Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Friday, 5th September 2008

Free Capercaillie CD

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.

Sign In
Register

What good would more powers be?



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: 15 May 2008
By Norman Bonney
THE way that Scottish Parliamentarians have conducted themselves during the year since the May 2007 elections, and particularly during the past month, does not generate much confidence in how Scotland would be governed if it were to become independent.
The way in which the minority SNP administration seeks to exceed its constitutional powers in order to manoeuvre Scotland into separation does not bode well for sound independent government. Equally, the posturing of the opposition Labour Party over ...



The full article contains 659 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

Padraig,

15/05/2008 00:32:54
I agree with Prof. Bonney that "The Parliament has started many initiatives but it has yet to be demonstrated that these have greatly improved living conditions, health or education for the population more than, for instance, has been the case in England during the same period.

"And why should the Parliament have more tax powers when it has yet to be shown that it spends the £30 billion annual budget effectively, and when it does not even use existing tax powers to add up to 3p per pound on income tax? "

But we are both talking about the wasted eight years of Labour administration, clearly prompted by a supervising Westminster Labour Party, as has been shown only too vividly in the last ten days.

Now we have grown ups in the driving seat, albeit without the clout to carry through their own useful initiatives and tied to past Labour mistakes like the Edinburgh tram line.

It would have been progress to add to the road bridge toll scrapping, council tax limits and student endowments, the dualling of the A9, that fatally inadequate road and, no doubt, many more initiatives.

As we see this fag-end Westminster government flounder from one disaster to the next "mistake" it would be good to go our own way, stepping clear of these detrimental initiatives.

To this end and because we now have able politicians in place, we could do so much more to remedy Labour's wasted initiatives which amounted to little more than class warfare and a blind adherence to political correctness.

Scotland deserves better.
2

Nikostratos,

15/05/2008 00:35:00
I must admit when you watch that lot at Holyrood it can be embarrassing and that's all of them bar none.

I recall a saying from a british officer during the napoleonic wars. who when he saw the list of commanding officers said

"I wonder if the enemies hands tremble with fear as mine tremble with fear when they see the names of those who are to lead us."

3

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 15/05/2008 00:40:44
"What good would more powers be?"

You have got to be joking !
Hootsman unionist dross.

Power is laid at the door of whom you acknowledge.

Ignore Westminser Londum and AngloSire

4

Richardinho,

15/05/2008 01:01:00
This is the kind of attitude that really makes my blood boil. I've always been suspicious of those who flaunt their academic credentials as if it gives them any greater credibility, but this guy really takes the biscuit!
Essentially this is just a 'riff' on the old unionist creed; 'Scots aren't smart enough to run themselves'.

Quite frankly; Belt up Norman you stupid numpty!
5

Jock 1O7,

15/05/2008 01:01:28
3 High King

"Power is laid at the door of whom you acknowledge"

Very true. Perception is reality, which is why image is important, as Alex well knows, and his predecessors didn't. No doubt they will learn.
6

David MacVicar,

web 15/05/2008 01:08:08
The opinion of this "honorary senior research fellow" is posing questions where almost all of Scotland has already decided that more powers is the minimum they will accept. Maybe some more actual research instead of opinion was merited?

Cringe alert! : "SNP administration seeks to exceed its constitutional powers in order to manoeuvre Scotland into separation does not bode well for sound independent government."

What does this mean? With independence the SNP will try for some move into another dimension? What would Scotland "separate" from next?

"and particularly during the past month" Thats right it was the dastardly SNP that forced Labour into complete ineptitude. If it wasn't for the SNP, Labour would be completely effective at governing (Lording) over us from their London palace representing the interests of the 90% in a different country. Aye right! Its easy - compare Labours UK majority Governance in Westminster verses the SNPs minority performance.


"And why should the Parliament have more tax powers when it has yet to be shown that it spends the £30 billion annual budget effectively, and when it does not even use existing tax powers to add up to 3p per pound on income tax?"

Why should Westminster tax us more when it cant spend its budget effectively running up ever higher debt?

The arguments put forward are so weak that its easy to see where the "honorary" came from.

