Thursday, 19 September 2013
The Common Weal project
Really just wanted to link to an excellent article by Robin McAlpine of the Jimmy Reid Foundation, from the Sunday Herald of September 15th 2013.
Friday, 6 September 2013
Exploding the unionist myths... Again
Last night, I watched STV's Scotland Tonight debate between Nicola Sturgeon and Anas Sarwar. The debate was poorly handled by John MacKay and while Sturgeon won, it wasn't a convincing victory due to the distracting tendency of the aggressive Sarwar to shout, interrupt, take the debate off-topic and to avoid giving answers, instead sticking to sound bites and a pre-prepared script.
As always, whilst witnessing the arguments against independence put forward by Sarwar on behalf of Scottish Labour and Better Together (or Project Fear as members inside BT refer to the organisation), I could not help but be reminded of the scaremongering and lies told before our devolution referendum in 1997.
In fact, I recently watched 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' from 1997 and the claims made by the unionists (the 'No/No' or 'Think Twice' groups) throughout are depressingly familiar.
Hosted by Bernard Ponsonby (one of last night's analysts), the programme pitted Labour's Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar, then leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Jim Wallace, SNP leader Alex Salmond, all on the Yes/Yes side, against Conservative constitutional affair spokesman Michael Ancram, Labour MP for Linlithgow Tam Dalyell and chairman of the Think Twice campaign, Donald Findlay QC.
Throughout the show, fears are raised by the No side which in hindsight have proven to be nonsense. Bear that in mind when listening to today's No campaign.
Early in the show, Tam Dalyell makes reference to the fact that in the lead up to the devo referendum, it was claimed that problems such as the Skye bridge tolls could be solved by a Scottish parliament. He argues that "No amount of laws are going to meet these grievances, no amount of talk in a parliament is going to address these problems."
In actual fact, the devolved Scottish parliament DID successfully abolish the tolls in 2004.
Clearly, the UK today is deeply flawed, with rising child poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment, austerity measures, cuts to benefits, a bedroom tax which hurts the most vulnerable in our society. When unionists argue that independence is not the solution to these problems created by Westminster, remember that we were told the same about devolution and the problems of the 1990s. We were told devolution would not solve various problems which it in fact has, the Skye bridge tolls being just one example.
Successes such as the public smoking ban, free prescriptions, the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee, the Scottish government's vastly better management of the NHS, these are thanks to taking decision-making powers from Westminster and placing them in the hands of the people of Scotland, in a government who are fully accountable to the electorate at the polling station rather than a parliament where we have effect on only 10% of the members.
Independence would allow us to take further control and enjoy further successes; do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They lied to us about devolution and they lie to us still.
Later in the devolution debate show, Michael Ancram states: "I believe that these proposals are bad for Scotland, they are bad for the people of Scotland, they are bad for business in Scotland."
He also later stated that a devolved Scotland would raise taxes, be less competitive, attract less inward investment and create less jobs.
In fact, inward investment in a Scotland with a devolved government is currently at a fifteen year high, with market share at similar levels to that of 2004. It would be nigh on impossible to argue now that devolution has been bad for business in Scotland.
That claim in relation to devolution has been well and truly busted, just as it has with regards independence. While many senior figures in the No campaign are on record as saying the uncertainty around independence is bad for business in Scotland, the opposite has been found to be the case.
UK Chancellor George Osborne said: "I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland – and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'."
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "This is very damaging for Scotland because all the time businesses are asking 'Is Scotland going to stay part of the UK? Are they going to stay together? Should I invest'?"
Secretary of State Michael Moore repeated the claims, saying: "With too long a period, we will just increase the uncertainty about Scotland's future, which will affect jobs, it will affect investment plans."
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "…continuing constitutional uncertainty is damaging business in Scotland."
This has been proven to be completely false. Accountancy firm Ernst & Young, in a recent attractiveness survey, said: "There's certainly no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland; if anything, the reverse appears to be true."
More scaremongering shown to be simply not true; just as it was in '97.
On the devolution referendum's second question regarding tax-varying powers, it is claimed during the '97 show that with local government taxation, a Scottish government could bring in new taxes. Of course, in reality, Scotland has been hurt not by new taxes created by our devolved Scottish parliament, but by Wesminster's Bedroom Tax.
Donald Findlay and the No/No side warned that with tax-varying powers, the Scottish government could raise taxes - despite the fact that, at the time, the status quo of Westminter was just as able to raise taxes to an unlimited level. These same claims, proven bogus in the reality of devolution, are made with regards tax levels in an independent Scotland, where we are told we will need higher taxes to survive. The same fears are trotted out.
In 1997's show, Tam Dalyell says looking forward at the effects of devolution over the next five to twenty years, he predicts marginalisation of Scotland within UK and Europe.
This has proven to be completely bogus. Our role in Europe and support for European Union membership has increased with devolution over that period. We have the major share of the EU’s oil production, almost a quarter of its offshore renewable energy potential, a fifth of its natural gas production and a twelfth of its seas. There are approximately 150,000 workers and students who have chosen to come to Scotland from Poland, Ireland, Holland, France, and other countries of the EU.
In the event of independence, IPSOS-Mori polling shows support for membership of the EU at more than 60%. This contrasts greatly with England, where recent polling suggests that a majority of people are in favour of leaving the European Union.
We were told lies about our role in the European Union then and we are told lies about it now; about the supposed risk to membership, about the strength of our position in Europe. Now, as then, the unionists are scaremongering.
The No side claim during the 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' show that a devolved Scottish parliament would have no resources to deal with:
- Nurses' pay (Scottish Government increased nurses' pay to higher than that of their English & Welsh counterparts in 2007)
- Hospital waiting lists (90.8% of patients for which 18 Weeks RTT could be measured were seen within 18 weeks while in England, waiting times are currently at a five year high)
- Education and school repairs (Audit Scotland’s March 2008 report 'Improving the School Estate' showed significant progress had been made in improving the estate and overtaking the legacy of pre-devolution underinvestment in schools, when expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement failed to keep pace with the rate of deterioration)
We were told that the Scottish Government would not have the resources to deal with issues it has addressed far better than its Westminster counterparts. The reality has blown those lies out of the water. Now, we are told that Scotland does not have the resources to go it alone and be independent. The reality is that Scotland does have the resources and would in fact fare a great deal better with its own government having more power.
Only last week George Osborne during his visit to the North Sea oil rigs told us that our resources are better left in the hands of Westminster - that having the benefits of some 90% of North Sea oil in an independent Scotland, rather than our current 10% share, would somehow make us worse off, that we do not have the resources to cope. We had the resources to flourish with devolution and we have the resources to flourish further still in an independent nation.
Unionists told us before the devolution vote that matters such as education, housing, health, agriculture and justice would be better handled under continuing Westminster rule than in a separate Scottish government, yet few would vote now to reverse devolution. These decisions are better handled by MSPs accountable to the Scottish people.
Unionists tell us now that we would be best leaving such non-devolved matters as warfare and the economy at the hands of Westminster. The success of devolution shows us that this is not the case.
Unionists told us then that making just 10% of parliament in Westminster was better than forming 100% of parliament in Edinburgh. But the failings of government in the last 14 years have continued to come from Westminster; the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the economic crash and the resulting austerity measures.
At one point, Donald Dewar asks the Conservative why when there are powers presently exercised by Westminster, that's fine, but when those powers are passed to Scots who are going to sit in a Scottish parliament, unionists think they uniquely cannot be trusted to take sensible decisions. History repeats itself. We are being told again that decisions are better made for us in England when we have learnt from the past that this is simply not true.
Jim Wallace makes reference early in the show to the poll tax, nursery vouchers, quango-tisation of water and sewage, reform of local government. These problems were left in the past with devolution, but could just as easily be substituted for today's bedroom tax, benefits cut, austerity measures, Trident. Westminster rule hurt us then and continues to hurt us still as we do not have full powers for Holyrood.
In last night's show, Anas Sarwar - when he wasn't interrupting Sturgeon or questioning the SNP's record in goverment, like next year's referendum is even remotely about one party - unintentionally summed it up best when he said "It's not about Tory welfare reforms. I voted against them."
Scottish MPs do not have a voice in Westminster. Our country's representatives vote unanimously against bills and they are passed regardless.
Just as the Think Twice and No/No representatives failed to present a positive case for the status quo then, Sarwar used his opportunity not to speak positively of the union, but to belittle the SNP, criticise Sturgeon and fear-monger where independence was concerned.
