Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Rifkind hits back at critics of grand plan to save Union

Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image
Click on thumbnail to view image

Published Date: 23 April 2008
THE former Scottish secretary, Sir Malcolm Rifkind, will tonight staunchly defend his plan for a "grand committee" of MPs from English constituencies, to decide on issues affecting only England, as a way of preserving the Union.
He will seek to answer his critics and provide more detail on how he hopes to avoid the need for a "revolution" in the constitution of the United Kingdom.

In a speech to the think-tank, the Centre for Policy Studies, Sir Malcolm will argue that
the status quo at Westminster cannot be preserved, ten years after devolution and with the prospect of a hung parliament after the next general election.

His solution is to establish an English grand committee to deal with education and health in England – matters that are devolved to Holyrood for Scotland – but to have all MPs voting on UK matters such as taxation, defence and foreign affairs.

Speaking in advance to The Scotsman, Sir Malcolm said: "It's a question of how do we deal with purely English business that does not affect Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland.

"At the moment, the House of Commons retains the legal right to overrule the Scottish Parliament or Welsh Assembly. In fact, what has happened over the past ten years is that there is a convention that the UK parliament respects the view of the Scottish Parliament.

"In a comparable way, we can evolve a similar convention that the House of Commons reflects the wishes of the English members. We don't need to have a revolution. We don't need to have an English parliament.

"On entirely English business, the government may not get its way. Some people say the government wouldn't be able to function. That is absolute rubbish. Alex Salmond doesn't have a majority in the Scottish Parliament, but nobody says Scotland is ungovernable.

"You can either have a coalition to cover you through a whole parliament or you can have what we had between 1974 and 1979, which was no coalition, and it meant that the government had to compromise. It's what the president of the United States does all the time."

Critics say this would create two classes of MP and would create problems for Scottish MPs such as Gordon Brown, who would be unable to vote on legislation if it affected only England.

Labour has run into controversy by relying on its Scottish MPs to help push through controversial legislation on foundation hospitals and tuition fees, which do not apply in Scotland.

Sir Malcolm said the Tory leadership was awaiting a report from former chancellor Kenneth Clarke's "democracy taskforce", before deciding whether to adopt a new policy. "They're reserving their position on what is the right thing to do," he said. "I'm hugely flexible about that."

He added: "It's absurd for people to say there is no answer to the West Lothian Question. There are several answers. If Ken Clarke's people come up with something that is neater than mine, then that is fine."





Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 April 2008 9:30 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
 
1

Conan the Librarian™,

23/04/2008 01:14:19
Here's a neat idea Malkie; a Government in Edinburgh representing Scotland, and a Government in London representing England and a somewhat restless Wales.
I think that's neater than anything Ken Clarkes "people" would ever come up with.
2

,

23/04/2008 03:28:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
3

Navvy,

23/04/2008 05:37:52
Why not?
There was a Scottish Grand Committee for over 100 years, but rarely, if ever, did it do anything other than play party politics
4

Foresight,

By the Water of Leith 23/04/2008 08:01:03

#6 Independence is not about "an automatic pot of gold at the end of the rainbow", it is about the right of a nation to determine what is best for it and have the right and ability to go out and get it rather than to be a marginal interest dependent on the whim of a more populous neighbour.

I aver that Scotland is a Nation and see no good reason why it cannot "go it alone". It may be a "sink or swim" exercise but I believe that the Scottish people have it in them not to "sink".
5

Boy Wonder,

23/04/2008 08:28:16
Ah yes ... that would be Malkie Rifkind, wouldn't it? Former deeply unpopular Scottish Secretary, lost his seat and then moved south to get a safe London one.

Fine Unionist HE is!!! I have one word for him ... AWAY!
6

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:41:39
RULES......

what planet are you from,
Iceland going down the plug-hole,
What in the name of God are you talking about,
Are you in the same patch of 'Weed' as the good Sir Malcolm.

I know you Unionistas are adept at turning fact 360,
This is not the same Iceland "that Mum went to".
Unbelievable
7

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:50:59
Sir Malcolm Rifkind,
If one was in politics and lauded the dapper Knight as one of your colleagues, you would have more knives sticking out of your back than a 'Butchers Apron'.
But then again, any Unionist Scottish MP in history has had to have the ability to flog his grandmother for a sixpence in order to survive Westmonster.
8

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:54:00
Rules......

Zimbabwe, I didn't think was about to receive 84% min. of NORTH SEA PRODUCTION.
9

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:55:27
Rules...

First Iceland,

then Zimbabwe,

Where next Pluto?
10

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 08:59:59
Rules...

Did you ever hear the stories of a bunch of Polish gentlemen digging holes through Invernesshire, its called renewable energy, somewhat different to Gordon's kind where your kids get to glow in the dark.
11

Linda,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 09:03:02
Norway, Slovenia, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic,Finland, Ireland I could go on for ages.

All small independent countries none of which are going down the plug hole and none who wish to go back to the Union they were in.
12

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:04:00
Rules...

You mentioned a Federalist Defence Policy,

Do think if this comes to pass, that it would stop some, or all 57 leaks in the fuel tanks of Nimrod Aircraft?

13

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:06:35
Rules.....

Speaking of defense policy,

Do you think from a Unionist agenda that MOD desks should outnumber suits of body armour????
14

Toast,

23/04/2008 09:10:25
Sir Malcolm Who ?? Insignificant little man.
15

Hamish Scott,

23/04/2008 09:14:28
Malcolm Rifkind is a Scottish politician, perhaps he should leave it to the English to decide how they want to be governed.

'staunch defender' I see the Scotsman is now using the language of Ulster loyalism.
16

lachlan,

23/04/2008 09:18:33
#4#6 it's not just sbout the money. it's also about self determination,pride and yes making your own mistakes.but they will be our mistakes.look upon independence as the teenager leaving home.i am sure the rest of the u.k.will help us on our way and help us out untill we get established.and if not we are not best rid of them anyway.
17

lachlan,

23/04/2008 09:20:20
#4#6 it's not just about the money. it's also about self determination,pride and yes making your own mistakes.but they will be our mistakes.look upon independence as the teenager leaving home.i am sure the rest of the u.k.will help us on our way and help us out untill we get established.and if not are we not best rid of them anyway.
18

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:24:41
Rules.....

Is it fair to say, interpretation of Unionist Defense Policy is,

Lets,fork out 100 million on the system and delivery platform of an WMD,so that after expenditure it will still be out of date.
Send Boeing multi million cheques for Special OP's Chinook Helicopters,so that they sit on the end of a runway not even able to fly in drizzle in daylight,because MOD go the order wrong.
Suppress any and all dissent either at Press or in Law
And just for good measure, whilst recruiting is at an all time low, after Tony has said we will support you wherever in the world with Troops.Then axe 1000 years service of the Scottish Regiments that is Globally renowned.

Would that be a fair description,you think???
19

Ken S.,

Reading 23/04/2008 09:25:05
Why does Mr Rifkind feel that
Scottish Parliament= devolution but
English Parliament = revolution?

Oh, and may I wish one & all a Happy St George's Day
20

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 09:29:43
Rules.....

Happy Independence Day.........

SOON
21

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 09:48:57
Why is Malcolm Rifkind more concerned about English affairs than Scottish???

Is he the epitomy of Scottish unionism then??
Is this really what it means to be a Scottish unionist???
22

Alan B,

23/04/2008 09:52:30
Rulesbutnotrulers

We have a federal solution at the moment and that has not exactly been great. If u are going to advocate a federal solution when we have a version of one at the moment u really have to specify exactly what u mean.

The other issue is none of the parties actually want ur solution. (The lib dems wanting a federal england, ie regionalisation which england do not want.)

Having specified what powers lie where then u could justify the powers that are pulled and why.

A decentralised version of federalisation would mean scotland could have fiscal autonomy paying to a uk parliament for shared things and also take over the powers for energy, transport, law and order, competition and social security. Shared powers would mean foreign affairs, defence and security, eu membership and currency.

The immediate problems with that are
1)scotland would not be able to join the euro even if it were in scotland economic interests to do so.
2)even if we were still a member of the uk it would be better for us to be a member on our own right in the EU. UK interests and scottish interests have not exactly co-insided over the last 30yrs.
3)defence: scotland is not as in favour of international intervention and nuclear weapons.
4)foreign affairs: why and to what benefit.

The best i could see if we want a relationship with england would be to have confederal solution that means a sovereign scotland would be a member of the uk with the 4 powers above pulled. Meaning that scotland would not be dominated in the same way with the evolution of that relationship coming from the sp via the scottish people.

23

Rosie,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:05:02
If Rifkind wants 'MPs from English constituencies, to decide on issues affecting only England' then they must find somewhere else to conduct these proceedings. They cannot use the 'British' Parliament and exclude any 'British' MPs. English MPs still vote on Scottish only issues which are reserved for Westminster.... where will it all end?
24

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:09:03
#17 - Linda
"Norway, Slovenia, Slovakia, Denmark, Czech Republic,Finland, Ireland"

To mention any of these small countries in the same breath as the UK is a joke. These are tiny economies with tiny achievements - what do youa ssociate them with:
Norway - sardines? Slovenia - Eurovision? Denmark - bacon reared from stealing Scottish sandeels? Czech Republic - pilsner beer? Findland - forestry? Ireland - tourism and blarney?

The UK has the fourth largest economy in the world. London is increasingly seen as the most vibrant capital city in the entire world in terms of economy, the arts, theatre, music etc. Britain has the best army, airforce and navy in the world (pro rata). British Aerospace and Airbus are world-beating aircraft manufacturers. Britain publishes more books by more writers every year than any country in the world.

By contrast- all these small countries -with the exception of Norway - can only exist as vassal/states of the EU - and Scotland could not survive 5 minutes without being a client state of the EU. So - you want to swap the situation where Scotland has more than 10% MPs in the UK parliament - for one where it has about 1% in the EU Parliament. Or a situation where Scotland has provided the last two prime ministers, the last three foreign secretaries, the last two Chancellors - and where the UK cabinet has been dominated by Scots - who have kept the vast subsidies of over £30,000,000,000 a year flowing from London to Edinburgh. You would swap all that for a situation where Scotland would be a tiny country on the periphery of Europe which the EU would gobble up for its oil and fish. Thats about it. Do you think Scotland would have even a tiny percentage of the clout which the UK exerts in the EU Council of Ministers or the EU Commission (both unelected by the way).

The breaking up of the United Kingdom via devolution - leading to independence - has been the long term strategy of the EU for 40 years. Europe tried to conquer Britain i
25

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:09:41
continued:
The breaking up of the United Kingdom via devolution - leading to independence - has been the long term strategy of the EU for 40 years. Europe tried to conquer Britain in two world wars - and failed. It has found that 'gradual absorption by stealth' is a far more successful strategy. Over 90% of all UK laws are now made in Brussels - and rubber stamped in the EU Parliament - which has no right to propose legislation; it is then rubber stamped in the UK parliament.