7

Keren, It's time,

15/05/2008 01:10:00
Bonney by name - ugly on the inside.
8

Socrates2,

15/05/2008 01:12:15
has this dough heid looked at wstminmster

-- that's far worse
9

Nikostratos,

15/05/2008 01:53:10
Alright what about x ray vision that's a power you could do a lot of good with.Or super-hearing that's a good power............for a more intrusive society be able to keep an eye on everbody (.)(.) see what your up to...........
10

Richardinho,

15/05/2008 01:57:44
'but interestingly the UK Conservative Party spokesman on the issue, Liam Fox, a Scottish-born MP, sees no case for any substantial extension of the Parliament's powers.'

This article is just mind boggling in it's utter cluelessness.
Seriously, why mention that Liam Fox is 'Scottish born'? in what way does that in any way validate his opinion? This is Liam Fox simply iterating Conservative party official policy, not a personal view.
11

innesm,

Austin, Texas 15/05/2008 02:13:41
Unionist, elitist, conservative, patronising, policy wonking claptrap. Away and angle for your MBE.
12

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 03:05:29
What good would more powers be?

What a bl00dy stupid question!

Did the Baltic States stop in their dash to Independence (a dash supported wholeheartedly by London BTW) to ponder whether they really wanted Independence and more powers??

Likewise the former Eastern European Soviet Block Countries. Did they quake with fear at gaining more powers with their Independence??

Did either the Czechs or the Slovaks stumble with fear at the prospect of more powers on their way to amicably splitting into two Independent Republics??

Prof Bonney needs to wake up and look around him at a new and confident Scotland that is emerging from under the shadow of the UK state. His figures are all out of date too, in that he quotes from the election last May as if it were the present position when it is clearly NOT. All the polls have the SNP way out in front of Scottish Labour. This is the result of the sound governance displayed to the people and the result of a long running trend.

Likewise with support for Independence. This is now, at worst, neck and neck with support for the union and at best, now narrowly in the lead. Again this is the result of a long and steady trend. Many people ARE scared of the future if we were to go it "alone", but that is the result of the constant Orwellian "UK good, Scotland bad" thought police indoctrination peddled by the likes of Prof Bonney. (Oh, I feel so alone! It's just me and these 5.1 million other Scots)

Younger Scots are not so naive. They are more confident, more cynical too, so less likely to be conned by the scaremongering bull. They can see it for what it is.

What on earth is so wrong about wanting to run our own Country? Having the powers and status of all other Independent Countries is NOT wrong, NOT dangerous, just NORMAL! To suggest Independence would not work due to some inherent incompetence in Scots overlooks totally that Scots have dominated UK politics for some years now - Blair, Brown, Cook, Darling, Alexander
13

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 03:16:48
Sorry this is so long but my blood is boiling that this unionista is given such free reign to peddle this utter tosh!

Where was I....Oh yes, the implied inherent incompetence of Scots! In addition to dominating UK politics now, we can look back in history and see we were very much over represented in the administration of the British Empire!! A bigger job one would struggle to find!

On the subject of the Empire, it's the old Empire Generation that are the last bastions of support for the union. To be blunt, old father time is removing them slowly from the equation (how old is Prof Bonney?) and leaving younger, more confident Scots who ARE willing to take the step to Independence and international normality. Many Scots are also waking up to the reality of our daft constitutional position where the likes of Brown can withhold sums of money due to Scotland as some sort of punishment for voting out his party. Scotland is a proven net contributor to the UK (as was proven by a study by Cambridge University if memory serves) so no problems on that front.

Might I suggest to Prof Bonney that he relaxes, pours himself a dram and puts the Proclaimers song "Cap in Hand" on his stereo and try to open his mind a bit to the other possibilities in life. At the very least it may help him cope better with any shock he experiences come Independence. It's coming!!
14

innesm,

Austin, Texas 15/05/2008 03:18:39
Try this Times article for a more "balanced" perspective: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article3868138.ece
15

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 03:44:21
innesm,

Good link to a good article. Thanks.
16

innesm,

Austin, Texas 15/05/2008 03:48:23
Jock: As they say in Texas, this Bonney is "all hat and no cattle." Onwards ...
17

Scotindy,

Los Angeles 15/05/2008 04:44:09
Just another Unionist political Dynasor heading for the LABOUR SCRAPWARD. GOODBYE YOU TAX SUCKING ......
18