Just as the Yes campaign has a positive vision for an independent Scotland, the Yes/Yes side of 1997 were quoted that night as saying things like "We want to return power to Scotland," that they were looking to represent "every significant strand of Scottish opinion," with the message to "Show faith. Have hope. Take courage."
Then, as now, the language of the Yes side was positive and optimistic about Scotland while the No crowd were peddling fear, concerns and pessimism. Just as devolution has proven to be a positive step for Scotland, independence would benefit our country and hand power back to the people who live here.
One audience member summed it up best, telling people that they should "Vote yes with your heads and your hearts, not no with your pockets."
We should continue to show the same faith and pride in Scotland that we showed when we voted yes to devolution. Rather than let the unionists win by scaremongering and shouting down the chance to make Scotland better, we should grab our opportunity with both hands. History has judged us to be right in doing so in 1997 and the future would prove us to be right in voting for independence.
As always, whilst witnessing the arguments against independence put forward by Sarwar on behalf of Scottish Labour and Better Together (or Project Fear as members inside BT refer to the organisation), I could not help but be reminded of the scaremongering and lies told before our devolution referendum in 1997.
In fact, I recently watched 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' from 1997 and the claims made by the unionists (the 'No/No' or 'Think Twice' groups) throughout are depressingly familiar.
Hosted by Bernard Ponsonby (one of last night's analysts), the programme pitted Labour's Secretary of State, the late Donald Dewar, then leader of the Scottish Liberal Democrats Jim Wallace, SNP leader Alex Salmond, all on the Yes/Yes side, against Conservative constitutional affair spokesman Michael Ancram, Labour MP for Linlithgow Tam Dalyell and chairman of the Think Twice campaign, Donald Findlay QC.
Throughout the show, fears are raised by the No side which in hindsight have proven to be nonsense. Bear that in mind when listening to today's No campaign.
Early in the show, Tam Dalyell makes reference to the fact that in the lead up to the devo referendum, it was claimed that problems such as the Skye bridge tolls could be solved by a Scottish parliament. He argues that "No amount of laws are going to meet these grievances, no amount of talk in a parliament is going to address these problems."
In actual fact, the devolved Scottish parliament DID successfully abolish the tolls in 2004.
Clearly, the UK today is deeply flawed, with rising child poverty, unacceptable levels of unemployment, austerity measures, cuts to benefits, a bedroom tax which hurts the most vulnerable in our society. When unionists argue that independence is not the solution to these problems created by Westminster, remember that we were told the same about devolution and the problems of the 1990s. We were told devolution would not solve various problems which it in fact has, the Skye bridge tolls being just one example.
Successes such as the public smoking ban, free prescriptions, the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee, the Scottish government's vastly better management of the NHS, these are thanks to taking decision-making powers from Westminster and placing them in the hands of the people of Scotland, in a government who are fully accountable to the electorate at the polling station rather than a parliament where we have effect on only 10% of the members.
Independence would allow us to take further control and enjoy further successes; do not believe anyone who tells you otherwise. They lied to us about devolution and they lie to us still.
Later in the devolution debate show, Michael Ancram states: "I believe that these proposals are bad for Scotland, they are bad for the people of Scotland, they are bad for business in Scotland."
He also later stated that a devolved Scotland would raise taxes, be less competitive, attract less inward investment and create less jobs.
In fact, inward investment in a Scotland with a devolved government is currently at a fifteen year high, with market share at similar levels to that of 2004. It would be nigh on impossible to argue now that devolution has been bad for business in Scotland.
That claim in relation to devolution has been well and truly busted, just as it has with regards independence. While many senior figures in the No campaign are on record as saying the uncertainty around independence is bad for business in Scotland, the opposite has been found to be the case.
UK Chancellor George Osborne said: "I think that uncertainty is damaging investment in Scotland – and there are major businesses around the world who have asked me as chancellor in the last year 'tell us what is going on in Scotland - we're worried about making an investment in that country'."
Prime Minister David Cameron said: "This is very damaging for Scotland because all the time businesses are asking 'Is Scotland going to stay part of the UK? Are they going to stay together? Should I invest'?"
Secretary of State Michael Moore repeated the claims, saying: "With too long a period, we will just increase the uncertainty about Scotland's future, which will affect jobs, it will affect investment plans."
Scottish Tory leader Ruth Davidson said: "…continuing constitutional uncertainty is damaging business in Scotland."
This has been proven to be completely false. Accountancy firm Ernst & Young, in a recent attractiveness survey, said: "There's certainly no sign of investors being deterred from coming to Scotland; if anything, the reverse appears to be true."
More scaremongering shown to be simply not true; just as it was in '97.
On the devolution referendum's second question regarding tax-varying powers, it is claimed during the '97 show that with local government taxation, a Scottish government could bring in new taxes. Of course, in reality, Scotland has been hurt not by new taxes created by our devolved Scottish parliament, but by Wesminster's Bedroom Tax.
Donald Findlay and the No/No side warned that with tax-varying powers, the Scottish government could raise taxes - despite the fact that, at the time, the status quo of Westminter was just as able to raise taxes to an unlimited level. These same claims, proven bogus in the reality of devolution, are made with regards tax levels in an independent Scotland, where we are told we will need higher taxes to survive. The same fears are trotted out.
In 1997's show, Tam Dalyell says looking forward at the effects of devolution over the next five to twenty years, he predicts marginalisation of Scotland within UK and Europe.
This has proven to be completely bogus. Our role in Europe and support for European Union membership has increased with devolution over that period. We have the major share of the EU’s oil production, almost a quarter of its offshore renewable energy potential, a fifth of its natural gas production and a twelfth of its seas. There are approximately 150,000 workers and students who have chosen to come to Scotland from Poland, Ireland, Holland, France, and other countries of the EU.
In the event of independence, IPSOS-Mori polling shows support for membership of the EU at more than 60%. This contrasts greatly with England, where recent polling suggests that a majority of people are in favour of leaving the European Union.
We were told lies about our role in the European Union then and we are told lies about it now; about the supposed risk to membership, about the strength of our position in Europe. Now, as then, the unionists are scaremongering.
The No side claim during the 'Scotland Debates: Devolution' show that a devolved Scottish parliament would have no resources to deal with:
- Nurses' pay (Scottish Government increased nurses' pay to higher than that of their English & Welsh counterparts in 2007)
- Hospital waiting lists (90.8% of patients for which 18 Weeks RTT could be measured were seen within 18 weeks while in England, waiting times are currently at a five year high)
- Education and school repairs (Audit Scotland’s March 2008 report 'Improving the School Estate' showed significant progress had been made in improving the estate and overtaking the legacy of pre-devolution underinvestment in schools, when expenditure on maintenance, repair and replacement failed to keep pace with the rate of deterioration)
We were told that the Scottish Government would not have the resources to deal with issues it has addressed far better than its Westminster counterparts. The reality has blown those lies out of the water. Now, we are told that Scotland does not have the resources to go it alone and be independent. The reality is that Scotland does have the resources and would in fact fare a great deal better with its own government having more power.
Only last week George Osborne during his visit to the North Sea oil rigs told us that our resources are better left in the hands of Westminster - that having the benefits of some 90% of North Sea oil in an independent Scotland, rather than our current 10% share, would somehow make us worse off, that we do not have the resources to cope. We had the resources to flourish with devolution and we have the resources to flourish further still in an independent nation.
Unionists told us before the devolution vote that matters such as education, housing, health, agriculture and justice would be better handled under continuing Westminster rule than in a separate Scottish government, yet few would vote now to reverse devolution. These decisions are better handled by MSPs accountable to the Scottish people.
Unionists tell us now that we would be best leaving such non-devolved matters as warfare and the economy at the hands of Westminster. The success of devolution shows us that this is not the case.
Unionists told us then that making just 10% of parliament in Westminster was better than forming 100% of parliament in Edinburgh. But the failings of government in the last 14 years have continued to come from Westminster; the war in Iraq, the war in Afghanistan, the economic crash and the resulting austerity measures.
At one point, Donald Dewar asks the Conservative why when there are powers presently exercised by Westminster, that's fine, but when those powers are passed to Scots who are going to sit in a Scottish parliament, unionists think they uniquely cannot be trusted to take sensible decisions. History repeats itself. We are being told again that decisions are better made for us in England when we have learnt from the past that this is simply not true.
Jim Wallace makes reference early in the show to the poll tax, nursery vouchers, quango-tisation of water and sewage, reform of local government. These problems were left in the past with devolution, but could just as easily be substituted for today's bedroom tax, benefits cut, austerity measures, Trident. Westminster rule hurt us then and continues to hurt us still as we do not have full powers for Holyrood.
