Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

 
 
Wednesday, 9th July 2008

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.

More questions than answers in 'state of the union' review



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: 26 March 2008
JUST before midday yesterday, the political ground in Scotland shifted, starting a process that will change the United Kingdom for ever.
Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, one of the country's senior academics, was unveiled as the chairman of a new cross-party, cross-Border commission to review the devolution settlement.

His appointment will inevitably lead to more powers for the Scotti
sh Parliament and a complete review of the way money is divided around the UK.

For Donald Dewar, the late First Minister, the devolution settlement he devised represented "the settled will" of the Scottish people. Yesterday, in a wood-panelled and brightly-lit conference room, Sir Kenneth's appointment proved this was no longer the case. The devolution settlement now represents merely the starting point for a radical redrawing of the relationship between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom.

As he walked into room P102 on the first floor of the media tower in the Scottish Parliament yesterday, Sir Kenneth was flanked by three beaming party leaders: Wendy Alexander for Labour, Annabel Goldie for the Tories and Nicol Stephen for the Liberal Democrats.

Together, they command 78 of the 129 MSPs in the parliament, more than enough to drive through their plans in this or any other parliament.

But beneath the nervous smiles as the flash guns cracked and the television cameras rolled, there was considerable uncertainty – none of them really had any idea quite where this process will take the country.

"I believe this will be the commission that will decide the constitutional future of Scotland and will create a stronger Scottish Parliament within a stronger UK," Mr Stephen said.

That view was echoed by Miss Goldie, when she said: "Mainstream opinion in Scotland wants devolution to work better and for Scotland to be secure in a stronger UK – that is what this body is all about."

And Ms Alexander said: "I think ten years on is the right point to review whether the powers and responsibilities of the Scottish Parliament are properly managed."

But none could say what the commission would come up with, because its remit is so wide-ranging. It can examine any and all parts of the devolution settlement and recommend any changes – as long as Scotland stays within the UK.

Sir Kenneth was clear that he would stop short of considering the question of independence, but he, too, has no idea what his commission will come up with. "Like the majority of the Scottish people, I very much see myself as part of the UK, but a Scot within that," he said.

He went on: "Seventy-seven per cent of the Scottish public don't think independence is the right way forward. All of the work over the last few years makes it pretty clear that's not an issue right now. Certainly, for this commission, it will not be an issue we will be discussing.

"There are plenty of other issues that are relevant to Scotland and its institutions and its parliament, which will give us plenty to look at."

However, as the three party leaders and the new chairman of the constitutional commission were taking this brave leap in the dark, SNP managers were clear where they stood: they were delighted, even though the body would not consider independence.

They believe that any moves to strengthen the powers of Holyrood and weaken the ties with Westminster will push Scotland along the road to independence.

If the Scottish Parliament gets fiscal autonomy of any form – whether in the guise of assigned tax revenues or actual control over the power to raise or lower taxes – the Nationalists believe this will give Scots the desire for more power and will lead to Holyrood getting complete control over its finances in time.

A spokesman for the First Minister said the decision of the unionist parties to set up the commission had made an independence referendum more likely, and he made it clear Alex Salmond thought his opponents had played into his hands.

He said: "The election last May has brought about change right across the political spectrum. What we are seeing at the moment would not have happened had we not won the election."

He said Mr Salmond had always been willing to accept more than one question in an independence referendum, and now the commission had been tasked with coming up with more powers for the parliament, that option could be put to the people, too.

In a piece of media management designed to show the support of the UK government, Gordon Brown issued a carefully worded statement to coincide with yesterday's commission launch.

The Prime Minister said the Cabinet had given the commission its approval and he was "determined to review the provisions of the Scotland Act in the light of ten years' experience while securing Scotland's place within the United Kingdom".

However, Professor John Curtice, of Strathclyde University, warned that the creation of the commission was a "gamble" for the unionist parties, who were hoping it would entrench support for the Union but not lead to greater demands for independence.

"If this comes up with anything that increases the autonomy of the Scottish Parliament, Scotland is going to look different from the rest of the United Kingdom," he said.

He said the commission aimed to do two things: convince Scots of the need for more financial control and persuade the English that Scots should have more financial responsibility.

"The crucial thing about this commission is who it persuades at Westminster, because all the important decisions on this will be made at Westminster," Prof Curtice said.

Sir Kenneth will publish his interim report in November, with his final report due some time next year. He will take evidence from the political parties, from "civic Scotland" – which means the churches, trade unions, business leaders and others – and from any other interested parties and individuals.

