department ( which I assume included us along with Yorkshire etc), and later the Home Department as with any other English Region.....but it took until 1926 to actually give the Secretary of State for Scotland a place in the UK Cabinet and any input to anything, however little. I won't go into Scottish Affairs Select Committee or the Scottish Grand Committee which mean nearly sod all anyway in these post-devolution days...but do make Scottish MPS feel they have some purpose in life in Westminster discussing Scottish only expenditure and legislation. The Scottish Affairs Select Committee is not actually made up of just Scottish MPs, as I assume you know...and the Scottish Grand Committee hasn't actually met since 2003....but I see that Unionist Labour MPs are keen to resurrect it....to give them something to do in their currently pretty pointless Westminster life....or allow them to spin their pointless discussions to the media to make everybody but them look bad?

In 1949, out of a population of 5.1 million, 2 million Scots signed and had sent to Westminster, the Scottish Covenant, which was an attempt to get a measure of Home Rule (or Devo-max, if you will)...The Labour government of the time dismissed the whole thing as being too complicated to put to referendum. The same Labour Party which, along with the Liberal Party of those days, had home rule as a long-standing plank in their manifestos in successive elections.....but then that's the same Labour Party which ignored the anti-Iraq war marches as well.

In 1969 a commission was set up to look at the structure of the UK Constitution, and the Kilbrandon Report was published in 1973. That recommended devolution for Scotland with education, the environment, health, home affairs, legal matters and social services devolved and
responsibility for agriculture, fisheries and food divided between the Assembly and the United Kingdom Government, while the latter would retain control of electricity supply. Some of the proposals were included in the 1977 Scotland and Wales Bill, which failed to get through Parliament because there were so many amendments tabled reducing what was proposed that it ended up being guillotined.

Next effort was the abortive 1979 post-legislative referendum..the 40% rule one....the first, and so far only ever UK referendum which had specific parameters to be met or exceeded. (there have been other attempts to set parameters for referenda since then, the last in the AV referendum.....but they have all been defeated). I can't say I'm sorry the hurdle wasn't jumped because what was offered was pure crap re delegated powers..and would have ensured a Scottish Labour government for all eternity with the continuation of the first past the post system.

That was followed by the Scottish Claim of Right in 1988..which was signed by all Scottish Labour and Lib-Dem MPs (hollow laughter here) bar Tam Dalyell.

Then we had the 1997 referendum....which was a pre-legislative one, and passed....leading to the Scotland Act. So reserved activities to the UK in the 1998 Scotland Act, into which no Scottish government has input or influence were..... 1) "the constitution", (which is why the UK Government has spent months stamping their feet, pouting and telling us we have no right to hold a referendum, even though it was always going to be consultative and not legislative. 2) the registration and funding of Political Parties; 3) International relations, development and trade 4) the "Home" Civil Service dealing with Treason and Defence 5) Parts of fiscal, economic and monetary policy (the important ones) 6) Home Affairs, including an extensive list and I'm not going to list the minutiae of what the UK has hugged to its chest, because it will make this post even more verbose than my posts usually are, so I'll just continue with the Headings..but if you assume that they hang on to anything which makes them feel important and in control and reduces the ability of a Scottish government to do as much as they would like to, you'd not be far wrong. 7) Trade and Industry; 8.) Energy; 9)Transport; 10) Social Security; 11) Regulation of the Professions 12) Employment; 13) Health and Medicines 14) Media and Culture; 15)Miscellaneous....which includes Judicial salaries, equal opportunities, control of weapons of mass destruction, Ordnance Survey, time and outer space (I'd not have included that list but I just couldn't resist the UK insistence on keeping control of time and outer space....though they did forget to include Antartica!)

I'm really sorry, but this is going to extend into another post.....because I have verbal diarrhea.....but the addition may not turn up until tomorrow.