,

15/05/2008 07:24:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
19

John S,

15/05/2008 08:34:07
#12 and #13 Jock Politicaljunkie. Well written and I also agree when you wrote "but my blood is boiling that this unionista is given such free reign to peddle this utter tosh!"
Is this the same Norman Bonney who stood for Labour in the 1979 General Election ?
Aberdeenshire East - General Election 3 rd May 1979
Conservative Albert McQuarrie 16,827 42.8 %
Scottish National Party Douglas Henderson 16,269 41.4 %
Labour Dr Norman Bonney 6,201 15.8 %

Aberdeenshire East is now Banff & Buchan represented by our FM.
20

Iain green,

Haddington 15/05/2008 08:44:52
Having read the drivel spouted by Professor Bonney, the question which springs to mind is why our institutions are financing second rate polemicists like him.
His remarks about the so called political machinations of the SNP would be better applied to Wendy Alexander's recent disaster over the referendum, in which she sought to hustle the UK government into a pro referendum stance.
His comments about the proportion of the electorate which supports independence are similarly inconsistent.
No government of the UK has been elected with an outright majority of eligible voters. His application of this criterion to the recent Scottish election in order to score a point is simply dishonest and disingenuous.
Lord, I could go through this tabulation of Professor Bonney's opinionated drivel till the proverbial cows come home.
But really, why bother?
He is plainly approaching this concept from an intensely naive arch unionist perspective which has little to do with political reality in Scotland.
The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the Scottish parties appreciate that to engender social change and equality in Scotland, an increase in fiscal powers is needed. Even Labour's shadow finance spokesman agrees and (in a recent meeting) stated that the SNP is showing how good government works.
It is Professor Bonney who is out of step on this question. It may well be that he sees himself as a metaphorical finger in the dyke of the Union, holding back the flood tide of autonomy. The bad news for him is that the dyke is eroding along its entire length.
And that his article is an irrelevant oddity.
21

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 08:50:47
#20 Iain green

Speaking of 'opinionated drivel'....

There really isn't anything controversial in the article, it is merely a statement of fact.
22

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 08:54:43
#20 Iain green

"The fact of the matter is that most, if not all, of the Scottish parties appreciate that to engender social change and equality in Scotland, an increase in fiscal powers is needed."

As the article points out, the Scottish Exec. does indeed have tax varying powers - plus or minus 3% in income-tax is quite a considerable fiscal power. As you are no-doubt aware, none of the party's have proposed using the fiscal powers that the exec. already has.
23

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 15/05/2008 09:23:14
This article is not very academic since it confuses opion with fact and does not examine the basis for conclusion.If Bonny were my PhD student,I would fail him I admit that there are some poor MSP's in Hollyrood just now but there are also some excellent ones.In any case,politicians come and go,but Bonny seems to suggest that Scotland is incapable of producing any politicians that are capable of running an independent country or a parliament with greater powers.What arrogance.I certainly hope that there is a tidal wave of protests today,across the entire political spectrum,since this article insults all of us.

I'm nt sure what is meant by the SNP seeking to exceed its constitutional powers in order to manoeuvre the country into seperatism.Possibly Bonny is alluding to the SNP's tendency to stand up for Scotlands interests,even in non devolved issues such as trident.So what? I would hope that any Scottish government would be sensitive to the will of the people and fight their corner.Whether the SNP's defense of Scottish interests increase the possibility of people wanting independence is unknown.Of course we know that the SNP wants independence but what would happen if a Labour administration decided to stand up for Scotlands interest.Could that als0 be construed as an attempt to manoeuvre Scotland into seperation?The use of the word seperatism gives a clue to the writers bias.My understanding is that the SNP wish to create parliaments of equal status in the British Isles,maintain the union of crowns(The United Kingdom) and the social relationship with the other countries in the British Isles.Since they also wish Scotland to have full EU membership,this seems more like joining and changing the nature of the relationship with London,than seperation.The avoidance of the word independence instantly tells us what the purpose of this article is about.
24

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 09:44:16
#25 Suomi

Although your outrage about the article's synopsis about political ineptitude and posturing is somewhat over-the top, I am sure you know exactly what is meant by 'the SNP seeking to exceed its constitutional powers in order to manoeuvre the country into seperatism' - this is a political machination aimed at furthering the party's policies.

The article discusses the merits of increased devolved powers, not independence - that is the purpose of the article.