In last night's show, Anas Sarwar - when he wasn't interrupting Sturgeon or questioning the SNP's record in goverment, like next year's referendum is even remotely about one party - unintentionally summed it up best when he said "It's not about Tory welfare reforms. I voted against them."
Scottish MPs do not have a voice in Westminster. Our country's representatives vote unanimously against bills and they are passed regardless.
Just as the Think Twice and No/No representatives failed to present a positive case for the status quo then, Sarwar used his opportunity not to speak positively of the union, but to belittle the SNP, criticise Sturgeon and fear-monger where independence was concerned.
Just as the Yes campaign has a positive vision for an independent Scotland, the Yes/Yes side of 1997 were quoted that night as saying things like "We want to return power to Scotland," that they were looking to represent "every significant strand of Scottish opinion," with the message to "Show faith. Have hope. Take courage."
Then, as now, the language of the Yes side was positive and optimistic about Scotland while the No crowd were peddling fear, concerns and pessimism. Just as devolution has proven to be a positive step for Scotland, independence would benefit our country and hand power back to the people who live here.
One audience member summed it up best, telling people that they should "Vote yes with your heads and your hearts, not no with your pockets."
We should continue to show the same faith and pride in Scotland that we showed when we voted yes to devolution. Rather than let the unionists win by scaremongering and shouting down the chance to make Scotland better, we should grab our opportunity with both hands. History has judged us to be right in doing so in 1997 and the future would prove us to be right in voting for independence.
Saturday, 6 April 2013
The link between devolution and nationalism
“Devolution will kill nationalism stone dead.”
George Robertson’s famous quote has looked ever more
ridiculous as time has passed. It was quoted in 2007 when the SNP won control
of the Scottish parliament and dug up again in 2011 when they won a majority
many thought impossible. The quote has never seemed more ironic than it does now,
as we head to a referendum on Scottish independence on 18th
September 2014.
Why was Robertson so wrong? Why, after 16 years of
devolution, is nationalism on the Scottish public agenda more than ever?
Of course, the simple answer is that devolution has worked
so well because countries are better governed by their own people. Independence
is the natural next step to a model of devolution which has been successful but
not without limits.
Since 1997, Scotland
has fared best in areas of governance we control within Holyrood. Where we have
been failed is in areas such as warfare – with the Iraq and Afghanistan wars –
and the economy, still controlled by Westminster. Naturally, this has lead to a
debate on winning more power and more control for Holyrood.
Recent polls show that support for full-blown independence
still lacks majority backing. However, it is clear that most Scots want further
devolution; in a January 2012 Ipsos MORI poll, 71% backed the concept of ‘Devolution
Max’.
While Devo Max is not on the table, this shows that there
are a great number of undecided voters who want
more power for Scotland, but are not sure how they want such a thing framed: in
an independent Scotland, or as part of a United Kingdom promising more power
after the referendum.
The challenge for the ‘Yes’ campaign is to convince these
voters that Scotland would be better run with full control as an independent
nation.
The unionists, meanwhile, will have to convince the public
that greater autonomy will be best accommodated as part of the union.
The SNP were formed with the very purpose of winning
independence and in turn more power for Scotland. The unionist parties,
however, will have a job on their hands to convince voters that they truly care
about more power for Scotland.
Promises of more power have appeared only as part of their
campaign against independence, and not as part of any innate desire to see
Scotland with more control of its affairs.
The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib Dems have all now been
quoted as saying they want to offer more power to Scotland in 2015, after a ‘no’
vote. None are willing to provide full details of those powers, leading to
shouts of “jam tomorrow”
Of course, before the 1979 referendum, Scots were promised
that a future Conservative government would offer Scotland “something better”. This proved to be the reign of Margaret
Thatcher.
In truth, few voters – even those not born in ’79 - will be naïve
enough to believe that in the event that Scotland returns a ‘no’ vote, there
will be anything but a token gesture offered by the unionist parties in terms
of further powers for Scotland.
The only way to ensure that full control of Scottish affairs
is in Scottish hands - that the desire of those 71% surveyed by Ipsos MORI is met - is to vote ‘Yes’ for an independent Scotland.
Westminster control has hurt Scotland time and time again.
In 2003, MPs voted on an amendment to the Iraq war motion –
that the case for war was not established. 52% of Scottish MPs voted against
the war. Overall, 65% of Westminster MPs voted for.
In 2007, 60% of Scottish MPs voted against the renewal of
Trident; in Westminster overall, 72% voted for.
Scotland’s share of Trident costs is estimated at around £163 million
per year - and our share of the replacement costs about £84 million per year
for 15 years.
In January 2013, Scottish MPs voted 11 for and 46 against in
the vote on the benefits cut. In Westminster this was 324 for, 268 against.
In February 2013, 4 Scottish MPs voted in favour of the
bedroom tax, 41 against. Overall, 265 MPs voted for whilst 224 voted against.
Our voice is not heard in Westminster. Only in an independent
Scotland – with a government we elected – can Scottish politicians truly
represent the people of Scotland and have their votes matter.
Nationalism is alive and kicking because devolution has
stoked within the people of Scotland a desire for more control over their own
affairs. It’s clear that the ‘no’ vote will lead only to more of the same for
Scotland; that same lack of control and those same hurtful Westminster policies which
have lead to a clamour for more power in the first place.
If you believe that Scotland ought to have more control over
its own affairs, a ‘yes’ vote is the only decision which will deliver that.
Thursday, 24 January 2013
Quotes on an independent Scotland
A selection of quotes I've found particularly interesting, inspiring, enlightening or amusing while taking part in the great debate on Scottish independence. I plan to update this from time to time as I find other quotes of interest.
"Vote for oil revenue, which we ensure flows directly from us into you.
"Vote for being told you’re the only country in the world that could not possibly survive and that without us you’d fall to pieces like children abandoned in the wild, caked in faeces."
Alan Bissett (in his brilliant video, 'Vote Britain')
"In our ‘home nations’ over the last thirty years we’ve all been absolutely taken for a ride. If you doubt the veracity of this statement, just look at where the distribution of wealth has gone. It hasn’t been to a beaten underclass, a working-class on paltry pay and suffering worsening conditions, nor has it found its way into the pockets of a debt-ridden, fearful middle-class. Notice who is doing better than okay? The UK state can be said to have served somebody well over the last thirty years; it just hasn’t been the vast majority of its own citizens."
Irvine Welsh, author
"Separatists like Alex Salmond want to duck the tough questions. He calls himself a social democrat yet he fails to deal with the many issues for democracy that arise from being a separate Scotland.
"He calls himself a progressive but what's progressive about breaking Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom then giving away powers to Europe?
"It completely defeats the SNP argument that Scotland would fare better with more control over its affairs when they seek to hand over so many serious areas of government elsewhere.
"And people want to know – and they have the right to know – what handing over those powers will mean. Joining Europe's borderless Schengen area … will open Scotland's border up to mass immigration."
Theresa May, Home Secretary
"An independent Scotland could lead to a revival of the Scottish Labour Party because many of Scottish Labour's problems stem from the fact that it has been de-radicalised through its ties to London. Independence would be like escaping from a political straitjacket. An independent Scotland would mean an independent Scottish Labour Party free to determine its own agenda in accordance with the values and aspirations of the people of Scotland."
Dennis Canavan, former Labour MP and chair of pro-independence campaign group Yes Scotland's advisory board.
“I want Scotland to be independent not because I think we are better than any other country but because I know we are just as good as any other country.”
Alex Salmond, First Minister
"And tuition fees are not the only battleground on which Salmond is trying to alienate the Auld Enemy.
"He has furnished the Scots with free personal care at home for the over-65s, free prescriptions, free hospital parking, and free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. Essentially, any public service which English taxpayers resent having to pay for, Alex Salmond will ensure becomes free for Scots.
"The message for English voters is: Granny McTavish is living it up at your expense.
"The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it."
Ross Clark, Daily Mail
"So for me, the question now is – why not? We know we can do this. If we can improve the standards of health care, be amongst the top in world rankings for academic research and science, use our public investment wisely to become a leading country in renewable energy – then we can take one more step. Take charge of all the economic and social and fiscal powers and responsibilities of any other nation."
Jeane Freeman, adviser to former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell
“Labour is flagrantly disregarding the fundamental core of our values on free healthcare and education for all. We have sat back and watched as the higher-ups of the party moved us away from the party of the worker to the party of the wealthy - a party which has the temerity to claim that Scotland has a something-for-nothing society. I’m sorry that I stood by and watched these people take away the real Labour values of my party. I’m sorry for letting my party take the people of Scotland for granted and I’m sorry that we ever let those who have done this to our once-great party come to power.