 

Hi everyone. For various reasons I've not been able to visit this thread as often as I said I would so sorry to alexa for not responding nearer the time of your post. I appreciate everyone's responses, including highlander's which was criticised by others. I do live in Scotland and have done my entire life, just in case there was any confusion.

I'm not going to pretend I have anywhere near the knowledge that has already been expressed in this post, but the idea behind my post was to focus specifically on the case for going all the way to independence rather than opting with devo-max and I'm very pleased with the response. You've given me a lot to think about before the referendum.

Obviously I'll keep looking into it and, by the time of the election, hopefully I'll have the same level of awareness of our past, economic situation, and the relevant bills passed here and in Westminster to make an informed decision.

 

A pile of steaming crap from the same people who brought you "Muslim immigration is good for europe"
WHO is subsidising free prescriptions ? The Scots ? NO
Who is subsidising free education in Scotland ? The Scots ? (As if - all they're doing is trying to use ENGLISH money to stop ENGLISH students getting in on the act, while Scots are at English Unis....)
Barnett formula for example. The Scottish ranters want this kept on, subsiding, subsidising, subsidising, Independence shouldn't be about being subsidised by who you are demanding seperation from.

 

As I keep saying - go your own way, and take the rest of the scots with you.
But NOT with English funds to bail you out, or subsidise.
I'd give Scotland 5 years, before it starts to start whining for readmittance.

 

Yes, we are taking full advantage of the union. Well we have to really. Westminster destroyed our economy when that beast Thatcher had the reigns and it's never recovered.

Still...better to die than stay involved in that nonsense. And at least nowadays the threat no longer exists that we will actually be killed if we don't pretend to enjoy English company... If we go our own way, there is some prospect we will have some peace to get on with it. Although we know England will still be sabotaging behind the scenes, if we remain at all involved with them.

Although I am not a fan of the over-nanny direction SNP is currently taking, there are still very capable politicians in Scotland and there is no reason for them to fail any more than any other Euro country. I want to give it a go.

 

Be fair.....it was only criticised by me...nobody else involved! I usually more or less agree with highlander's sentiments, but not always with how he puts them. I am as guilty as the next person for retaliating to perceived irrationality with irrational posts....on this thread alone I've had as many posts deleted as anybody..maybe more. Think my reaction to his post was more because he was not retaliating to anything.....and was pulling up a thread which had pretty much died a couple of months previously. I couldn't see any problem with someone being undecided...got friends and relations who are undecided, and only have problems with those who cite the Stewart Lee justification for staying in the Union, though I do think they only do it to wind me up.

Adding to this post an aside which might have entailed a third page to my on-going pontification on Devo-max, if I could have fitted it in anywhere, given the character limit on posts on this forum. and because it doesn't really specifically relate to Devo-max even tangentially. It would have been in my last post, if I hadn't to cut it back...and is my personal view point re Independence. I am happy to discuss/argue any part of anything I write on this or any other post, in fact I'd be pleased to do so, because to date, there has been little discussion on anything on this or any other forum I frequent regarding the possibilities and problems with Scottish Independence, the possibilities and problems with remaining in the Union or the possibilities and problems with Devo-max. In fact there has been no discussion at all on any of it.....and without discussion there are just two diametrically opposed POV offering a worst case scenario (Unionists) and a best case scenario (SNP) and not a lot of qualified realism.
.
I'll nail my colours to the mast here..I have never voted for any other party in any election in the UK or Scotland but the SNP from the time I was old enough to vote ...and until we get Independence, I won't...and I was also a very active local Party member and office holder from the abortive referendum in 1979, ( having seen with my own eyes on doorsteps how impossible the 40% rule was to fulfill), until I moved from my home town in the late 1990s, when being active gradually decreased, due to my circumstances at the time...and moving later into a LibDem constituency with no local to where I lived SNP Branch, and no transport, has meant voting SNP only.

