Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement


Scots Secretary role consigned to history books after 305 years

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

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: 04 September 2008
THE post of Scottish Secretary is set to be scrapped at Westminster as a consequence of the IRA being declared redundant as a paramilitary organisation.
The post – which was created in 1703 and even pre-dates that of prime minister – will be replaced by a Secretary of State for the Nations, The Scotsman understands.

This follows yesterday's conclusion by an independent commission that the IRA's army council, which directed its terror campaigns for 30 years, had "withered away" and left the organisation unable to function.

This will allow policing and justice matters to be transferred from Westminster to Stormont in the next few days, completing the process of devolving political powers to the Northern Ireland executive and removing the last bar to amalgamating the posts of Scottish, Welsh and Northern Irish secretaries.

A senior government source last night told The Scotsman that it was "just a logical consequence" to combine the three jobs once devolving of remaining powers to Northern Ireland had become "embedded".

The changes would almost certainly mean that Des Browne, who has been Scottish Secretary since June 2007, would lose what critics have dubbed a part-time role to concentrate on his Defence Secretary post.

But it would see the scrapping of a post that has been held by figures such as Willie Ross, George Younger, Sir Malcolm Rifkind and Donald Dewar.

The most likely candidates to become Secretary of State for the Nations are understood to be Jim Murphy, the highly regarded Europe Minister and MP for East Renfrewshire, and Paul Murphy, the Welsh Secretary. Paul Murphy is likely to be favoured if it is thought Northern Ireland needs special attention in the interim as he has been a former Secretary of State in the province.

There is also the hope in Labour circles that a new appointment would be able to spend more time attacking the performance of the SNP Government, and First Minister Alex Salmond, at Holyrood.

While the scrapping of the post of Scottish Secretary has been frequently speculated upon since the establishment of the devolved Scottish government at Holyrood in 1999, the stumbling block has been the need to retain a Northern Ireland Secretary.

But yesterday's report, from the Independent Monitoring Commission, was seen as a "crystal clear" indication that the IRA was effectively dead and its former members were now fully engaged in seeking to achieve their aims by political means.

The source said the post of Secretary of State for the Nations "was the logical place to go to. It gives you a full-time politician dealing with these areas. It's always been round the corner".

However the Tories said they were concerned that the scrapping of the post, which has existed in its present form since 1885, would remove a vital voice for Scotland in Downing Street.

David Mundell, the Tory shadow Scottish Secretary, said the move was "ill-conceived".

He said: "Part of the role of Secretary of State for Scotland is to speak up for Scotland in the Cabinet. It's not possible to do that effectively when you are speaking for other parts of the UK.

"Peter Hain really struggled when he was doing Wales and Northern Ireland and a number of competing issues came up."

The switch from three Secretaries of State to one is expected to be accompanied by a move to appoint two Ministers of State to assist the senior minister, letting each minister concentrate on one devolved administration.

Significant boost for Nationalist rule at Holyrood

Hamish Macdonell
Scottish Political Editor


THE post of Scottish Secretary has been of diminishing importance since the arrival of the Scottish Parliament in 1999 but symbolically, it remains hugely significant.

If Gordon Brown axes the post, it will represent the cutting of yet another bond trying Scotland to the UK government in Westminster.

The fact that Scotland no longer needs its own representation round the No 10 Cabinet table will only add to the impression that Scotland's reliance on Westminster is declining by the day.

It is perhaps more significant that this action is likely to be taken when there is an SNP First Minister in Bute House.

When Labour controlled both the Scottish Executive and the UK government, lines of communication were easy and always open. Jack McConnell, Henry McLeish and Donald Dewar did not need to have their case argued by their respective Scottish Secretaries, because they could go to the Prime Minister direct.

But now, with Alex Salmond as First Minister, the Scottish Secretary would have possibly been useful as a go-between between the administrations in London and Edinburgh.

The fact that Mr Brown appears to have decided to do away with the position now does show how ineffectual the job has become over the last few years.

