Scottish independence and devolution superthread

[Das Root]

 

A patchwork of Central European territories, yes. Provinces even.

 

A bit like, er, Quebec in fact!

 

 

Or countries invaded and absorbed into a larger empire then gaining their independence from that. Semantics dear boy but your argument is poor.

[Das Root]

 

 

I would remind you that the prominent Nationalist Jim Sillar has said that the YES campaign needs to stop just saying that any criticism of them is just scaremongering without presenting reasoned arguement. Just empty rhetoric.

 

 

He's just scaremongering by saying that

[Das Root]

 

 

I am not sure what you are saying here as the quote function didnt work properly - but on the Germany, France and UK not being sovereign states:

 

Every Member of the EU can have its laws overturned by Europe. That doesn't sound very soverign to me.

 

In Scotland - when you exhaust the appeal procedure here - you appeal to the Supreme Court in the UK (that has Scottish judges on the panel). The function of the Supreme Court used to be performed by the House of Lords. So, at worst, in the Supreme Court, you will have a decision that is heavily influenced by Scottish judges (the ones from rUK tend to defer to the opinions of the Scottish judges in Scotish cases).

 

Dont like that result? You appeal to Europe who have the power to overturn the Scottish & Supreme Court rulings.

 

Though the courts in other countires will have different names the procedure is the same.

 

Dont like being 'dictated' to by Westminster, or merely being an 'afterthought'? Why on earth are you (not you personally) content with the EU?

 

 

Take it you wish to leave the EU then?

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Don't disagree with that at all.

 

I suppose, if independence happens, then a whole raft of things will be up for grabs.

 

My personal bug bear at the moment is the lack of clarity around how an independent Scotland would be governed. I think we need a bicameral system, bill of rights, written constitution etc.

Well, yes.

 

But in the initial stages, how do you think it'll be set up? We'll either have the SNP deciding what happens & how it should work, based on their white paper. Or some sort of 'cross party' discussion, I presume? But unless all parties have an equal standing in that - it'll merely be dominated by the SNP.

 

I don't see anything other than an SNP vision for the start of an independent Scotland.

 

Why are you keen on a written constitution? Do you not think the 'flowing' nature like we have now is sufficient? The US has all manner of problems with its constitution.

[Boris]

Well, yes.

 

But in the initial stages, how do you think it'll be set up? We'll either have the SNP deciding what happens & how it should work, based on their white paper. Or some sort of 'cross party' discussion, I presume? But unless all parties have an equal standing in that - it'll merely be dominated by the SNP.

 

I don't see anything other than an SNP vision for the start of an independent Scotland.

 

Why are you keen on a written constitution? Do you not think the 'flowing' nature like we have now is sufficient? The US has all manner of problems with its constitution.

 

A written constitution enshrines the rights of the citizen against bad government. IMO, of course!

[redm]

TheMaganator - re: corroboration I read somewhere in last few days that when MacAskill was put on the spot about this in Parliament (think it was by Margaret Mitchell) he indicated that they were definitely willing to look at other wider means of reform and safeguards. The message being that they're open to alternatives. It's not a certainty in any way by the sound of things.

[reaths17]

If a stalwart of the Labour party is saying they are no longer the leftist of parties in comparison to the other mainstream parties you know they are going a bit Tory

 

haha, trying to post in the middle o summit at work isnae good for you.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Or countries invaded and absorbed into a larger empire then gaining their independence from that. Semantics dear boy but your argument is poor.

As is yours saying Quebec was never a country in the first place.

[Das Root]

As is yours saying Quebec was never a country in the first place.

 

 

I do believe Maple Leaf already answered that one Geoff.

 

 

A separate Slovak state briefly existed during World War II, during which Slovakia was a dependency of Nazi Germany (from 1939 to 1944). From 1945 Slovakia once again became a part of Czechoslovakia. The present-day Slovakia became an independent state on 1 January 1993 after the peaceful dissolution of Czechoslovakia.

 

 

Hmmm...give it up Geoff.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

I do believe Maple Leaf already answered that one Geoff.

 

 

 

 

 

Hmmm...give it up Geoff.

Briefly existed during WWII.

 

So did Vichy France! I look forward to France splitting in two by that logic.

[Das Root]

Briefly existed during WWII.

 

So did Vichy France! I look forward to France splitting in two by that logic.