Your statement " more like joining and changing the nature of the relationship with London,than seperation" wins the PC-speak prize.
25

Jwil,

15/05/2008 09:46:15
The Scotchman will recruit anyone it thinks can propagate it's anti-independence agenda, irrespective of the quality of the analysis (if it can be called that in this case). I don't know who this guy is but I suspect he is not a Scot, so what right does he have to denigrate the Scots as he has done?

If what is being said is true about circulation and advertising income the Scotchman is doing down the pan so the sooner the better.

26

The Tin Man,

Over teh Rainbow 15/05/2008 10:09:14
#26 Jwil

Oh, come-on now... when you berate Wendy Alexander, you are berating a Scotswoman, and a politician. The article does not '
27

The Tin Man,

Over teh Rainbow 15/05/2008 10:09:50
#26 Jwil

Oh, come-on now... when you berate Wendy Alexander, you are berating a Scotswoman, and a politician. The article does not 'denigrate the Scots '. The article is about politicians.
28

brownlie,

15/05/2008 10:36:08
23 AM2

Feel it is a mistake for us unionists to advocate "free speech" when some smarty-pants nats will probably point out that our Calman Commission/Review denies the right of free speech to a sizeable percentage of Scottish opinion.

Incidentally, I seem to remember that Norman Bonney got his B.Sc from the London School of Economics but had to get his Ph.d somewhere in America.

He was also employed as an advisor to Aberdeen Council. Need we say more about that?
29

Suomi,

Salo,Finland 15/05/2008 10:50:19
I need to work,but a quick reply to TIN Man #25,my point is that the article did not contain any analysis or synthesis.It is so over the top that I am now wondering if it was deliberately planted.Some people are suggesting a link between hits on websites and advertising.An article that insults nearly everyone is certainly going to invite a lot of hits.

Regarding my PC version of independence, my choice of words is influenced by perception.This applies to everyone.The use of the word seperation is often deliberately selected to promote an image of isolation.Actually independence does involve sepperate parliaments but we already have that.Further change such as greater powers or independence does involve a change in the nature of the current relationship among parliaments,but does not prohibit collaboration.This happens among the Scandanavian countries just now.I do see independence as joining since it opens up the possibilty of Scotland forging new relationships with other nations.Thus the words in my PC statement reflect my perception ,just as the word seperatism reflect other peoples perception.To get back on topic,I think that the use of the word seperatism tells us a lot about the perception of the person who wrote this article.




30

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 11:41:13
#30 Suomi

Indeed, I would imaging that this website exists in order to generate income from advertising. As such, one could say that all stories are planted.

I agree with your perception of the nature of an independent country, and I would entirely agree that inderdependence between a Scottish State and a remainders-of-UK State is for the best, and in our case it would definately be a necessity, rather than a choice.
31

Alan B,

15/05/2008 11:46:46
You only have to read the first pargraph to realise this article is complete dross.

"THE way that Scottish Parliamentarians have conducted themselves during the year since the May 2007 elections, ... does not generate much confidence in how Scotland would be governed if it were to become independent."

For a start whether u like the idea of independence or not this is by far the most able government scotland have had in the whole period of devolution.

If we are looking at how we are governed looking at wesminster and then the snp. Brown is a complete joke. Cameron is lightweight. Blair was just a liar. Was Major quality. How was so great for the tory failed leaders. Was Callaghan good? do not make me laugh.

When people slag of the quality of members of the sp (while i agree to a large extent with labour, the rest seem as good as any), u only have to look at the poor quality at Wesminster. Or u could even look to the US.

"The way in which the minority SNP administration seeks to exceed its constitutional powers in order to manoeuvre Scotland into separation does not bode well for sound independent government"

Why? Exectly how have they exceed its constitutional powers. The article sounds more like one of those labour cretins.
32

Alan B,

15/05/2008 11:54:30
"What good would more powers be?"

That is surely one of the most obvious answers.

If u believe in the concept of devolution then the weak parliament we have not is simply stupid. The parliament has been created with bits of powers at westminster and bits at the sp. It is a mess.

U can start with the mess with which westminster made of the scottish election. Then progress on areas such as law and order (firearms, id cards, number of days detention, number of police in a police car, drug policy), energy (nuclear and regualtion of electricity transmission), economic regulations (super casinos), transport (sp current funds a structure with trains it does not control, barmy).

