Scotland Faces Its Toughest Decision (from The Herald Election Site)

Three fundamental questions faced members of the Scottish Parliament. How much was England willing to give Scotland to cement the union of the two countries? How well could Scotland get on in international trade if it were on its own? And what place would an independent Scotland have in an uncertain world?

That was 1707. Three hundred years and two days after the questions were last resolved with the union of the parliaments of Scotland and England, Scots will go to the polls with the same questions at the forefront of their national election campaign.

The MSPs elected next month will not be able to take on more powers. But it is recognised that a breakthrough for pro-independence parties at Holyrood would provide some mandate, however ill-defined, to challenge Westminster to give up more of the powers it holds over Scotland - and ultimately all of them.

For most of those three centuries, the fundamental questions were rarely put because the key answers were beyond dispute. Through the reach and power of the British Empire, Scotland was part of a single nation that had unparalleled economic, political and military clout. Net government spending flowed north, at least until North Sea oil arrived.

What has changed? The decline of the British empire, for a start. Imperial preference gave its members a trading advantage. The European Union now provides open and equal access to the world's biggest single market, with countries ranging in size from Germany to Malta.

There are those who argue true independence requires Scotland to get out of the European Union as well as the United Kingdom, and cite the successful examples of oil-rich Norway and cod-rich Iceland. But for 19 years the Scottish National Party has placed its vision of independence inside the European Union, however many compromises of autonomy that might require.

That was the most significant of several decisions that have effectively removed the threat of isolation behind barbed wire along the border; an image that used to accompany so many visions of Scottish independence. The debate has now returned to those questions that challenged Scotland's legislators in 1707. The easiest one to deal with, at least for those who favour independence, is what place Scotland would have in the world.

The globalising economy is creating mighty new power blocs and nations, yet small nations are proving nimble and adept at handling the challenges. Scotland could seek to emulate the growth rate and immigration example of Ireland, helped by the low business taxes that bring multinationals flocking to Dublin. Like Norway, it could stash away much of its oil wealth in a vast trust fund, providing dividends long after the oil runs out. Like Finland, it could quickly turn around economic weaknesses, unleash innovation and skills, and build global companies.

Such examples are open to challenge. None of northern Europe's smaller nations have made their achievements without pain, and there was delay and stagnation before the difficult decisions that put them where they are now.

The second question is how Scotland's economy could fare if the country became independent. Better, say nationalists. The contrast is not only with those neighbouring small nations, notably Ireland, but also with Scotland's long-term growth rate. Its trend is below the rest of Britain, with recent signs suggesting it could be picking up pace slightly.

The trickiest question is about the cross-border flow of money. In 1707, legislators were as interested in their own bribes as in England's lump sum to help clear up the financial black hole left by the Darien scheme, Scotland's adventure in attempting to found a colony in what is now Panama.

There are several "black holes" now being alleged against those who favour independence. One concerns the costs of SNP policies at Holyrood, even if it did not move on to independence. A bigger dispute is whether and to what extent Scotland benefits from a north-bound cross-border flow. Labour says removal of the "Union dividend" would leave an £11.2bn gap, but the SNP says the process by which that figure was reached is flawed. With a large share of North Sea oil revenue, that number would fall - but Labour argues that, even then, removing Westminster's subsidy would still leave Scotland deep in the red.

The SNP concedes that the current balance of government tax revenue to spending is hardly in a rosy surplus. But it counters that borrowing against deficits is something the Treasury does for the UK much of the time. It then argues that, if Scotland had the opportunity to boost its economic growth rate, tax revenues would grow out of financial difficulties - with Ireland an example yet again.

In a statistical battle in which voters cannot be expected to adjudicate, or even understand, economists and business leaders have become a sort of jury. The economists are split, as they tend to be. There is qualified support for the methodology behind Labour's £11.2bn deficit finding. But eminent supporters of independence ridicule a Labour case based on proving its own failure to get the economy and tax revenues growing faster, and stress the dynamic effect of what could be if Scotland went its own way.

The anti-SNP argument is being most stridently pursued by Labour, while the Tories and LibDems have recently opened the door to the possibility of other options that stop short of the United Kingdom breaking up. Both want to build a cross-party consensus on adding powers to Holyrood, with the crucial decisions around tax-varying.

That is being driven in part by a growing debate in England about the unbalanced basis of devolution. Scots MPs are influencing unpopular decisions in England, while the same decisions are not being imposed on Scotland - and it is assumed in the English debate that it subsidises Scottish services. So the decision on independence could be decided not only by Scots: the rest of the UK could quicken the pace.

Professor James Mitchell, of Strathclyde University, has watched the economists, businessmen and politicians develop what he says is "a much more nuanced debate about independence; more a multi-dimensional form of independence than in the past." He adds: "I don't think the SNP is anywhere close to winning the argument, but whereas it used to be alone, now it is Labour that looks more out on a limb, trying to make the case that the Best Small Country in the World is a basket-case".

Labour has strewn more than just statistics in the way of independence. There is doubt about how a referendum vote for separation would be greeted at Westminster. Would an English-dominated parliament simply accept Scots' demands, or exact a high price in the divorce proceedings?