 

 

 

You did say never existed. Changing your argument now? Poor show Geoff

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

 

You did say never existed. Changing your argument now? Poor show Geoff

Hitler creating a puppet state is hardly how a country is defined. Still, bash on.

[Das Root]

Hitler creating a puppet state is hardly how a country is defined. Still, bash on.

 

 

A state is a state is a state. Somebody has to create it and it had to exist, it was and it did. Take it like a man Geoff, like a man.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Das Root

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

A state is a state is a state. Somebody has to create it and it had to exist, it was and it did. Take it like a man Geoff, like a man.

So, Vichy France then? Legitimate state?

[Das Root]

So, Vichy France then? Legitimate state?

 

 

If it was legal under international law then it existed. Quebec? Maybe Hitler invented that too. Wouldn't argue if so.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

If it was legal under international law then it existed. Quebec? Maybe Hitler invented that too. Wouldn't argue if so.

 

Of course.

 

[Das Root]

Of course.

 

 

Then you accept Slovakia did exist as a state before the Velvet Divorce? Good man.

[Geoff Kilpatrick]

 

 

 

Then you accept Slovakia did exist as a state before the Velvet Divorce? Good man.

 

Artificial constructs are irrelevant but we will agree to disagree.

[Gene Parmesan]

Can you find me a reliable source for this assertion? I'm not a fan of Galloway, but if he isn't saying this then we don't want him falsely represented as saying it and we don't want this thread sent down a "sectarianism" cul-de-sac. I'll leave this with you for a while, but if I don't see something soon I'll be removing the comment and the associated sub-topic from the thread.

 

Sorry, just saw this now. Hope the links others have posted are okay.

 

Never my intention to divert the debate that way, more holding up a very minority view to see if others had encountered it.

[Pans Jambo]

 

 

I am not sure what you are saying here as the quote function didnt work properly - but on the Germany, France and UK not being sovereign states:

 

Every Member of the EU can have its laws overturned by Europe. That doesn't sound very soverign to me.

 

In Scotland - when you exhaust the appeal procedure here - you appeal to the Supreme Court in the UK (that has Scottish judges on the panel). The function of the Supreme Court used to be performed by the House of Lords. So, at worst, in the Supreme Court, you will have a decision that is heavily influenced by Scottish judges (the ones from rUK tend to defer to the opinions of the Scottish judges in Scotish cases).

 

Dont like that result? You appeal to Europe who have the power to overturn the Scottish & Supreme Court rulings.

 

Though the courts in other countires will have different names the procedure is the same.

 

Dont like being 'dictated' to by Westminster, or merely being an 'afterthought'? Why on earth are you (not you personally) content with the EU?

I'm not so sure they can overturn a sovereign states laws but they can overturn a decision in the courts through the appeals process granted and that is a big difference to what you are saying.

I don't think anyone is fully content with the EU but they don't force us to store the worlds largest Nuclear stockpile a few miles from the heaviest populated area of Scotland etc. etc. etc.

In any case, we can decide whether we are in or out of the EU after the 2016 elections if we get a Yes vote whereas we won't have any choice in the matter if there is a No vote and Middle England decide what they want in the EU referendum that Cameron has promised.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Pans Jambo

[Das Root]

Artificial constructs are irrelevant but we will agree to disagree.

 

 

Better to agree you are wrong

 

 

In 1938 the leaders of Great Britain, France, and Italy were trying to avoid another war with Germany and were willing to negotiate with Hitler. The result of their negotiations, the Munich Pact, forced the government of Czechoslovakia to cede the Sudetenland, an area inhabited largely by Germans, to Germany. Fearing that the federal government would not be able to protect Slovak interests, the Slovak leadership nominated an autonomous provincial government and approved a new constitution, creating the short-lived Second Republic of Czechoslovakia. Faced with the threat of being divided between Germany, Poland, and Hungary, the Slovak government decided to withdraw from the federation and declare its independence. On March 14, 1939, the first independent Slovak Republic was established, and Father Tiso was chosen as head of government.

 

 

A process started off by Great Britain no less

[Rick Grimes]

 

My personal bug bear at the moment is the lack of clarity around how an independent Scotland would be governed. I think we need a bicameral system, bill of rights, written constitution etc.