The if u look at the big one fiscal control. The Barnett formula is discredited on both sides of the border.

The question should really be what powers should be pulled and why?
33

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 12:22:42
#33 Alan B

"The if u look at the big one fiscal control." As stated in the article, the Scottish Exec. does have significant fiscal powers, which none of the party's mentioned have any intention of using. If no-one intends to use the current level of fiscal powers, what is the point of more fiscal powers?
34

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 12:26:22
#32 Alan B

I would say that the similarities between Blair's style / substance / presentation and Salmond's is very striking.
35

Alan B,

15/05/2008 13:54:26
The Tin Man

The sp does not have significant fiscal powers. It powers in this area are very limited.

Lets face it Wendy the leader of labour in holyrood wants as she calls it fiscal federalism and the lib dems want more fiscal responsibility so there is a demand for it.

The big problems are
1)the scottish parliament is not responsible for raising the tax it spends.
2)it limits the sp power to use fiscal policy to set an environment to try to address to address our woeful economic growth rate.

Can we change corportation tax? No. This is important to try to address our poor economic growth.

When films like braveheart and rob roy were being made. They were filmed in ireland because of tax breaks. Scotland could not compete.

Can we control taxes on air duty important for direct flights? No.

Can we control stamp duty of share trading? No.

Can we control allowannce for capital investment? No.


Look at the options
1)Barnett: this is causing bad feeling south of the border with even Barnett himself calling for it to be scrapped. And has the problems i specified above.
2)fiscal federalism: the sp would control all the taxes spends, their is separate uk wide tax for shared services.
3)fiscal autonomy: sp would raise all taxes in scotland and pay for shared service to the uk treasury.
4)more fiscal responsibility.

It seems to me 2 and 3 are the best options. 3 for me wins hands down as it gives full control. What would the arguments against it be? U could pay into uk government area like the eu does to fund poor regions.

The problem with barnett is too many in scotland it was brought in to mislead people in scotland to giving up scotlands oil wealth. The result of barnett was shown in a question to the then tory treasure in teh mid 90s. The answer showed that scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over a period of (i think 18yrs). This was similar to scotland giving about 1/3 of all income tax from scotla
36

Alan B,

15/05/2008 13:55:31
cont..

The problem with barnett is too many in scotland it was brought in to mislead people in scotland to giving up scotlands oil wealth. The result of barnett was shown in a question to the then tory treasure in teh mid 90s. The answer showed that scotland had subsidised the rest of the uk to the tune of £27billion over a period of (i think 18yrs). This was similar to scotland giving about 1/3 of all income tax from scotland to the rest of the uk as a pressie for 18yrs. Absolute madness given the mess we were in economically at the time. Or like england giving the US £270 billion pounds.

37

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 14:09:01
23 Troll

Did yer anal ysis tell you how many 18 to 29 year old actually voted at all relative to the eligable?
How about stats from May 2008?
38

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 14:10:26
35

No you wouldnt. Yer just being dishonest again!
39

Alan B,

15/05/2008 14:15:08
#The Tin Man

"If no-one intends to use the current level of fiscal powers, what is the point of more fiscal powers?"

Do not mean to insult but that shows a complete lack of economic understanding.

Say u want to change the balance between direct and indirect taxes. Say u want to change the balance between business and personal taxes. U cannot do it without powers over most taxes.

Say for instance u want lower corporation tax and raise vat to pay for it (i believe ireland have done something like this). You cannot do it without control of all taxes.

I gave examples in previous post of areas where taxes can matter. Duty on flights can be a cash cow to westminter based on london airports but can be disadvantageous to scotland where direct flights have been poor.
40

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 14:17:30
"Its advocacy of federalism ignored the fact that successful federal systems like the US were formed by previously independent states coming together, not by component units seeking more autonomy."

Not true - examples such as Spain and Brazil exist that have component units seeking more autonomy.
41

Alan B,

15/05/2008 14:18:11
#The Tin Man

Also look at LIT. Although i personally am not in favour it is valid that a sp should be able to change local government taxation.

Brown yesterday rushed out a change in allowances because he made a mess of the 10% tax rate removal. A higher income tax allowance has a direct effect on lit tax take.

This just shows how silly and restrictive the nature of the was we current apply fiscal policy.
42

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 14:19:32
Any reason why Scotland shouldnt hand over its sovereignty to another country other than England??