And what about disentangling the extensive tentacles of the British state: for instance the armed forces, the railways, the BBC, the embassy network and the driving licence agency? How much time and effort would be taken up?

Joining the European Union may not be that easy either. It has never seen one of its member states split, and the Spanish and Belgians have reason to discourage the idea. The French might even need a referendum on Scottish accession. And what about the rest of the United Kingdom, which, it could be argued, would represent a new member state too?

If Scotland retained sterling, could it adjust its economy to its needs and pressures when key decisions were still made at the Bank of England? If it joined the euro, those decisions would then be made at the central bank in Frankfurt, and what kind of independence is that?

If inside the EU, what then? How much independence is there for Britain now, let alone for a Scotland that had to compromise in its negotiations on full membership?

Everything could go smoothly on each of these questions. But independence involves hard-headed analysis of the figures, as well as several leaps of faith. When Alex Salmond makes the case, assuming a smooth transition is perhaps the boldest leap of faith of them all.

What the parties say

SNP
Independence for Scotland, within the EU. This should be subject to a referendum within four years, which would mandate Holyrood ministers to negotiate a split with Westminster. Retain sterling as currency at first. Favours membership of the euro if Scots vote for it in a referendum.

CONSERVATIVE
It is time to review Holyrood's powers, drawing in different parties and civic Scotland. Some argue the Scottish Parliament should have more taxation responsibility to balance spending powers. Others, including Annabel Goldie, are unpersuaded, fearing a weakening of the UK's bonds.

LIB DEM
There should be more powers for Holyrood, so long as Scotland remains part of the United Kingdom.

A federal solution would also give more powers to regions of England, including a basket of tax powers.

GREEN
Pro-independence, as a means of bringing power closer to the people, and helping to create a more localised economy.

SSP
Also pro-independence, as a means of making Scotland a socialist republic (assuming that England is unlikely to opt for that).

SOLIDARITY
Once again, in favour of independence with a similar overall aim to the SSP, ie making Scotland a socialist republic.

Why can't Scotland control itself? Half of the cabinet are Scots, many key figures in business are Scots.
For such a small nation we punch well above our weight in running UK plc so running Scotland plc would be a doddle.

Media Watch (Alan Clayton runs mediawatch2007@aol.com - Here he gives its background.) The idea is not new. A good number of years ago, before the internet, Fergus Ewing had one going. You phoned in and wrote in with your reactions and opinions, but it was really effective at the time. The present initiative came several months ago from Dave Hill of Dunoon. Dave writes regularly in the press and most people will know him by his pen name of David McEwan Hill. He started a daily analysis of the comparative story and picture input into The Herald. Shortly afterwards I started looking at The Herald from a different perspective. This kind of regular and close analysis startled us both. We were very much aware that the Scottish press were biased against the SNP, but the extent of it was beyond anything we had seriously imagined. There is both overt and covert bias. Covert bias is the subtle spinning of news stories to give them an anti-SNP character. An example is the considered press releases issued by the Party almost daily. When this reaches the newsroom a reporter telephones a Labour worthy to ask for their opinion on it.. This rarely ever happens the other way round. Labour press releases go out generally unchallenged and certainly unquestioned by the SNP. The response is invariably given off the top of the head, but that does not matter, editors and proprietors are kept happy and the reporter remains in line for promotion. Reporters are supplied with a long list of Labour worthies ready to give off-the-cuff, unconsidered responses over the phone to considered SNP press releases. One of the favourites is Lord George Foulkes.. His press releases rarely have relevance or even coherence, but will be given there and then and that is what is needed by a busy reporter. Responses come from more than Foulkes of course. �A spokesperson for the Labour Party� is a common one. Labour has its switchboard operators well trained! Overt bias is widespread also of course. As a general rule Labour is getting around four times as much coverage as the SNP. This is particularly true of photographs. Photographs and pictures leave an almost subliminal image in the mind of who is in control and the editors are well aware of this. There is a similar situation on TV and a number of years ago an American author; Martin Gladwell did a scientific study of this in a book called Tipping Point. In making his case that �little things can make as big a difference as big things� Gladwell describes how groups of randomly chosen people were asked to rate the facial expression of major US newscasters when reading reports about presidential candidates during the Reagan /Mondale campaign in 1984. The group members were shown tapes, with the sound turned off and asked to score the emotional content of the newscasters on a 21 point scale. The lowest being �extremely negative�, and the highest being �extremely positive� Where the facial expressions of a newscaster was in favour of a particular candidate the subsequent polling results showed highly in favour of that candidate. This is the current situation in Scotland at this time. We are up against a media which is highly pitched against us and we must let it be known that in every way we are on to them. The Anglo-British state is under a greater threat to its survival than at any time since Prince Charles Edward Stuart promised to put an end to it because his father, the �true� king, had not given the Treaty of Union his Royal Assent. It will fight back of course, but its champions at present are Labour and not the Tories, the true unionists. At the end of the day Labour is more concerned at saving Labour and the associated food chains and pig troughs than it is in saving the Union per se .That showed, particularly in its disastrous Oban conference. The message to the Scottish media from Media Watch is �we are watching you�. Journalists love to persuade themselves that they are strictly professional and are very uncomfortable with charges that they are not. There are already signs that The Herald has started to modify its position since we started this initiative. We will not be letting up however and Media Watch will continue until at least May this year.