Instead of understanding the real threat to Scotland and the UK's sovereignty - the Nats are happy to throw away a dominant influence over the UK Parliament for a very, very inferior position in the EU Parliament - within a union of 27 countries and 300 million people - all of whom will have the right to move to Scotland, work and receive benefits, housing, medical care and education. Absorption into Europe will mean the destruction of the UK - and of all nation states. You will not recognise anything in Scotland as Scottish in 2050 if it is absorbed into the new European superstate.

26

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 10:10:11
Now I know some of you will be thinking that Mr Rifkind didn't think there was any problem using English Tory votes to ram policies like the poll-tax down the throats of Scots who were overwhelmingly opposed to such policies. and that this is typical Anglo-centric unionism at its most hypocritical.

And when I think of a good counter-argument to dispel this rest assured I will post it!
27

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:20:21
30

RIP OFF BRITAIN is commonly known for exporting its thugs internationally.
For cowtowing to America.
Excessive personal debt 2 Trillion plus.
Expensive housing.
High and excessive taxation.
Expensive cars
Poor public transport.
Anti European.
Anti EEC.
Dirty streets and public areas.
Poor health.
excessive utility charges.
Warmongering.
etc
etc
etc

Changing yer logon doesnt work anymore AM2/HM/EV/Troll
Save yer sh*t stirring party political propaganda we have been through this so many times already.
28

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 10:24:05
31

"Europe tried to conquer Britain in two world wars - and failed. It has found that 'gradual absorption by stealth' is a far more successful strategy."

Britain(England) Went a long way in trying to conquer the world. It just couldnt sit at hame and leave things be.
You could cut the irony of that statement with a knife.
29

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:29:38
Check it out:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/04/23/nmap123.xml

England has been wiped off a map of Europe drawn up by Brussels bureaucrats as part of a scheme that the Tories claim threatens to undermine the country's national identity.
The new European plan splits England into three zones that are joined with areas in other countries.

The "Manche" region covers part of southern England and northern France while the Atlantic region includes western parts of England, Portugal, Spain and Wales.

The North Sea region includes eastern England, Sweden, Denmark, the Netherlands and parts of Germany.

A copy of the map, which makes no reference to England or Britain, has even renamed the English Channel the "Channel Sea".

Each zone will have a "transnational regional assembly", although they will not have extensive powers. However, the zones are regarded as symbolically important by other countries. German ministers claimed that the plan was about "underlying the goal of a united Europe" to "permanently overcome old borders" at a time when the "Constitution for Europe needs to regain momentum".

Wake up before it is too late!
30

Alan B,

23/04/2008 10:32:07
Tweedmouth

Sorry never read so much rubbish in my life. For a start u did not seem to realsie the poster was answering someones question. Secondly what is the point in insulting other countries. anyone can try and choose a sterotype of another country and slag it off. The one of Ireland could easily be as the european economic miracle and a friendly country and guiness. Scotland would be what? Iron Bru, whisky and country side, crime. Britain would be colonialism and imperialism. England would be crap at cricket and underachievement at football, morris dancers and stiff upper lip and hooliganism. The US?

What is it all meant to mean and in what way has it anything to do with independence. Also much of this is just how we in the uk seem these nations not necessarily how others see them.

i love the way apologists for the union

"The UK has the fourth largest economy in the world"

But miss out the relevant bit about how rich it is per person a much more relevant measure. Here the UK slips down compared to other small european countries.
31

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:34:03
Tweedmouth,

Your comments are amazing, what year of our Lord are you coming from,
Fourth largest economy, well I'll tell you what the first largest contributor to that economy is over the last 30 plus years shall I ???
32

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 10:36:58
The big assumption here is that there is such a thing as "English-only" legislation. In my opinion there can be no such thing - any legislation carried out in England will have an effect on Scotland in politically, socially and economically. At the very least all legislation would involve spending decisions - why should England only decide what England gets yet it is the whole UK that decides what Scotland gets? Clearly issues such as the decision to raise the school-leaving age and introduce a bill to guarantee an apprenticeship for all who want one will have a knock-on effect in Scotland.

This is just one of the assumptions that make the West Lothian question such a complete red herring.

Another assumption is that English MPs have no say over what happens in Scotland. That is not true - the Westminster Parliament still controls the budgetary purse strings. It is they who have kept the Barnett formula; it is they who have the power to decide Scottish expenditure - all the Scottish Parliament is doing is prioritising how that expenditure is made.
Gladstone tried to implement a policy of stopping Irish MPs voting when dealing with Irish Home Rule - it was found to be completely unworkable.

In any case - taking the logic of the English-only brigade to its fullest extent - should only London MPs be voting on Bills such as the Crossrail Bill?

33

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:38:20
Oh but Hey,

The Oil is running out!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You heard it first at the Scotsman or maybe,

The McCroneman
34

Usconbuts,

23/04/2008 10:38:48
The Union will be destroyed, not just because the Scots defect from it, but because the English decide to chuck it in. They don't like people from outside their country making laws for them. Right on! And unlike Scotland, England is powerful enough not to have to put up with that situation for 290 years.
35

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 10:39:18
Can anyone define for me an issue that could be described as English-only?

One reason why any piece of legislation would have an effect beyond England is because of the dominance of England within the Union. It has over 80 per cent of the UK population, over 80 per cent of the GDP and over 80 per cent of the seats at Westminster.

English MPs effectively set the level of public expenditure in other parts of the UK, and levels of taxation too (apart from council tax and the currently unused Scottish parliament three pence in the pound tax supplement). Decisions that at first glance appear to impact only on England in practice have a knock-on effect around the UK.

The answer is not an English Parliament either. An English Parliament would have exactly the same faults as the existing Westminster Parliament - it would not be long until regions such as the South-West would be looking for devolved powers. An English Parliament would be as distant from the English people as the UK Parliament undoubtedly is. Merely removing the Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish MPs would ignore the fact that there is of lack of trust in politicians in general.

The issue for me is that power is centralised in Westminster itself - that is the nub of the problem - an English Grand Committee or English Parliament is not going to solve that problem.

Personally I don't go along with this "settled will of the people" crap - devolution or rather decentralisation is not a static process but an on-going one.
36

glassbenmhor,

23/04/2008 10:46:07
Rules...

Not one single country you mention is similar to Scotland,What amount will the North Sea add up to this year at over 100 a barrel.

Then divide by 6.5 million,
as opposed to,
58(really nearer 70)million plus 6.5 million.

Then energy generation from renewables( multiply by 1.5 within 2 years)

Man I could go on all day.
37

Tweedmouth,

Coldstream 23/04/2008 10:50:45
38 Alan B
I suggest you read Niall Ferguson's highly praised book 'Empire' a - detailed history of the British Empire and its great achievements. Ferguson is a Scot - and one of his key insights is how much of the Empire was created and run by Scottish soldiers, doctors, engineers, jurists, linguists and merchants. Unlike other empires - the British Empire did a great deal of good in the world. It unified 400 princely dictatorships in India, gave them one language for education and legal purposes; created systems of railways, education, hospitals, justice etc. It wiped out the Thuggee murder cult and imposed religious tolerance on Muslims and Hundus. It eradicated malaria and brought basic health care to millions. Finally - it voluntarily granted independence in 1948 - as it did to over 100 other former British territories in the following decade. All of these countries were left with parliamentary democracy, free elections the rule of law, habeas corpus, railways, ports, medical and education systems.
Not a single former colony chose to leave the Commonwealth - which is still a major force for good.
Some - like Zimbabwe - have reverted to dictatorship, murder, torture and election rigging - they are also starving. Most former colonies of the Belgian, French and Dutch empires (Congo, Angola, Guinea Bissau, etc.) have always been murderous dictatorships.

I strongly recommend Niall Ferguson's book 'Empire' - it is a 'good read' and very enlightening.
38

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:03:50
#39 Rulesbutnotrulers

"Sadly, the record for small nations is not on their side. Ireland is sliding now that EU funding is drying up, Iceland is fading fast despite being energy rich and educated, New Zealand survives only because of so many hungry Chinese..a sorry tale. Many small black countries are even worse off. Why vote to be part of this?"

Firstly i think we should compare the performance of scotland with that of other small north european countries using african countries or even new zealand that does not have the option of the EU does not really compare like for like.

Iceland has got itself into trouble becuase it purchased alot of sub prime morgages from the US.

The economic facts are
Luxembourg, Ireland, Norway, Iceland, Switzerland, Austria, Denmark, Netherlands, Finland are all richer than the UK and the UK has done better than scotland.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_(PPP)_per_capita

The fact is government of big and small countries can make a mess of things but looking at europe we can see small countries have performed better.

"Nationalists see only one solution."
I do not think this is true. Some like me would like a low tax economy. Other follow a more scandanvian model. Some like me would like the euro while others support different currency options. Some like me want to be in the EU but other want out.

I also would not be against a confederal option. It would mean Scotland a soveriegn country but means we could be a member of the UK. The only difficult thing here is why? Of the 4 things i outlined above. I would join the euro and believe scotland should be an eu member on it own right. That would leave the pulled powers as foreign policy and defence. I really do not know whether it is worth it. Would it not be better just to have 2 independent countries with a defence union? Does the scottish electrate really have enough in common when it comes to nuclear to even make this worth while.

39

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:09:30
39

The entire capitalist world is fighting a recession right now including large as well as small countries.
If you really believe in federalism then make a case for it based on REAL FACTS not spin waffle and misleading statements.
I am starting to believe everything you post is a smoke
screen and this federalist crap is a unionist decoy away from Independence.
40

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:09:52
45
I find it deeply disturbing to see nationalists celebratiing rises in the price of oil. Alex Salmond has frequently boasted of how rich Scotland could be if it had control over North sea oil revenues.Presumably he feels that the higher the price of oil the richer we could become. Meanwhile, who suffers most from high oil prices - thirld world countries who struggle to maintain basic infrastructure, transport and medical services. Never mind - lets be rich and stuff the third world - is this Alex salmond's vision of Scotland on the "world stage"?
41

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:11:04
45

Norway is and its doing very well thanks to its forethought in keeping an oil profit fund available for a rainy day something we should have had since the 70s.
42

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:11:08
#2 Even the SNP (who don't vote on some "English-only" legislation) recognise that some so-called "English-only" legislation does have a knock-on effect - that's why they voted on the Higher Education Bill.

Their reasoning was that changes in expenditure on higher education in England and Wales would impact on Scotland’s block grant—and thus on the level of public expenditure in Scotland. This had previously been explicitly recognised by the Royal Commission on the constitution, which stated that:

“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

That is my argument - English MPs already have a say on Scottish Expenditure by setting our budget - the Scottish Parliament decides how said budget should be prioritised.