Is that what this so called intellect is getting at??
If Scotland doesnt need the powers to govern itself is it necessary to hand over these powers only to England or should we hand them over to say Russia or China or Zimbabwe maybe?? Is it the principle of handing over our powers of government thats under discussion or the fact that this C*nt only wants England to run the country for us?? Can no other country in the world no run it better then??
43

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 14:22:46
Having read this article I have to say that this professor has not got a clue. It's not just his opinions but some of his "facts" that are in fact wrong.
44

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 14:24:31
I thion Bonney misses the point - it is important to debate, discuss (and eventually) vote on the issues - even if no change happens - it's called democracy.
45

Alan B,

15/05/2008 14:26:17
#The Tin Man

"I would say that the similarities between Blair's style / substance / presentation and Salmond's is very striking."

Obviously everyone has their own opinion.

i was never a blair fan, and was shocked that he became leader of labour ever since i saw him as shadow social security minister in the 80s. He was rubbish.

To me blair had no substance. If u consider his first term.What did he stand for. Nothing. Many were commenting that he his only reason for power was power and he had no vision. Brown was his only real success.

For some reason i have never seen blair as a charismatic leader.

To me salmond is more inline with kennedy or john smith. in the charismatic/style. Maybe that is why i quite liked all 3 of above.

Obviously there is the issue of being a polician being likable charistmatic/stylish but having the wrong policies. Galloway and Sheridan are 2 that can spring to mind.

for me salmond has alot more depth than blair would ever had. to a large extent i really do not understand blair. he was more right wing than a 70s tory party (heath) but joined labour. he was pro eurpean but joined the party that was anti eec at the time. Cameron and blair have alot more in common in regard to style.
46

Alan B,

15/05/2008 14:32:07
"Its advocacy of federalism ignored the fact that successful federal systems like the US were formed by previously independent states coming together, not by component units seeking more autonomy"

Not a lib dem but that critism is just stupid.

Just one of the major flaws in this report is that it fails to deal with the fact an overwhelming number of people in scotland seem to want more powers.

As a so called professor i would like to see an arguement for why and want areas are better to pull powers. there are so many flaws in the current devolution arrangement.
47

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 14:33:34
44

I am glad you popped up maybe you can now explain yer position on what you think a Federalist is.
Would you object to Scotland being within a Federation other than with England??
48

acanthus,

15/05/2008 14:34:17
This is the standard of a senior academic in Scotland?

The Scottish Parliament can only achieve what is within it's means to achieve and i would suggest that there HAVE been some very significant changes in Scottish life which seem for some reason to have been excluded from his article?

The consensus is that the parliament WILL have at the very least an extension to it's powers and possibly even complete independence.

Why? Well 'Professor', the answer is that you cannot effect any radical change with only partial autonomy but to suggest that there is nothing demonstrable that has improved in Scotland compared with England is just nothing other than ignorant..either that or biased.

Just how do you determine markers like 'greatly improved'?

Very poor i am afraid Professor!

49

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 15:16:03
Hey Federalist

Show us yer Federalist credentials then.
Tell us how you want Scotland to become a Federal state on principle and not as just another excuse to remain subject to England.
Explain to us why you think yer a Federalist and not just another devolutionalist selling snake oil.
Dont you think there are better countries out there for Scotland to join as a Federal state??
Wouldnt a true Federalist support Independence for Scotland in order for it to be able to negociate itself into the best Federation it can find???
50

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 16:09:58
#49 acanthus

...And how do you determine markers like "very significant"....

I do agree with your comments about the changes for the better that have taken place in Scotland since Hollyrood was set-up, though.
51

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 16:12:55
Federalist

Aye ye better hide ya fake. yer nae mare a Federalist than I am.
NAUON my A*se yer just another unionist troll.
52

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 17:38:24
Evening AM2 (#23). Come to the rescue of the future Prof. Bonney "OBE"?

I stand by my observations and criticism of this mans writing made at #12 & 13. THAT is called free speech, NOT his insulting and misleading article. To insult is rude and irrelevant to the argument; and to quote figures that are over a year old as fact (as opposed to history) and to then view those figures with an angle SO OBTUCE as to beggar belief, is just misleading.