Not since Mr Dewar had to fight his Cabinet colleagues over every piece of the devolution settlement in 1998 has the Scottish Secretary had a tough job to do.

The Nationalists will be delighted with the abolition of the Scottish Secretary's position, and not only because it puts more distance between Holyrood and Westminster, but because it will add more weight to the joint ministerial committee, the formal body set up to arbitrate on disputes between the devolved administrations and the London government.

Brown hails verdict that IRA terrorist wing defunct

THE IRA's terrorist wing was declared redundant yesterday after a report found it had been allowed to "wither" and die.

Three years after the organisation decommissioned its weapons, the Independent Monitoring Commission said its army council – which directed attacks – had been disbanded.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, called for the power-sharing executive at Stormont to resume its work and hailed an "important and significant day for Northern Ireland".

He said: "An independent report has told us that the Provisional Army Council is no longer operational, is not functioning and is redundant.

"I believe that this will provide reassurance and hope for everybody who wants to see this chapter of Northern Ireland's history closed."

Northern Ireland Secretary Shaun Woodward said: "If you are talking about the threats ahead, they're not posed by the IRA, they're not posed by the army council. As this report says, the army council, by deliberate choice, is no longer operational or functional. What matters is that the armed conflict is clearly over."

Since the late 1960s, more than 3,500 people have died in the Troubles.

The report said the IRA's "former terrorist capability has been lost". Its former members were now active in the political arena and the IRA of the "recent and violent past is well beyond recall".

The full article contains 1110 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 03 September 2008 9:49 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Labour Party
 
1

Coileach an taobh Tuath,

04/09/2008 00:18:59



LOL - Des Browne, the ‘part-timer’
2

muppetfinder,

04/09/2008 00:20:32
wait for tender to rebuild hadrian's wall facing south
3

Peeablo,

UKSSR 04/09/2008 00:23:15
Scottish Secretary = Governor of the Scotland colony.

Good night, and don't come back.
4

Resolutions,

04/09/2008 00:40:38
#4 Present incumbant is part-time - very part-time.

Will not be needed after General Election anyway.

In theory, should save some cash - our cash, but someone will claim it as expenses!
5

Tynietiger,

04/09/2008 00:56:31
Des Browne who lives in leavy suburb of Craiglockhart is facing defeat in his West of Scotland seat.

That is why he will be spending some time in his constituency from now on.
6

,

04/09/2008 01:11:05
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
7

,

04/09/2008 01:11:21
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
8

,

04/09/2008 01:31:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
9

Senga Jean,

04/09/2008 01:41:23
Secretary of State for the Nations? Which Nations?. England will not be in it because they have their Home Secretary. So it will be similar to the Bureau of Indian affairs...for the subject people.
10

Edward,

04/09/2008 01:43:30
#10 Jwil
You right, it is very old news
This has been on the cards since the start of the year
There has been articles in this paper about cabinet reshuffles after the Crewe by election
The person that will be made minister for the nations (what a rubbish title) will be Paul Murphy
11

Edward,

04/09/2008 01:48:57
I find it galling that Labour make up this post of Secretary of State for the Nations , but will not include England within this remit
What this says is the Government is ENGLISH for ENGLAND and the post of Secretary of State for the Nations is the liason with the provinces of Wales, Northern Ireland and Scotland!
What happened to Scotland and England being equal partners, which is what we are fed by the unionist lackies, every time they argue that Scotland gets a fair deal in the union
12

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 04/09/2008 02:32:23
It is interesting that the role of Scottish Secretary is seen as parallel to that of the Secretary of State for Northern Ireland, the latter being devised to keep thumbs on a pretend parliament in an occupied country until sufficient migration from Britain and native displacement would secure a population loyal to the British Crown.

How the Scottish Nu Labour MSPs can countenance and even defend the humiliating presence of an ongoing colonial office to supervise Scotland's behaviour is a clear measure of their disdain for their own country. A parcel of rogues indeed.

Do they not ask why is there no Secretary of sate for England?
13

Jeeemy,

St Andrews 04/09/2008 04:16:41
With the “State” that the “English” economy is in, and the fact that there is no need for either the “Secretary of State” for Scotland and of course no need for the “Scottish Office” can and must be a good thing.