Media Watch

(Alan Clayton runs mediawatch2007@aol.com - Here he gives its background.)

The idea is not new. A good number of years ago, before the internet, Fergus Ewing had one going. You phoned in and wrote in with your reactions and opinions, but it was really effective at the time.

The present initiative came several months ago from Dave Hill of Dunoon. Dave writes regularly in the press and most people will know him by his pen name of David McEwan Hill. He started a daily analysis of the comparative story and picture input into The Herald. Shortly afterwards I started looking at The Herald from a different perspective.

This kind of regular and close analysis startled us both. We were very much aware that the Scottish press were biased against the SNP, but the extent of it was beyond anything we had seriously imagined. There is both overt and covert bias.

Covert bias is the subtle spinning of news stories to give them an anti-SNP character. An example is the considered press releases issued by the Party almost daily. When this reaches the newsroom a reporter telephones a Labour worthy to ask for their opinion on it..

This rarely ever happens the other way round. Labour press releases go out generally unchallenged and certainly unquestioned by the SNP. The response is invariably given off the top of the head, but that does not matter, editors and proprietors are kept happy and the reporter remains in line for promotion.

Reporters are supplied with a long list of Labour worthies ready to give off-the-cuff, unconsidered responses over the phone to considered SNP press releases. One of the favourites is Lord George Foulkes..

His press releases rarely have relevance or even coherence, but will be given there and then and that is what is needed by a busy reporter. Responses come from more than Foulkes of course. �A spokesperson for the Labour Party� is a common one. Labour has its switchboard operators well trained!

Overt bias is widespread also of course. As a general rule Labour is getting around four times as much coverage as the SNP. This is particularly true of photographs. Photographs and pictures leave an almost subliminal image in the mind of who is in control and the editors are well aware of this.

There is a similar situation on TV and a number of years ago an American author; Martin Gladwell did a scientific study of this in a book called Tipping Point. In making his case that �little things can make as big a difference as big things� Gladwell describes how groups of randomly chosen people were asked to rate the facial expression of major US newscasters when reading reports about presidential candidates during the Reagan /Mondale campaign in 1984.

The group members were shown tapes, with the sound turned off and asked to score the emotional content of the newscasters on a 21 point scale. The lowest being �extremely negative�, and the highest being �extremely positive� Where the facial expressions of a newscaster was in favour of a particular candidate the subsequent polling results showed highly in favour of that candidate.

This is the current situation in Scotland at this time. We are up against a media which is highly pitched against us and we must let it be known that in every way we are on to them. The Anglo-British state is under a greater threat to its survival than at any time since Prince Charles Edward Stuart promised to put an end to it because his father, the �true� king, had not given the Treaty of Union his Royal Assent.

It will fight back of course, but its champions at present are Labour and not the Tories, the true unionists. At the end of the day Labour is more concerned at saving Labour and the associated food chains and pig troughs than it is in saving the Union per se .That showed, particularly in its disastrous Oban conference.

The message to the Scottish media from Media Watch is �we are watching you�. Journalists love to persuade themselves that they are strictly professional and are very uncomfortable with charges that they are not. There are already signs that The Herald has started to modify its position since we started this initiative. We will not be letting up however and Media Watch will continue until at least May this year.

You dont punch above your weight, your just tokens...

Tony Blair was born and educated in Scotland.
Gordon Brown next PM.

Are they tokens? well perhaps they are.

As for media bias don't worry about it Internet blogs/ forum will kill off these Westminster/ Holyrood village gossip obsessed hacks within the next few years.

The fact that every unionist party ... bar none... refuse to allow the Scottish People the chance to simply say yes or no to Independence in a democratic referendum.... says it all. They are anti democratic....contemptious of the Scottish electorate... and not fit to govern Scotland. Labour supports illegal wars, nuclear weapons, unswerving support for George Bush and his neo-con cabal. Labour has delivered higher taxes, higher child poverty rates and has stolen �5 billion pounds per ear of pensioners pension money. Under Labour pensioners cannot afford to eat healthily or to even heat their homes in the winter. Under Labour, the Health Service is being destroyed and our schools are crumbling. They say they will now invest in schools !!! why in gods name haven't they being doing that for the 8 years they have been in power already ??? (no-one should be fooled by Labours election bribes.... they've had 8 years and failed dismally) Labours negative, scaremongering fear campaign is far from appropriate from a party that is asking us to trust the running of our Country to them. Frankly Scotland deserves MUCH better ! People now openly, automatically associate lies, deceit, corruption and illegal actions such as the murderous attack on Iraq with Tony Blair and the Labour Party. Is this what Scotland needs .... more of the same ???? I don't think so. snp

The fact that every unionist party ... bar none... refuse to allow the Scottish People the chance to simply say yes or no to Independence in a democratic referendum.... says it all.

They are anti democratic....contemptious of the Scottish electorate... and not fit to govern Scotland.

Labour supports illegal wars, nuclear weapons, unswerving support for George Bush and his neo-con cabal.

Labour has delivered higher taxes, higher child poverty rates and has stolen �5 billion pounds per ear of pensioners pension money.