I was once a local council candidate for the SNP when I lived at home (failed)....BUT I now dislike many of their policies just as I dislike many of the policies of all political parties....however, their policies were never my reason for voting SNP, Independence was..and is.

So from that you can take it that I actually don't care if Independence will make me personally better or worse off in the short...or even medium term....can't see me living for the long term. The UK, in respect of benefit income, has given me, personally, not much, and never has, because I have mostly, in my lifetime so far, been one of those who are eternally just outside the extended benefits system...so the Union Safety Blanket, in my case is a myth. But I have always been able to manage, sometimes with the help of family to be sure, before I retired, but I have not been affected at all by the recent UK cuts, although I abhor the whole ethos of the coalition Government. I still have the odd thing I can easily do without if I end up looking as if I'll be worse off, but I'd happily accept better off. So I'm not basing my decision as to what I will get out of Independence, because I expect nothing from it but self-respect.....I'm much more interested in the future of my grandchildren, possible great-grand children etc....and on current performance, the UK will do nothing for them..and the limited ability of any Scottish Government under devolution, whether max, or min, to make decisions about the economy can do nothing for them either.

If for no other reason, I want independence because I do not believe that the UK adversarial first past the post system offers democracy at all. All it offers is escalating costs and few benefits to anybody in the Uk. The unexpected result in 2011 in Scotland was because of the perception that the Unionist Parties, under their tartan shawls, did not give a toss about Scotland, while the SNP did...and that perception was driven by 30+ years of levels of right wing governments who did not give a toss about Scotland. The Scottish branch of the UK Nulabour party thought the Scottish people had heads that buttoned up the back, and they were entitled to their vote, whatever they did....and they so far haven't learned from their mistake, as the Tories didn't from the 1960s....which is why they are now an endangered species here.

Come Independence (and it will come, hopefully while I am still alive to see and celebrate it), I'll be looking for a new political home, but right this minute there isn't one political party anywhere in the UK which will meet my personal aspirations for Scottish society..though currently the SNP is by far the best. (and would be much better if they scrapped the filling of the north of Scotland with on-shore windmills...or even just windmills) and concentrated on tidal power which would at least guarantee some regularity in output to the grid.

At one time, before the Coalition, I was inclined to the LibDems if they ever decided to form a Scottish Party out of the control of Westminster, but their current actions have made that unlikely now, because I don't like political parties with no principles. I can wear compromise on both sides...but I can't wear abject horse-trading on the "one of your policies this time, with a wee tweak to the way it is put across to shut our supporters up and one of ours next time with the same adjustments"..which is what it appears is happening now.

The SNP started out as a Pro-Devolution Party when it first formed from the amalgamation of a pro-Devolution and a pro-Independence Party in the 1930s, though it became a pro-Independence Party later...but has usually been pragmatic enough to take what it can get and build on it, with the intentions of benefiting the Scots, and not wed itself to fixed immutable policies...and as it has grown in popular vote and representation, UK Governments have been obliged to take the notice of Scotland they hadn't done for centuries. It is no coincidence that since the 1960s after the SNP began to have some impact on the Scottish popular vote and achieved a measure of electoral success, Scotland started to be noticed by Westminster. It didn't always work out well for us, when Thatcher punished us for not being English Tory voters, though. If the SNP has never done, and will never do anything else of benefit for us...they have shown that, with the will (and leadership), we can always do what is necessary to make our presence felt in a Union which really doesn't appear to want the Scottish people, just our land as an extension of England. Whether an eternity being completely ignored unless you periodically rise up and threaten the status quo politically, as has been happening over the last forty years or so, is what the Scots want is down to them....though it is better doing it politically than the way Ireland did, as in taking up arms...but it isn't for me.