I have noted that the Scottish economy is still predicted to grow in the next two years, must mean that the cross border subsidisation that has been flowing south for the past 50 years is now about to stop.

Like Alex Salmond, I do see the bigger picture and will find it amusing to see the number of critics wearing blinkers about to wonder what is going to happen next.
14

democracy,

Scottish Borders 04/09/2008 04:47:18
If Westminster is the UK Government and there is now going to be a Secretary of State for the Nations then that MUST include England also, therefore England must get its own National Government for it all to work properly.

Only then, can people throughout the British Isles start to see some sort of logic and fairness to the political and constitutional set up in GB, a Federal model, which could go a long way to settle the unrest which is being caused by the status quo!!

In other words, Westminster would be required to drag itself into the 21st Century and rid itself of its age old baggage of imperialism and colonialism once and for all, because if not, it will eventually be the engineer of its own demise in an ever modernising world!!
15

democracy,

Scottish Borders 04/09/2008 05:32:19
It was said in this article and I quote: "There is also the hope in Labour circles that a new appointment would be able to spend more time attacking the performance of the SNP Government, and First Minister Alex Salmond, at Holyrood."

Of course this statement proves that New Labour would see the new appointment as a colleague with the power to challenge the incumbent government about their performance!!

HELLO, Scottish New Labour,is anybody there??

Is this not your own remit, and NOT that of someone else, are you admitting to the Scottish electorate that you are totally inadequate as a so called political party and unable to hold the SNP government to account.

Indeed you want the new "S.of S.for the Nations" to do your bidding for you, against the First Minister of Scotland who the Scottish people elected??

I always new you were a useless twisted lot of incompitents, but this is 'beyond the pale', even for you !!!
16

donald,

glasgow 04/09/2008 07:00:17
Jim Murphy, former Socialist and Irish "Freedom" Fighter and British spy appointed Minister for England's last colonies.
17

écossais at heart,

france 04/09/2008 08:00:32
#16 & 17 democracy
Couldn't agree more.
18

,

04/09/2008 08:49:04
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

scottish person,

paisley 04/09/2008 08:55:48
Good riddance to this waste of space.
20

Alastair the First,

04/09/2008 09:02:17
Why is a "Minister of the Nations" representing Scotland, Wales & Northern Ireland? Should it not be Scotland, Wales, Northern Ireland and England? That omission speaks volumes about the way the composition of the UK is regarded by unionists and by the english in particular - they see it as England plus some other bits of "not quite England" tagged on.
21

First Minister,

Monaco 04/09/2008 09:11:43
british & proud
get a life man,how come there is seperate Roman Catholic Schools in England and there is no problems with secterianiasm there, it is you west coast and Northern Irish catholic protestants that are the problem. Away and pay your coucil tax, oh i forgot you recieve council tax benefit dont you.
22

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 04/09/2008 09:15:01
So exactly where will this Secretary of the Nations be located. Will it be in Westmonster, Northern Ireland, Wales or Scotland. And who gave this post the right to try influence which political party would run the various two nations and Irelands annexed territory.

Why exactly would any democratic group of Nations dare to create a State that decides which political beliefs are acceptable.

This will never happen simply because the Scottish & Welsh Nations will never accept this type of dictatorship. Scottish Independence is a fair and reasonable political belief, contrary to the rants and press attacks that are in the bulk of the British Media. Our goals are noble and right for all free people who find themselves subjugated by a foreign power.
23

A Better Way,

Scottish Republic 04/09/2008 09:23:39
Both Scotland and England signed an Unconstitutional Act of Union in 1707.

To now setup a body to look after these so called areas/regions is a breach of the Act of Union 1707. Surely breach of contract by the Westminster Parliament set up specifically to serve the two nations agreement, is grounds for our Scottish Government to recind its agreed participation in the Act of Union.
24

Jofrad,

04/09/2008 09:34:15
Oh you poor downtrodden Scots, the Union is voluntary. No one south of the Border is asking you to stay if you want to leave. ( He ducks ).
25

gus1940,

Edinburgh 04/09/2008 09:47:51
Secretary of State For The Nations?