His review will run alongside the "national conversation" being organised by the Scottish Government and, while the SNP's version is concentrating on independence, Sir Kenneth's review will look at everything but that.

Sir Kenneth stressed yesterday that he was a unionist and a devolutionist, and that he did not believe in Scotland going it alone. However, what no-one knows is how far his review will go in pushing devolution along the road to independence.

Calman says study 'will not be driven by Downing Street'

ONE of Scotland's leading doctors and academics took charge of the new, wide-ranging review of the devolution settlement yesterday, and immediately insisted he would not take orders from Downing Street.

Sir Kenneth Calman, the Chancellor of Glasgow University, who will chair the Scottish constitutional commission, said that he would lead a genuinely independent inquiry.

"I would not have accepted this if I felt this was something being driven from elsewhere," he said.

Sir Kenneth also denied his inquiry would be fatally weakened by the fact independence would not be within the scope of its study, adding: "All the work over the last few years makes it pretty clear that's not an issue right now."

The setting up of the commission was discussed and approved by the Westminster Cabinet yesterday.

Gordon Brown, the Prime Minister, said: "I am delighted that Sir Kenneth Calman has agreed to chair this body and that it has the support of both the Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats.

"Together, we are determined to review the provisions of the Scotland Act in the light of ten years' experience, while securing Scotland's place within the UK."

The commission hopes to produce an interim report in November.

At yesterday's launch in Edinburgh, Sir Kenneth was joined by Wendy Alexander, the Scottish Labour leader, Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' leader and Annabel Goldie, the leader of the Scottish Tories.

The commission is officially described as an "independent review" supported by both the Scottish Parliament and the UK government, and its recommendations will be considered by both.

Its terms of reference, in line with a resolution passed by the Scottish Parliament, are to review the workings of the Scotland Act and recommend improvements, while continuing to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom.

Sir Kenneth said that his activities and interests over the past 30 years had all involved questions of quality of life.

He added: "This report is about how we can improve the quality of life and wellbeing of the people of Scotland."

Meanwhile, the Scottish Government will today launch the second phase of its "national conversation" on the country's constitutional future.

This will involve taking the views of a range of organisations and institutions, from churches to trade unions and professional bodies.

Last night, a spokesman for Alex Salmond, the First Minister, contrasted the SNP-led administration's approach with the "extraordinary" exclusion of independence from the commission's deliberations.

The First Minister's spokesman also claimed the commission had been "hijacked" by the Prime Minister and downgraded to the status of a review.

He added: "We may disagree on the destination, but all parties must agree on the fundamental point that a referendum (on independence] is the democratic route."


The choices
These are the four main possibilities the commission will explore, as Hamish Macdonell explains:

1. THE STATUS QUO
THE first option open to Sir Kenneth Calman's review is to recommend no change at all – the status quo.

He could deliberate and take evidence for the next six months and decide that the devolution settlement is working well and there is no need to alter the Scotland Act in any way.

However, given that the Scottish Constitutional Commission was set up by three parties, all of which want to see change in some form or other, it would be almost inconceivable for Sir Kenneth to recommend nothing.

He could suggest handing back some powers to Westminster. Possible avenues include some legal controls, allowing the Westminster government to take complete control over anti-terrorism work – without having to ask the permission of the Scottish judiciary or the Scottish Government – or some environment controls. But any move to hand back powers to Westminster without bringing any other powers north would be hugely controversial and also unlikely. Sir Kenneth knows he is acting under the auspices of the main Unionist parties who want to see movement, particularly financial, in the devolution settlement and he will be under pressure to justify the commission's role.


2.NON-FINANCIAL POWERS
WHEN the Scotland Act was approved by Westminster, a number of key policy areas were reserved to Westminster.

The main ones – defence and foreign affairs – will remain in place because these represent the last bulwarks of the Union. If the Scottish Parliament was given charge of these policy areas, Scotland really would be independent. Sir Kenneth Calman's job is to consider whether any of the more minor powers should now be transferred to Edinburgh.

Some are small, self-contained policy areas like control over broadcasting or abortion policy in Scotland, issues which were considered for the Scottish Parliament but rejected by the UK government during the discussions in 1998. Others, however, are more wide-ranging, like firearms, drugs and immigration. These are big Home Office issues but there have been claims that Scotland would do better to make policy in these areas for itself. Immigration would be particularly problematic, because different immigration rules would need checks at the border and a Scottish immigration service, both of which would put up fresh barriers between Scotland and England.


3.ASSIGNING TAX REVENUES
IF THE Scottish Parliament is assigned tax revenues it would no longer get the £30 billion cheque from the Treasury it receives at the moment. Instead, it would be given money in parcels, allocated on the basis of the money raised in Scotland.