 

 

And that's probably the only thing we can actually have laid out for us just now. Expecting the Yes campaign to state exactly how we'll run ourselves for the next generation is a nonsense, it will be down to the political will of the people and can't be fully predicted. I reckon an independent Scotland would see far more political engagement, at least for a few years.

 

What I'd like to see from the Yes campaign is a rebuttal of the scare stories and threats of the No campaign alongside, as you say, a framework for how we're starting our system off. Greater PR etc would be lovely to see.

[TheMaganator]

 

I'm not so sure they can overturn a sovereign states laws but they can overturn a decision in the courts through the appeals process granted and that is a big difference to what you are saying.

I don't think anyone is fully content with the EU but they don't force us to store the worlds largest Nuclear stockpile a few miles from the heaviest populated area of Scotland etc. etc. etc.

In any case, we can decide whether we are in or out of the EU after the 2016 elections if we get a Yes vote whereas we won't have any choice in the matter if there is a No vote and Middle England decide what they want in the EU referendum that Cameron has promised.

You can challenge a law for being against the ECHR, so, yes you can overturn a nation states laws.

 

We won't get an EU referendum in an Independent Scotland - Salmond has ruled it out & labour are against it. So...

 

I wouldn't be sure the nuclear stockpile is going anywhere. Are Scots against it? I haven't seen any poll that suggests it. If we want into NATO which is a nuclear alliance?

 

Waste in the EU:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/eu/10426971/British-taxpayers-liable-for-800m-of-misspent-EU-funds.html

[Boris]

You can challenge a law for being against the ECHR, so, yes you can overturn a nation states laws.

 

We won't get an EU referendum in an Independent Scotland - Salmond has ruled it out & labour are against it. So...

 

I wouldn't be sure the nuclear stockpile is going anywhere. Are Scots against it? I haven't seen any poll that suggests it. If we want into NATO which is a nuclear alliance?

 

Waste in the EU:

http://www.telegraph...t-EU-funds.html

 

That's not to say an independent Scotland wouldn't want a referendum on EU membership in the future.

 

Re NATO, Denmark do ok with their anti-nuclear stance.

[Coco]

Haven't seen this survey before. It suggests that the UK is doing quite well compared to other countries on an array of metrics. Scotland in the fortunate position under devolution where the 'problem' area of education can be improved according to its own wishes.

 

http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/nov/05/uk-scores-highly-quality-of-life-oecd

[TheMaganator]

That's not to say an independent Scotland wouldn't want a referendum on EU membership in the future.

 

Re NATO, Denmark do ok with their anti-nuclear stance.

 

Yes, but we're told that we'd have to come to an agreement with rUK and Trident before that we'd get in to NATO.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/scotland/10244873/Nato-blow-to-SNPs-defence-plans-for-independent-Scotland.html

http://www.theguardian.com/uk-news/2013/aug/15/alex-salmond-nuclear-nato-ban

 

Given that we've already been told of the expense and problems with removing Trident to rUK waters if independent you can bet your bottom dollar that the seperation agreement will see Trident in Scottish waters for many, many years to come. So if you are voting Yes to get rid of Trident you will likely be sorely disappointed (IMO, of course)

[Boris]

Yes, but we're told that we'd have to come to an agreement with rUK and Trident before that we'd get in to NATO.

 

http://www.telegraph...t-Scotland.html

http://www.theguardi...uclear-nato-ban

 

Given that we've already been told of the expense and problems with removing Trident to rUK waters if independent you can bet your bottom dollar that the seperation agreement will see Trident in Scottish waters for many, many years to come. So if you are voting Yes to get rid of Trident you will likely be sorely disappointed (IMO, of course)

 

Oh, I don't disagree, however it does also beg the question, why stay in NATO?

[TheMaganator]

Oh, I don't disagree, however it does also beg the question, why stay in NATO?

...because 'everything will change, but nothing will change'.

 

Unfortunately the only party offering an alternative to NATO Membership changed its position suddenly at a recent party conference - to the dismay of much of its party membership.

[blairdin]

Not all that many members voting in the JKB poll.

 

http://www.hmfckickback.co.uk/index.php?/topic/134460-scottish-independence-referendum-jkb-voting-intentions-november-2013/

 

I've just added mine. I voted undecided, as I'd prefer to have seen the white paper first, and Better Togethers response to it.