PS Can any Nats explain to me how the SNP decides what is "English-only" legislation when it comes to voting at Westminster?
43

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 11:12:41
50. Well said, the Nats should not be celebrating the rise in oil prices, and these rises are not connected to our policy of invading Iraq and destabilising the middle-east.
44

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:13:20
50

Higher oil prices higher oil revenues to spend on the necessary services with enough left over to keep for a rainy day. you dont have to be an economist to understand the basic simplicity of exploting natural assets instead of giving them away to a larger neighbour to shore up their economy with.
45

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:16:07
53

All legislation in Westminster can only pass if a majority of English MPs vote for it even if all Scottish MPS from every party voted against it.
So its safe to say that all legislation brought up in Westminster is in fact English only legislation is it not???
46

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:17:38
#47 "That is why subsidiarity is vital to rejuvenate politics."

I'd agree with that - the problem is Peter that politicians seem to think that having decision-making powers at the lowest possible level means making decisions at the nation state level instead of the European level.

For me subsidiarity means making decisions at the most appropriate level be it the European Union, Westminster, Holyrood, Local Council or even parish council.
47

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:18:43
#46 Tweedmouth

My point was why insult other countries for no reason. It was nothing to do with what the poster was talking about anyway so was irrelevent. the fact that we may have negative stereo types of other nations in many ways can be down to our own ignorance. Say Belgiun is boring. What i found amusing is when u go over there it u find it has some of the best beer (and chocolate) and has poor stereotypes of the uk. an island of poor food and that was Belgians who actually travelled to london for work regularly.

With regard to the empire. Looking through rose tinted glasses about the empire is not good. Even if there were positives to come out from it, it was morally wrong. It is wrong to go and invade other people by force and run there country without their consent for out own benefit. And lets face it was done for out own benefit and not theirs. i do have a problem with the fact that britain does not admit that it was wrong we expect Germany to face up to the wrong of its invasions.

The argument it was culturally beneficial to them is almost racist. Was it wrong for Germany to invade Poland but ok for us to invade India.

If look at problem areas in the world today many of them can be traced back to the empire.

-India and Pakistan - partition, nuclear weapons pointing at each other, Kasmir.
-Afganistan
-Israel - what gave us the right to give away palestinian land to jews in europe. and it still one of the world trouble spots today.

One thing i notice about indian guys i talk to is that they are all oppose to what britain did, all feel britain owes them, and all feel britain raped there country.

At the end of the day, in anything u can see benefits but it simply does not justify trying to own half the world against the will of the people who live there.

48

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:22:16
#56 That may be one definition of "English-only" legislation but not one I'd agree with. It certainly isn't "English-only" if the consequences of legislation and decision-making affects Scotland.
49

Alan B,

23/04/2008 11:25:39
The Federalist : Evidence given to Ken Clarkes commission said that for english votes on english matter to be workable scotland should be granted fiscal autonomy.
50

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:29:01
60

Aye but they dont care if it does or not it isnt a consideration.
51

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 11:29:57
50 and 59
The UK is committed to spend £9.1 billion in overseas aid by 2010. This figure is greater than the total oil and gas revenues for every year (except one) over the last 20 years. We notice that nationalist are eager to claim 90/95% of UK assets (oil) but rather more reluctant to claim the equivalent proportion in liabilities (overseas aid).

59
Please attempt to gain some perspective rather than resorting to abuse.
52

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:37:33
#61 Whilst fiscal autonomy sounds appealing I suspect the devil will be in the detail - something I am afraid most politicians are not good at.
53

Alec M,

Falkirk 23/04/2008 11:45:40
Re Tweedmouth #36, today's "Sun" carries a similar report, under the heading "EU Traitors" :

"WHAT delicious timing!

Today is St George’s Day. The day on which, according to a poll, eight out of ten Englishmen and women feel intensely proud of their country.

So much so that Scot Gordon Brown last night ordered the English flag must fly above No 10.

National flags will also fly for Wales’s St David’s Day and for Scotland’s St Andrew.

This is all about “Britishness”. But it turns out to be a grotesque con on the British people.

This is also the day we learn that England, Scotland and Wales are to come under direct rule from Europe.

The EU has been split into “transnational regions” which will eventually take orders from Brussels, not from their elected parliaments.

Much of Scotland and the North-East merges with Scandinavia; Wales and the West join Portugal and Spain. Parts of the South link to Northern France.

Ministers insist this is an admin exercise of no great consequence.

Rubbish. This is the latest step in the accelerating collapse of British sovereignty — and the unstoppable growth of unaccountable EU power.

Now you know why Brown broke his 2005 election pledge to hold a referendum."



54

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 11:48:44
#61 The only way it can work is if there is a complete separation of Scottish and the rest of the UK's taxation and expenditure. Most proposals for "fiscal autonomy" still include an aspect of UK-wide taxation and that would still impact on an expenditure of "English-only" legislation ie unless there were ring-fencing, monies garnered by the UK exchequer from Scotland could still end up paying for "English-only" legislation. Personally, I think that trying to separate out taxation is too complicated. It would better if Scotland had complete fiscal autonomy with UK-wide services being paid for by some kind of reverse block grant mechanism.

The whole issue is a minefield - one just has to look at out historical experience with the Irish question to realise these matters are not easily resolved.

Gladstone’s solution to the problem of Irish parliamentary representation was for an “in and out” answer. But under the detailed examination of the committee stage the proposal disintegrated. Among the various flaws he found was the impossibility of discriminating between “Irish” and non-Irish (described as “Imperial”) issues. Despite trying hard to find a means of doing so, Gladstone was finally forced to concede that:

“it passed the wit of man to frame any distinct, thorough-going, universal severance between the one class of subjects and the other”

55

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:00:41
Just a wee reminder of what a clean slate needs to begin with.

IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE REFERENDUM.


Independence from the English Parliament.

Independence from American Military Installations

Independence from the European Union

Independence from Non Governmental Organisations
(NGO's)

Declare Neutrality

Control our own Resources

Man a 350/400 mile sea boundary, taking back all.

Re-establish the trade routes.


Run our COUNTRY on an international footing.


The english can have a south British parliament that has Cymru (Welsh) as a compulsory language.
56

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 12:15:09
Most people in Europe would not defend the need for independance on economic grounds.In spite of the facr that smaller European nations are relatively affluent,neither would I.

My committment to Scottiah independance is succinctly descibed during a converstion that I had last year with a 95 year old Finnish Lady.She was born before Finnish independence in 1917.Prior to that,Finland was ruled by Sweden(400years) and Russia (100 years).I asked her if independence was a good idea.She looked at me with surprise and asked me why I would ask that question.Her view was that if you claimed to be a nation,you had a responsibilty to govern yourself.She acknowledged that there was also a need to be international and to collaborate with other nations,but was quite firm in her view that it was mature and normal to accept the responsibilty of self-government of your own nation.

That is how I feel.The economic benefits of independence are compelling but independence in itself is a worthwhile goal.I think that this article is another "straw in the wind" that illustrates that change is constant.

57

The Master,

23/04/2008 12:20:31
Rifkind says “we don’t need to have an English Parliament” but does not elaborate on why this is the case. Surely such a body would gel nicely with the administrations which have already been established in Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland and restore constitutional balance and stability. I quite agree that an English Grand Committee is a sensible and workable solution to the West Lothian Question, but would have thought that the Tories would have learnt from the folly of opposing the establishment of a Scottish Parliament for many years: there is a rising tide in support English devolution and surely it’s time for the new look Tory Party to ride the wave. Am I right or am I right!
58

Alan B,

23/04/2008 12:27:56
#66 The Federalist
"The only way it can work is if there is a complete separation of Scottish and the rest of the UK's taxation and expenditure"

That is fiscal autonomy. Where scotland would set it taxes and pay for common services eg defence.

That is obviously different from "some" fiscal autonomy. Or Wendies term of fiscal federalisation (which she has recently backed away from). My understanding of fiscal federalisation would be uk taxes for uk expenditure (ie defence) and scottish taxes for scottish expenditure. But while Wendy used the term she appears to want only limited fiscal powers for the sp.
59

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 12:32:39
#71 I think we are singing from the same song sheet when it comes to fiscal autonomy Alan - I think it is important to make clear that the term means what you and I think it means and not the watered-down version that Alexander supports.
60

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:34:04
69 Suomi

Indeed, unfortunately in this insular island the english media dominates a large percentage of the general consensus (dumbing down) and has been doing everything to destroy all basic human relations in normal life. It has succeeded in this achievement.
The dignity of self autonomy is plainly obvious when the intellectually challenged are given the real story.
To the intelligent native it is merely necessary.
61

Alan B,

23/04/2008 12:34:08
Master
I think the problem the tories would have with a separate english parliament is that it would hand away much of their powers and for what purpose another layer of governmnet.

I think a much more likely solution is for the english mps to wear 2 hats. One as "english parliament" within westminster and the other for uk wide issues. The problem here is does Cameron really wnat to hand so much stuff of to an english first minster and only have power over uk wide issues.

The problem for england coming up with a solution for itself is that scotland is seemingly committed to more powers (maybe unless brown scuppers it) but that is not defined. And Wales are also going to have referendum over more powers.

The issue of having an english parliament for those that support the union is that it will probably just bring about the demise of the uk more quickly.

62

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:35:00
68
So Actionaid, Save the Children and all the other aid agencies who are on record as welcoming the UKs contribution to overseas aid are all just corrupt tools of New Labour? Are you going to call them ugly as well?

I apologise for not mentioning the 1.9 million from the SNP Government. I realise that as 0.00000002% of the UK figure it has to be taken into account.
63

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 12:37:21
#70 Can you actuually give a defintion of legisaltion that is "English-only" though?

As the Royal Commission has previously stated:

"“Any issue in Westminster involving expenditure of public money is of concern to all parts of the United Kingdom since it may directly affect the level of taxation and indirectly influence the level of a region’s own expenditure.”

Can you name a piece of English-only legislation that does not involve the expenditure of public monies?

I can't.
64

The Master,

23/04/2008 12:51:37
#74 Alan B: how would an English Parliament bring about the demise of the UK more quickly? I just don’t follow your logic here and cannot think of any relevant examples of countries whose demise has been brought about as a result of the presence of several regional assemblies/parliaments.

#77 The Federalist: point taken. The establishment of an English Parliament along similar lines to the Scottish one is the solution which I think will inevitably be adopted (even if it takes many years!)
65

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:54:17
63

No it isnt it is bigger than the oil and gas revenue figures presented by the Government not bigger than the true oil and gas revenue figures.
66

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:55:51
77

All legislation concerning ENGLISH law.
67

John PM,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:57:18
Independence for every country in the UK. That's the only logical answer to the West Lothian Question.
68

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 12:57:19
76

I am outstanding in a soggy field of Scottish potential,
not in a Unionist frying pan of Mammon jumping to a European Union of Moloch.