If, for example, stamp duty raises £500 million a year in Scotland, then that would be allocated under that heading. The advantage of this system is that it introduces a limited degree of control and responsibility. If revenues in one area go up, so the money coming to the Scottish Parliament in this area would go up, so it would be in the interest of the Scottish Government to improve the economy and hence improve the buoyancy of tax receipts in a particular area.

But there are major difficulties in this field. If Sir Kenneth decides that all Scottish tax revenues should be assigned, then what happens to North Sea oil revenue? If the majority of these receipts are assigned to Scotland, wouldn't that leave the Treasury short of cash?

Also, once the tax revenues are assigned, it would not be long before demands would grow for control of these taxes to be devolved too.

4.TAX-VARYING POWERS
SIR Kenneth's commission could solve some of the problems of assigned tax revenues by recommending that various tax levers are handed over to the parliament as well.

The scope here is limited by European regulations which forbid variations to certain taxes, such as business taxes, within a member state, but there is room for changes to stamp duty, excise duty and other indirect taxes, as well as more complex changes to the way the Scottish Parliament can vary income tax. At the moment, the Scottish Parliament can change the basic rate by up to 3p in the pound, up and down. It can also alter local taxes, as the Scottish Government is trying to do with its plans for a local income tax.

Income tax could be handed over to the Scottish Parliament in its entirety, but that would be such a big step it would be resisted furiously by ministers in London.

Whatever he suggests in this field, however, if Sir Kenneth recommends any changes to Scotland's fiscal base, it will inevitably spell the end of the Barnett Formula, the funding formula which has been allocating spending increases around the different parts of the UK for the past three decades.

Q & A: THE CONSTITUTIONAL COMMISSION

Q: What will the commission do?

A: It will review the devolution settlement, examine the powers the Scottish Parliament has at the moment and recommend changes.

Q: Who will it report to?

A: The UK government and Scottish Parliament.

Q: When will it report?

A: An interim report is expected in November this year with a final report in the summer of next year.

Q: Who is in charge?

A: Professor Sir Kenneth Calman, Chancellor of Glasgow University is chairman. He will be joined by other commissioners in the next few weeks.

Q: What is the commission's remit?

A: It can study any aspect of the devolution settlement, short of independence. The commission was set up to look for changes which may "better serve the people of Scotland, that would improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament and would continue to secure the position of Scotland within the UK".

Q: What will happen to the recommendations of the commission?

A: These will be considered by the main Unionist parties, but any changes to the devolution settlement will need to be enacted by Westminster, which would need to change the Scotland Act.

Q: How often will it meet, and where?

A: The frequency of meetings has yet to be decided. However, the first meeting will be next month, with regular meetings after that to hear oral evidence and consider written evidence. Nicol Stephen, the Scottish Lib Dems leader, said he hoped many of the meetings would be at Holyrood.

Q: How much will it cost?

A: Sir Kenneth is not taking a fee and neither will the other commissioners, so the cost will not be huge. Any other costs, including expenses of those involved and the costs of producing the reports, will be met jointly by the UK Government and by the Scottish Parliament's Corporate Body.

--
ALEX Salmond will today launch the second phase of his 'national conversation' on independence.

The First Minister has invited representatives from trade unions, church groups, environmental campaigns and business organisations to a conference at Edinburgh University.

He will deliver a speech and then invite representatives to take part in workshops based around each of the Scottish Government's main themes – a wealthier, healthier, greener and safer Scotland.

The conversation's first phase, launched last August, saw the public and organisations submitting comments on the Scottish Government's website. More than 26,000 comments were registered.

THE IDEAL CHOICE
AS both a unionist and a devolutionist, Professor Sir Kenneth Calman was the ideal choice to lead the Scottish Constitutional Commission.

He is respected in academia and in government, he knows politicians and how to work with them and he was willing to work for free.

All these factors propelled him into a job yesterday which is likely to change the face of Scottish politics for ever.

Now aged 66, Sir Kenneth came to public prominence, first as Scotland's Chief Medical Officer in 1989 and then as the CMO for England in 1992.

He trained as a doctor at Glasgow University and after working in London returned to Glasgow in 1974 as professor of oncology.

He has held high office in the World Health Organisation and was vice-chancellor of Durham University from 1998 to last year.

Sir Kenneth is currently the Chancellor of the University of Glasgow.

He has written seven books and more than 100 scientific papers and lists outside interests as Scottish literature, cartoons, gardening – and sundials.