Allan Grogan, Labour party member and founder of Labour For Independence
"Now our case is not that Scotland cannot survive as a separate state. Of course it could."
Alastair Darling, leader of the 'Better Together' campaign
"I don't mind whether you call it independence or Devo Max it is obvious the Scottish should run their own affairs."
Jon Snow, broadcaster
"We need to protect our old & vulnerable-to do that we need to take charge of our own affairs. That’s why we are voting Yes"
Craig & Charlie Reid, The Proclaimers
"...If that were to happen what alternative would England have but to come and bomb the hell out of Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport?"
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on the possibility of an enemy commander ordering the runways at Scottish airports to be cleared because his planes would be landing
"All the issues that society has today, Scotland could be a beautiful example of a way forward if open & not too reactionary."
Annie Lennox, Eurythmics
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014.
"There are many things I want this coalition Government to do, but what could matter more than saving our United Kingdom?
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together, and let us fight that referendum with everything we've got."
David Cameron, UK Prime Minister
"It would be a shame if Scotland left the UK. On the other hand I don’t think it would be a disaster."
Armando Iannuci, writer/director
"If I had the chance to be independent from the Tory-Liberal-New Labour bunch, I‘d jump at it."
Ken Loach, director
“The SNP is going to have to explain what its plans are for the currency of Scotland, what its plans are for the defence of Scotland when it doesn’t have the protection of the UK, what its plans are for the Scottish economy when it’s not part of a larger economy.”
George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer
"Greens are not nationalists, and we're not motivated by devotion to one flag or the other. But we can see huge opportunities to make our country fairer and greener."
Patrick Harvie, Scottish Green Party
"What we found during the economic crisis was that a Scottish government would have been like an Irish or an Icelandic government.
"It couldn't have sustained the jobs in the financial services industry. Ninety percent of them were jobs that serviced English customers.
"We rescued the banks as a UK government. A Scottish government could never have done that.
Gordon Brown, former UK Prime Minister
"An independent Scotland will be outward looking, culturally confident, fiscally successful; an example to other small nations"
Brian Cox, actor
"No previous generation of Scots since the 1707 Treaty of Union has been tasked with that which has fallen to my generation: to decide the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom in a single Yes/No ballot. It is a privileged responsibility and, as such, one that calls for all Scots to reconsider where their existing loyalties lie. It's simply not acceptable for any Scot to close his mind to the idea of life in an independent Scotland and to declare the contest over 22 months before the referendum takes place."
Kevin McKenna, former deputy editor of The Herald and executive editor of the Daily Mail in Scotland
"Vote for oil revenue, which we ensure flows directly from us into you.
"Vote for being told you’re the only country in the world that could not possibly survive and that without us you’d fall to pieces like children abandoned in the wild, caked in faeces."
Alan Bissett (in his brilliant video, 'Vote Britain')
"In our ‘home nations’ over the last thirty years we’ve all been absolutely taken for a ride. If you doubt the veracity of this statement, just look at where the distribution of wealth has gone. It hasn’t been to a beaten underclass, a working-class on paltry pay and suffering worsening conditions, nor has it found its way into the pockets of a debt-ridden, fearful middle-class. Notice who is doing better than okay? The UK state can be said to have served somebody well over the last thirty years; it just hasn’t been the vast majority of its own citizens."
Irvine Welsh, author
"Separatists like Alex Salmond want to duck the tough questions. He calls himself a social democrat yet he fails to deal with the many issues for democracy that arise from being a separate Scotland.
"He calls himself a progressive but what's progressive about breaking Scotland off from the rest of the United Kingdom then giving away powers to Europe?
"It completely defeats the SNP argument that Scotland would fare better with more control over its affairs when they seek to hand over so many serious areas of government elsewhere.
"And people want to know – and they have the right to know – what handing over those powers will mean. Joining Europe's borderless Schengen area … will open Scotland's border up to mass immigration."
Theresa May, Home Secretary
"An independent Scotland could lead to a revival of the Scottish Labour Party because many of Scottish Labour's problems stem from the fact that it has been de-radicalised through its ties to London. Independence would be like escaping from a political straitjacket. An independent Scotland would mean an independent Scottish Labour Party free to determine its own agenda in accordance with the values and aspirations of the people of Scotland."
Dennis Canavan, former Labour MP and chair of pro-independence campaign group Yes Scotland's advisory board.
“I want Scotland to be independent not because I think we are better than any other country but because I know we are just as good as any other country.”
Alex Salmond, First Minister
"And tuition fees are not the only battleground on which Salmond is trying to alienate the Auld Enemy.
"He has furnished the Scots with free personal care at home for the over-65s, free prescriptions, free hospital parking, and free school meals for five to seven-year-olds. Essentially, any public service which English taxpayers resent having to pay for, Alex Salmond will ensure becomes free for Scots.
"The message for English voters is: Granny McTavish is living it up at your expense.
"The great irony is that under EU law, Scottish universities are not allowed to discriminate against members of other EU states. Were Miss Watts a Belgian, a Pole or a Greek, she would be entitled to free education at a Scottish university. But English? Forget it."
Ross Clark, Daily Mail
"So for me, the question now is – why not? We know we can do this. If we can improve the standards of health care, be amongst the top in world rankings for academic research and science, use our public investment wisely to become a leading country in renewable energy – then we can take one more step. Take charge of all the economic and social and fiscal powers and responsibilities of any other nation."
Jeane Freeman, adviser to former Labour First Minister Jack McConnell
“Labour is flagrantly disregarding the fundamental core of our values on free healthcare and education for all. We have sat back and watched as the higher-ups of the party moved us away from the party of the worker to the party of the wealthy - a party which has the temerity to claim that Scotland has a something-for-nothing society. I’m sorry that I stood by and watched these people take away the real Labour values of my party. I’m sorry for letting my party take the people of Scotland for granted and I’m sorry that we ever let those who have done this to our once-great party come to power.
Allan Grogan, Labour party member and founder of Labour For Independence
"Now our case is not that Scotland cannot survive as a separate state. Of course it could."
Alastair Darling, leader of the 'Better Together' campaign
"I don't mind whether you call it independence or Devo Max it is obvious the Scottish should run their own affairs."
Jon Snow, broadcaster
"We need to protect our old & vulnerable-to do that we need to take charge of our own affairs. That’s why we are voting Yes"
Craig & Charlie Reid, The Proclaimers
"...If that were to happen what alternative would England have but to come and bomb the hell out of Glasgow airport and Edinburgh airport?"
Lord Fraser of Carmyllie, on the possibility of an enemy commander ordering the runways at Scottish airports to be cleared because his planes would be landing
"All the issues that society has today, Scotland could be a beautiful example of a way forward if open & not too reactionary."
Annie Lennox, Eurythmics
"I'm going to see him on Monday to sort out that referendum on independence by the end of 2014.
"There are many things I want this coalition Government to do, but what could matter more than saving our United Kingdom?
"Let's say it, we're better together and we'll rise together, and let us fight that referendum with everything we've got."
David Cameron, UK Prime Minister
"It would be a shame if Scotland left the UK. On the other hand I don’t think it would be a disaster."
Armando Iannuci, writer/director
"If I had the chance to be independent from the Tory-Liberal-New Labour bunch, I‘d jump at it."
Ken Loach, director
“The SNP is going to have to explain what its plans are for the currency of Scotland, what its plans are for the defence of Scotland when it doesn’t have the protection of the UK, what its plans are for the Scottish economy when it’s not part of a larger economy.”
George Osborne, Chancellor of the Exchequer
"Greens are not nationalists, and we're not motivated by devotion to one flag or the other. But we can see huge opportunities to make our country fairer and greener."
Patrick Harvie, Scottish Green Party
"What we found during the economic crisis was that a Scottish government would have been like an Irish or an Icelandic government.
"It couldn't have sustained the jobs in the financial services industry. Ninety percent of them were jobs that serviced English customers.
"We rescued the banks as a UK government. A Scottish government could never have done that.
Gordon Brown, former UK Prime Minister
"An independent Scotland will be outward looking, culturally confident, fiscally successful; an example to other small nations"
Brian Cox, actor
"No previous generation of Scots since the 1707 Treaty of Union has been tasked with that which has fallen to my generation: to decide the future of Scotland and the United Kingdom in a single Yes/No ballot. It is a privileged responsibility and, as such, one that calls for all Scots to reconsider where their existing loyalties lie. It's simply not acceptable for any Scot to close his mind to the idea of life in an independent Scotland and to declare the contest over 22 months before the referendum takes place."