Surely Colonial Secretary would be more appropriate.
26

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 04/09/2008 09:48:10
Last year, during the controversy over Scotland's share of the Barnet Formula, Conservative Lord (Kenneth)Baker of Dorking, a cabinet minister in Lady Thatcher's 1980s government, publicly stated: "The United Kingdom is an artificial state and not a real nation"!

To survive in the 21st Century as an "artificial" unitary state, the UK Constitution will either have to continue to evolve or die, and this current development is a by-product of Devolution.

After the partition of the Island of Ireland, and the founding of the Irish Free State, many forget that Devolved Government was first introduced in Northern Ireland for political, military, and geographic reasons by the British Empire.

This originally took the form of a Northern Ireland Parliament and Senate modelled on the House of Commons and Lords. The ultimate downfall of these constitutional structures is well documented.

To prevent the dissolution of this unitary state, it was necessary to introduce the Scotland and Wales Acts along with the historic power-sharing St. Andrews Agreement which re-introduced a Devolved Northern Ireland Assembly.

The UK State has a stark choice? Its survival depends on further constitutional change and it must continue to evolve even further or, in the face of nationalism, it will inevitable fail.

27

Ken S.,

Reading 04/09/2008 10:03:24
#29 gus1940,
"Secretary of State For The Nations?
Surely Colonial Secretary would be more appropriate."

There would have to be a nation of England for that to be so. Seemingly, under this modern terminology, there is no such construct.

As #30 Mr. Lachie Todd notes, there has to be further work on the constitutional set-up of the UK if it is to survive.

But first, Scotland has to decide whether it wants to be in or out. The views of those who want independence are well-defined and understandable.

However, there are too many of you who want cake and eat it: lotsa devolution and more, please. You will get such a surprise one day at finding yourself cast adrift when south of the border simply gets too exasperated with you!
28

Alan B,

04/09/2008 10:08:04
When exactly did Murphy become highly regarded?

Only think i remember about him was the corruption charges when labour mp and msp were double claiming rent on offices.
29

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 04/09/2008 10:08:39
The Scottish parliament must now appoint a Minister for the Nations of Wales, Ireland & England. If/when Scotland votes to end the Union they may invite like minded Nations of Wales & Ireland to join in a New Union where all member states are equal with an elected upper house with an equal number of Lords/Senators to represent each country. England may then be admitted on the same terms if they ask (beg) nicely (grovel).
30

Alan B,

04/09/2008 10:10:00
#Ken S

Devolution was set by labour to stop independence. As such the constitution is a mess. Scotland wants atleast a proper powerful devolution settlement. And England needs for its consitutional issues not to be ingnored.
31

Nellie,

Liverpool 04/09/2008 10:18:06
#14 Graham Simpson. You forget that the majority in N Ireland wanted to stay a part of the UK, not join the break-away Eire. The problems arose because the minority views and influence were forever crushed by the "first past the post" system of democracy employed in the province, and they got a bit sick of it ... which is why they have "proportional representation" now, which (in my view) is a fair model for the rest of the UK, too.
#25 First Minister. "how come there is seperate Roman Catholic Schools in England and there is no problems with secterianiasm there, it is you west coast and Northern Irish catholic protestants that are the problem." To get an answer your question in detail, go read a book on Irish history and it will all come clear. If you want th essence of that answer, it's this: The English caused the schism between the communities through successful tactics enacting their old policy of "divide and rule".
32

Alan B,

04/09/2008 10:20:10
This is actually a very big change. Since brown has taken over the secretary of state for scotland has almost lead the opposition to the snp in the sp. They were probably more of an opposition than labour in sp.

Structurally there was a big rift in labour over who was the voice of labour in scotland. Was it the scottish secretary or was it the leader of labour in holyrood. This fundamentally pushed power to leader in holyrood and is a grave admission by brown that he got it wrong and should let holyrood lead the labour position in scotland, particularly in devolved matters.