The full article contains 2899 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

 
1

,

26/03/2008 00:47:45
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
2

Edward,

26/03/2008 00:50:28
An utter disgrace that Scotland has to put up with being told by London what it wants.
It was a bit reminicent of what Henry Ford offered, when he first produced his Model T car, 'any colour you want as long as its black' With Labour and the other London based parties, its 'any form of home rule, as long as its within the Union!'
During Newsnight Scotland last night, Wendy Alexander was asked which taxes, would be devolved to Scotland, such as VAT or Corporation Tax, she could only mumble that these would not be considered as it was something to do with the EU (which its not). So already we have the makings of a farce, yes there would be tax raising powers considered, but not real ones!
When asked if the people of Scotland would be consulted, again another mumbled answer along the lines that yes the Commission (or was it review?) would go out to the country, but didnt seem to be to sure about this.
Im ashamed that I once supported Labour, the so called party of the people, now there a bunch of self servers that dont trust the people
The people of Scotland should turn there backs on these people.
3

,

26/03/2008 00:53:18
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
4

The Answer,

Glasgow 26/03/2008 00:59:45
#4
"purile"

Remind me again the figures you said are raised from whisky tax by scots?
5

Edward,

26/03/2008 01:05:08
#5 The Answer aka AM2
Why dont you tell me, as Im at a loss to figure out what thats got to do with what I said here!
Remind me where I have supposed to have stated something about 'whisky taxes'?
6

PL,

26/03/2008 01:06:08
How can a journalist produce an article this long without telling us whether Labour intends to leigslate before the next UK general election? If not (or if Alexander doesn't know) this is fundamentally crucial: Labour is likely to lose the next election. And if it does, history and the cycles of political power suggest that Cameron will win at least two elections(especially as he intends to store up tax cuts in order to win a second term). Any implementation of the review's proposals could be 12 years away. It is sheer incompetence to write an article without considering this fundamental question. The proposals of the review could be obsolete before they have any prospect of implementation and the journalist neglects to mention this transparently obvious fact (or neglects to tell us that Labour DOES intend to legislate before the next election). Either way, a dunce cap is in order.
And the question of welfare, initially highlighted by Alexander, seems to have been dropped? U-turn? Again, no mention.
7

Joe M.,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 01:07:36
"the political ground in Scotland shifted"

Yes it did, when the SNP won the scottish elections. If that hadn't happened there would be no unionist review.

Labour and Lib Dems had plenty of opportunity to call for more powers when it mattered, ie when they had power.

As it is they are now in cahoots with the discredited Tories to agree a minimum of powers which might convince people that independence is not required. Brown thinks he might even be able to claw a few inconvenient powers back.

If Hamish MacDonell is excited about this then I think he's the only one.
8

The Daleks,

Longmen 26/03/2008 01:08:54
This guy is nothing but a Unionist stooge.

Read his comments.

He'll listen to what he wants to hear, and clearly independence is a word he's deaf to.

Pure window dressing. Do they really think we fall for this baloney any more?
9

,

26/03/2008 01:15:07
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
10

Jimmy the Pie,

26/03/2008 01:27:11
Our Dear Leader, Comrade Broon can see his legacy as the man who lost New Labour Sleaze and Corruption power. Coming away with waffle and drivel to gloss over the cracks won't do. Your time is coming to an end and not a moment too soon.

www.snp.org
11

Jackie Priest,

26/03/2008 01:27:40
#1

Well, there are so many points of weakness in your post we hardly know where to begin.

But this here's a start:

" only 24% of people in Scotland said that they don’t also consider themselves to be British."

Only? AM2, 100% of Scots ARE British, and for a quarter of them to say they are not British, regardless of the fact that the law of the British constituion says that they are, is a huge chunk of the population. (And don't forget this is after 300 years of persistent attempts to assimilate the Scots which have patently failed).

We also know that the survey you're referring to tallies up a siginifcant majority who consider themselves Scottish first (either Scottish only or Scottish first/Britoish second).

But, well, I don't want to discourage you because your playing right into the hands of the pro-independence movement, which is what the unionist parties are doing with their reveiw of the union thingy, whatever it is, which is actually going to add to the momentum of an increasingly independent Scotland.

I'm trying to think of a way that the unionists could save the union. On the one hand we have the conciliatory efforts of the Scottish branches of the unionists parties and, on the other, we have Brown trying to enforce a British-and-Proud thing down in London. Both approaches are at odds with each other. Both appear to do nothing more than contribut rather than stifle the surge towards independence.