Under Labour pensioners cannot afford to eat healthily or to even heat their homes in the winter.

Under Labour, the Health Service is being destroyed and our schools are crumbling. They say they will now invest in schools !!! why in gods name haven't they being doing that for the 8 years they have been in power already ??? (no-one should be fooled by Labours election bribes.... they've had 8 years and failed dismally)

Labours negative, scaremongering fear campaign is far from appropriate from a party that is asking us to trust the running of our Country to them. Frankly Scotland deserves MUCH better !

People now openly, automatically associate lies, deceit, corruption and illegal actions such as the murderous attack on Iraq with Tony Blair and the Labour Party.

Is this what Scotland needs .... more of the same ????

I don't think so.

snp

Douglas Fraser's choice of words:

"There is doubt about how a referendum vote for separation would be greeted at Westminster."

"Joining the European Union may not be that easy either."

"When Alex Salmond makes the case, assuming a smooth transition is perhaps the boldest leap of faith of them all."

make it crystal clear where he is coming from....a biased, Labour mouthpiece spouting filth and undermining Scotland's confidence in itself on a daily basis.

Change your biased attitude Herald or you will have no paper buying readers left . You are an utter disgrace and a huge disappointment to thinking Scots. The once best quality broadsheet in Scotland is now a second rate red top in the same stable as the Daily Rancid.

ENOUGH!

Half of the cabinet are Scots, many key figures in business are Scots. For such a small nation we punch well above our weight in running UK plc

Well exactly, so why would we want to split since we clearly have such influence on the rest of the UK and therefore the world as a prominent member of the G8, Nato, UN security council and in the EU where Scotland is represented by the 5th largest economy in the world AND also has separate Scottish representation.

Douglas Fraser asks how much time would be taken up by disentangling Scotland from the union. I don't know. We'll see, perhaps. God help us if we are put off of self-determination by worrying about having to deal with the consequences of our decisions, or are put off making decisions because it might not be very easy. We might not get into the EU, he says. Hardly credible, I would have thought. But even if it does it would be ruled from Frankfurt. Really? I frequently go to Frankfurt and never thought of it as dominating Europe. Is Poland run from Frankfurt? Is France run from Frankfurt? I just came back from Italy and guess what, no one was talking about being run from Frankfurt. All these countries have the euro. Douglas Fraser advocates do nothing politics. Perhaps he should vote Labour.

Poor old Darryl, our arch unionist is still f*rting against thunder. In Moray the battles o'er. In Scotland you are approaching endgame.

GB is only Scots because "he cannot help it"
TB denies his land of birth and we may be grateful for that.
We can do so much better than this AND rid ourse;lves of GB's or should that be TB's or perhaps GW's WMDs.

[bold]Douglas Fraser[/bold] says, "For most of those three centuries, the fundamental questions were rarely put because the key answers were beyond dispute. Through the reach and power of the British Empire, [bold]Scotland was part of a single nation[/bold] that had unparalleled economic, political and military clout. Net government spending flowed north, at least until North Sea oil arrived." Nae wonder Jack McDonnell talks about "education, education, education" because his favourite media poodles need it! Mr Fraser, (sigh) I am sure you are an intelligent, decent man so why contaminate yourself with silliness like the above statement. What do you mean by Scotland was part of a single nation - yer aff yer heid man. Scotland was probably more nationalistic in the 19th century than the 20th! The situation was simple, Since getting access to English colonies after 1707, the Scottish ruling classes exploited to the full the business opportunites of slave colonies and conquered lands. They were too busy making money to worry about London. "Government spending flowed north" - whit dae ye mean? Did Scots no pey any tax back then? Yer havering man! Watch yer back because the top bosses at Newsquest get feedback from The Herald Forum and these Comments and they are building up a picture of a team of journalists that are losing them circulation. As Jack McDonald might say, "You've got three weeks to save your careers."

Douglas Fraser says, "For most of those three centuries, the fundamental questions were rarely put because the key answers were beyond dispute. Through the reach and power of the British Empire, Scotland was part of a single nation that had unparalleled economic, political and military clout. Net government spending flowed north, at least until North Sea oil arrived."

Nae wonder Jack McDonnell talks about "education, education, education" because his favourite media poodles need it! Mr Fraser, (sigh) I am sure you are an intelligent, decent man so why contaminate yourself with silliness like the above statement.

What do you mean by Scotland was part of a single nation - yer aff yer heid man. Scotland was probably more nationalistic in the 19th century than the 20th! The situation was simple, Since getting access to English colonies after 1707, the Scottish ruling classes exploited to the full the business opportunites of slave colonies and conquered lands. They were too busy making money to worry about London.

"Government spending flowed north" - whit dae ye mean? Did Scots no pey any tax back then?

Yer havering man! Watch yer back because the top bosses at Newsquest get feedback from The Herald Forum and these Comments and they are building up a picture of a team of journalists that are losing them circulation. As Jack McDonald might say, "You've got three weeks to save your careers."

"And what about disentangling the extensive tentacles of the British state: for instance the armed forces, the railways, the BBC, the embassy network and the driving licence agency? How much time and effort would be taken up?"

About the same amount of time and effort that it's taken every time a country has become independent from the old British Empire. Don't see any of them forming a queue to rejoin either.