Since the secretary of state for scotland is sometimes the token scottish minister in cabinet (not under this labour government) you could really see a uk cabinet with no scottish representitive in the future.

Change be-gets change and the move to independence advances.
33

Alan B,

04/09/2008 10:24:44
#Nellie

I think the problems in NI arose for far more reasons than you point out. Firstly was England wrongly holding Ireland by force. That really is the starting point and much follows from that.

Secondly was wrongly partitioning the country when the majority of the country wanted its freedom and was fighting for it.

As the sectarian issues hopefully reduce over time then i think you will see the north review its relationship with the south and i could easily see the place become reunited. For a while many voted to remain with the uk becuase the south was poor. That is no longer the case.

34

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/09/2008 10:43:37
Why will the new post not also encompass England? They are one of the nations comprising the UK are they not?
35

SEUMAS,

fearn 04/09/2008 10:55:40
Ochone, Ochone , Lord Robertson of "stone dead", your tongue must be in a perilous state.
36

Jofrad,

Cornwall UK 04/09/2008 11:02:48
Life in what remains of the UK would change very little after Scottish Independence. There is little demand for independence in Wales but the logistics and cost of the split with Scotland would be considerable. National assets where not identifiable as purely Scottish would have to be allocated presumably on a population pro-rata basis (ie 5/58ths approx).
Then there's the problem of the armed forces and what remains of the colonies and dependencies. I assume Scotland would be willing to accept responsibility for 5/58ths of the latter but would the inhabitants of the Falklands, Gibraltar, Bermuda, Cayman Islands, Tristan da Cunha etc. be willing to accept such a change ? And what about the potential oil reserves around Ascension Island are they 5/58ths Scottish ? Furthermore is Rockall Scottish or British ? – these are questions that should be answered.
37

shivago8,

livingston 04/09/2008 11:16:56
We dont need one,as soon England will become a foreign country,we might ask them to give us a site to put up our foreign embassy,that lookalike teddy bear,part time minister Dessie Browne is an absolute disgrace to the shores of Auld Scotia
38

daveserviceman,

edinburgh 04/09/2008 11:24:35
I would like to point out there can be no change to the status of the UK's constitition without the agreement of the Commonwealth,as any change will effect them too. so there has to be in the first instance a meeting of commonwealth states to agree any changes, also if scotland gets independance if they want to, will have to apply to join the commonwealth as with the EU. The united States is already hinting that it may wish to rejoin the commonwealth, and for those who never learnt History at school America was part of the british Colonies
39

Jofrad,

Cornwall UK 04/09/2008 11:40:20
And I would like to point out that Scotland has never been an English colony and just about the biggest boost the Scottish ecenomy ever had was when England allowed Scottish merchants access to her colonies after the Act of Union.
40

John south of Soutra,

04/09/2008 11:46:40
I think that this new post of Secretary of the Nations shows the contempt held for the people of Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland by Westminster, Westminster has always looked upon itself as the English Parliament and this now confirms that. as far as they are concerned the other 3 countries are provinces of England and this confirms this thinking. There are 4 countries that make of the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Northern Ireland and for England not to be included in this post is a disgrace as it is basically saying that England is Great Britain
41

Mr. Lachie Todd,

Edinburgh 04/09/2008 11:59:18
40# I do not seriously believe for one minute that the world's only true superpower: the United States Of America, would ever wish to join the British Commonwealth of Nations?!

Since the end of the Second World war and Empire, bringing about the diminution of the U.K.'s power, the Commonwealth no longer has any real power and is but a talking shop! Over the years it has been ineffective in dealing with many Commonwealth crisis, and the present situation in Zimbabwe is a glaring case in point. It is NO United Nations!

The harsh fact of life is that the United Kingdom is no longer a significant military, political or economic power.

It may be the 5th largest economy in the world but its GDP and GNP trails behind 37 other developed nations.
(Source Wikipedia) According to the World Bank, in the next decade India, Malaysia, Singapore, South Korea and many more emerging economic nations are expected to
overtake the UK's economic performance!