I don't know. It is a conundrum for the unionists. But it's good because it's clear the Scottish people have no love for the union.
12

Jackie Priest,

26/03/2008 01:30:41
And then, of course, Salmond is way ahead of yous:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7313586.stm

He's like a cat toying with a bunch of mice.

13

walter,

26/03/2008 01:51:57
I am all for a review of the powers that Holyrood holds, I want the Scottish government to hold full powers in areas that affect only Scotland.
I want any power that is held by the UK government that is detrimental to Scotland while the rest of the UK prospers devolved to the Scottish parliament.
On that same line I want any power that will prosper Scotland to the detriment of the remainder of the UK reserved.
I would like this review postponed and Alexander, Goldie and Stephens to force this SNP government to hold a referendum this year on independence.
If the independence vote wins then we can start to work to that aim, however if it loses then the SNP government can either stand down as the people will have spoken or start to work for the betterment of Scotland and participate with this commission in the review of the powers Scotland should hold with in the framework of the UK.
14

Guga II,

Rockall 26/03/2008 01:59:27
I notice that Maggie Broon's "listening government" does not intend to consult the Scottish people on anything, only the Unionist parties.

Then again, what would you expect from the New Labour Sleaze and Corruption Party and their Stalinist, totalitarian control freak of a leader?

As for AM Squared, listen sunshine, if your mob in Northern Ireland want to stay as as a subservient part of this so-called Union, that's fine, but most of the people in Scotland don't, especiually the younger ones.
15

walter,

26/03/2008 02:28:47
I notice that Maggie Broon's "listening government" does not intend to consult the Scottish people on anything, only the Unionist parties.

Salmond intends to push through the LIT from those MSPs that represent the people, IE the SNP and LIB/DEM MSPs with the help of the Greens and Margo.
That is how our democracy works, those in parliament represent the people.
Brown is listening to the 79 MSPs (that's 32 more than the SNP) who represent the people.
Your claim that he is not listening to the Scottish people is rubbish the unionist parties that have 79 seats is the voice of the Scottish people.
16

,

26/03/2008 02:29:14
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
17

Snuffy Ivy,

Aberdeen 26/03/2008 02:53:29
Let' see now, nearly 36 million people in England? barely 5 million occupants of Scotland give or take several million expats.

TOP TEN REASONS SCOTLAND COULDN'T MAKE IT ALONE:
(1) We don't have a track record of work ethics.
(2) We have trade unions.
(3) We have a Rabbie Burns approach to urban existence. (4) We want everything given to us for nothing.
(5) We suffer from a sense of entitlement.
(6) We're intolerant and resentful of the successes of the successful.
(7) We aren't very goal-oriented in our own right.
(8) We're the greatest at playing the red tape game.
(9) We live in the past.
(10)WE are all about US.
(11) We're NOT the sharpest educated knives in the drawer.
(12) We can't count to ten!
18

Abel Magwitch,

26/03/2008 02:55:18
H.G.Wells (admittedly not a Scot)once said that universities should have chairs and departments devoted solely to the study of The Future. That would not be a bad idea for Scotland just now. Leaving aside the economic issues, there is a question about the people. Are the educationl and health systems able to provide backup for an independent country? Is there a risk that crime and social problems will intensify after independence and contribute to a slow decline of the quality of life? We don't know the answers to these questions but someone should be asking them.
19

innesm,

Austin, Texas 26/03/2008 03:03:08
The glacier moves inexorably towards independence.
20

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 03:10:17
#18

What a load of rubbish only Highland Mighty, AM2 and Media 1 will swallow any of that.

36 million people in England - errr - only 10 million off the mark.

(1) We don't have a track record of work ethics.
Have you ever heard of calvinism?
(2) We have trade unions.
As does any western country
(3) We have a Rabbie Burns approach to urban existence.
Iv'e no idea what that means
(4) We want everything given to us for nothing.
Utter nonsense
(5) We suffer from a sense of entitlement.
No we don't
...

Ach.. wasting my time here I suspect, everyone can see you are cringing fool.

(12) We can't count to ten!

As is to qualify what a load of nonsense you have posted statement 12 can really be seen as a clarifying statement that indicates your personel level of education and your small minded-unionist 'we canny do it' attitude.

Utter banana
21

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 03:16:05
W Smith in his daily post from the bottom of the bucket is scraping hard!

You must be having a ball in the "Middle East" - you have a pathalogical hatred of Muslims and a love of all things Jewish.

My bets are you one of those ex-pat wangers in somewehere like Dubai thinking that your living like a king of the back of $2 a day Filipinos. Just call it a hunch.