Douglas Fraser began this piece with a reading of the history of the Union which is not just slightly inaccurate. Its completely off the scale. If he really believes what he wrote here then it goes some way to explaining the constant bias in his reporting. At the same thime, though, James Brown and others are justified in asserting that there is serious issue of deliberate misinformation here.

There is now a very clear dividing line between those parties based in Scotland who support the aspirations of the Scottish people and those who prefer to be ruled by London and want to stop our people from even having a say on independence.

If the Scottish parties win the election then the Liberal Democrats (who will do anything for power anyway) opinions will be irrelevant. We can win a referendum on independence and we will if we get the chance to have a vote on it.

www.scottishindependence.com

Are you happy being a colony of mighty England? Where the people from England think that the whole of the UK is called "England".?Where on tv documentaries the Queen is called the Queen of England?
Where your Scottish currency is treated by contempt by your neighbours when you try to spend it in their country ?

If you are happy about that then don't vote SNP....

Glad to see such a calm and balanced spread of views lol, re Dougie in EK, good cut and paste job..again.

And Gregor Addison, surely the point of consequences is that we will have to deal with them and therefore need to consider them fully and in detail, divorce is a messy business, you and others seem to be suggesting that an Independent Scotland will get everything its own way, have yet to hear of a divorcee who wasnt left poorer and chastened by the experience.

I would take the SNP much more seriously if Salmond et al hadnt dropped the bombshell that they would retain the � Sterling as the national currency, whats that, administrative independence but not financial and please dont suggest the Euro, do people really see independence as becoming just another administrative region of a united states of europe ?

Fraser, I was suggesting that if there are problems then that is to be expected. Those who are against independence seem to argue that we should avoid it because there would be problems and therefore the best option, they seem to argue, is to do nothing. As for the 'divorce' metaphor, devolving power from an existing state to a newly existing state isn't much like 'divorce' at all. It's a stupid analogy which, as you know, is intended to frighten people - but even if there are problems they needn't be disastrous, they could just be positive. Have you thought of that? Where is your divorce metaphor then? So let's consider the consequences but let's try and do it in a sensible way in stead of using half-arsed rhetoric borrowed from the Labour party (who are absolutely not commited to thinking of the consequences, except in negative terms). As for your 'united states of Europe' quip, I have a German girlfriend and spend a fair bit of time over there. We could do worse. But explain to me why becoming independent would be handing power over to Europe? And why it's not the case already for the UK?

I will never again purchase the Herald, as has been my habit of many years.
Until the gross misinterpretation and bias within the political editorial staff is rectified.
If this is what passes for political commentary in modern Scotland's media then we are lost.
I expect nonsense from the like of the Daily Record which ceased to be a newspaper many years ago.....but not the Herald.

Lamentable

[quote][bold]Fraser[/bold] wrote: Glad to see such a calm and balanced spread of views lol, re Dougie in EK, good cut and paste job..again. And Gregor Addison, surely the point of consequences is that we will have to deal with them and therefore need to consider them fully and in detail, divorce is a messy business, you and others seem to be suggesting that an Independent Scotland will get everything its own way, have yet to hear of a divorcee who wasnt left poorer and chastened by the experience. I would take the SNP much more seriously if Salmond et al hadnt dropped the bombshell that they would retain the � Sterling as the national currency, whats that, administrative independence but not financial and please dont suggest the Euro, do people really see independence as becoming just another administrative region of a united states of europe ?[/quote] so Fraser refers to the "divorce" scare so are the unionist apologists now gonig to make divorces illegal? in divorces the bullying partner comes up with the same lame excuses "you divorce me and you will have no friends they are all mine" ( Non EU Membership) "you divorce me and you will have no money its all mine" ...(.11.2bn defecit) "you are too stupid to get a job on your own " (companies will all leave Scotland after Independence) so your only choice is to stay in an unhappy marriage and suffer abuse eg WMD , Illegal wars where your sons and daughters die, pensioners being robbed of 5bn a year children 20% in our country living in poverty do not dare to hope or strive for a better life well sorry Fraser and pals we do want a better life we are no longer scared of your threats and prophecies of doom the Scottish people have reached the tipping point Its Time maybe after we move out you can get a new partner perhaps Ireland ,or Malta ,or india or pakistan will want a union with you You are so desirable and perfect amazes me that all the countries of the former empire are not desperate to get back into bed with you, would rather be a divorcee with my dignity than married to the union and have nothing but abuse!