Way I look at it is that 5 million Scots, in the UK scheme of things, marching in high dudgeon to London will make little or no impact. Why would governments which mostly legislate to benefit the rich in London, take any notice of millions of Joe Soaps from Scotland, given the whole population only equates to about 8.6% of the UK population? The same 5 million marching on the streets of Edinburgh would force a Scottish Government to take notice of them. So why should we spend eternity accepting the largesse, from our own money, kindly allocated to us by the UK Government, always having to fight for anything we get and have a permanent chip on our shoulders because the English population object to what they perceive as them being treated "less well" than us....when we could sink or swim by our own efforts.

Nothing in life is guaranteed.....not economic success in Scotland...OR economic success within the Union......full employment in Scotland ..OR full employment in the Union....low levels of National Debt in Scotland.....or low levels of National Debt in the Union.....fairness and equity for all in Scotland..OR fairness and equity for all in the Union....but there is more chance for any/all of them in Scotland if we can control our own economy, spend our own income, are able to cut our own clothes according to the cloth available and are not obliged to finance the ambitions of a UK government with aspirations to be a world player.

 

I understand your fustrations, and after consideration.....I don't like to say this.......but...... you might be right!

I duly take it on the nose!

And I almost said sorry...just joking.....sorry for my bad manners!


Regards
Highlander

 

Orygyn,

It appears that this succession of posts have been overtaken by events, as in the constitutional discussion has now been given something solid to debate on for the first time, and I look forward to debating contentious points which arise. There is a rather good (I think) blog post here Scottish Independence Its Time/, which does pretty much say where many of us are coming from...and does save me having to try to reduce my verbosity on the same subject to 10000 characters.

However, I will comment on why I don't think the Devo-max option even seriously exists, far less has a prospect of implementation...whatever the promises now of vote NO and get an undefined, enhanced devolution at some time in the future when/if we feel like letting you have it.

Economically, devolution was deliberately designed to preserve the status quo, and can be expanded forever, if that is the will of a UK Government, without allowing us anything useful to aid our economy....because if you control a country's economy, and store the proceeds of that economy in one central bank as a communal undifferentiated pot, you control the country, however much of their own administration you let them take on.

You can see that thinking behind all three Scotland bills, to date...and the very fact of there even being a 2012 Bill, simply confirms, to my mind that Devo-Max is not an option, but a red herring...voting for any version of devolution is simply voting for the status quo with cosmetic differences but no real powers. Power devolved is power retained.

Devo-max, as visualised by some in Scotland as the half-way house between Independence and the status quo, which keeps the Union concept, but removes the complete control by the Union, would require real fiscal powers and the retention of most of the Scottish income in/to Scotland, or at least a system to accurately identify/separate out our income from everybody else's. That would be a set-up more akin to federalism, than devolution...and it ain't going to happen.

The 1978 Scotland Bill continued the first past the post system and conferred limited legislative powers on a Scottish Assembly.

The 1998 version allowed us expanded legislative powers, the control of local taxation, but tax varying powers over UK set basic income tax only. So, as far as I can see, the devolution granted in 1998 gave us the right to rob Peter to pay Paul, but not to borrow from Philip or Peregrine to enable us to pay everybody (as local councils' have)...and also gave us the right to cut or increase income tax in Scotland, but from the proceeds, we'd first have to pay HMRC an undisclosed sum for administering and collecting it for us....and given the cost of public services, how much would that leave in the end anyway? I'm not surprised it is a "right" which has never been used.

Increasing the income tax levels to let us pay everybody would make Scotland the most highly taxed country in the UK. Being taxed more than England for little change in our own circumstances would have the Scottish population on the Government's back as they perceived it as unfair. A tax rise wouldn't have bothered me to improve services…but I rather think I'd be in the minority.

Reducing tax would get even more people on our backs than already are, because the English wouldn't be paying less tax, and would perceive it as unfair to them, because they don’t appreciate we pay UK taxes as well as them.