Independence is the opportunity to change, for the better, to free the shackles of the past, to move forward and be firm in the empowering of our gamut of resources and culture.
It must be remembered that many of the institutional parasites will leave in the advent of independence and many natives will return.
69

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 13:02:54
I'm interested that Tweed mouth includes Finland in the list of countries having tiny economies,since I currently live there.In spite of my earlier posting when I stated that economics were not the main motivating factor in seeking independence,I will deal with this one.

Finland has a population of 5 million (same as Scotland) and has fewer resources than Scotland.While the Finnish people strongly value their independence,they do not defend it on the basis of economic gain.However,this tiny economy that Tweedmouth refers to does deliver a quality of life that would be viewed as desirable by those living in Scotland.This includes:

1) Free education for all (including Foreigners)
2) Access to superb health care for all citizens (Survival rates for cancer and infant mortality rates are better than Scotland etc)
3) Excellant public transport that is far superior to what currently exists in Scotland
4) The most clean environment in Europe

These are just a few examples.In addition Finland invests in helping developing countries with their environmental and health care needs.They are full members of the EU and can take their turn at the presidency.They are a peaceful outward looking international nation.This is emphasised by the fact that my Finnish wife and I have three daughters who live in 3 countries(Scotland,Holland and Finland).We are modern Europeans who wish to be connected to the rest of the world.We do not feel that our countries are better than anyone else and we do not denigrate or dismiss anyone on grounds of gender,ethnicity or country of origin.That is what the modern SNP member is like.
The arguments in favour of independance (which is normal in most of Europe) can be economic,but not limited to the economic case.However,since it was suggested that the Finnish economy could not deliver,I felt it important to point out that once again,people should not confuse opinion with reality.Of couse there are global economic problems from time to time,but
70

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 13:04:39
#80 Just because it is English Law does not necessarily mean that it does not need UK therefore Scottish monies.
71

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:08:21
84

What??
72

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:09:07
84

Are you trying to make a case for Scotland subsidising England??
73

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 13:10:25
#83 Belief in the union, independence or any form of government should never come down to pure economics. For me it is something much more fundamental.

As I have said before - most nationalists don't really understand unionists and most unionists don't really understand nationalists.
74

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 13:11:26
#86 No - I am making a case for Fiscal Autonomy - the present funding arrangements cannot be sustained but neither can Alexander's Fiscal Federalisation either.
75

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:15:35
88

No yer not your asking a simple question

#70 Can you actuually give a defintion of legisaltion that is "English-only" though?

I gave you

All legislation concerning ENGLISH law.

You came back

#80 Just because it is English Law does not necessarily mean that it does not need UK therefore Scottish monies.

And then it got weird and kind of trollish.

#86 No - I am making a case for Fiscal Autonomy - the present funding arrangements cannot be sustained but neither can Alexander's Fiscal Federalisation either.

A simple yes I agree would have done.

76

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 13:21:54
#89 I sometimes feel FOTC that you like disagreeing with me for the sake of it!!

I'll repeat for you - legislation may be English Law only but will involve expenditure from UK-wide taxation. Even the SNP recognises this fact - which is why they have voted on "English-only" legislation in the past such as the Higher Education Bill.

Only full fiscal autonomy can deal with this issue.
77

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:24:15
92

You keep moving the goal posts can you no stand still on a single issue long enough to conclude it one way or the other??
78

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:25:50
92

So which English law legislation has the SNP voted on lately??
79

Doh,

23/04/2008 13:26:45


Rifkind addresses the problem of legislation but the more substantive issue is taxation.

The Scottish Parliament requires fiscal autonomy to be truly accountable to the people who elect it and of course responsible for what they spend.

The union has to adapt just as the SNP concept of independance has changed. The SNP now accept that we should remain in Europe and probably join the Euro.

Its time for a federal britain.
80

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:27:37
92

What is full fiscal autonomy if it isnt Independence??
81

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:29:16
95

Should we ask Ireland if they would be interested in joining this federal Britain do you think??
82

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 13:32:26
#97 Fiscal Autonomy is not the same as independence - whilst there may be a complaete separation of taxation and expenditure powers Scotland would still have a link to the rest of the UK by funding those services it receives on a UK-wide basis.
83

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:35:49
92

If youre so keen on federation how would you feel if we applied to become the 51st state of America or even part of the Russian Federation I am sure they would welcome us with open arms or does this principle of Federation have to be limited to us being tied to Westminster??
84

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:37:11
99

But why would or should it want to?? wheres the advantages??
85

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:41:28
90 Jackie Priest
You ask "What has Britain given the world?"

How about these for starters :
The printing press, The TV, the computer, the internet, the steam engine, the jet engine, the discovery of DNA, the discovery of penicillin, railways, the Theory of Evolution etc. etc etc etc.

Also Shakespeare, Milton, Burns, Byron, Shelley, Dickens, Austen, Newton, Darwin, The Beatles etc. etc. etc

These are just a few that spring to mind in a few minutes. There are countless more.
86

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:45:35
102

And all of this was only possible because of the union was it??

Shakespeare, Milton, Burns, Byron, Shelley, Dickens, Austen, Newton, Darwin, The Beatles

None of these guys would have existed out of the union is that your argument??

87

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 13:50:56
102
That is not what I said nor even what I implied but it is obviously yor inference. I was merely answering the question put by another poster.
88

Alan B,

23/04/2008 14:00:22
#104 Ugly George

"That is not what I said nor even what I implied but it is obviously yor inference. I was merely answering the question put by another poster."

Is than what u did? The poster, Jackie, was putting an argument put forward by another poster, Tweedmouth, slagging off other countries. Saying how the uk was great and all these countries accomplished nothing and tried to put stereotypes of these countries. Jackie simply put back a stereotype of britain. If u care to read the posts by Tweedmouth, u will see they were quite distasteful. Tweedmouth then continued to tell us how great the empire was and how we managed to civilise these people.

I simply do not know how u can defend this.
89

Alan B,

23/04/2008 14:01:37
sorry "Is than what u did" meant to be "Is than what not u did yourself?"
90

Shave,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:05:42
#106

Thanks for the clarification ;-)
91

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:10:46
105
Your point is somewhat convoluted. Just because I answer a question put by one poster does not mean that I agree with or "defend" a view held by another with whom he/she has a dispute. I was not aware that postings on this site were being conducted on a "my enemy's enemy is my friend" basis.
92

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:15:53
Mr Federalist are you still oot there??

Ref post 100 101.
93

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 14:23:58
#94 I did say that it is only occasionally that the SNP vote on English-only matters. Here are the most recent cases I have found of SNP MPs voting on English-only legisaltion:

* Climate Change and Sustainable Energy Bill — Clause 9 — Review of permitted development orders — 17 Mar 2006 at 13:00 - 2 SNP MPs voted against this clause which was an amendment to the Town & Country Planning Act (1990) - a piece of English-only legislation

* Higher Education — 14 Sep 2004 at 16:00 - 5 SNP MPs voted against the third reading of this bill

* Higher Education Bill — Clause 27 — Sections 22 to 26: supplementary provisions — 23 Jun 2004 at 16:15 - 4 SNP MPs voted against these sections of the clause

* Higher Education Bill — New Clause 5 — Abolition of tuition fees chargeable to qualifying student — 31 Mar 2004 at 18:15 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this clause

* St. George's Day (Public Holiday) Bill — 27 Oct 2004 at 12:44 - 1 SNP MP voted against

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 1 — NHS Foundation Trusts — 19 Nov 2003 at 02:00 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this clause

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — Clause 3 — General Duty of Regulator — 19 Nov 2003 at 16:53 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this amendment

* Health and Social Care (Community Health and Standards) Bill — NHS Foundation Trusts — 8 Jul 2003 at 16:15 - 5 SNP MPs voted against this amendment

* Children's Commissioner for Wales Bill — 16 Jan 2001 - 1 SNP MP voted against the second reading

* Criminal Justice (Mode of Trial) (No. 2) Bill — 7 Mar 2000 - 1 SNP MP voted for an amendment to this bill

By the way I'm not criticising the SNP for voting - in these cases there were quite clearly implications in both legislative and expenditure terms for Scotland.


94

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 14:30:16
#102 I still believe there are areas where we would want to share a common policy with the rest of the UK eg Defence. As such, a reverse block grant would be an appropriate method of paying for such shared expenditure.

By the way there are areas in economic policy where I think the SNP have been too timid - signing up for the Eurozone being a prime example. That's not to say I support us retaining the pound either - history has shown that a single currency has not worked in the Uk - so why should it work on a larger scale in the EU?
95

,

23/04/2008 14:31:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
96

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:45:52
111

Can you post yer source not that I dont trust you but I simply dont trust you to be accurate any more.

How can you classify any of those legislative bills as English only???
Is climate the NHS and Higher education English only matters???
97

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:50:17
112

Ok so you believe we should share defence but why do we have to be Federal to share defensive policy we are not in a Federal arrangement with Nato nor the US but we share our defensive strategies well enough with them so where is the advantage of being Federal??
and like I asked before are you pushing federalism on principle or just federalism within the UK???
98

Doh,

23/04/2008 14:53:11
#98 Foulkes

Sadly that seperation has already happened.

I am trying to avoid repeating the same mistake twice.

I think you asked what is the difference between fiscal autonomy and full-on-independance?

In the former there is formal cooperation at the British level with some Scottish influence over British policy. In the later Scotland is in bed with an elephant and has no say over English policy.

So if England decides not to pay for English students to study in Scotland we could ask out ambassador to point out that this would cause a diminution of the Scottish Higher Education Sector.


99

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:55:49
112

Also for Scotland to embrace Federalism within the UK we would have to give up our identity as a NATION and become a region or state. Therefore we would no longer be the United Kingdoms of great Britain but the republic of Britain with a monarchy.
Are you sure you have thought this out at all??
100

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:58:32
116

And we should give up all claims to being a nation state based on that and similar concerns is that what you advocate??
101

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 14:59:30
109
Jackie Priest
What do you mean by "you people" and why do you continually have to resort to personal abuse and insults. You asked a question - I answered it with details at my disposal. If one or two of the details are incorrect I will withdraw them but that would still leave a substantiallist. To then go on to attempt to ascribe motives and attitudes towards me is somewhat presumptious to say the least. I am perfectly aware of the contributions of other countries particularly as my ethnic origins are from outwith the UK so I do not consider I require instruction from you on their contributions. If you are attempting to portray me as some kind of British imperialist you are well wide of the mark.

You asked the question "What has Britain given the world?" and then answered it yourself with a tirade of negative stereotypes. I responded with some positive contributions and that makes me one of "you people" suffering from arrogance and ignorance.