Fraser wrote:
Glad to see such a calm and balanced spread of views lol, re Dougie in EK, good cut and paste job..again. And Gregor Addison, surely the point of consequences is that we will have to deal with them and therefore need to consider them fully and in detail, divorce is a messy business, you and others seem to be suggesting that an Independent Scotland will get everything its own way, have yet to hear of a divorcee who wasnt left poorer and chastened by the experience. I would take the SNP much more seriously if Salmond et al hadnt dropped the bombshell that they would retain the � Sterling as the national currency, whats that, administrative independence but not financial and please dont suggest the Euro, do people really see independence as becoming just another administrative region of a united states of europe ?

so Fraser refers to the "divorce" scare so are the unionist apologists now gonig to make divorces illegal?
in divorces the bullying partner comes up with the same lame excuses
"you divorce me and you will have no friends they are all mine" ( Non EU Membership)
"you divorce me and you will have no money its all mine" ...(.11.2bn defecit)
"you are too stupid to get a job on your own " (companies will all leave Scotland after Independence)

so your only choice is to stay in an unhappy marriage and suffer abuse
eg WMD , Illegal wars where your sons and daughters die,
pensioners being robbed of 5bn a year
children 20% in our country living in poverty
do not dare to hope or strive for a better life
well sorry Fraser and pals we do want a better life we are no longer scared of your threats and prophecies of doom
the Scottish people have reached the tipping point
Its Time
maybe after we move out you can get a new partner perhaps Ireland ,or Malta ,or india or pakistan will want a union with you
You are so desirable and perfect amazes me that all the countries of the former empire are not desperate to get back into bed with you,
would rather be a divorcee with my dignity than married to the union and have nothing but abuse!

Fraser wrote:
Glad to see such a calm and balanced spread of views lol, re Dougie in EK, good cut and paste job..again. And Gregor Addison, surely the point of consequences is that we will have to deal with them and therefore need to consider them fully and in detail, divorce is a messy business, you and others seem to be suggesting that an Independent Scotland will get everything its own way, have yet to hear of a divorcee who wasnt left poorer and chastened by the experience. I would take the SNP much more seriously if Salmond et al hadnt dropped the bombshell that they would retain the � Sterling as the national currency, whats that, administrative independence but not financial and please dont suggest the Euro, do people really see independence as becoming just another administrative region of a united states of europe ?

Fraser, Do you seriously believe that at the moment of Independence it would be sensible to launch a new currency? Would this not be a recipe for financial and business instability? The SNP policy to retain for a period, and susequently to decide what is in the best interests of an Independent Scotland is logical and in keeping with sound reasoning. I hope this helps you to consider your reservation. AM, All of your postings are based on the same premise i.e. the constiutional settlement is a done deal and consequently nothing will ever change. Therefore stick with the union!! The SNP is advocating a Local Income Tax, albeit collected nationally but it is still the community charge although the basis for charging would be changed; this is possible under the current settlement. It would therefore qualify for the rebate. Unfortunately, I expect you to reply with your usual aplomb and resurrect your questionable statistic. VOTE SNP - 1st, 2nd, 3rd. on 3 May.

Fraser,

Do you seriously believe that at the moment of Independence it would be sensible to launch a new currency? Would this not be a recipe for financial and business instability?

The SNP policy to retain for a period, and susequently to decide what is in the best interests of an Independent Scotland is logical and in keeping with sound reasoning.
I hope this helps you to consider your reservation.

AM,
All of your postings are based on the same premise i.e. the constiutional settlement is a done deal and consequently nothing will ever change. Therefore stick with the union!!

The SNP is advocating a Local Income Tax, albeit collected nationally but it is still the community charge although the basis for charging would be changed; this is possible under the current settlement. It would therefore qualify for the rebate.

Unfortunately, I expect you to reply with your usual aplomb and resurrect your questionable statistic.
VOTE SNP - 1st, 2nd, 3rd. on 3 May.

Scotland is and will be automatically a member of the EU, and of the UN under the terms of the Vienna Convention, to which the then UK is a sginatory. Secession will be as hard or as easy as you want to make it. If Westminster resists unreasonably, then there are well established ways of getting them to see sense. The Secession settlement is not all that difficult. However, what is a danger is that the people of Scotland may lose control of the deal to the politicians and the civil servants. But we can easily stop that happening too.
Advance Alba
May 3
vote SNP

Douglas Fraser who authored the article mentions the circumstances leading to the union without mentioning that Scottish national debt went from 5 shillings per head to �3.50 per head the moment our Parliament and the English Parliament dissolved to create a British one! It wasn't all about the English government forking out to pay for Darien, a mistake made by Scotland but made worse by the English Parliament influence and unhelpful contributions from other countries. Anyway that's for history books. Regarding Scotland not questioning the union: "For most of those three centuries, the fundamental questions were rarely put because the key answers were beyond dispute..." That most British person Winston Churchill had put forward a white paper on Scottish Home Rule for Scotland in 1913, (he was a LIberal at the time) but he was called away on "another matter" by the British Admiralty. I believe that this was a proposal for home rule that was preceded by other within Westminster attempts reaching double figures courtesy of Scottish MWP's (representing their constituents) from the latter 19th century until 1913! Bear in mind that we had no such constituent representation in 1707, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in 2007. Mr Fraser relies on a lack of historical knowledge on our part to attempt to say all was so rosy for 300 years within the union, there were benefits to all of course as well as downsides. "Such examples are open to challenge. None of northern Europe's smaller nations have made their achievements without pain, and there was delay and stagnation before the difficult decisions that put them where they are now." That would make sense if we were leaving behind a position of economic strength just now, and for no reason whatsoever fancied a struggle just to spite ourselves, but there is plenty of "stagnation and pain" going on now last time anybody looked. We should be looking at a viable future rather than clinging to the past for no apparent reason. The presumed pain of carving out a viable future for Scotland might have longer term benefits rather than the witless innuendo within newspapers and media being bound to be pro labour at all costs with their crass commentary. A blatantly short term view that addresses nothing as far as the average Scot is concerned who has wised up considerably. A country is worth more than the careers of politicians and the sheep who back them up.. "There is doubt about how a referendum vote for separation would be greeted at Westminster. Would an English-dominated parliament simply accept Scots' demands, or exact a high price in the divorce proceedings?" That will be a legal argument that certainly doesn't default to Westminster being able to basically "hold a grudge" as you imply. The assets of union will be judged within the legal system and International law, as Scotland is an EQUAL partner within the union. The SNP doesn't actually have to win the argument for Independence on May 3rd, they can only do that work by how they perform in government to get a real consensus that allows a perusal of their governmental abilities rather than the ineptitude of labour being a model to aspire to. If they are completely rubbish and inept like labour in Scotland, then the referendum on Independence in 2010, so feared by Labour Libdems and Tories, will give a resounding "no" and they'll get booted out next election. The point is that the SNP policies are fresh and attractive to a lot of voters, they suit how our Scottish parliament should be run and what is good for Scotland with a stronger economy in mind, whereas Labour have been prattling on about their 'massive' deficit they claim to have governed over (!) and yet again education, health and crime for 8 years with their policies being seen as failing throughout their time in power- but they promise they'll get it right this time. That is the real "leap of faith" right there.