It only struts the world stage by reason of it being a
satellite state, and junior partner of the United States of America, as has been clearly shown in the conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

British Governments still cannot stop interfering in other countries business because it seems to believe is is still a great power?

It is put in context when you learn that the United States Department of Defense spends billions more each year on its National Guard and Air National Guard, the equivalent of our Territorial Forces, than the UK's annual Defence budget!!!!

The UK is presently trying to negotiate a "second hand" Trident deal with the US because it cannot afford new nuclear weapons! It is regularly reported in the media that many servicemen in Iraq and Afghanistan are still having to purchase their own clothing and equipment!

We need a reality check?

42

Jofrad,

04/09/2008 12:05:04
42. Utterly delusional with paranoiac overtones.
The Sec of State posts were created to ensure that the 3 countries got equal treatment to England in view of their fewer number of MP's. With devolution there is no need for 3 posts and consequently they have been combined.
43

John south of Soutra,

04/09/2008 12:15:31
No delusion, if Scotland is an equal partner why is it not treated as such. Does the Home Secretary represent the UK or just England this new post suggests the former
44

Jofrad,

04/09/2008 12:16:05
"The harsh fact of life is that the United Kingdom is no longer a significant military, political or economic power."
Yes the UK is an insignificant military, political and economic power and while we're at it why not add cultural?
Oh how I long to see Scotland siiting between Saudi Arabic and Senegal at the UN (with no seat on the Security Council)and Romania and Slovakia at the EU.
Now thats what I call a reality check.
45

,

04/09/2008 13:01:10
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
46

JoeMiddleton,

Edinburgh 04/09/2008 13:16:03
Good riddence and don't insult us with another merged part-timer, just get rid of the whole pointless post.

We don't need a Labour stooge who pretends he represents the Scottish people in the UK cabinet but in fact does exactly what he's told.
47

Jofrad,

04/09/2008 13:57:55
42 Not delusional ? No one at Westminster of any political persuasion has the slightest contempt for the peoples of Scotland, Wales and N Ireland. If you're not delusional then your living in a parallel universe.
45 See 44 it answers your question (again)
48

connaughtboy,

stonehaven 04/09/2008 14:35:30
#40 david

I would like to point out that the UK doesn't have a constitution.
49

Nellie,

Liverpool 04/09/2008 14:36:27
Alan #35
This bit of the blog is probably not the proper place to debate the history of Ireland and the English control of it. However, I would point you in the direction of the Wikepedia version of Irish history, which seems (to me) to be a fairly good account. You will note from it that the Protestant colonization from England and Scotland began in earnest during the 1500-1700s, and they (in the North) never wanted to be a part of the newly independent Ireland especially after De Lavera declared it a "Catholic nation". In response to this, the founding Prime Minister in Ulster, James Craig, declared the North would be "a Protestant State for a Protestant People".
50

Ken S.,

Reading 04/09/2008 14:41:25
#45 John south of Soutra,
".. Does the Home Secretary represent the UK or just England this new post suggests the former.."

A Downing Street online petition seeks clarification of ministerial titles:

http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/ministryjobs/

"We the undersigned petition the Prime Minister to amend the existing job descriptions of some of his ministers. With the advent of devolution, and the consequent reality that some Ministers of HM government now only have responsibility over England alone, we believe it is wrong both factually and descriptively for those Ministers to continue to describe their job functions as ‘Secretaries of State’"
51

Polski Ex Pat,

Krakow 04/09/2008 14:57:46
Jofrad, an indeed many of you make very valid points both for and against the union. I myself have always ranted to any interested party that I wanted to see an independent Scotland as a member of the EU.

Jofrad wrote:
"Oh how I long to see Scotland siiting between Saudi Arabic and Senegal at the UN (with no seat on the Security Council)and Romania and Slovakia at the EU.
Now thats what I call a reality check."