 

Saying that, if push came to shove and I was forced to vote tomorrow, it would be a yes. Devo-max was my choice, but it's not an option. Since Westminster won't give us that option, it feels like stick or twist, and I'd twist on the basis that it can't be worse and we'd have full autonomy. It's that simple for me. A read back through this thread and I struggle to see how any other conclusion could be reached.

[TheMaganator]

I've just added mine. I voted undecided, as I'd prefer to have seen the white paper first, and Better Togethers response to it.

 

Saying that, if push came to shove and I was forced to vote tomorrow, it would be a yes. Devo-max was my choice, but it's not an option. Since Westminster won't give us that option, it feels like stick or twist, and I'd twist on the basis that it can't be worse and we'd have full autonomy. It's that simple for me. A read back through this thread and I struggle to see how any other conclusion could be reached.

 

Would your Yes, become a No, if there were cross party propsals on the table - for further devolution? Ifs and buts, I appreciate, but that may be something that is coming.

[Das Root]

 

 

 

I've just added mine. I voted undecided, as I'd prefer to have seen the white paper first, and Better Togethers response to it.

 

Saying that, if push came to shove and I was forced to vote tomorrow, it would be a yes. Devo-max was my choice, but it's not an option. Since Westminster won't give us that option, it feels like stick or twist, and I'd twist on the basis that it can't be worse and we'd have full autonomy. It's that simple for me. A read back through this thread and I struggle to see how any other conclusion could be reached.

 

 

Did you get a page error when replying to Uly's post? Same thing happened to me yesterday.

[Craig_]

 

Indeed. Would imagine the shipyards getting closed fairly sharpish after a NO vote too...

[TheMaganator]

You do realise that it'll be the three main parties & the SNP in an independent Scotland? And that over time the SNP will become smaller & weaker.

 

There will be no change in the political landscape of Scotland if we vote Yes.

 

Anyway I think we'll see it early next year & I think it'll sway a lot if undecideds.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

Indeed. Would imagine the shipyards getting closed fairly sharpish after a NO vote too...

What do you think will happen to the Shipyards without the guarantee Royal Navy contracts?

 

The noises I'm hearing from the Yes camp is that of a smaller military. So once the yards have made our patrol vessels, then what?

 

[JamboX2]

Indeed. Would imagine the shipyards getting closed fairly sharpish after a NO vote too...

 

The failure of the Clyde Yards is a lack of designs from it's owners which are competitive on the open market. The Brazilians, Suadis, Indians, Spanish, Australians, New Zealanders, Argentinians, South Africans and the like would rather buy American, German or French than those BAE design. An example of this is the Type 45, a world class peice of engineering and one of the worlds most advanced and hightech stealth warships going and yet little export demand - why? A mix of an over reliance on the UK government on BAE's behalf making them harder to export due to design specs and also a lack of affordability. Signapore and Suadi Arabia bought the French equivalent due to it's cost. BAE needs to produce competative smaller vessels like Germany and France do which are wanted. That was the main failing of British industry in the 1970s, noone wanted to buy what we sold, due to the Falklands and a need for an island to have a domestically produced fleet the Clyde, and Rosyth, Yards have been kept going on dripping life support. It's reached the point now where even the UK can't afford to buy British.

 

To me this is the position irregardless of next years vote. In fact this has been a publically known fact since 2007/08 when the Carrier cost increased. Added to the fact that no military vessel - ie that which is armed - has been bought by the UK government from outwith it's borders make the yards position highly muddled in the run up to the vote. BAE have even said that position of the UK government in policy terms makes it likely they'd save the English yards and one of thier 3 Clyde yards. It's a messy position. Salmond could say "I will order 5 frigates and 10 patrol ships" if Yes wins. But that'd smell like State Aid and the EU doesn't like that.

 

Quebec has never been an independent country that gave up sovereignty.

 

I thought Scotland was meant to be a world player with its union with the UK...but we don't care what world countries think of us? Odd.

 

We do have a better position in the UK in terms of soft-power - diplomatic and international development - strength. But how we use that shouldn't influence how we feel others will view us. As decisions made through it are in our national interests. Much like India feels extreme poverty shouldn't mean they can't or shouldn't send probes to Mars.

 

Scots should vote on this issue based on their opinions of how it will affect them and Scotland. Not on how say the Iranians or Peruvians view us as a result of it. That'd frankly be embarrasingly childish.

 

On the STV programme last night he said he thought the SNP were further left than Labour at present. Scotland Tonight show.