Douglas Fraser who authored the article mentions the circumstances leading to the union without mentioning that Scottish national debt went from 5 shillings per head to �3.50 per head the moment our Parliament and the English Parliament dissolved to create a British one! It wasn't all about the English government forking out to pay for Darien, a mistake made by Scotland but made worse by the English Parliament influence and unhelpful contributions from other countries.

Anyway that's for history books.

Regarding Scotland not questioning the union: "For most of those three centuries, the fundamental questions were rarely put because the key answers were beyond dispute..."

That most British person Winston Churchill had put forward a white paper on Scottish Home Rule for Scotland in 1913, (he was a LIberal at the time) but he was called away on "another matter" by the British Admiralty.

I believe that this was a proposal for home rule that was preceded by other within Westminster attempts reaching double figures courtesy of Scottish MWP's (representing their constituents) from the latter 19th century until 1913!

Bear in mind that we had no such constituent representation in 1707, or we wouldn't be having this discussion in 2007.

Mr Fraser relies on a lack of historical knowledge on our part to attempt to say all was so rosy for 300 years within the union, there were benefits to all of course as well as downsides.

"Such examples are open to challenge. None of northern Europe's smaller nations have made their achievements without pain, and there was delay and stagnation before the difficult decisions that put them where they are now."

That would make sense if we were leaving behind a position of economic strength just now, and for no reason whatsoever fancied a struggle just to spite ourselves, but there is plenty of "stagnation and pain" going on now last time anybody looked. We should be looking at a viable future rather than clinging to the past for no apparent reason.

The presumed pain of carving out a viable future for Scotland might have longer term benefits rather than the witless innuendo within newspapers and media being bound to be pro labour at all costs with their crass commentary.

A blatantly short term view that addresses nothing as far as the average Scot is concerned who has wised up considerably.

A country is worth more than the careers of politicians and the sheep who back them up..

"There is doubt about how a referendum vote for separation would be greeted at Westminster. Would an English-dominated parliament simply accept Scots' demands, or exact a high price in the divorce proceedings?"

That will be a legal argument that certainly doesn't default to Westminster being able to basically "hold a grudge" as you imply. The assets of union will be judged within the legal system and International law, as Scotland is an EQUAL partner within the union.

The SNP doesn't actually have to win the argument for Independence on May 3rd, they can only do that work by how they perform in government to get a real consensus that allows a perusal of their governmental abilities rather than the ineptitude of labour being a model to aspire to.

If they are completely rubbish and inept like labour in Scotland, then the referendum on Independence in 2010, so feared by Labour Libdems and Tories, will give a resounding "no" and they'll get booted out next election.

The point is that the SNP policies are fresh and attractive to a lot of voters, they suit how our Scottish parliament should be run and what is good for Scotland with a stronger economy in mind, whereas Labour have been prattling on about their 'massive' deficit they claim to have governed over (!) and yet again education, health and crime for 8 years with their policies being seen as failing throughout their time in power- but they promise they'll get it right this time.

That is the real "leap of faith" right there.

LET US NOT FORGET THE UK BLACK HOLE OF APPROX 53 BILLION

What an appalling article full of lies, fears and smears. Used to buy the paper on Saturday, not now. The "Scottish" media need to wake up to the fact that a balanced media is part of the criteria for free and fair elections. It's highly debatable if that is the case now, or has been for the elections of the past 40 years, in terms of Scottish self-determination. If we are denied free and fair elections where will that take us you unionist media people?