I wonder if England would also have a seat at the UN without being on the security council? This reaises a very good point...what sacrifices politically (on a global level) would England (fromerly UK) have to make to afford Scotland independence?

Anyway - Jofrad's point is valid, and whilst I understand his / her sentiment, there is still something inside of me that is upset Scotland was dragged into a phoney WMD (remember that acronym)dispute by the very same security council.

Saudi Arabia and Senegal whilst not politically the sort of countries I'd like Scotland to be affiliated with, they at least have a voice. A voice with little impetus but a voice...like mine... nonetheless.

As for Slovakia and Romania...well how about copmaring us to other EU members such as The Netherlands, Denmark, Portugal, Belgium...even the Czech Republic. None of them are particular powerhouses either within the EU.

I am pro US of Europe but have no idea if my ideology fits with the composition of European ploitics. Maybe it's a contradiction to want to become an independent nation in the EU.

Inevitably this will lead to a much more "foreign" body dictating policy in Scotland than our current next door neighbours (who I can have a pint with and apart from their funny accents, get on quite well with).

Jesus - I'm confused :P
52

John south of Soutra,

04/09/2008 15:33:25
#50 - do you actually believe that, Westminster has treated the other parts of the UK with contempt for years
53

slap-dash,

Border Patrol 04/09/2008 15:57:26
Not the only insignificant one in the Scotland office me thinks. What about the personal assistant to the underling of the fella who helps the jaiket wummin, whits his name "Friar Cairns" Is he oot a joab as weel?
54

westview,

turning the map upside down 04/09/2008 16:27:47
In exchange for the Sec. of State "FOR" Scotland, ( "AGAINST" Scotland?), can we please have our 6000 square miles of the North Sea back? This is the area London Government perfidiously moved into English control ,at the time of the last constitutional change ,Devolution. But watch out they may steal another slice of Scottish waters instead!!
55

Jofrad,

04/09/2008 17:29:46
54 Polski: You also make some good points.
It seems to me that many Scots think that Independence will be a piece of cake and once it has been achieved everything will be plain sailing - it won't, the logistics alone will be a nightmare but if thats what Scotland wants then she's perfectly entitled to make it reality.
My view is that England and Scotland have been a part of the Union for a long time and achieved an enormous amount together. In spite of its imperfections I think the Union is worth preserving - just call me old fashioned.

55 John of Soutra: No I said exactly the opposite.
56

Masterpiece,

04/09/2008 18:01:38
I would like to see Scotland get its independence tomorrow, as I am very concerned at just how angliscised and really British, we are all becoming in Scotland without even recognising that this has happened.

There is no question about it that the English Broadcasting Corporatio(BBC)is to blame for this largely
But the Scots seem to sit idly by doing nothing. I have no wish to be part of a country which sees everything English/British as superior and denigrates everything that is deeply Scottish.

If we are not different what is the point of Independence for Scotland.
Having a Scots Secretary is neither here nor there as the job has lost all value over the past 8 years.
57

Ewen Miler,

Wilts 04/09/2008 18:07:58
When Devolution occurred, the post of Scottish Secretary and the Scottish Office should have been scrapped, as it became redundant. Don't see the point of having a Secretary of State for the Nations - nice Cabinet post money for some politican - particularly when it won't represent all the nations.

Interesting, all these people complaining about Westminster - post devolution we have 59 MPs instead of 72. So our influence has been reduced.

In the future, they'll have a lot more wingeing to do: in Brussels, after Independance, if we the SNP are correct we'll have 18 MEPs out of 500 plus! And we'll have no say in interest rates, since we'll have the Euro or the Pound.

Independance - yeah right, we'll be less independant than now - no influence over one of the EU's big 3 - the UK. If we've so much oil; why be in the EU?



58

Buckfastleigh,

Derby the noo 04/09/2008 21:21:59
Bring back Seamus-an-caca then ; "willi no com back" again? Don't worry...we have a lively statue in Derby on horseback we could let you have of the trip south he did in 1745 with his valiant Highlanders in kilts; but when he saw that London was so close he decided to leave it all to the Scot Sec instead. Ah treason and plot!
59

Robbierunciman,

Romney Marsh 04/09/2008 21:49:09
nice if some of your corresponedents left scotland some time. If they did,they would find that from 2010 government in England is changing.