Kevin McKenna, former deputy editor of The Herald and executive editor of the Daily Mail in Scotland
Saturday, 6 October 2012
Scotland & the UK: better together or better apart?
‘The No campaign’ may have been a more obvious and honest
title but eschewing that negative connotation, “Better Together” became the
name of the campaign opposing “Yes Scotland”
Better Together must be mindful of negative arguments and
those that the Scottish people see as playing down our country’s ability to
survive on her own. Indeed, on the Better Together website, their article ‘The
+ve case’ starts by declaring “We love Scotland,” then getting to the crux of
their argument: “Our case is not that Scotland could not survive as a separate
country - it is that there's a better choice for our future.”
This is an incredibly interesting argument. A look at the
history of sovereign states around the world would therefore say: Scotland and
the UK are wholly unique in being “Better Together”
Over the last century or so, the vast majority* of people who
have held independence referenda have voted ‘Yes’. Countries including Norway,
Iceland, Ukraine and Croatia have decided that they would be better governed in
an independent state.
Looking at nations who have won their independence, it seems
impossible to find one who has later reverted to their previous union.
Countries who have made this decision have universally gone on to better
governance. These countries have not regretted voting ‘Yes’.
How unique our Union would prove to be if we decided that we
are the exception. Alex Salmond once famously said “The fundamental reason for
being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they
govern themselves.”
Voters in countries around the world have shared this belief
in taking action to win their independence. In deciding that Scotland would be
better off governed not by ourselves but by a government in a foreign country,
we would be a lone voice in the crowd of world politics. What confidence we
would need to have in the UK; what little faith in Scotland.
There is no doubt that this decision is monumental, the most
important that Scottish voters will ever be asked to make at the polls.
Collectively, we must make sure that we make the right choice so that as a
nation, we are not left with regret.
Of course, the argument that Scotland will be “Better
Together” should surely be backed by a look at our history together.
Unfortunately for the Better Together campaign, there are many examples
throughout the lifetime of Scottish voters where our country would have fared
better governed by our own parliament.
In the 1970s, oil was discovered in the North Sea. While the
money generated from this benefits the UK as a whole, as much as 90% is thought
to be Scotland’s.
Norway has built a ‘rainy day’ fund with their oil revenue,
a model that has allowed them to ride out the worst of the financial crisis. The
fund began in 1996 with an initial investment of around $300 million, but
reports in August placed its value at $600 billion. It now owns one percent of
all equities across the globe. Experts now believe the fund could last a
century or more.
According to the Guardian Economics article, ‘Britain has squandered golden opportunity North Sea oil promised’, “The UK has used its oil
and gas receipts to pay for mass unemployment, tax cuts and current government
spending.”
An independent Scotland could have followed Norway’s lead in
placing its oil and gas riches in a huge pension fund, which it in turn invests
in international stocks and bonds. Instead, the money has been squandered by a
UK government who lead us into a recession. Thatcher’s deregulation of the
banks and later, Gordon Brown’s decision to hand supervision of individual banks to the Financial Services Authority,
lead us into an economic crisis.
One beneficiary of North Sea oil thrives; the other suffers
a massive recession.
Scotland would have been better apart.
Tomorrow (Sunday 7th October) marks eleven years
of the war in Afghanistan. During this time, 430 Britons have lost their lives
amid a total allied loss exceeding 3,000.
The UK’s expenditure is heading towards £20 billion; the
same amount that the government is planning to cut from the country's National
Health Service, one of just 10 good reasons to end the war which are laid out
in Stop War’s article.
During this time, we have also invaded Iraq. In 2003, a
rebel amendment was tabled against the war in Iraq by figures including the SNP
defence spokesman, Angus Robertson. At the time, the Conservatives had only 1
seat in Scotland. Almost all of their 166 MPs voted to support Tony Blair.
By contrast, only 34 out of the 72 Scottish MPs voted to
support the Government’s position.
What little say we had in the decision to
invade Iraq. The war resulted in the deaths of 179 UK soldiers, 15 of whom were
from Scotland.
Scotland would have been better apart.
The most baffling thing I find in the debate on independence
is the huge number of people who see devolution as a massive success, but are unsure
about voting ‘Yes’. Devolution has been a success precisely because nations work
best when governed by their own people.
Consider this: since 1997, what are the main political
decisions that have hurt the people of Scotland most? The decision to enter
Iraq, entering Afghanistan and the decisions that lead to the recession were
all catastrophic errors. Where Holyrood has made decisions we have generally fared
well; warfare, the economy, things Westminster control, these are the decisions
made for Scotland in the last fifteen years that have gone horribly wrong.
It makes sense that we have a university system the envy of
many when we control education, or an NHS regarded stronger than elsewhere in
the UK when health is another devolved matter. Decisions are made in Holyrood
by MPs representing all of Scotland. Where in Westminster our views only make
up a tiny 10% of the vote on any issue, why should we ever expect to be heard
but on the few issues where Scotland and the rest of the UK have similar needs
and views?
To me, that does not sound like a Union of nations who are
better together. Agreeing with the success of devolution but choosing to
leave Westminster in charge of such massive decisions makes no sense
whatosever.
If you think devolution has worked, vote ‘Yes’ to take full
control over decisions made for Scotland.
Devolution works because Scotland would
not be Better Together, but better apart.
*Only the people of Quebec (by an incredibly narrow margin),
Bermuda and Puerto Rico have voted no. Successful independence referenda are listed below:
1905 Norway
1944 Iceland
1958 Guinea
1990 Slovenia
1991 Croatia
1991 Macedonia
1991 Ukraine
1991 Georgia
1991 Transnistrian
1992 Bosnia and Herzegovina
1992 South Ossetia
1993 Eritrea
1994 Moldova
1999 East Timor
2006 Montenegro
2006 South Ossetia (retention of independence)
2006 Transnistria
2011 Southern Sudan
Saturday, 29 September 2012
Going cap in hand to George Osborne
Unionist and Leader of the Scottish Conservatives, Ruth Davidson, presented some ready-made arguments for independence in her recent Herald article 'Achieve success by working with Westminster'
Much of it revolves around highlighting the good that the Union is doing for Scotland; however, many of these arguments prove only that the status quo is decent, not that independence would fail to make our country better. If you were happy with your salary but your employer offered you a wage rise, you would take it. If a better means of governance is offered to our country, we should not hesitate to accept it simply because Scotland achieves a great deal inside the Union.
In the article, she starts by highlighting some of the recent successes in Scottish business. 7,000 new jobs created or safeguarded thanks to funding from Scottish Enterprise. Welcome news from a business attractiveness survey that finds Scotland the most likely area of the UK for foreign companies to invest in. Less of a decline in economic output north of the border than in the rest of the UK over the last six months.
Davidson then says: "Only last Friday Chancellor George Osborne announced major tax breaks for mature North Sea oil and gas fields, shielding around £500 million of income from charges to leave more cash to invest into current operations in the north-east."
Consider this point in the context of the independence debate. It is undoubtedly good news, but what if we were independent? What if our country had full governance over these matters in the first place? With independence, these policies could have been tailor-made for our economy and brought in by our own government. The Union doesn't provide this benefit where independence couldn't; the Union simply prevents us from taking control of the matter in the first place. Is being dependent on George Osborne's goodwill a good thing?
Davidson continues: "Earlier this year, after I raised the issue repeatedly with Mr Osborne, a consultation was launched with the aim of giving tax breaks to computer games firms in hubs such as Edinburgh and Dundee to enhance competitiveness in global markets."
Again, anyone on the fence should consider this with regards our independence. Miss Davidson thinks the fact that our computer games industry could be granted tax breaks - but only after her relentless badgering of Mr Osborne - is a good thing. Again, it's the sort of policy that the Scottish Government in an independent Scotland could implement with impunity.
In both these instances I am reminded of the classic Proclaimers lyric, "But I can't understand why we let someone else rule our land, cap in hand."
These may be good policies but they are initiatives that our elected representatives in an independent Scotland could do without the say-so of any London politician. These decisions could be better-made in Scotland, for the sake of the Scottish economy, by Scottish politicians chosen by Scottish people. Around 90% of politicians in Westminster are from other parts of the UK; what sense does it make for them to have a say in our business? Our country's people have no say whatsoever in the election of these political voices, many quite disparate in their ideals from the average Scottish voter.
Ruth Davidson finishes her article with the usual unionist assertions that the Union brings security and stability where independence brings only uncertainty, but nowhere in her article has she made any reasonable argument against independence. In my eyes, she has only strengthened the case, highlighting how little control we have over certain issues. We may have benefited from these Westminster decisions - in some cases after issues have been raised "repeatedly" - but nowhere does she explain why these could not have been made by an independent Scottish Government.