And coming to the 2012 version....now maybe I'm stupid and/or extremely cynical....but with an Independence referendum due in 2014, why start dickering with the constitution now? Wouldn't the most obvious way to approach it be to set out the UK Government's proposals for Devo-max or whatever on a document, and have it as the dangling carrot to encourage a No vote, in the knowledge that there would be guaranteed useful and meaningful fiscal devolution as the half-way house which would preserve the Union they are claiming to be so eager to maintain.

The UK Government knows that, while there is no majority yet for Independence, there is also no majority for the status quo...but there is a majority for meaningful change to the Constitution as regards Scotland within the Union. They could have set out their meaningful change in a document which the Scottish voter could have examined, considered and, without any extra option in the referendum, chosen Independence or the status quo with a guaranteed improved devolution.

The new powers are a new Scottish rate of income tax, the devolution of stamp duty land tax and landfill tax, the power to create new taxes, new borrowing powers of about £5bn of its budget...plus some extra legislative powers, which while nice to have, are simply lipstick on a pig. In fact that is a good description of the whole Act which will be applied if we vote No. It’s just more dickering on the periphery without producing meaningful change...nothing new there then.

Now they have made the 1998 tax varying powers even more pointless and useless, if that is possible...but also made the use of them compulsory, not optional, even if the decision is not to vary anything, by cutting a proportion of the Scottish Budget by 10p in the pound from the start, so the Government has to vote (and pay out to HMRC) even to keep income tax the same as elsewhere in the UK...I assume it also makes the collection costs compulsory...even if we vary nothing...I didn't notice anything amending the HMRC payment clause re the tartan tax in the 1998 bill.

The ability to create new taxes will be used..NOT (I trust...except as applied to local taxes, if we can regulate them)...given there is no ability to remove or alter others in the UK tax system, to provide a joined up fiscal policy. There are no tax powers offered which could be used (unless the Scottish government has a death wish)...but there is certainly a distinct possibility of the growth of the chip on the shoulders of some in England if we cut Scottish taxes...and of an enormous growth of the chip borne so long on the shoulders of the Scots with any increase in all taxes, and the addition of new ones just for Scotland.

I'm not sure what the impact of getting the stamp duty and landfill taxes would be, so won’t comment on them..I’m not even sure if they are on top of the budget or being taken off the budget..but I'll bet we have to pay to get them collected as well...you wouldn't think we already help fund HMRC. The borrowing powers are fine..but not when there is no obvious way to pay the borrowing off as repayments are from the proceeds of economic growth which won't come to Scotland.

There are claims that the fact that Westminster estimates, never speedily produced at the best of times, will be up to two years out of date will mean that a budget based on them is so unlikely to be accurate that the Scottish Parliament will most probably be faced with having to raise taxes higher in order to make up for unexpected shortfalls, and it has also been pointed out that any pecuniary benefits resulting from economic growth would not accrue to Scotland but would go straight into the UK Treasury....so it's a win-win situation for the UK, as devolution is intended to be. Devolution, if used to the full extent allowed in this Act, is a chalice deliberately poisoned...for much the same reason as devolution was ever thought of and implemented in the first place...to kill the independence movement. I hope it will do no better than the 1998 attempt did in accomplishing that.

So, logically, they dickered now because that is going to be it. What we got in 2012 is our lot...and they imposed it on us now because they could, and because they knew that, written out on paper to be dissected and chewed over, and judged against the ability to allow us to accomplish our aspirations, it would be found to be fatally flawed. It is ironic that the Lib-Dems, who were once, and not that long ago, in favour of devolving corporation tax, excise duty, the Crown Estates and a number of other key wealth-creating powers to the Scottish Parliament simply laid down and let the Tories step on them. The pinnacles of power must be heady and ministerial cars comfortable.

In the debate on what was eventually agreed, and passed into law, Lord Kerr of Kinlochard, said, The reason why it has been possible to negotiate this successfully is that everyone has decided that it is de minimis-it really does not change the price of fish. That is the trouble with the Bill: it does not attack the real issues. And it doesn't.