There will be regional grand committees and committees for MPs, and something called a SEEP for councilors and they would have noticed we have regional ministers already. They would also have noticed that Scotland, the biggest 'nation' with 6 million people is smaller than the smallest English region.

England needs different arrangements, its bigger in every sense of the word! I doubt english people will have noticed how they are governed - they never do.
60

BK,

Cyberspace 04/09/2008 21:54:14
#64 And who precisely was this Seamus an Caca who took part in the '45? It could not have been King James who did not take part in that rebellion. It could not have been a Highlander, since Seamus is an Irish , not Scottish name. The Scottish version is Seumas - please not the transposition of the A and U. Who was he then?
61

Buckfastleigh,

04/09/2008 22:58:26
#66 you are rite - it will have a question to be for mine cousin the Duke of Cumbernauld (or was it Cumberland)?
62

Otis Boone,

Sacramento 05/09/2008 00:57:24
I wonder how it is, in light of this debate, that Wales has its own assembly and England does not, despite both being united by the Laws in Wales Acts of 1535-42.

Seems Parliament devolving to a Welsh Assembly may be putting asunder what His Majesty the King brought together in 1285 and 1542.
63

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 05/09/2008 00:59:08
Nellie ... Thank you for your comments on my post. Yes indeed the part of Ireland now named Northern Ireland by Britain did vote for a 'separate Protestant state. This was a carefully planned and executed policy of ethnic cleansing to make room for British immigrants who were given land from the dispossessed natives. For example as every retired British soldier of the rank of sergeant and above was offered free agricultural land In Ireland. Accordingly during the turbulence that followed the establishment of Eire, arms, personnel and supplies were 'secretly' smuggled into the north by the British Army to ensure a successful breakaway from the new republic. These secret supplies were common knowledge in the upper ranks of the British establishment and had full support of the then British government.

A modern example of this is the recent invasion of Georgia by the Russians as 'peace keepers' to protect their citizens, probably enabling future, successful breakaway as 'independent states' of the contested areas.
64

Ken S.,

Reading 05/09/2008 09:25:52
#69 Graham Simpson
"..immigrants who were given land from the dispossessed natives..."

Not challenging the truth of your words. Just that I'm always amused when someone from North America or the Antipodes moans about UK land grabs from the natives.
Pot/kettle/black?

It's called history and, at some stage, we have let go the past in order to move forward.
65

,

05/09/2008 11:01:26
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

Ken S.,

Reading 05/09/2008 13:29:17
#71 Joe-kerr
I wouldn't define something within most of our lifetimes as "history".

I was also referring specifically to a comment about land grabs from the natives made by someone in a country created a historical timespan ago by similar means. This and the Irish example was how things were done in past ages.

The case for or against Scottish independence should be made in the light of current/recent circumstances and wishes.
67

Graham Simpson,

Vancouver 05/09/2008 17:10:47
#70 Ken... Yes Ken I agree with you . The immigrants in Canada took and used aboriginal lands either by conquest or with elephant and mouse negotiation tactics as happened in 1707.

The Act of Union is history and yes we have to let go of the past by removing or negating this huge obstacle to the legitimate aspirations of one of Europe's oldest nation states towards independence and self governance.


68

Ken S.,

Reading 05/09/2008 18:28:57
#73 Graham Simpson
"..legitimate aspirations of one of Europe's oldest nation states towards independence and self governance..."

Yeah, I've got no problem with that, provided that arguments are based on 20th/21st century aspects :-)
69

Number 6,

Germany 16/09/2008 14:24:17
Why was there no sec of state for Englandshire? Is that because they automatically assumed they were ruling the rest of us ? In their eyes and the eyes of Scottish unionistas, Scotland , Wales and Northern Ireland are merely English colonies.Why is englandshire not included ?

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
 
  

 
 

Featured Advertising



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.