Much of it revolves around highlighting the good that the Union is doing for Scotland; however, many of these arguments prove only that the status quo is decent, not that independence would fail to make our country better. If you were happy with your salary but your employer offered you a wage rise, you would take it. If a better means of governance is offered to our country, we should not hesitate to accept it simply because Scotland achieves a great deal inside the Union.
In the article, she starts by highlighting some of the recent successes in Scottish business. 7,000 new jobs created or safeguarded thanks to funding from Scottish Enterprise. Welcome news from a business attractiveness survey that finds Scotland the most likely area of the UK for foreign companies to invest in. Less of a decline in economic output north of the border than in the rest of the UK over the last six months.
Davidson then says: "Only last Friday Chancellor George Osborne announced major tax breaks for mature North Sea oil and gas fields, shielding around £500 million of income from charges to leave more cash to invest into current operations in the north-east."
Consider this point in the context of the independence debate. It is undoubtedly good news, but what if we were independent? What if our country had full governance over these matters in the first place? With independence, these policies could have been tailor-made for our economy and brought in by our own government. The Union doesn't provide this benefit where independence couldn't; the Union simply prevents us from taking control of the matter in the first place. Is being dependent on George Osborne's goodwill a good thing?
Davidson continues: "Earlier this year, after I raised the issue repeatedly with Mr Osborne, a consultation was launched with the aim of giving tax breaks to computer games firms in hubs such as Edinburgh and Dundee to enhance competitiveness in global markets."
Again, anyone on the fence should consider this with regards our independence. Miss Davidson thinks the fact that our computer games industry could be granted tax breaks - but only after her relentless badgering of Mr Osborne - is a good thing. Again, it's the sort of policy that the Scottish Government in an independent Scotland could implement with impunity.
In both these instances I am reminded of the classic Proclaimers lyric, "But I can't understand why we let someone else rule our land, cap in hand."
These may be good policies but they are initiatives that our elected representatives in an independent Scotland could do without the say-so of any London politician. These decisions could be better-made in Scotland, for the sake of the Scottish economy, by Scottish politicians chosen by Scottish people. Around 90% of politicians in Westminster are from other parts of the UK; what sense does it make for them to have a say in our business? Our country's people have no say whatsoever in the election of these political voices, many quite disparate in their ideals from the average Scottish voter.
Ruth Davidson finishes her article with the usual unionist assertions that the Union brings security and stability where independence brings only uncertainty, but nowhere in her article has she made any reasonable argument against independence. In my eyes, she has only strengthened the case, highlighting how little control we have over certain issues. We may have benefited from these Westminster decisions - in some cases after issues have been raised "repeatedly" - but nowhere does she explain why these could not have been made by an independent Scottish Government.
Friday, 1 June 2012
Why I believe in Scottish independence
Being as passionate as I am on the subject of independence, I'm often asked why I want to see Scotland win its freedom - quite apart from the simple fact that the people of Scotland never voted for the union and
deserve to finally have a say on whether it's something we want. I realise that doesn't wash with everyone!
I thought it might help to lay out some of my main reasons. I have felt that Scotland should be its own country with its own government for as long as I can remember, since childhood when I first became aware of politics. Over the years, the facts I have read on the subject have simply augmented that position; but simply, it's an innate belief that I cannot help but hold. That is a hard position to explain to someone, but I have given it my best shot, whilst quoting from some excellent nationalists who are far more eloquent and better-educated on the subject than I would ever claim to be.
Firstly, I think it's vitally important that in our devolved government (which I think has been an excellent success, and I'll discuss more later), we don't currently have control of the following (according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia):
abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system
Some massive issues in there.
Defence. Scottish soldiers sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan when the majority of Scottish people were dead against it. In 2003, when millions around the world took to the streets to protest Iraq, it's estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people aired their views in Glasgow; the biggest protest that I've witnessed in Scotland in my 25 years.
There's no way to know if we would have been involved in the War in Iraq if we were independent. However, the vote was helped in large part by the 139 Conversative MPs, of whom 90% voted 'For'. Scottish people have shown again and again at the polls that this is a party we do not want in power, whose policies we don't support.
I don't see why English politicians should have a say in whether Scottish soldiers should fight wars, when the vast, vast majority of Westminster MPs were not elected by the Scottish people, and are of different political mind.
(Incidentally of the 5 SNP MPs in Westminster at the time, all 5 voted against the war in Iraq)
Trident. Again massively controversial and against the will of many of the country's people. We should be in control of these decisions.
Coal. We have an abundance of the stuff but we are still sitting on it thanks to Thatcher closing loads of perfectly viable mines. Someone on another site I read had an excellent summary of the relevance of this: "To see the future, look at the past. Imagine we had got independence 30 years ago, what would have changed. Would we still have steel and coal industries? Would we still have manufacturing industry? Would we have suffered the levels of totally unnecessary unemployment that resulted from nothing more than political dogma?
"Look around and think about what has happened over the last 20/50/100 years and ask what happened because we were not in control of our own destiny and what would have happened anyway."
The past is totally relevant in all of this debate because a 'No' vote condemns us and future generations to decades and decades of Tory rule and more of the same decisions that hurt Scotland. Steel and textile industries laid to waste; the crushing of the unions; the financial deregulation that is at the root of the problems we now face. How many more damaging decisions will we face from Westminster and the Tories?
Look at matters at the table of the UN and the EU. The UK voting against the interests of, say, Scotland's fishing or agricultural industries. Scotland and England are two very different countries with different priorities; it's madness to be jointly making decisions.
Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, on Twitter: "I can't recall the UK casting a vote in the EU to defend a Scottish interest when that interest didn't co-incide with the rest of the UK?!"
Time and time again decisions are taken in London, for London. This is an argument I'd put against the union; Scottish politicians having a vote in English affairs, and vice versa.
Ian Hamilton QC, the man who nicked the Stone of Destiny, in his excellent article on his 86 years in the union, put it so; "We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education."
How much of our tax goes to things like the Olympics, the £32 billion (completely unnecessary) high speed train that they're building between Birmingham and London, and all the other London spending that Scottish voters never benefit from?
The taxes raised from Scottish people should go solely to things that benefit our country. Our economy should be based on what is best for Scotland, not for London, the south of England or anywhere else.
The success of devolution for me is a sign of hope, that independence can and will work. Since 1997 I think we've seen great improvements taken in the areas of policy that we do now manage, as they were decisions made by Scottish politicians for Scottish people. We've had the odd misstep along the way (trams!) but that's politicians for you.
The public smoking ban (which we implemented before the rest of the UK), free prescriptions and the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee (which directly affected me, saving us £2,000 as my wife had just finished uni) are the sort of positives that affect your day to day life that I just don't remember coming from Westminster.
This country has been better, stronger, fairer since devolution. Why would we not want to be in control of the other areas affecting our lives?
Alex Robertson, in his great piece outlining 'What independence means to me' - "Now we have a chain and ball attached to our ankle, and as we look at the future, and dream of things that might be, we are reminded that the choice is not ours, but is made for us, by a Parliament 500 miles away in another country, in which we represent barely 10% of the membership."
Incidentally, when I praise devolution, I absolutely include Scottish Labour in that (despite being an SNP member). Scottish Labour did a far better job in Holyrood than any government in Westminster, in my lifetime, has done. Look at the health service. The Scottish government have done a far better job of managing the NHS than they have down south; an opinion backed by this major study where the Scottish NHS is described as a "leading-edge example", and by General Practitioners Committee chairman Dr Laurence Buckman.
I maintain that the subject of independence is not party political for me, again despite my SNP roots. I would happily see Labour in power here in an independent country. I don't think we'd see the massive SNP majorities we currently see in a pro-independent Scotland. They'd probably disband, and we'd see votes go to the parties that form in their wake, to Labour, and I think we'd see some Green, some Socialist parties, independents, too - parties far more in line with the views of the Scottish people, and not some joke of a Con-Dem coalition that noone voted for. Why continue to subject ourselves to Tory governments when Scotland is about as anti-Tory as it's possible to be?
In an independent Scotland we'd see a lot more socialist policies the likes of prescriptions charges - this kind of thing is where Scotland and Westminster are just radically different politically.
Another argument for independence is that Scotland has typically paid more in to Westminster than it has taken. Only the pro-union media continue this subsidy myth.