In the same debate, the Ministerial Statement was mentioned....or punctuation was mentioned and the lack of any variously interpreted. The queried sentence was "The Government is open to considering what further powers might be devolved after a referendum on independence". The lack of any punctuation is being interpreted, using Scots logic, by some Scots peers as NOT meaning that "We are open to considering what further powers might be devolved, after a referendum". but that it means we are considering it now (and this is it).

Scots are fond of punctuation, or used to be (and I still am) as it reduces misinterpretation. I read the original statement as "this is it" as opposed to jam tomorrow. What is written down is the only definitive statement of intent.

The Scots have intimated they don’t just want pocket money to be disbursed as they choose...they also want to keep the benefits produced by those choices to themselves for their own use, as they'd have to bear the consequences of their failure. Devolution short of federalism will not do that....without real powers over taxes, we are getting nothing more than a pat on the head and a “There, there, here’s your dummy from Nanny Union.”

 

Scottish independence, just another Racist movement. The SDL.
Lose the 12% minority population, and welfare roles of the UK, and go 98% white.
That's what makes it so called viable anyway, even if unintentional or unstated.

 

What a mess?

Is that what you really want? a beaucratic nightmare of a seperate country next to england. Will the english need passports to get into scotland?

And what about all the scottish who don't want seperation, will they be booted across the border.

 

One view i fail to see. Is there any attempt to repair the rift with scotland an england before the extreme action of seperation. Woulden't diplomacy be better than to create rifts in scotland as half the population won't like it.

It seems this jump to seperation is being speared heaed by the over passionate, maybe let the level headed and balanced views prevail.

 

You can find that answer along with other myths here

http://www.newsnetscotland.com/inde...ionist-scare-stories-myths-and-misinformation

I don't think they have covered this one because I suspect you are the only person to have imagined such a thing. Why would anyone be booted anywhere? As I understand it everyone who is legally resident in Scotland at a time when people vote for Independence would automatically become a citizen. Scottish people not living in Scotland would not have automatic citizenship but would have the opportunity to apply. It is extremely unlikely that anyone would wish to move just because Independence was voted in but of course if they wished they could.

The argument is not over a rift with England, the argument is more over democracy. Scotland only having around 5,000,000 people tends to vote differently to the rest of the UK and hence does not find her views well represented from Westminster. In reality all of the parties North of the border have been moving towards this idea even if they don't speak of it. It is the natural solution to the situation provided a viable system is created. There was a time around when Scotland regained her Parliament when it was felt the UK would move more into a form of Federal Government. Then possibly Independence would not have been sought because the whole of the UK would be more answerable to the will of the people. England however did not choose this.

So there is nothing about a rift with England, just a desire to be active in creating our now and future. Around 10% of Scotland's population were born in England anyway.

I don't believe that is true. I think that that is the way it has been heading since the 1980's when we found ourselves totally unrepresented in Westminster. Bit by bit we have been moving in that direction. Of course the other main parties are bound by loyalty to Westminster and so it needed a party to capture the imagination of the people. That was the space Salmond and the SNP took although if we went for Independence we would then immediately have an election and there is no certainty that they would be elected. In that way it can be said the SNP are the vehicle not the destination. Now whether Scotland does go for independence or not will depend on whether the view of the future can be put forward to catch the imagination of people and answer their fears. That is what the next 2 years will be about. It will be sound political and economic arguments which win the people's votes but really it is happening bit by bit and has been happening bit by bit for the last 30 years or so. There was an alternative, a Federal UK. That did not happen. If Independence does not happen in 2014, it likely will happen not too far after. That is just how we have moved.

 

What i am trying to explain. This independance view will be huge for scotland. And once it happens and if applied for seperation. It will have to be followed through. But do the majority of the scots really want it? of course can't know until a vote.