I agree with those sentiments expressed about the Herald in general and this type of article in particular. It is quite frightfully anti-self-determination and pro London government to the point of being illogical. It is quite sad, that so many hundreds of thousands of Scots have given up their lives to fight for democracy, (WW1, WW11 and currently in Iraq) only for so much of their own press and media and journalists to be very politically biased, indeed prejudiced, and actually quite anti-democratic. It is shameful to see. However, a previous poster got it absolutely right. The power of the hard-copy press is waining with the void being filled by blogs and web sites. It is my intention to do likewise after the election and establish my own website, now almost designed. It will be unusual in that it will be covering stories about media people and journalists and not celebrities, politicians or ordinary defenceless jo's. Anyway, their lack of support for Scottish self-determination is simply daft. Like Turkey's voting for an early Christmas. Take the Scots. They pay �250 million per year in BBC Licence Fees, but BBC Scotland receives only �90 million per year for Scottish domestic programme making! This lack of opportunity in the media (radio and television) means a lack of positions available in that media for journalists to move onto from the national press and therefore a lack of available positions in the national press for those journalists working for local newspapers and radio etc. It is �160 million worth of media jobs and relative opportunities that Scotland isnt getting despite currently paying for them. A few Scots get a few crumbs of the big London table by working in the media down there, but that's it. An Union dividend I think its called! And these same people oppose that increased funding! The BBC cant possibly be devolved, they say! Why not? We have a BBC Scotland with a huge new HQ in Glasgow and studios all over Scotland. England has fourteen regional BBC TV stations and 40 local BBC Radio stations. The infrastructure already exists with a simple transfer of funds being required. There is nothing stopping an autonomous BBC Scotland setting it's own funding priorities... ... except the Labour Party and ...most Scottish journalists of course.

I agree with those sentiments expressed about the Herald in general and this type of article in particular. It is quite frightfully anti-self-determination and pro London government to the point of being illogical.

It is quite sad, that so many hundreds of thousands of Scots have given up their lives to fight for democracy, (WW1, WW11 and currently in Iraq) only for so much of their own press and media and journalists to be very politically biased, indeed prejudiced, and actually quite anti-democratic.

It is shameful to see.

However, a previous poster got it absolutely right. The power of the hard-copy press is waining with the void being filled by blogs and web sites.

It is my intention to do likewise after the election and establish my own website, now almost designed. It will be unusual in that it will be covering stories about media people and journalists and not celebrities, politicians or ordinary defenceless jo's.

Anyway, their lack of support for Scottish self-determination is simply daft. Like Turkey's voting for an early Christmas.

Take the Scots. They pay �250 million per year in BBC Licence Fees, but BBC Scotland receives only �90 million per year for Scottish domestic programme making!

This lack of opportunity in the media (radio and television) means a lack of positions available in that media for journalists to move onto from the national press and therefore a lack of available positions in the national press for those journalists working for local newspapers and radio etc.

It is �160 million worth of media jobs and relative opportunities that Scotland isnt getting despite currently paying for them.

A few Scots get a few crumbs of the big London table by working in the media down there, but that's it. An Union dividend I think its called!

And these same people oppose that increased funding! The BBC cant possibly be devolved, they say!

Why not? We have a BBC Scotland with a huge new HQ in Glasgow and studios all over Scotland.

England has fourteen regional BBC TV stations and 40 local BBC Radio stations.

The infrastructure already exists with a simple transfer of funds being required.

There is nothing stopping an autonomous BBC Scotland setting it's own funding priorities...

... except the Labour Party and ...most Scottish journalists of course.

"toughest" decision ? Hardly.

So, SNP it is then.

You can't blame the unionists for their slanted view of Scottish history, it is what they were taught at school. The same applies to many Scots. The union taught us that we were too small, too feart, too stupid to have anything better and that we should be happy that the union was there to look after us. Just like "Oliver" when he "asked for more", the master couldn't beleive the gall of the wee squint. How dare he ask for more "swill" when he should be happy for having any "swill" at all? Cheeky wee monkey! Something different is happening now in Scotland. The "cheeky wee monkey" is no longer willing to accept the union's view of him. Scotland has finally seen through the lies and is ready to stand up and take its place in the world. To my fellow Scots, let us stop blaming the master for his ignorance. He is only looking after his own interest. What else would you expect him to do? The choice is no longer his! He may wail for a while. He may continue to demand his rights. His numpties and apologists may bleat and bother. Such is always the case. The choice for Scotland is ours. Do we continue to be "cheeky wee monkeys" or do we stand up and accept our role in the world? May 3 is coming, time to choose!

You can't blame the unionists for their slanted view of Scottish history, it is what they were taught at school. The same applies to many Scots. The union taught us that we were too small, too feart, too stupid to have anything better and that we should be happy that the union was there to look after us.

Just like "Oliver" when he "asked for more", the master couldn't beleive the gall of the wee squint. How dare he ask for more "swill" when he should be happy for having any "swill" at all? Cheeky wee monkey!

Something different is happening now in Scotland. The "cheeky wee monkey" is no longer willing to accept the union's view of him. Scotland has finally seen through the lies and is ready to stand up and take its place in the world.

To my fellow Scots, let us stop blaming the master for his ignorance. He is only looking after his own interest. What else would you expect him to do?

The choice is no longer his! He may wail for a while. He may continue to demand his rights. His numpties and apologists may bleat and bother. Such is always the case.

The choice for Scotland is ours. Do we continue to be "cheeky wee monkeys" or do we stand up and accept our role in the world?

May 3 is coming, time to choose!

Herald & Times Group
Terms & Conditions Privacy Policy © Copyright 2001-2008 A Gannett Company