Quote from SNP MSP Paul Wheelhouse: “Taking all Scottish revenues and all spending in Scotland into account – including the financial sector interventions – the official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures show that Scotland has run a current budget surplus in four of the five years to 2009/10, while the UK was in current budget deficit in each of these years, and hasn’t run a current budget surplus since 2001/02.
“The latest GERS figures show that Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population - the equivalent of 1,000 pounds extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.”
Historically that is the case, too. Between 1979 and 1997, when the UK had a Tory government that people in Scotland did not vote for, Scotland contributed (net) £27 billion to the UK exchequer.
So in my lifetime, and long before, Scotland would have been better off as an independent country.
This was accidentally backed by Michael Moore recently when he tried to suggest we would have been worse off, but hadn't studied the figures closely enough. From Newsnet Scotland...
"Scotland would have been almost £20 billion better off had it been independent for the last thirty years, figures released by the Scotland Office have revealed.
"A press release from Secretary of State Michael Moore claimed that an independent Scotland would have been £41 billion in the red. However official figures from the Scotland Office have left the gaffe prone MP red faced after it emerged that Scotland’s debt from being part of the Union is greater, running at £60 billion."
We have a strong economy, the sixth largest GDP in the world, so we can
lay to rest this concern that we wouldn't survive on our own. An
independent
Scotland would flourish.
Citigroup: "ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]"
Consider our oil. We should have been building up a rainy day fund the same way Norway have; you only have to contrast the two countries since the discovery of oil in the North Sea to see who is better off. Oil is a massive resource for us and we should be benefiting from it far more than we are.
A concern we hear again and again from the 'No' camp - because what do we nationalists hear from them but rebuttals of our positive points? - is that oil won't last forever and not to put all our eggs in one basket.
Two points on that.
From a Telegraph article: "The north sea will continue to provide oil for another 100 years, twice as long as previous estimates, according to industry analysts."
Since the discovery of Scottish oil, scaremongerers have tried to tell us it had x, y or z years left, and it's proven wrong again and again. The truth is that it's hard to predict exactly how much remains, but if it's even close to 100 years, we have a fantastic basis to kick-start the independent Scottish economy; and that's exactly what it is, a kick-start.
Noone is suggesting we rely on oil. For the short to mid term future, it gives us a platform on which to build our own economy. An economy based on growth industries like green energy, whisky, fishing, agriculture, video games development, film.
We are already a leader in inward investment. In control of our own tax, we could lower corporation tax to be equal with - or even better than - that of the Republic of Ireland, which has attracted some of the top businesses in the world and convinced them to base their European operations there.
As a proud Scotsman, what I like about the nationalist argument is that it is positive. That's not to suggest that there aren't some proud, passionate Scottish unionists out there; just that in my experience, those for independence feel the way they do because they see Scotland in a positive light. Invariably, the unionists I've spoken to see the country in a negative light, one who can't cope standing on its own.
It seems clear that all nationalists want what is best for Scotland; a pro-independence stance simply has to be borne from the belief that that is what is best for our country. The same is not necessarily true of unionists. It stands to reason that there will be some unionists, both north and south of the border, who want us to remain in the UK for their own self-serving reasons. Not because it is best for Scotland, but because it is best for them.
Why are we seeing the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all sing from the exact same hymn sheet on this issue? When have they ever been in agreement on, well, anything? We are constantly told by them how Scotland is not strong enough to survive independently; is it in fact the case that the UK would be weaker without us, and Westminster knows as much?
We have already seen that Scotland contributes more to the coffers than it takes. We know about the vast oil resources we bring to the table. Westminster do not truly care about what is best for Scotland. Their position does not stem from a desire that Scotland flourishes; simply that the UK does not lose a valuable asset, i.e. us!
If we accept, for a moment, the hypothesis that independence IS best for Scotland; then there will still be unionists who do not want it, for whom independence does not serve their best interests.
As I alluded to at the beginning, I also don't see what's wrong with arguing for independence for independence sake. I think it's something that can be reasoned and argued, but (for me) there's also part of it that you just feel. Pride, maybe. Why would we not want to join the other 200+ nations in the world who have their independence? Why would we continue to be the diddy nation attached to a country whose rule has hurt us again and again? Why remain dependent?
How many independent countries are begging for a bigger neighbour to govern their nation? Zero.
I would like to hear from unionists on what makes Scotland unique in supposedly not being able to do a better job of governing our own affairs? We hear from unionists again and again that Scotland is stronger since devolution, but would somehow be weaker with more control over our own lives; how does that work exactly?!
Alex Salmond summed it up well when he said: “The fundamental reason for being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they govern themselves.”
There's another fantastic quote, I think originally from Peter Bell:
"I am a nationalist, not because I regard Scotland as superior to other nations, but because I refuse to accept that we are inferior."
One thing that does sadden me in all of this is looking into the various independent countries around the world and how they won their freedom. There isn't really another in the world where so many have tried to fight against it or make it an argument about money. The vast majority of countries would have bit your hand off to win their freedom. Sad that we are hearing that if the average Scot was £500 a year better off they would vote 'Yes'. I can argue why a Scotland in control of its own destiny would be better off until the cows home home, but the truth is that I would happily be £500 a year worse off to live in an independent Scotland.
Before I finish, I wonder if any unionists will read this and if so would like to ask; what it is that unionists, or those on the fence, see in the union? What do you think we currently gain from it that we wouldn't have, or be able to improve upon, in an independent Scotland?
I don't consider myself British, but I do enjoy life in Scotland/the UK. If I didn't, I'd move elsewhere. I don't think the union is awful, or a complete failure. I think we enjoy a great many benefits from living in this country; I just believe that things would be better still in an independent Scotland.
I thought it might help to lay out some of my main reasons. I have felt that Scotland should be its own country with its own government for as long as I can remember, since childhood when I first became aware of politics. Over the years, the facts I have read on the subject have simply augmented that position; but simply, it's an innate belief that I cannot help but hold. That is a hard position to explain to someone, but I have given it my best shot, whilst quoting from some excellent nationalists who are far more eloquent and better-educated on the subject than I would ever claim to be.
Firstly, I think it's vitally important that in our devolved government (which I think has been an excellent success, and I'll discuss more later), we don't currently have control of the following (according to the font of all knowledge that is Wikipedia):
abortion, broadcasting policy, civil service, common markets for UK goods and services, constitution, electricity, coal, oil, gas, nuclear energy, defence and national security, drug policy, employment, foreign policy and relations with Europe, most aspects of transport safety and regulation, National Lottery, protection of borders, social security and stability of UK's fiscal, economic and monetary system
Some massive issues in there.
Defence. Scottish soldiers sent to fight in Iraq and Afghanistan when the majority of Scottish people were dead against it. In 2003, when millions around the world took to the streets to protest Iraq, it's estimated that between 50,000 and 100,000 people aired their views in Glasgow; the biggest protest that I've witnessed in Scotland in my 25 years.
There's no way to know if we would have been involved in the War in Iraq if we were independent. However, the vote was helped in large part by the 139 Conversative MPs, of whom 90% voted 'For'. Scottish people have shown again and again at the polls that this is a party we do not want in power, whose policies we don't support.
I don't see why English politicians should have a say in whether Scottish soldiers should fight wars, when the vast, vast majority of Westminster MPs were not elected by the Scottish people, and are of different political mind.
(Incidentally of the 5 SNP MPs in Westminster at the time, all 5 voted against the war in Iraq)
Trident. Again massively controversial and against the will of many of the country's people. We should be in control of these decisions.
Coal. We have an abundance of the stuff but we are still sitting on it thanks to Thatcher closing loads of perfectly viable mines. Someone on another site I read had an excellent summary of the relevance of this: "To see the future, look at the past. Imagine we had got independence 30 years ago, what would have changed. Would we still have steel and coal industries? Would we still have manufacturing industry? Would we have suffered the levels of totally unnecessary unemployment that resulted from nothing more than political dogma?
"Look around and think about what has happened over the last 20/50/100 years and ask what happened because we were not in control of our own destiny and what would have happened anyway."
The past is totally relevant in all of this debate because a 'No' vote condemns us and future generations to decades and decades of Tory rule and more of the same decisions that hurt Scotland. Steel and textile industries laid to waste; the crushing of the unions; the financial deregulation that is at the root of the problems we now face. How many more damaging decisions will we face from Westminster and the Tories?
Look at matters at the table of the UN and the EU. The UK voting against the interests of, say, Scotland's fishing or agricultural industries. Scotland and England are two very different countries with different priorities; it's madness to be jointly making decisions.
Richard Lochhead, Cabinet Secretary for Rural Affairs and the Environment, on Twitter: "I can't recall the UK casting a vote in the EU to defend a Scottish interest when that interest didn't co-incide with the rest of the UK?!"