Also if you are so concerned with accuracy check your own prefeered source - Wikipedia. It quite clearly states that the "web was invented by the English scientist Tim Berners Lee". Yes I did get the printing press wrong but you have made an error as well. However I will not assume from this that you suffer from "ignorance"
102

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:08:32
#118 Foulkes

Over the last 300 years Scotland and England have become interwoven - politically, socially, culturally and economically.

You seem to want to turn back time to a Scotland that never existed. Why are you not campaigning for the independance of Dalradia or some other manifestation from our history?

Britain has existed as a nation state for longer than the USA I am looking for ways to have the best of both worlds. Works for the Swiss and they dont even speak the same language.
103

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:13:22
120

Now that simply is not true in spite of everything the ENGLISH establishment has tried to smother the identities of the other nations we have held onto our individual identities and as a result we are now able to try for full autonomy which wouldnt have even been possible if what you say is true.
ASK THE IRISH. They didnt feel "English" nor "British" enough after 300 years to remain did they???
104

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:15:43
#112 Fed

You say "history has shown that a single currency has not worked in the Uk - so why should it work on a larger scale in the EU?"

I assume you are being ironic?

Monetary union has been one of the benefits of the political union - of course today - starting from ground zero Scotland could join the Euro.

Then maybe in 300 years the Eunionists would get a tongue lashing from the seperatists campaigning for withdrawal from Europe.

105

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 15:17:01
#115 Simple answer - federalism on principle.
106

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:21:21
#121 Foulkes

I never said we were the same, of course there are differences. But most our companies are British and by default based in London. So independance-day most of the companies operating in Scotland would become foreign overnight.

Why are you not in favour of indepedance for the nation state of the Votadini?
107

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 15:21:51
#122 Not being ironic at all.

The truth is that more often than not interest rates have been used as a tool to cool down/heat up the economy of the South-East of England not of the UK as a whole. The old phrase "London sneezes and Scotland catches a cold" could be well-applied to the historic use of interest rates (and by implication a single currency) in the UK.
108

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

23/04/2008 15:22:57
120

We have not become "interwoven" we have become smothered and reduced from being a nation state to being an ethnic minority satellite within a political union of unequals.
Not a satisfactory state of affairs for Scotland the nation to be in.
109

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

23/04/2008 15:27:39
114 I think most of them are covered here:

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-03-31&number=123&mpn=Vera_Baird&mpc=Redcar

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-10-27&number=285

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2001-01-16&number=56

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2006-03-17&number=197

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2000-03-07&number=94&mpn=John_McDonnell&mpc=Hayes+%26amp%3B+Harlington

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-11-19&number=388&mpn=Jack_Cunningham&mpc=Copeland

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-11-19&number=382&mpn=John_McDonnell&mpc=Hayes+%26amp%3B+Harlington

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2003-07-08&number=280&mpn=John_McDonnell&mpc=Hayes+%26amp%3B+Harlington

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-09-14&number=243&display=slab

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-03-31&number=122&display=slab

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-03-31&number=124&display=slab

http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/division.php?date=2004-06-23&number=204
110

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:30:26
124

So What?? when the baltic states were part of the Soviet "union" did they no have to endure being part of the same beurocricy establishment culture and economy?? are you suggesting they should have stayed where they were within the Soviet "union"?? because suddently everything would become foreign overnight??

I dont know the circumstances of votadini to make an informed judgement one way or the other or are you just slavering??
What the f*ck is a votadini when its at home anyway??
111

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 15:31:44
Of course the steam engine and the television etc came from the Brish Isles but to say so imnplies that Britain is a country (singular) rather than a geographical area that consistes of several countries.This reminds me of a class on cultural skills that I did with Foreign exchange students in Turku,Finland.I asked students to bring to the class something from their own country,music,food,drink,history,national dress,whatever.The English students in this group brought shortbread.This seems odd in view of the fact that I had asked them to bring something that came from English culture.When I discussed this with them,I concluded that they had not really considered that Britain was comprised of several nations (pleural).I'm not concerned about who invented what,or who contributed what,the issue here is about the invisabilty of some nations.What most people in this world take for granted,is denied to some of us.I do not mind that some people may not see this as important.I do mind that they are insensitive to the values of people who have different opinions. I can understand Jackie Priest's frustration at the invisabilty of Scotland as a nation.However Jackie,keep cool.You are such a persuasive advocate of Scottish independance,that you should not get sucked in to the deliberate attempt by a few to distract.As someone said yesterdat,"Dont feed the trolls."
112

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:32:52
124

Not true unless these companies are English Northern Irish or Welsh and not British so what are they English Northern Irish or Welsh. Why do you assume all UK assets will go to England when we become and Independent state??? England is not GB nor the UK is it??
113

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:35:26
#125 Fed

Okay I diaagre - over the piece - I see that lasy 300 years as propelling Scotland from a rural economy to a modern industrial developed nation. One of the richest countries in the world in fact.

I dont think the Scottish interest rate should be different from the English one. For example at the moment should they be higher or lower or would it matter?

I think I am right in saying that 80% of RBS biz is outside Scotland and that they have more English customers than Scottish ones. As a multinational I dout they care a too much a hoot.

#126 Foulkes

Sorry that must be why we have different views.
Nothing has been smothered. Things have changed that is the march of time - progress - not English elites.

I'll bet there is less village cricket fields in England than 100 years ago - have they been smothered by the Scots Raj. No, times change on.

Keep the best and move on.

114

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:40:21
127

And that proves non of them are English only bills WTF are you playing at??
Are you trying to prove yer just another troll??
115

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:41:17
#130 Foulkes

I dotn assume all British assets will move to England.
Nor British debts - like the provision of UK public sector pensions.

I only assume that companies will locate where they have 90% of their customers and shareholders - and where they are currently listed - in London.

Their *future* policy would no longer be directly influenced by Scots at Westminster - they would become foreign companies.


116

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:44:34
131

Aye that would explain the bad health the massive personal debt the high taxation the poverty levels the squandering of natural resourses continually being at war decade after decade after decade A terrorist target
the high cost of living the low average income etc

Have I forgotten anything from the union benefit??
117

Doh,

23/04/2008 15:46:49
#128

The Votadini was a kingdom that I beleive stretched from the Forth Valley to the Tyne Valley.

Should it not be independent?

Your Baltic states comparison is not accurate since those countries were actually occupied by the Russians.
Scotland chose to join a union and at every election since has had the option to leave the union. Their desire for "freedom" is understandable.


118

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:47:44
133

No companies will locate wherever it would be most advantageous for them to do so and as an Independent nation we could compete for that trade but as a satellite within the UK we cannot.
No policy is influence by Scots in Westminster it is directed by the vastly superior numbers of English MPs at Westminster or hadnt you noticed??
119

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:48:41
135

So was Scotland Ireland and Wales read yer history.
120

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:49:18
135

Are they asking for Independence??
121

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 15:51:08
135

Scotland DID NOT CHOOSE TO JOIN THE UNION as well you know we were annexed by political corruption and treason. Not any better than being taken by military force nor any more morally correct.
122

Doh,

23/04/2008 16:00:49
#139 Foulkes

The Act of Union was as dastardly as Robert the Bruce killing the Baliol in a Church.
I dont dwell on it. Time moves on.
We have our freedom.
123

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 16:12:31
140

But you just brought it up in yer argument so you are obviously dwelling on it.
How many logons does this f*cking idiot troll have??
124

Doh,

23/04/2008 16:17:50
#141

I was responding to your question.

You seem to believe that the Act of Union happened then time stood still. No further elections, reforms, progress or dare I say it - integration.

I give in - how many logons do you have?


125

Doh,

23/04/2008 16:32:46
#143

Thanks for the clarifcation - and well done on the cheap shot - I hope you feel better for it.

So should these tribes not all have their independance? Why not?

You are free.
We elect MPs to parliament like everyone else in Britain.

Of course the Scottish Parliament is constrained by the union. That is what we are discussing what powers should be exercised at Westminister and what powers in Edinburgh.

I have heard of the Kingdom of Strathclyde - what was the east coast called - Dalradia?
Can we have our independance too?
126

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 16:43:05
142

How many times does this road have to be plouged on these blogs??
Integration in the sense that Gaelic cannot be spoken Kilts and highland dress is not allowed to be worn no 3 Scots shall converse together in public bagpipes cannot be played and that from 1746 until Queen Victoria recinded the Westminster Parliament legislation. Not to mention the Highland clearences and the more recent problems that Scottish voters cant get the governments they vote for unless English voters agree with their choice.

"have heard of the Kingdom of Strathclyde - what was the east coast called - Dalradia?
Can we have our independance too?"

Nothing stopping you forming a political movement in order to push for the independence of Dalradia is there?? at least not anymore.


127

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 16:44:26
145

Nope its now commonly referred to as cybertrolling and it has no historical context whatsoever.
128

Doh,

23/04/2008 16:55:45
#145 Jackie

Who says Scotland has no right to independance?

I like most unionists just think seperation is inadvisable and illusory.

I note that at every election we dont choose seperation but continued cooperation within in out union with England. We are free to choose.

We choose the union and you dont like that.

I dont see what is so particular about Scotland, why shouldnt it disintegrate further into even smaller units? The Orkney/Shetland argument is valid.

#146 Foulkes

Many of these terrible things were done by Scots against Scots. But you seem to be saying bad things happened but were then changed for the better?

The diversity within Scotladn, let alone between Scotland and England, belies the smothering argument.

Time moves on but most Snappers are stuck in 1707.
129

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 17:00:31
150

No they were perpetrated by English landlords and "Unionist" Scots. Lets keep the facts in context.
And Scottish nationalism didnt have a politcal voice until 1934 and has since grown stronger and louder in spite of obvious attempts by the UK establishment to sabotage it using the UK police and security services as Party political tools.
You have got to love this democratic union.
130

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 17:03:52
150

What Shetland and Orkney argument?? there isnt one its as fictious as yer Dalriada and Votadini pi*h.
131

,

23/04/2008 17:05:36
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
132

Doh,

23/04/2008 17:08:26
#150

I disagree that these attrocities were conducted by unionists. Remember that story abour Flora McDonald - who then went on to America - to be a Tory and fight against American independance. Is that true?

As for the SNP forming in 1934 just underlies my point.

There was no desire for independance even with the example of the Irish home rule movement from the previous century as an example of how to obtain independance.

If the UK is as bad as you say how come the SNP are in government in Scotland? Is that because Alex is a well known poodle to big bizness - so is acceptable to the "establishment". Just kidding he was a Marxist member of the 1779 group was he not?


133

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 17:14:36
154

I dont know bit before my time check out the source and find out how reliable it is besides who ever claimed Flora McDonald was a nationalist?? I got the impression she was a royalist hence her dalliance with Prince Charlie so its perfectly feasible she would have Conservative tendencies.

No it doesnt underline yer point it only shows there was no focus for underlying Independence views until 1934. There certainly wasnt any media attention on it until then.