You really are an odious man - you make Media 1 and AM2 look like angels.

22

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA....Bye Bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil lead 26/03/2008 03:28:15
More questions than answers in 'state of the union' review
---------------
hey Dudes have U forgotten that
68% of the Scots voters, DID NOT vote for the SNP.

A FACT that U dudes ignore.
You will never get independence for Scotland when 68% of the voters do not support U the SNP.

And as long as U keep attacking Westminster, u are digging a political hole, from which U will not be able to climb out of. And an independent Scotland will remain a historical dream for U.

GC
23

,

26/03/2008 03:33:49
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
24

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 03:34:07
Galactic posting from uranus.

Are you under the impression that the vote in May was referendum for Independence?

Why you insist on posting about things you have little understanding and little regard for is beyond me.

You are one sad 'dude'

Respectively
DD

25

,

26/03/2008 03:38:32
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
26

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 03:52:27
It' started people
27

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA...bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil leaders. 26/03/2008 04:22:56
25
Dougie Douglas,
Brisbane
----------------------------------

hey Dude, I no longer have digs on the Seventh planet.

But at least, I did not, and have no intention of, abandoning my country the US , like U abandoned Scotland

People who abandon their land of birth like U, where they were raised and educated, have show no respect, and have no gratitude for their ancestors.

U are the SAD dude ...dude.

GC
28

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:28:48
Tax control is the minimum including oil revenues taken at the metering point. The petroleum exchange moved to Scotland would be a bonus.

Oh yeah, control over our MP's expenses

See Michael Martin acting like the dimwit he is. Who is he trying to impress - Servio Berlusconi?

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article3621850.ece

Shameful and if there was any reason to get rid of them then this is it.

Imagine spending taxpayers money to hide how MP's spend taxpayers money

Disgrace
29

,

26/03/2008 04:35:28
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
30

GalacticCannibal,

Murrieta, CA....Bye Bye Bush -Cheney..u. evil lead 26/03/2008 04:36:58
24
Scott Webb....,
26/03/2008,

Wrong Dude , I don't think that at all .

But I do think that, Ur constant negative tone, and attitude of the SNP, and its supports, towards Westminster, will not help Ur cause one bit.

And while 68% of the Scots voters did not vote SNP, it only makes Ur chance of gaining independence in a referendum less likely to happen.

At times the SNP remind me of New Zealand sheep.

When the lead sheep (A Salmond) goes BAHH , all the others follow with BAHH..BAHH..BAHH.

Happy Haggis Day dude.

GC
31

inkster,

26/03/2008 04:37:11
I reported Am2 a couple of hours ago about using the word 'separatist' which is commonly used to refer to eg 'Fark separatist' and 'Basque separatist'. This is an old unionist smear (good description of Am2 I suspect)Can he and others please stop using that pejoratist and insulting term to members and supporters of a democratically elected government. Please stop it - it's juvenile and frankly has a desperate ring about it. Please remove Mr. Moderator. Thanks in advance.
32

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:39:55
EVEN GORDON BROWN HAS CLAIMED 55k for a second home although living in a free one

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2008/03/26/nexpenses126.xml

They are stealing from us and even at Priministerial level!!

Thats why they have hired a lawyer to stop this coming to light. What an embarrasment

33

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

Farepak Justice 26/03/2008 04:41:12
100k to hide that the PM is a crook and steals 55k from the taxpayer while he gives squat to the poorest working families who had farepak vouchers.

Thats Labour for you if you are working class. You are there to steal from
34

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:42:57
Gordon with his snout in the trough.

Could Gordon Brown be the worst Primeminister the UK has ever had? lets have a vote or better still a general election after this
35

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:43:26
Using taxpayers money to hide your crimes against the taxpayers Gordon - that's clever
36

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:44:58
Michael Martin/Gordon brown/Wendy Alexander/Henry McLeish treat us like we are dirt.

They have taken politics to a whole new level here. Contempt for rules and worse that that, common decency.
37

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:46:00
"The House of Commons has already admitted destroying records, including those of expenses claimed by Tony Blair, after receiving Freedom of Information requests.

It claims that it is taking legal action - funded by the taxpayer - to prevent the addresses of MPs becoming public."

Given where we all know where they live anyway seems a bit farfetched does it not.

38

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:46:54
"Conservative sources alleged that they had been told that there may have been "a mistake" made in Mr Brown's expense claims"
39

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:47:07
Resign in disgrace Brown
40

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 04:47:31
The Labour party are no better than common criminals
41

FrancesP,

26/03/2008 04:49:37
#1. AM2 - "only 24% of people in Scotland said that they don’t also consider themselves to be British". We've had this argument before, but don't you think an even greater figure in Norway or Sweden would also consider themselves to be 'Scandinavian' or 'Nordic'? Such a finding would not in any way indicate a wish to give up their own countries' national independence.