Time and time again decisions are taken in London, for London. This is an argument I'd put against the union; Scottish politicians having a vote in English affairs, and vice versa.
Ian Hamilton QC, the man who nicked the Stone of Destiny, in his excellent article on his 86 years in the union, put it so; "We have different values, we and London. No clearer example can be found than in our belief that education is everyone's right. 'Til the rocks melt wi the sun' said our first minister on the right to a free university education."
How much of our tax goes to things like the Olympics, the £32 billion (completely unnecessary) high speed train that they're building between Birmingham and London, and all the other London spending that Scottish voters never benefit from?
The taxes raised from Scottish people should go solely to things that benefit our country. Our economy should be based on what is best for Scotland, not for London, the south of England or anywhere else.
The success of devolution for me is a sign of hope, that independence can and will work. Since 1997 I think we've seen great improvements taken in the areas of policy that we do now manage, as they were decisions made by Scottish politicians for Scottish people. We've had the odd misstep along the way (trams!) but that's politicians for you.
The public smoking ban (which we implemented before the rest of the UK), free prescriptions and the abolishment of the graduate endowment fee (which directly affected me, saving us £2,000 as my wife had just finished uni) are the sort of positives that affect your day to day life that I just don't remember coming from Westminster.
This country has been better, stronger, fairer since devolution. Why would we not want to be in control of the other areas affecting our lives?
Alex Robertson, in his great piece outlining 'What independence means to me' - "Now we have a chain and ball attached to our ankle, and as we look at the future, and dream of things that might be, we are reminded that the choice is not ours, but is made for us, by a Parliament 500 miles away in another country, in which we represent barely 10% of the membership."
Incidentally, when I praise devolution, I absolutely include Scottish Labour in that (despite being an SNP member). Scottish Labour did a far better job in Holyrood than any government in Westminster, in my lifetime, has done. Look at the health service. The Scottish government have done a far better job of managing the NHS than they have down south; an opinion backed by this major study where the Scottish NHS is described as a "leading-edge example", and by General Practitioners Committee chairman Dr Laurence Buckman.
I maintain that the subject of independence is not party political for me, again despite my SNP roots. I would happily see Labour in power here in an independent country. I don't think we'd see the massive SNP majorities we currently see in a pro-independent Scotland. They'd probably disband, and we'd see votes go to the parties that form in their wake, to Labour, and I think we'd see some Green, some Socialist parties, independents, too - parties far more in line with the views of the Scottish people, and not some joke of a Con-Dem coalition that noone voted for. Why continue to subject ourselves to Tory governments when Scotland is about as anti-Tory as it's possible to be?
In an independent Scotland we'd see a lot more socialist policies the likes of prescriptions charges - this kind of thing is where Scotland and Westminster are just radically different politically.
Another argument for independence is that Scotland has typically paid more in to Westminster than it has taken. Only the pro-union media continue this subsidy myth.
Quote from SNP MSP Paul Wheelhouse: “Taking all Scottish revenues and all spending in Scotland into account – including the financial sector interventions – the official Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland (GERS) figures show that Scotland has run a current budget surplus in four of the five years to 2009/10, while the UK was in current budget deficit in each of these years, and hasn’t run a current budget surplus since 2001/02.
“The latest GERS figures show that Scotland generated 9.4 per cent of UK tax with 8.4 per cent of the population - the equivalent of 1,000 pounds extra for every man, woman and child in Scotland.”
Historically that is the case, too. Between 1979 and 1997, when the UK had a Tory government that people in Scotland did not vote for, Scotland contributed (net) £27 billion to the UK exchequer.
So in my lifetime, and long before, Scotland would have been better off as an independent country.
This was accidentally backed by Michael Moore recently when he tried to suggest we would have been worse off, but hadn't studied the figures closely enough. From Newsnet Scotland...
"Scotland would have been almost £20 billion better off had it been independent for the last thirty years, figures released by the Scotland Office have revealed.
"A press release from Secretary of State Michael Moore claimed that an independent Scotland would have been £41 billion in the red. However official figures from the Scotland Office have left the gaffe prone MP red faced after it emerged that Scotland’s debt from being part of the Union is greater, running at £60 billion."
Citigroup: "ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]"
Consider our oil. We should have been building up a rainy day fund the same way Norway have; you only have to contrast the two countries since the discovery of oil in the North Sea to see who is better off. Oil is a massive resource for us and we should be benefiting from it far more than we are.
A concern we hear again and again from the 'No' camp - because what do we nationalists hear from them but rebuttals of our positive points? - is that oil won't last forever and not to put all our eggs in one basket.
Two points on that.
From a Telegraph article: "The north sea will continue to provide oil for another 100 years, twice as long as previous estimates, according to industry analysts."
Since the discovery of Scottish oil, scaremongerers have tried to tell us it had x, y or z years left, and it's proven wrong again and again. The truth is that it's hard to predict exactly how much remains, but if it's even close to 100 years, we have a fantastic basis to kick-start the independent Scottish economy; and that's exactly what it is, a kick-start.
Noone is suggesting we rely on oil. For the short to mid term future, it gives us a platform on which to build our own economy. An economy based on growth industries like green energy, whisky, fishing, agriculture, video games development, film.
We are already a leader in inward investment. In control of our own tax, we could lower corporation tax to be equal with - or even better than - that of the Republic of Ireland, which has attracted some of the top businesses in the world and convinced them to base their European operations there.
As a proud Scotsman, what I like about the nationalist argument is that it is positive. That's not to suggest that there aren't some proud, passionate Scottish unionists out there; just that in my experience, those for independence feel the way they do because they see Scotland in a positive light. Invariably, the unionists I've spoken to see the country in a negative light, one who can't cope standing on its own.
It seems clear that all nationalists want what is best for Scotland; a pro-independence stance simply has to be borne from the belief that that is what is best for our country. The same is not necessarily true of unionists. It stands to reason that there will be some unionists, both north and south of the border, who want us to remain in the UK for their own self-serving reasons. Not because it is best for Scotland, but because it is best for them.
Why are we seeing the Conservatives, Labour and Liberal Democrats all sing from the exact same hymn sheet on this issue? When have they ever been in agreement on, well, anything? We are constantly told by them how Scotland is not strong enough to survive independently; is it in fact the case that the UK would be weaker without us, and Westminster knows as much?
We have already seen that Scotland contributes more to the coffers than it takes. We know about the vast oil resources we bring to the table. Westminster do not truly care about what is best for Scotland. Their position does not stem from a desire that Scotland flourishes; simply that the UK does not lose a valuable asset, i.e. us!
If we accept, for a moment, the hypothesis that independence IS best for Scotland; then there will still be unionists who do not want it, for whom independence does not serve their best interests.
As I alluded to at the beginning, I also don't see what's wrong with arguing for independence for independence sake. I think it's something that can be reasoned and argued, but (for me) there's also part of it that you just feel. Pride, maybe. Why would we not want to join the other 200+ nations in the world who have their independence? Why would we continue to be the diddy nation attached to a country whose rule has hurt us again and again? Why remain dependent?
How many independent countries are begging for a bigger neighbour to govern their nation? Zero.
I would like to hear from unionists on what makes Scotland unique in supposedly not being able to do a better job of governing our own affairs? We hear from unionists again and again that Scotland is stronger since devolution, but would somehow be weaker with more control over our own lives; how does that work exactly?!
Alex Salmond summed it up well when he said: “The fundamental reason for being independent is that Scotland is a nation and nations are better when they govern themselves.”
There's another fantastic quote, I think originally from Peter Bell:
"I am a nationalist, not because I regard Scotland as superior to other nations, but because I refuse to accept that we are inferior."
One thing that does sadden me in all of this is looking into the various independent countries around the world and how they won their freedom. There isn't really another in the world where so many have tried to fight against it or make it an argument about money. The vast majority of countries would have bit your hand off to win their freedom. Sad that we are hearing that if the average Scot was £500 a year better off they would vote 'Yes'. I can argue why a Scotland in control of its own destiny would be better off until the cows home home, but the truth is that I would happily be £500 a year worse off to live in an independent Scotland.
Before I finish, I wonder if any unionists will read this and if so would like to ask; what it is that unionists, or those on the fence, see in the union? What do you think we currently gain from it that we wouldn't have, or be able to improve upon, in an independent Scotland?
I don't consider myself British, but I do enjoy life in Scotland/the UK. If I didn't, I'd move elsewhere. I don't think the union is awful, or a complete failure. I think we enjoy a great many benefits from living in this country; I just believe that things would be better still in an independent Scotland.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)