 

http://www.yesscotland.net/news/labour-stalwart-sir-charles-gray-endorses-yes-vote

 

Says the contrary in this article - "The retired railwayman said he was confident that if Scotland votes Yes next year Labour will be elected the first government of an independent Scotland in 2016. He said: ?I would appeal to all Labour supporters to grab this unique opportunity and to vote for an independent Scotland so that we can start to build the kind of country we want for our families and future generations based on an agenda of social justice and fairness...."

 

A greater devolution as a result????? Fat chance!

 

We are courted by the Westminster parties right now and will be dumped if No wins the day.

 

They will be bored with us. "You have had your wee parliament in Edinburgh & your devolution, your Calman and your referendum now go away as we have more important things to worry about" is exactly what they will say.

 

Then it reverts to Scottish interests having no voice in the Westminster parliament and the world stage!

 

If we are getting new powers and a greater devolution deal what is it/ are they???? No way you or anyone else can say because it does not exist and never will.

 

Even more nuclear weapons perhaps (than the largest assembled dump of nuclear bombs in one location in the world)?

 

If we cannot trust the UK as a whole to work together to provide devolution and work together to achieve it for Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and English Cities, then it must be hard to trust goodwill in independence negotiations. In fact that "YOU CAN'T TRUST WESTMINSTER" line runs opposed to the SNP/Yes position of "the negotiations will be full of good will and happiness and equality". The fact is we need only look to Wales. It was never an area of high concern for the UK Parliament in terms of it's devolution. Yet it is engaged in a process of gaining more power and control on tax, spend, borrowing and broadening it's powers at Assembly and Government level. Encouraging signs. Ones Scotland should take note of. If a pro-Union, devolution party won a big majority or a high vote share and demanded talks on reform then they'd happen. The SNP won and there were talks and moves towards a referendum we are debating now! Can't say that about Catalonia can you?

[Das Root]

You do realise that it'll be the three main parties & the SNP in an independent Scotland? And that over time the SNP will become smaller & weaker.

 

There will be no change in the political landscape of Scotland if we vote Yes.

 

Anyway I think we'll see it early next year & I think it'll sway a lot if undecideds.

 

 

We cares? I would imagine the SNP will disband after Yes achieved, that's what the party was all about. At least Labour, Tories and Lib Dems will be proper Scottish parties who only care about Scottish people and Scotland. None of this "what's good for Westminster is good for Scotland" shite we get at the moment.

 

There will also be many heavy hitter Westminster Scottish MPs working in Holyrood after independence, plenty of talent to help forge our new nation.

[Das Root]

What do you think will happen to the Shipyards without the guarantee Royal Navy contracts?

 

The noises I'm hearing from the Yes camp is that of a smaller military. So once the yards have made our patrol vessels, then what?

 

 

Make someone elses. Plenty of scope to attract foreign buyers with incentives. Better to keep people working and paying taxes than on the dole wasting their skills. You may not save anything with reduced benefits offset by incentives to get buyers buying, but a working population is worth that.

[Das Root]

http://www.yesscotla...dorses-yes-vote

 

Says the contrary in this article - "The retired railwayman said he was confident that if Scotland votes Yes next year Labour will be elected the first government of an independent Scotland in 2016. He said: ?I would appeal to all Labour supporters to grab this unique opportunity and to vote for an independent Scotland so that we can start to build the kind of country we want for our families and future generations based on an agenda of social justice and fairness...."

 

 

Yeh, I'm talking about the TV show, not an article. Feel free to watch it on STV Player. Starts 10mins in.

 

 

http://player.stv.tv/programmes/scotland-tonight/

[JamboX2]

We cares? I would imagine the SNP will disband after Yes achieved, that's what the party was all about. At least Labour, Tories and Lib Dems will be proper Scottish parties who only care about Scottish people and Scotland. None of this "what's good for Westminster is good for Scotland" shite we get at the moment.

 

There will also be many heavy hitter Westminster Scottish MPs working in Holyrood after independence, plenty of talent to help forge our new nation.

 

The SNP are already discusing dropping the S in SNP. Andew Wilson's article in the Scotland on Sunday two weeks ago showed that. As long Salmond is in command they'll be a going concern. He's like Galloway, all about him but he's got followers.