More generally, the next time you present us with a barrage of poll findings, could you perhaps give us a link or else provide us with the full figures as they were originally published, because I've noticed a persistent tendency for you to lump together different figures in a way that conveniently suits your case. Needless to say, you also tend to gloss over the many, many findings that are less helpful from a unionist perspective.

Finally, did you notice that all three opposition leaders on Newsnight virtually ruled out a referendum on the commission's proposals? Weren't you telling us all a few weeks ago that would be completely unthinkable? It seems like the SNP are the only true democrats after all.
42

Former Unionist,

Fife 26/03/2008 05:03:21
After reading the Telegraph article I am now finished with the Labour party and will support the move towards independence.

I grew up in a mining village and voted with what I thought were the right intentions to help those at the bottom of the pile to a better existence.

Clearly with the lack of social mobility even under the Labour party, the wickedness in exploiting expenses even at Priministerial level, you do begin to understand why Scotland continues to be the poor and sick man of Europe.

I hope other's follow suit. You can't trust politicians if they feel immune and use the States money to hide their greed. They have taken away the trust of me and I hope many others.

43

Former Unionist,

26/03/2008 05:08:03
I never thought I would see the day a Labour Primeminister would claim 55k for a house he got for free, at the expense of families who work God knows how many hours for the minimum wage only to fund his greed.

You couldn't have scripted a better way to bring down a PM.

Even the Tories would not do this and it looks like David Cameron, out of all the leaders, has acted with the greatest integrity. That does surprise me.
44

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 05:18:05
"But there are major difficulties in this field. If Sir Kenneth decides that all Scottish tax revenues should be assigned, then what happens to North Sea oil revenue? If the majority of these receipts are assigned to Scotland, wouldn't that leave the Treasury short of cash?"

Finally Hamish has come clean on the fact that the UK has been supporting itself on the back of Scottish Revenue. Are we finally seeing the end of the Unionist lie that Scotland can't support itself?
45

Jonathan,

UAE 26/03/2008 05:22:53
Why would any transparent government not want the issues debated in public and decisions made on merit and voting power? If the political ground in Scotland has shifted perhaps it was put into reverse yesterday.

46

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 05:28:58
Galactic

Once again you display, for all to see, your introverted world view.

Somoene who has met a partner from another country cannot go and live with them in that country or they have 'abandoned' the country of their birth?

I know that Americans have a rather narrow world view as your postings always show (your either with us or against us) :-

China = evil

UK = good

Scotland = bad

Alex Salmond = the devil

A multi issue election = a single issue referendum

Australia = Switzerland's neighbour

You are a very bad ambassador for your country which is, thankfully, not completely habited by fools.

Look up 'pluralism' in the dictionary. Your rhetoric about me is completely at odds with your high and mighty attitude towards Scottish self expression.

Be gone troll

47

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 05:31:08
"The scope here is limited by European regulations which forbid variations to certain taxes, such as business taxes, within a member state."

Another great argument why Independance is the best option going forward. Their is nothing like a Unionist thinking out loud to strenghten the argument for Independance. Thanks again Hamish.
48

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 05:31:31
#45 Kampung

I agree, that lie has been debunked.

Most recently in The Herald and by Oxford University I believe.

Ask AM2 for the links.
49

,

26/03/2008 05:33:19
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
50

Champion Haggis Slayer of Fife,

It will never happen 26/03/2008 05:44:49
Independance is a myth. The Scots don't have the guts to follow it through.
51

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 05:53:10
Galactic Hemeroid.

"People who abandon their land of birth like U, where they were raised and educated, have show no respect, and have no gratitude for their ancestors."

You never cease to amaze with your level of ignorance, the entire population of the US are either immigrants or the descendants of immigrants. I know many Americans and I can honestly say that I never met one as stupid as you. Please stop talking about America, you create the false impression that everybody in America is as stupid as you.
52

The Tin Man,

Over the Rainbow 26/03/2008 06:24:42
#29 Ian Paisley (RIP)

So, do you want the Edinburgh gov. to get all N. Sea oil production taxation from the line north of the Tweed, and you still want Scotland to get a share of, say, BP & Shell's corporation tax (companies registered in England, not Scotland)?
53

terry osser,

morden 26/03/2008 06:31:45
and mr bean doubled income tax for low paid workers from 10-20%
54

,

26/03/2008 06:37:35
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
55

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 26/03/2008 06:41:46
Getting back to the topic: I hope that a federal structure is recommended. It is such an obvious solution.