As tae yer last paragraph yer just being a troll again.
Where is this genuine argument to convince me youre serious in yer stated beliefs for the union??
134

Doh,

23/04/2008 17:16:52
#153 Foulkes

Cut the swearing you are actign as badly as your namesake. I have already made the case for the union you just dont like it -

Our economies are fully integrated.
Our social union is manifest - even accepted by the SNP
We have more in common than differences.

You can always point to smaller unit and say some
"Ah but if Shetland had been independant it would be much better off now.."

It is a bit like a husband winning the lottery and then turning to hsi wife and saying - "See you doll
we're finished I'd be better off without you".
135

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 17:24:59
156

What case?? and I will stop swearing when you start posting genuine argument and not sh*t stirring trollish p*sh.

What does that mean our economies are fully integrated?? how come the Scottish housing market is still rising while there is a decline in the English housing market??
our social union is manifest?? as compared to being at war with each other??
We have more in common than differences?? you mean neither likes being run by the other??

"You can always point to smaller unit and say some
"Ah but if Shetland had been independant it would be much better off now.."

No you f*cking cant!!! its all relative.

You have nothing to support your views so you make up garbage and rhetoric in order to acheive what?? time on the blog?? more posts?? Make a f*cking argument or stop wasting everybodies time.
136

,

23/04/2008 17:39:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
137

pwd,

Hawick 23/04/2008 17:41:01
135 FOCyberNat
"Scotland DID NOT CHOOSE TO JOIN THE UNION as well you know we were annexed by political corruption and treason."

Wrong! The legitimate authority of the time, undemocratic though it was by modern standards, by due process chose to join the Union. You may choose to hang on to myths worthy of the local pub but the facts say you are wrong. And what do you say about now, when we have had nearly a century of universal suffrage and in every election during that time Scots have indicated they wish to stay in the Union? At the last Holyrood election only 17% of the Scottish electorate voted for separation. You and your ilk really will have to come to terms with this and no number of red herrings or retreats into the obscurantist rhetoric of pseudo history will change that.
138

Doh,

23/04/2008 17:42:55
#158 Foulkes

Okay stick with the swearing - it is what you are good at - a real credit to the SNP. I cant compete with that
your arguments won the f*&%^%$*&)ng day.
139

Doh,

23/04/2008 17:54:56
#160 Jackie

Seperation - bad for Scotland - precisely becasue we have had 300 years of union. Had we not it would be less of an obstacle.

Independance - illusory for other nation-states - as they form their own unions - such as the European Union. Better than our own union but wasnt around 300 years ago. See above.

Media bias, multi-nationals, the changing nature of the Labour party - none of these are likely to change on independance - they are manifestations of global trends. We really arent island. Well we are but it is called Britain - okay that was an attempt at a joke.

You are not alone. Indeed feel free to campaign for independance but unlike Foulkes maybe show unionists some respect. I believe in the union because I think it is better for the Scottish people. I am sure you disagree - that is the benefit of living in a free country.
140

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 17:58:29
161. And Jackie Priest is STILL talking about race!

she says, "Actually, when you compare Scotland to other countries you see that we are actually muc more compact and cultural succinct as a nation."

Indeed, Scotland is one of the purest, most perfect races in the whole wide world. Everyone else are alll impure mixtures, aren't they.
141

,

23/04/2008 18:04:11
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
142

,

23/04/2008 18:07:15
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
143

,

23/04/2008 18:16:00
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
144

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:18:28
160 /161 Jackie Priest
Having attempted to chastise me on my "ignorance and arrogance" in recent posts I can't help feeling that a comment on the hue of pots and kettles is in order here. You stated that European nations are independent and happy being independent and have equated Scotland to Germany and Italy.
Both of these countries were formed through a union of smaller states in the latter part of the 19th century. Before 1870 (never mind 1707) states such as Bavaria and several other German speaking nations existed as separate entitites as individual nations. A similar situation existed in Italy until 1861 when, under the influence of Garribaldi, several Italian speaking nations merged to form Italy. Similarly, Crete joined Greece in 1913 following the example of Corfu and Rhodes. There are literally dozens of European nations which are part of larger countries and therefore not "independent". Why are you suggesting that Scotland is unique in this respect?
145

,

23/04/2008 18:24:55
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
146

Ugly George,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:33:11
67/168/169/170
Am I wrong or are we now beginning to get contributions from those who have had an extended liquid lunch? I'm only asking!
147

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 18:39:05
I think that there is a fake Jackie Priest on this thread.Very clever way of smearing someone and misrepresnting the views of those in favour of independence is to write nonsense under their name.
148

,

23/04/2008 18:42:02
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
149

European Scot,

23/04/2008 18:47:11
164 Doh

" Independence illusory for other nation-states -as they form their own unions-such as the European Union "

Illusory ? Firstly the European Union comprises a group of Countries, of Nations.
They are not, and should not be compared to, States, as in the USA.
Scotland in the UK has no vote at the UN.
Scotland in the UK has no place at the European table.
As a result of both of the above, it has no International recognition as a country or Nation in its own right around the World.
Scotland has no Independent Scottish Broadcaster, That's a matter reserved to Westminster.
When Scotland joins the EU as a Sovereign Nation, it will sit in the UN, and at the European table, with a voice, and vote, in both.
Under European legislation , Scotland as a member of the EU, will be expected to have its own Broadcasters recognise the following directive :-
1. There are no obstacles to the free movement of television programmes within the single market;
2. Television channels, where practicable, reserve at least half their broadcasting time for films and programmes made in Europe;
3. Safeguards are in place to protect certain important public interest objectives such as cultural diversity;
4. Governments take action to ensure that a broad public has access to major events, which therefore cannot be restricted to pay-TV channels only. This provision refers mainly to international sporting events such as the Olympic Games or World Cup football;
5. Children and young people are protected against violent or pornographic programmes by scheduling them late at night and/or by limiting access through a technical device built into the TV control handset;
6. Parties unfairly criticised in a television broadcast have the right of reply;
7. The maximum volume of advertising that channels can carry during a given period (measured in minutes per hour or per day) are fully respected.

An Independent Scotland in the European Union, has a much better deal than it does i
150

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:50:17
162

I suppose then we can call Hitlers Nazi party the legitimate authority of their time as well based on that argument can we not??
Did we have the right to oppose them then??
151

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 18:50:51
172. Indeed there was a fake Jackie Priest, and a fake Methalions.

When we Unionists are losing the argument we like to fake posters names and post rubbish under it, to confuse and stifle discussion!

Our cause is just.
152

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 18:52:21
162. I like your logic - 17% (ommitting the greens, SSP and solidairty too I note, I like it) - but by that logic will the Nats not say that at the last UK election 82% of people voted against Labour?
153

European Scot,

23/04/2008 18:52:34
An Independent Scotland in the European Union, has a much better deal than it does in the current one. That's not illusory.
154

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:53:42
164

Aye and the difference between them and us is we cannot form a union with anybody else cause we dont control our own destiny. We cannot decide for ourselves who we can or cannot ally ourselves with Westminster does that for us.
Scotland cannot negociate its own terms within the EU nor even decide it wants to pull out.
Youre no very good at this are you??
155

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:54:11
178

How so??
156

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 18:57:54
178

Forget that I have just read yer post at 174
157

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:00:59
162

And how many times has Scotland voted for a Labour party only to get a Conservative one???
158

,

23/04/2008 19:03:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
159

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:04:38
182

Now wouldnt it be preferable if the voters in Scotland always got the party they voted for whoever it is??
Wouldnt that basic principle appeal to Scots of all political persuasions??
So how are we ever to achieve this within the union???
160

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:09:47
135
Doh,
23/04/2008 15:46:49

Your ignorance knows no bounds.
Jackies answers are quite accurate, pay attention you may learn something.
161

,

23/04/2008 19:12:51
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
162

Brian M,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:14:25
Rifkinfd is just yet another Westmonster-based Scottish politician trying to keep his union gravy train going.
163

 Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 19:15:50
I did not write posts 183 and 186. An infantile ned nationalist pretending to be me did.
164

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:22:40
The EU is a grossly incompetent bunch of thiefs.
The UK is a pathetic noodle of chaos, now shamed.
The USA is a nasty egotistical imperial empire.

Scotland should have no part of such backward lies and domineering attitudes.

Full and total independence will be the only way to reference if we require co-joining with another nation-state. A celtic confederacy?
165

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:24:02
186 go find your plank with the 1" knot hole then.
166

pwd,

Hawick 23/04/2008 19:28:16
*175
Re what I said about obfuscation and pseudo history - you're at it again. Pls study the facts more carefully and think. And, face the facts.

* 177 (and passim)
Nothing you say or have said has any value and you are unworthy of any reponse.

167

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 23/04/2008 19:29:32
Good post no 174 (european Scott),The idea that idependence within Europe meant seperation, was a novalty idea to my Finnish family,who also read this site.They were also confused by DOH's assumption that independence equated to seperatism.They tend to believe that as an independent nation n within the European union,and with their special relationship with Scandanavian countries (including Estonia) they are joining rather than seperating.
168

Union is Best,

23/04/2008 19:30:16
191. Surely that was a response old sausage?
169

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:31:45
I believe we would be better off joining a real union of equals with Ireland Norway Sweden Finland and Denmark.
170

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 19:32:14
Ah, a ned nat has copied my username again. The childishness of the nationalists on show yet again.

Interesting how you all leap to the defence of the racist Jackie Priest by claiming those weren't her words when anyone who has seen her posts will know they were.

Jackie Priest, author of such beauties as "The English are a gypsy race" and "The English have no culture" (coincidentally repeated by an embarrassment to Scotland on Sky this morning), now comes out with the classic that Scots are a purer race than other countries.

Yep, according to our girl in Switzerland, we're apparently still all Celts here; no immigration, no mixing of nationalities and races....Celts through and through, right down to the marrowbone.

Do the nats disagree with this comment? Will any come forward and denounce this?
171

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 19:32:15
Ah, a ned nat has copied my username again. The childishness of the nationalists on show yet again.

Interesting how you all leap to the defence of the racist Jackie Priest by claiming those weren't her words when anyone who has seen her posts will know they were.

Jackie Priest, author of such beauties as "The English are a gypsy race" and "The English have no culture" (coincidentally repeated by an embarrassment to Scotland on Sky this morning), now comes out with the classic that Scots are a purer race than other countries.

Yep, according to our girl in Switzerland, we're apparently still all Celts here; no immigration, no mixing of nationalities and races....Celts through and through, right down to the marrowbone.

Do the nats disagree with this comment? Will any come forward and denounce this?
172

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 19:34:47
196 contd. And here we have another one who thinks Scotland is solely populated by Celts!

Dumb as ****, these nats!
173

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 19:35:17
191

So the Nazi party were not the legitimate authority of their time but the Lords and land owners who set themselves up as our Government in 1707 were???
174

,

23/04/2008 19:43:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
175

,

23/04/2008 19:45:17
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
176

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 19:45:22
199. Good to see that education is not going to waste, ned.