But what of the scottish in scotland how ever many there are who don't want to live in an independant scotland? Will they have the right to move to england and will the independance view take this into account, or will they be forced to stay in the new scotland.

How will this work for all those who are not in agreement to seperation.

 

You mention Independence and then you mention separation. We will almost certainly still carry on doing business much the same as we are now and a massive amount of that will be with England, Wales and NI. I think that with good will, separation is not really what is expected. It is not for instance if you had looked at the answer to your question in the previous post envisaged that there would be border patrols and passports at the border.

well of course. People will expect it to be carried through if they vote for it and very angry if it is not.

Yes, that is why we are having the Referendum and why we are having the Referendum after two years of discussion so that we know what we are voting for.

They will do exactly what people always do when they do not vote for who wins. They will accept the answer and work with everyone else to create the best future possible for their children. They will have no more opportunity to blame England for their woes so they will start getting things working in a positive and creative way for both the individual and common good.

We are not about to become a totalitarian State. People can go wherever they like. People already have British passports and Britain allows dual citizenship so I see no problem at all.

as above.

 

I'm not at all surprised you have made no friends in the time you have been on this forum.

I won't say that even the most irrational among us have some standards, though......because it is obvious you have none.

 

alexa,

I am not explaining the gravity of the view, i am trying to make. I try again.

Once the vote happens and if won to independance. It is a lifelong commitment, a generational commitment. Unlike a normal vote when it could be changed in several years.

So a huge number of scottish people in scotland will have a very difficult choice to make. If they want to stay in a new scotland. The ones who are not supporting this independance view.

I ask this. Because i ponder, what i would do. If england became seperate and i did not want it. My vote meant nothing and i witnessed a change in history i did not vote for. It be horrible. And i am sure a huge number of your countrymen will probably feel the same way.

 

I don't think people have such strong feelings to belong to England as you seem to think. The prime candidates for such a feeling would be Rangers supporters but they themselves are moving over to an Independence view...so with the people I do not see any troublesome problem. Independence will not be voted for unless people believe that it will be viable. There was one survey last year which suggested just to know they would have £5 a week more would be enough to get a substantial majority in favour of Independence.....and no that is not showing the frugal Scot's leaping on the fiver but rather suggesting they simply need a bit of reassurance. You need to remember this is our country - and that includes New Scot's as well, Muslims find it easier to identify as Scottish and a recent survey found a lot of our English residents tend to think of themselves as 'New Scot's' as well. I believe we have moved too far apart politically from England. It is sensible that we would like to be in charge of what develops in Scotland in the future. As long as people have studied and know all the facts they will come to a decision and stick to it. I don't understand why you should feel there would be problems. It is our country. Regardless of how awful you think it might be, I do not think there is such feeling in Scotland. The vast majority of Scot's see themselves as Scot's first, British second.

There will be a referendum and then we will accept the result.

 

Hmmm.

I can appreciate your passion on this subject. But your view is clouded. Your own passion is vastly under estimating what a huge change this will be for many of your own people.

It is not just english ties contending with. Also the view of change. A huge change of historical propositions. Now it is very easy to say that once it happens, that the scottish people will happily go along with it. And as we know reality is not that simple. There will be many for reasons we discussed and reasons we haven't who will feel left out of the process.

And it is those people i am wondering about. What will be their scotland, what will be their choice. The people who don't have this passion to form a new chapter in scottish history.

 

Not at all. That may be what your clouded view is seeing but it is not so. I am not a passionate person for Independence. My judgement will be made on what I believe will provide the best future for my grandchildren. I am waiting to hear all the arguments as well. However as things stand politically, it is the best choice for those who wish to be able to make an active contribution to how we develop.

You are unaware that until 300 years ago Scotland was an independent country? We have far more experience of sovereignty than being a colony.

To be frank. I have answered your questions fully. I think the problem is that you desire there to be problems. You wish to see trouble. There is zero sign that anything of that nature would happen. Find somewhere else to try to stir up