 

On your bit about "Westminster v Scotland" mentality. That's a myth. Blair and Brown hated how "divergent" Scotland's and Wales' governments where in policy terms under Labour led administrations. McLeish recounts a story of how Alastair Campbell phoned Dewar and asked why he was letting the LibDems "run riot on tuition fees" to which Dewar said "they are the wants of Scots", or Ashdown who told Blair that if he couldn't cope with the idea of divergence then he shouldn't have eagerly pursued devolution. Even Wee Jack McConnell was seen as a rebel to New Labour dogma by Westminster politicians. The failing is in expressing the difference and "Scots" values and convictions the Dewar, McLeish and McConnell administrations actually displayed contrary to Blair's project down south. Rhodri Morgan in Wales done much much better at this. It's a myth peddled by the SNP and the Yes Campaign that the other 3 main parties are somehow in hoc to all things London. Most of which Salmond holds up as examples of a different way were brought about by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

[JamboX2]

Yeh, I'm talking about the TV show, not an article. Feel free to watch it on STV Player. Starts 10mins in.

 

 

http://player.stv.tv...otland-tonight/

 

I saw that too. However, he doesn't explicitly say this in the article. He actually says the opposite by arguing the best bet for a better Scotland is Labour winning in 2016 come a yes vote. So there's disconnect in his own musings. I'd say read his article. Pretty interesting.

 

Make someone elses. Plenty of scope to attract foreign buyers with incentives. Better to keep people working and paying taxes than on the dole wasting their skills. You may not save anything with reduced benefits offset by incentives to get buyers buying, but a working population is worth that.

 

That'll only happen if BAE sells up. They are failing the yard workers by not being able to attract foreign purchases. The key failure of Scottish and British shipyards has been a failure to get buyers from out with the UK government since the 1970s. It's lucky the Falklands meant we needed extra boats and also made us turn back to a blue seas fleet. I agree it's better to be open and employing than paying dole money in large amounts, but it's a failure of business plan and the owners, not the yards. That may not change due to the constitutional settlement, that's an economic change that's needed.

[Ulysses]

 

I am not sure what you are saying here as the quote function didnt work properly - but on the Germany, France and UK not being sovereign states:

 

Every Member of the EU can have its laws overturned by Europe. That doesn't sound very soverign to me.

 

In Scotland - when you exhaust the appeal procedure here - you appeal to the Supreme Court in the UK (that has Scottish judges on the panel). The function of the Supreme Court used to be performed by the House of Lords. So, at worst, in the Supreme Court, you will have a decision that is heavily influenced by Scottish judges (the ones from rUK tend to defer to the opinions of the Scottish judges in Scotish cases).

 

Dont like that result? You appeal to Europe who have the power to overturn the Scottish & Supreme Court rulings.

 

Though the courts in other countires will have different names the procedure is the same.

 

Dont like being 'dictated' to by Westminster, or merely being an 'afterthought'? Why on earth are you (not you personally) content with the EU?

 

The ECJ can only overturn national law in a Member State where the law is out of line with the treaty obligations signed up to by the Member State or out of line with Directives issued arising from the common legislative procedures of the Union, in which each Member State takes part.

 

In other words, the EU can't overturn national law; it can require Member States to bring national law into line with things they have already agreed to do but haven't actually done yet.

[Ulysses]

The US has all manner of problems with its constitution.

 

What would those be?

 

All Scotland has to do is have a constitutional convention with cross-party representation that consults with wider civil society and produces a draft text of a constitution. Let that be adopted by a referendum and provide a mechanism for subsequent amendments.

[Das Root]

The SNP are already discusing dropping the S in SNP. Andew Wilson's article in the Scotland on Sunday two weeks ago showed that. As long Salmond is in command they'll be a going concern. He's like Galloway, all about him but he's got followers.

 

On your bit about "Westminster v Scotland" mentality. That's a myth. Blair and Brown hated how "divergent" Scotland's and Wales' governments where in policy terms under Labour led administrations. McLeish recounts a story of how Alastair Campbell phoned Dewar and asked why he was letting the LibDems "run riot on tuition fees" to which Dewar said "they are the wants of Scots", or Ashdown who told Blair that if he couldn't cope with the idea of divergence then he shouldn't have eagerly pursued devolution. Even Wee Jack McConnell was seen as a rebel to New Labour dogma by Westminster politicians. The failing is in expressing the difference and "Scots" values and convictions the Dewar, McLeish and McConnell administrations actually displayed contrary to Blair's project down south. Rhodri Morgan in Wales done much much better at this. It's a myth peddled by the SNP and the Yes Campaign that the other 3 main parties are somehow in hoc to all things London. Most of which Salmond holds up as examples of a different way were brought about by Scottish Labour and the Scottish Liberal Democrats.