No nats to denounce Priest's repeated racism? Thought so.

Pathetic.
177

,

23/04/2008 19:45:50
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
178

,

23/04/2008 19:46:40
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
179

,

23/04/2008 19:51:39
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
180

Doh,

23/04/2008 19:55:55
#169

very good post - the rise of the nation-states

#174

Scotland is represented as part of the UK in Europe,
the UN, NATO etc. England is represented in the same manner.


#192 Suomi

I dont confuse seperatism with independance I am just clarifying the SNP position. Tom Farmer has said "independance within the UK" - I would say that reflects my position quite well. I start from where we are today, after 300 years of union.

Like post 169 said the nation states formed from smaller nations and it makes no sense for Catalonia to seperate from Spain or Bavaria to seperate from Germany.
181

­G­rahamski,

Falkirk 23/04/2008 19:57:33
So i see the Nats are faking my Highland Mighty moniker. They may take my Highland Mighty but they will never take my Grahamski
182

Truely English,

23/04/2008 20:11:30
It seems that England is a Celtic country according to the latest DNA studies. Indeed there is more Celtic Blood in England than Anglo-Saxon.
One more way to show we are all the same people.
183

Truely English,

23/04/2008 20:13:01
Happy St. Georges Day to you all.
184

European Scot,

23/04/2008 20:15:11
192 Suomi

Thank you for your comment.
There are Euro-sceptics on both sides of the Independence issue, but Scotland would actually enjoy far more Independence in Europe, than it ever will in the current UK, or Federal versions of the UK. The latter still leaves Scotland internationally in the same boat, with no voice, vote, or recognition around the World.
Scotland in Europe, and the UN, exchanging views on an equal basis with other Nations, really is the only answer.
Not more of the same, with a slightly different flavour.
Europe recognises, and respects the cultural diversity of its member countries.
Quite the opposite of Gordon Brown, with his mission of 'Brit-ification'.
185

European Scot,

23/04/2008 20:24:28
205 Doh

" Scotland is represented as part of the UK in Europe,
the UN, NATO etc. England is represented in the same manner."


I prefer to speak for myself, not through an intermediary. Don't you ?
Scotland, as I'm sure with England, would prefer to represent itself.
Just like all the other countries in the Free World do.
186

European Scot,

23/04/2008 20:34:28
208 'Truely' English

A Happy St George's Day to you !
187

,

23/04/2008 21:05:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
188

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 21:09:51
Just a couple of issues for those crying out for Scottish 'independence' (which never seem to get answered when put before the nat headbangers):

1) The Scottish Assembly is an EU regional institution which answers to its masters in Brussels. How are you gaining 'indpendence' for Scotland when the UK is finished in any event because it's been broken up into regions (which also answer directly to Brussels) ?

2) Overall output from North Sea oil has been declining since 1999. How are you going to fund this 'independent' Scotland when, in a very short space of time, you've no more oil revenues (and over 40% of those employed are on the public payroll - not to mention the massive welfare bill you'll also have) ? I was wondering if you were hoping for subsidies from your EU masters. If so, I'm afraid that these are already destined for the French farmers and eastern European nations, like Romania. Of course, when Turkey join they'll too get to empty the goodies jar long before the Scots even get a look in.

I wonder if these issues can be answered in a mature and realistic manner - or am I wishing for too much ?
189

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 21:30:11
205

"Scotland is represented as part of the UK in Europe,
the UN, NATO etc. England is represented in the same manner."

As what a region of the UK?? a county or a state??
how about instead it represented itself within these organisations as a nation wouldnt that no be a hell of a damn site better???

"independance within the UK"

Independence from what???

190

David MacLeod,

23/04/2008 21:30:50
"Scotland in Europe, and the UN, exchanging views on an equal basis with other Nations, really is the only answer."

No, you don't seem to understand. The European Commission will have the EU Foreign Minister - Scotland will have absolutely no say or voice whatsoever.

You've really entirely missed the point: the EU super-state means that nations will be abolished. You are a European - end of story. Scotland doesn't exist (except as 'Region UKM' - whose assembly members (MSPs) will do exactly what they're told by Brussels).

Westminster, on the other hand, can be dominated by the Scots. Look at the history of Prime Ministers only from this and the last century who were (and are) Scots: Gordon Brown, Tony Bliar, Alec Douglas Hume, Ramsay MacDonald, Bonar Law. That's not to mention the legion of Scots who have served in High Ministerial office - entirely influential in government policy-making.

To say the Scots have 'no say' in Westminster is at best laughable, but is rather better described as utterly pathetic, delusional, dishonest, ignorant rubbish.

If you honestly think you'll have any influence in Europe, you're deluding only yourselves, e.g. who owns the fishing grounds around the Scottish coast, which are some of the richest in the world ? Answer: the Spanish. You aren't going to be getting them back whilst you're in the EU superstate - the Spanish are vastly more powerful and influential than you could ever hope to be and they want very much to keep them, thank you very much - and Scottish fishermen and communities pay the price for your arrogant dreaming !
191

European Scot,

23/04/2008 21:32:56
213 David MacLeod

When you frame your question in 'a mature and realistic manner', perhaps you will get a sensible reply.
In the meantime words like 'nat headbangers', are unlikely to attract sensible answers.
192

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 21:35:08
213

The question of whether or not Scotland remains or leaves the EU should be Scotlands not Scotlands and Englands Wales and NI's. If Scotland is getting a raw deal in Europe then it has no choice but to lump it because England wants to stay and vice versa if England decides its getting a raw deal in Europe then it will leave and take us with it even if we think we,re getting a good deal.

Now do you or dont you see the problem?????????????????

2. Says who??? anybody with credibility??
193

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 21:38:55
"When you frame your question in 'a mature and realistic manner', perhaps you will get a sensible reply."

European Scot - are you going to answer these issues, or are you going to continue to evade them ? The latter, I think. Same old story, really.

Keep on trying to con the Scottish public into thinking that you've really thought 'independence' through.
194

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 21:42:30
169

And yer point being?? Should France and Germany now merge their parliaments?? how about Belgium and Holland?? Spain and Portugal?? would that be the way for these countries to develope???
195

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 21:46:04
218

I answered yer question.
196

Eve,

Scotland 23/04/2008 21:47:24
Is it just me or does the Scotsman seem to be a wee bit more in the on the unionist side than usual, i.e. bigging up folk like this guy and putting a weird slant on certain articles which could have may be came across more open to Scottish independence.

So nice to hear that he gets to talk.

Where as that Lab/Lib/Tory thing doesnae give a sh^$* about those of us that support Independence point of view.
197

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 21:48:58
221

No its bias reporting in favour of the union is still its usual standard self.
198

Eve,

Scotland 23/04/2008 21:51:43
#212 Highla­nd Mighty: You should read that story about there being a job for everyone!!! Totaly fasanating!

Think I'll just walk in to my dream job tomorrow now and be free from stuiped under paid temp job (aye right!!!)
199

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 21:56:32
"The question of whether or not Scotland remains or leaves the EU should be Scotlands not Scotlands and Englands Wales and NI's."

By what mechanism do you choose to leave or stay ? Your EU regional assembly (based at the new concrete edifice by Holyrood Palace) doesn't have the authority or power to amend or repeal EU legislation and treaties - as it is itself an EU institution. How are you going to gain this great heralded plebiscite to gain sovereignty from the EU ?

If you genuinely want independence, you can have it - but not with the SNP (a bought and paid for EU party). The form of government you're calling for isn't even on the table being offered by anyone. How are you going to achieve this ?

As for declining oil North Sea oil production, you may wish to refer to the UK Oil Industry's own website for this information. To help you, here is a link (there are many on the web - but this is simply a simple list of key dates - look to 1999 - you'll see that the peak of production is noted - it is declining markedly now.) http://www.ukooa.co.uk/media/view-briefing.cfm/28

I don't mean to teach you to suck eggs, but oil is a finite resource. Once it's gone, it's gone, and I'm afraid it is running out. BP and Shell are very much looking to invest in polymers to try to reduce the viscosity of the remaining reserves (which are of poorer quality - and are less cost-effective to recover). Perhaps you might want to consult with a petroleum sedimentologist who knows what they're talking about, rather than Alex Salmond - who doesn't.
200

Caora Dubh,

Croit sheasgair 23/04/2008 21:59:06
Poor old naive Malcolm Rifkind. He STILL doesn't get it! What a plonker! Defence, foreign affairs and taxation are precisely those points that most divide the Scottish people from the Westminster government. Scotland has no interest in Iraq and Afghanistan. Scottish troops should not be there. We do not need the USA's anti-missile defence shield, because it merely forces us to be allied with the USA militarily whether we like it or not. And we don't. Scotland does not need to take part in any expensive, grandiose "force projection" exercises. And we don't need nuclear weapons on our soil or in our territorial waters. Scotland needs to concentrate on high tech civilian industries, such as consumer, industrial and medical electronics, renewable energy, IT, financial services, and publishing. Let England and Wales continue to live unhappily ever after with the USA if they so wish, but Scotland needs a divorce, so that it is free to do what is good and right, not what the US President imagines to be right.
201

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 21:59:14
"No its bias reporting in favour of the union is still its usual standard self."

Oh no, you don't mean to say that beastly people come on here to offer an alternative view to your usual wishful thinking ?
202

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:01:02
226

No I am referring to the beastly people who print the articles in a bias and unobjective manner.
203

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:02:03
"Scotland needs to concentrate on high tech civilian industries, such as consumer, industrial and medical electronics...."

I thought Scotland once had all these in a place nick-named 'Silicone Glen'. I wonder what happened to them ? Oh yes, that's right - the subsidies ran out and so did the companies, right away to the far east and eastern europe.

Why is it going to be so different this time around ?
204

Eve,

Scotland 23/04/2008 22:02:09
#218 David MacLeod: Whats way you?
Are you suffering from tunnel vision?
Those of us who openly support Scottish independence have done so for a while, so have indeed thought the whole thing through thoroughly and in numerous occasions with slight variations in their head how independence will be regain etc. Generally in the beginning it's difficult to voice an opinion on Scottish Independence because of people like you who over react. There isn't many of yous BUT sometime you don't know who is listening to your conversations and how they might react.
205

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:06:21
"No I am referring to the beastly people who print the articles in a bias and unobjective manner."

But he's reporting someone's voiced opinion (Malcolm Rifkind - a fellow Scot). What else is he supposed to write ? Should the reporter supplement the article with an attack on Mr Rifkind for saying something that you disagree with ?

From the sounds of it you'd fit in very well with the European Commissars - they don't tolerate dissent or disagreement either. Just ask Martin Tillack (the investigative Belgian reporter) or Marta Andreasen (the EU's former chief finance officer).
206

Eve,

Scotland 23/04/2008 22:07:00
#226 David MacLeod: Don't patrances me!!!!