So in answer to AM2's QUESTION NUMBER 1:

My blood boils at insults levelled by the prof to my Nation and her People in this article. He condescendingly speaks to us like children whom he does not think fit to cross the road on our own to play in the park with the bigger kids. And on the alleged poor conduct of MSP's ......"and particularly during the past month, does not generate much confidence in how Scotland would be governed if it were to become independent." The SNP's position in the polls (current figures) has come from sound governance so obviously the prof is talking about the opposition parties, and perhaps his fervent hope that the Labour Party will once again gain power. The SNP cannot be held responsible for the incompetence of the other parties - and as THEY are not in power they are not affecting the said good governance. UUendy MAY well be a total and utter incompetent fool, but that is for the Labour Party to address, no one else.

AND QUESTION NUMBER 2:

CURRENT POLLING - Apr '08 by System Three/TNS

All Voters...SNP 33%...Lab 23%...Con 9%...LD 8%
Age 18-24...SNP 35%...Lab 19%...Con 4%...LD 2%
Age 65+......SNP 27%...Lab 25%...Con 15%..LD 8%
(All Voters - 27% Undecided/Refused/Wouldn't Vote - when asked of their "likely inclination" when pressed they split down even better lines for the SNP)

I must confess this is the first poll I can recall seeing that DOES have the SNP voting intention in the over 65's above that of Labour - guess that just means that the SNP can win the argument EVEN in t
53

Jock Politicaljunkie,

Glasgow 15/05/2008 17:46:41
Continuation of #53 answering #23

....I must confess this is the first poll I can recall seeing that DOES have the SNP voting intention in the over 65's above that of Labour - guess that just means that the SNP can win the argument EVEN in this age bracket! It does not detract from the Empire Generation view, however, as it can clearly be seen that the unionist parties have more support in the over 65 bracket and less in the 18-24 bracket.

QUESTION NUMBER 3:

There WAS indeed a study by Cambridge University. It was the source of information taken by the then Tory Government in the late 80's I think (possibly at their request) to give a written answer in parliament to the oft asked question on Scotland's fiscal position in the union. This was delayed for some time and I recall the question had to be asked a number of times before the answer was eventually dragged out that Scotland was (surprise surprise) a net contributor. I think the parliamentary question eventually answered was asked by Alex Salmond. This was a significant moment in politics as it was the FIRST TIME this had ever been admitted. I would give you a link if I had enough masterly of computer things to find one but I'm sure someone out there may be able to. It MAY be the report Alan B is talking about at #36 & 37 - I did give the caveat that "if memory serves" so dates, it being so long ago could be suspect. It is true however, that much is certain.

On a wider note - are you saying that Scotland is NOT a net contributor to the UK?? I think the position that Scotland ARE net contributors is pretty much accepted these days and would render your question number 3 pretty irrelevant.
54

Richardinho,

15/05/2008 17:51:15
There may be a case to be made for the union- but this surely isn't it. If I were a unionist I'd simply try and hope that not to many pay intention to the rantings and vague conclusions of Mr Bonney which appear to boil down to; 'I don't like the nationalists and I've got a phd so that makes me right'. Sorry, don't think so.
55

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 20:45:23
Foulkes - you really are an obnoxious - related to that other charmer Hen Broon by any chance?

If you bothered to read my posts (try the threads in the last two days) you would know my position.

Perhaps Alan B will enlighten you - because I can't be bothered replying to an a r s e like you.
56

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 20:46:09
#55 I honestly think this man is from another planet - you can't win an argument by ignoring it.
57

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 20:50:52
Just for your benefit Foulkes - here'smy vies about a referndum:

"228 The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),14/05/2008 15:37:11
#218 I have supported the idea of a multi-option referendum for some time.

However, given the inability of the Scottish electorate to complete a ballot paper correctly at the last set of elections I have altered my views as to using STV to decide the outcome. Perhaps it would be better to have a run-off system similar to the French with the top two options facing each other in a second ballot.

Some might complain that that would be tootime-consuming or costly - i'd disagree - on an issue like this it is worth spending time and money so we get a genuine reflection of voters opinions - whatever they may be.

Also I'd like there to be 4 options - I'll let the constitutional lawyers get the wording right:

1. the status quo - keep the Scottish Parliament as it is

2. independence

3. greater powers for the Scottish Parliament including Fiscal Autonomy

4. abolish the Scottish Parliament

I know some might not like option 4 - I don't either - but I do think it is right that those who don't support it have their say as well.