 

 

 

Back in the 90s eh? Changed days now. Daphne Broon knows how to toe the line. Scottish Labour have had a succession of weak leaders the past 10yrs. All 3 parties would be better, with better MSPs after independence. Or are you saying all the current Scottish Westminster MPs would either stay in London (shifting to rUK constituencies) or not bother running for Edinburgh?

[Das Root]

I saw that too. However, he doesn't explicitly say this in the article. He actually says the opposite by arguing the best bet for a better Scotland is Labour winning in 2016 come a yes vote. So there's disconnect in his own musings. I'd say read his article. Pretty interesting.

 

 

 

 

 

Erm, so he says it live on TV but that doesn't matter because in the printed (and edited) article he doesn't say it?

 

In fairness he is agreeing with me, Labour in Scotland after independence would be a truer Labour party compared to the one Scotland has now.

Edited November 5, 2013 by Das Root

[jack D and coke]

 

I saw that too. However, he doesn't explicitly say this in the article. He actually says the opposite by arguing the best bet for a better Scotland is Labour winning in 2016 come a yes vote. So there's disconnect in his own musings. I'd say read his article. Pretty interesting.

 

 

 

That'll only happen if BAE sells up. They are failing the yard workers by not being able to attract foreign purchases. The key failure of Scottish and British shipyards has been a failure to get buyers from out with the UK government since the 1970s. It's lucky the Falklands meant we needed extra boats and also made us turn back to a blue seas fleet. I agree it's better to be open and employing than paying dole money in large amounts, but it's a failure of business plan and the owners, not the yards. That may not change due to the constitutional settlement, that's an economic change that's needed.

BAE aren't owned by the government and surely look to make their ships for the best price possible no? Korea I believe is making some RN vessels so why not the skilled Clyde workforce? I keep seeing better together saying we must vote no to preserve the Clyde shipyards but that would more than likely mean the closure of Portsmouth surely? Not very British in spirit in that is it? I'm sure the Portsmouth workers are praying for a Yes vote.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

What would those be?

 

All Scotland has to do is have a constitutional convention with cross-party representation that consults with wider civil society and produces a draft text of a constitution. Let that be adopted by a referendum and provide a mechanism for subsequent amendments.

The right to bare arms - written centuries ago when times were entirely different but now so enshrined that it cannot be changed.

[TheMaganator]

 

 

What would those be?

 

All Scotland has to do is have a constitutional convention with cross-party representation that consults with wider civil society and produces a draft text of a constitution. Let that be adopted by a referendum and provide a mechanism for subsequent amendments.

The right to bare arms - written centuries ago when times were entirely different but now so enshrined that it cannot be changed.

[JamboX2]

What would those be?

 

All Scotland has to do is have a constitutional convention with cross-party representation that consults with wider civil society and produces a draft text of a constitution. Let that be adopted by a referendum and provide a mechanism for subsequent amendments.

 

For me the issue on the constitution has been the want to include, by some, political principal. Ie the right to a house or a free university education. Whilst I want to see these things enacted, I don't think they are constitutional rights. A constitution should enshrine governmental and civil rights and laws. It should be something which sets out how the state is run and what basic freedoms and rights we have - a Scotland Act without reserved powers and incorporating the Human Rights Act would be ideal. The rest is for politics and government to decide. I'd personally hate a constitution which constrained the political scope of governments of various colours as a limit to democracy, or a temporal straight jacket holding future generations to outdated notions - ie like the American right to bear arms, a right designed pre-standing armies to allow militia to be founded now used to protect gun nuts ability to own semi-automatic machine guns.

[blairdin]

 

 

 

Did you get a page error when replying to Uly's post? Same thing happened to me yesterday.

 

I did indeed mate. Didn't think I'd even got my post on.

[Pans Jambo]

Anyway.....how do you like these apples naysayers????

 

http://www.businessforscotland.co.uk/revealed-the-accounting-trick-that-hides-scotlands-wealth/

 

Very interesting reading as well as the q&a's at the foot of the article.