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Any way I'm away to bed, I've got work in the morning!

Night night all.

I wish Sweet Dreams of Scottish Independence for all!!
207

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:16:00
224

Dont post sh*te. We have to gain Independence from the UK before we can even deal with Europe at any level.
The question of Scotland within the EU is irrelevant as long as we remain part of the UK.
As an Independent nation with a valuable natural resourse at our disposal we can negociate our own treaties and place within europe as part of the UK we are no more than a region with no representation at all.

I work for the UK oil industry in the North sea sunshine and I can tell you for a fact that North sea oil production will continue into the forseeable future as long as oil remains a commodity. If you are arguing that NS oil is a finite resourse then you are stating the obvious. The political argument however centres on the value of the remaining resourse and frankly nobody knows.
The Norwegians are happily producing away without this debate or worry so why arent we??
Simply because its not a political hot potato with them as it is with us.
If thats all youve got then quite frankly you have given us nothing new this has all been thrashed out before and in much more detail.
208

David MacLeod,

23/04/2008 22:16:16
"There isn't many of yous BUT sometime you don't know who is listening to your conversations and how they might react."

Really ? Carried out a head count have we ? No, thought not!

I've raised some issues earlier that perhaps the Scot Nats might like to start attempting to address in a realistic manner. The trouble is that the Nats who have thought devolution through are split into two totally irreconcilable groups - those who want to be sub-sumed by an EU super-state (therefore you don't have a Scotland at all, let alone and independent one) and those who genuinely want a sovereign nation and want to be part of EFTA - but they generally haven't thought through the long-term implications of separation from England, Wales and Northern Ireland (certainly not the costs involved for starters). The latter group I respect, but I disagree with. The former group are dishonest and devious - as their intentions are entirely anti-democratic.

The trouble is that the SNP are simply a group of marxists who are pro-EU superstate and aren't offering any form of real independence. There is no political grouping who offer independence for Scotland.

The truth is that most avowed 'Nats' who vote SNP haven't even the first idea of what they're voting for - that's based upon personal experience of public debate and discussion on the matter.

As for my over-reacting - hardly. I'm simply raising some pertinent points and expressing a frustration that they're never really answered by the Nats.
209

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:16:58
230

No he is reporting his spin on the story as usual same with the Wendy story.
210

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:20:25
233

I've raised some issues earlier that perhaps the Scot Nats might like to start attempting to address in a realistic manner

And we have and not for the first time either like I said you are not raising anything new its all been put through the ringer on these blogs more than once.

I get the impression you think youre being clever??
trust me youre not youre just going over the same old ground some of us have been over several times already.
211

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:23:04
230

I am the very epitomy of dissent and disagreement which makes that statement incredibly stupid ignorant and quite frankly very unionist.
And youre under the illusion yer being clever??
Christ another one for the pot.
212

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:25:43
"Dont post sh*te."

If that juvenile outburst is indicative of the strength and validity of your argument, you really are desperate. As for your 'working in the oil industry' - clearly you don't engage in any high level activity, else you'd argue your point with evidence, not with some rather crass and ignorant rant.

With regard to your claim that 'nobody knows' the real amount of remaining overall oil reservoir capacity in the North Sea - I would say that BP for sure have calculated, modelled and estimated remaining reserves. That's how oil companies estimate their current value (and thus share price).

As for Scotland 'remaining part of the UK', I refer you to my earlier posts about the abolition of sovereignty - events have over-taken your rather archaic, stale and irrelevant views.
213

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:25:59
233

INDEPENDENCE FROM THE UK IS WHAT IS BEING OFFERED IN OR OUT OF EUROPE. THAT DECISION FOR SCOTS CAN ONLY BE MADE WITH INDEPENDENCE NOW TRY AND NOT BE JUST ANOTHER F*CKING TROLL THERE ARE FAR TOO MANY ON HERE ALREADY AND QUITE FRANKLY YOUR CONTRIBUTION TO THEIR CAUSE IS NOT NEEDED.
214

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:27:29
237

No its simply indictive of my growing contempt for what I am starting to see as just another cybertroll pretendy unionist with nothing new or even relevant to offer.
215

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:28:23
"Christ another one for the pot."

It would seem that this is what passes for wit in your household. Was it you who was the first from your line to climb down from the trees, or are you second generation ?
216

David MacLeod,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:29:42
"I am starting to see as just another cybertroll pretendy unionist with nothing new or even relevant to offer."

Ha, ha, ha, ha.... You really make me laugh. I'm off to bed now. Nighty, night. Sweet dreams all you delusional Nats out there.
217

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:35:24
237

BP have pulled out of the North sea in order to liquidise their assets in order to buy into the massive new oil fields in Azerbaijan. Their NS assets were snapped up at bargain prices by companies such as Perenco and Apache who are now as we speak drilling new wells and continuing production at a very aggressive level.
If you want to know how long NS oil production is going to continue then dont ask BP ask
Apache, Perenco, Total, Shell, Conoco Phillips, Talisman, Chevron, BHP, BG group, Nexen, Marathon, Maersk or Exxon Mobile.
218

A Reasonable Voice,

outside of Scotland 23/04/2008 22:45:39
There are valid points made for the continuance toward Scotland having more financial autonomy, as well as England, Wales, and Northern Ireland being able to have more control over their local affairs. But does this constitute a need for complete and total independence? This is where some of the intellectual progressivism of Scots could come in handy, and where the opportunism of Alex Salmond is abundantly obvious.

The problem with the independence movement is not that Scotland has been treated as a region of England and this needs to stop. It is a travesty for people outside of the UK to assume that you are 'English'. It is a sad shame when people I know in America assume that everyone from 'England' is 'English'. The Welsh and Northern Irish should be just as upset as good-feeling Scots are about this. But the problem has not been the UK government as much as it has been an insensitive media--whether British or American or otherwise--to the needs of people from the four nations, and ignorant people who continue on with terms that need to be corrected.

With that said, I would welcome some of Sir Malcolm's proposals. A federal UK could work better than complete independence for Scotland. Our largely Eighteenth Century government does need to adapt to the conditions of the Twenty-First. A federal UK could really work where Scotland enjoys the benefits of Union with more autonomy, and more checks-and-balances are put into place, i.e., a committee from all four assemblies (Scotland, England, Wales, N. Ireland) agreeing before great national decisions have to be made--like going to war. Believe me, even with an independent Scotland, terrorists are still going to target our cities. If they go after the English, they will also go after Scots.

The problem is that intellectual persons like Henry McLeish and others, who generally favor the Union, are often drowned out for those who speak the loudest.
219

,

23/04/2008 22:53:16
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
220

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:54:47
243

So would you advocate a federation with Scotland within the USA or Russia?? or does our federation have to be limited to Westminster??
221

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/04/2008 22:55:59
244

you are also HM and fooling nobody.
222

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 22:56:58
243. I still can't make my mind up whether full federalism locked in by a written constitution is still the best way forward.

The world is forever changing and many federal systems created 50-100 years ago now find their systems flawed, but are restricted by the constitution from making changes. Germany, Oz and the US are examples.

I support the oft-mentioned 'devolution max' with increased powers to devolved parliaments, greater fiscal freedom to encourage and reward investment and innovation and especially a level playing field with all four 'nations' having Parliaments of equal powers and not the hybrid mess we have at the moment.

I don't think any increase in nationalism here will last (and only two polls have so far showed any increase in support, both dubious wild swings). The SNP have not yet provided any decent proof to suggest that independence will bring the miraculous increase in prosperity they regularly claim. Sooner rather than later, the other parties will start to highlight that.
223

,

23/04/2008 22:57:29
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
224

David MacLeod­,

East Lothian 23/04/2008 22:59:01
248. Rubbish
225

David MacLeod­,

23/04/2008 23:00:01
241. I never sleep. I haunt these threads 24/7
226

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 23:00:02
244/246. Still refusing to grow up? You're both really quite pathetic.

That's if you are TWO different people etc. etc. yawn.

Carry on 241 and 243, the nats are mostly teenagers and younger. None of them are that bright.
227

David MacLeod­,

23/04/2008 23:02:29
Anyone up for shafting me tonight up to the hilt. I have a clean bottom
228

Highland Mighty,

23/04/2008 23:06:42
Nats = idiots.
229

­G­rahamski,

Falkirk 23/04/2008 23:07:39
Unionists = idiots
230

A Reasonable Voice,

outside of Scotland 23/04/2008 23:09:30
In response to 243, you are correct in that federal states such as Canada, the US, Australia, and perhaps even Germany do have challenges between the federal and state levels. But when we survey those systems, there are no independence movements between the American state legislatures and the Congress--nor between the Lander and the Bundestag. All have devised a way to work together for the common good.

The need for complete separation from the UK has not been established, and it would indeed be a messy divorce. Must it be so bleak, and what would it really achieve? Sure, a lot of Scots are upset about being dragged into George Bush's war. A lot of Scots are upset about the 'English'. But a lot of Scots also want to be seen as a lot of wining children, either.
231

­G­rahamski,

Falkirk 23/04/2008 23:09:44
Time for a referendum on Scottish independence and remove the stigma of Scottish Labour.

I was done in today at Falkirk high street station by a pensioner who said i farted in her face.
232

,

23/04/2008 23:09:47
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
233

,

23/04/2008 23:10:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
234

,

23/04/2008 23:11:57
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
235

­G­rahamski,

23/04/2008 23:12:24
258

I am leaking and seeking advise from Doc Leak this week
236

,

23/04/2008 23:12:41
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
237

,

23/04/2008 23:43:12
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
238

,

23/04/2008 23:47:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
239

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 24/04/2008 00:17:41
Who cares what england thinks, she will be greetin soon enough when the BANKER (SCOTLAND) decides to pull the rug. The sooner the better, like yesterday!
240

Fred Forsythe (not the),

worcestershire 24/04/2008 14:26:56
Rifkind ("I look longingly back to Edinburgh")resigned from the Thatcher gov because they opposed a parliament for Scotland. He is one of those Scots who fought tooth and nail for a Scottish government and now is fighting just as hard to deny England the same. Hatemongers like him need to keep out of English affairs. WE DEMAND AND WILL ACHEIVE INDEPENDENCE. Blair's congratulatory letter to Dewar on acheiving devolution said that at last England and Scotland were equal. When we are, good luck to Scotland in the self-financing isolated future.
241

Alan B,

24/04/2008 16:05:23
Fred

U are talking rubbish Rifkind never resigned from any thatcher government. He was scottish secretary of state under thatcher when Younger got promoted. And then was promoted by thatcher to defence secretary. He was a minister in the tory government until they he was voted out as an mp by his constituents. He never fought for the scottish parliament or resigned from the thatcher government on that issue at all.





 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.