I also realise that my options don't include Federalism explicitly - however, if option 3 were passed I believe that the debate does not end there - that moves towards a more federal structure would be more likely. Nationalists too I suspect would not have a problem with option 3 as it would not close the door on independence forever. No doubt they would continue to campaign (as is there right) for independence.

What I don't want to see is a simple yes-no ballot - if independence lost it would also bring an end to any hopes of further devolved power. The hardline unionists would use it as an excuse to stymie any further decentralisation. Also the truth be said - there are many who are would not support independence but are not happy with the status quo either - I'm one of them. If
58

The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),

15/05/2008 20:53:30
(continued)

"228 The Federalist (the poster formerly know as NAUON),14/05/2008 15:37:11

What I don't want to see is a simple yes-no ballot - if independence lost it would also bring an end to any hopes of further devolved power. The hardline unionists would use it as an excuse to stymie any further decentralisation. Also the truth be said - there are many who are would not support independence but are not happy with the status quo either - I'm one of them. If it were a simple yes-no vote I honestly now don't know which way I'd vote."
59

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 15/05/2008 21:40:27
#46 Alan B

Hey, like, I hope you don't think that I was criticising Blair. He really was fun, for about one year. And top marks to him, he was a politician of greatness, ranking with Thatcher, although a bit less to truthful.

I do think that Salmond's PR outfit has grabbed everything it can from the Blair Style, and. as per Blair Style, used it to their best advantage. Good luck to them. They are streets ahead of their opposition. However, I prefer the truth, un-opaqued.
60

morris,

edinburgh 15/05/2008 21:56:36
The problem with Labours so called devolution MkII is nobody including New Labours own activists know what it will contain. (if they do then tell us)!
Its a blank cheque!
It will probably devolve precious little,and certainly not include control over Scotlands purse strings,because that would expose the lie that we are subsidised by London.It would exclude the oil revenues also which in an economy of 5 million people (which is what an inependent Scotland is) the effect is multiplied considerably.I am advised of the order of 12:1.
What will be devolved will include removal of "areas" where Holyrood could block Trident and Nuclear installations and dumps.
If you think thats a step forward you have a lousy sense of direction!
Those who say they prefer increased powers should maybe note that we dont know what is proposed yet!
Its like asking would you swop your car for a different one? WHICH ONE is surely a pertinent question!
61

The Tin Man,

Over The Rainbow 15/05/2008 22:04:45
The SNP propose much disruption, for many years, for little difference.
62

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 23:18:03
56

Oh get stuffed ya pretentious a*sehole. You dont even know what it means to be a Federalist. You are simply a devolutionalist unionist. You simply want Scotland to give up its claim to being a nation for what?? to become another English region???????
Every option you propose keeps Scotland tied down to Englands apron that is NOT Federalism.
For Scotland to become part of a Federation it would first have to disengage from the act of union with England and then join a Federation you tit.
63

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 23:19:51
62

Outstanding analysis simply stands head and shoulders above anything I have read from the unionist point of view ever now put yer mum back on.
64

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 23:26:20
59

Jesus Christ the only reason anybody is even engaging in this constitutional debate is because of the push for Independence. It only takes a large portion of the voting public to indicate a support for Independence to get the UK establishment tripping over itself to produce quangos and Parliaments and constitutional conventions and acts of Parliament etc etc.
The unionist couldnie stymie anything if enough people simply state they want Independence then its game set and match.
Get a grip of reality and keep yer wishful thinking for yer sex life.
65

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 15/05/2008 23:32:32
61

Spot on this devolution max min midi minor whatever hasnt even been quantified to anybodies satisfaction as far as I know. I doubt you could get two so called devolutionists to agree on the level of devolution. The whole concept is a farce and is only a stop gap used to slow down the process of full autonomy.
As somebody once pointed out nobody ever celebrates devolution day. Christ we are an international joke.

 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

 
 
RSS Feed of this article's comments
Delivery formats: RSS, Atom, Javascript & Email
 
  

 
 

More Politics

More Politics >>

More Government & public affairs pages

More Government & public affairs pages >>

Features

Supplements
Scotsman Digital Archive
Scotsman Hotels Scotsman Hotels

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.