(As obvious as a Forth transport and flood causeway upstream of Rosyth; or supplying all drugs only through self financing NHS clinics).
56

Gregorf,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 06:44:26
I want all tax taken 'ring fenced' that are produced from the area that is determined by the law of the sea to have been exploited from Scottish territorial waters hence the metering point at either refineries in Scotland or elsewhere. This is the way it is calculated to see how much oil has been produced.

Heres a question? Why are BP etc HQ'ed in London and not in the area of the UK where they are most active. Why is the petroleum exchange in London? Why doesn't Scotland entice HQ's away from London on a tax benefit system - forgot we are not allowed to compete with London, Luxembourg, Ireland, etc etc etc, so we don't even get the higher skilled jobs relating to oil like law, accounting etc etc

Given the fact we are 1 of 4 native speaking English countries, I do find it strange that Luxembourg is home to the hedge funds and other higher benefit and skilled businesses where Scotland gets the back office pish. Even Irelands financial hub is made up of higher skilled finacial jobs.

Like I say, if you sub contract out your economy don't expect much in return apart from the flotsam
57

Gregorf,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 06:54:34
Brown caught taking from the poor to give to himself now he's using the poors money to help hide the fact.

Gordon please say that you didn't claim 55k for a second home when the taxpayer already gave you a free one?

Why were Tony Blair's records destroyed when a Freedom of Information request was made?

The people demand an answer!
58

inoui,

Bangkok 26/03/2008 06:58:27
Like pulling teeth! Get on with the job.
59

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 07:00:47
Galactic Imbecile

Are you under the impression that everybody who immigrated to the US prior to 1960 was fleeing war and famine? Though that may be true for as small minority the vast bulk emigrated for economic reasons.

Since by your logic all immigrants are traitors, then Traitors Day must be an American Public Holiday. How do you celebrate it? Do you all get together and burn the flags of the countries your ancestors came from?
60

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

Yes Gordon 26/03/2008 07:02:10
why the 55k and Tony's records being destroyed?

Please explain in full

No wonder Wendy is such a close mate of the Primeministers.

You work hard every week for the little you get then have it taxed by stealth so that these crooks can rip you off even more.

The electorate demand transparency or your resignation.

I will tell my children how the Labour party were the enemy of the working class as they systematically lied, cheated and stole from the working man.
61

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 07:06:15
#56
You seem to be under the impression that a Federal System is some sort of panacea that will end peoples desire for Scottish Indepenance.

Canada has a Federal System but it has not stopped people in Quebec pushing for Independance.
62

Bob Christie,

26/03/2008 07:06:32
I wish to place on record my grateful thanks to the LabToryLib Party for their initiative in commencing this review.

As an SNP supporter, this London-led review will be seen historically as an important milestone on our (now short) journey to independence.
63

,

26/03/2008 07:13:24
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
64

Very Rev Ian Paisley,

26/03/2008 07:13:29
63

Well said Bob.

I would also like to salute their stupidi*y
65

,

26/03/2008 07:18:08
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
66

danielrober,

26/03/2008 07:20:22
I hope this effort concentrates on JOBS, JOBS and JOBS.

I know it's very boring but that is what Scotland really needs. New careers, as well a 'pay the rent jobs' need to be generated and kept in Scotland.

Law, Taxes, Scotland, UK, EU etc, etc don't mean any thing if we can't keep some of the jobs generated with in the economy. We should cut back a little on been the good what ever and readdress our bilateral trade agreements.

People need JOBS.
67

eric,

Lothian 26/03/2008 07:21:13
If one scratched the surface of AM2s % and statistics,You would see the real picture.
Most of my family on Both sides of the Border
thought Scotland was safe in the Union,And held the veiw Labour were the only ones to vote for because generations before them always voted them.Then i scratched the surface only to find the ones in Scotland voted SNP and the ones in England are now going to vote Tory.!
68

danielrober,

26/03/2008 07:32:35
# GalacticCannibal,Murrieta, CA.

Good morning.

I'm a huge fan of the USA and your go get it culture. But the UK is a little different. If your good at what you do there is a lot of social pressure to move, next village, next town, London or outside the country. Over the years, then centuries this has expanded to create a massive expat culture.

What we don't have is a return culture. Thats the problem. The SNP, Liberal and Labour party do not 'really like' people coming back. It makes them uncomfortable. The Conservatives on the other do 'don't mind' people coming back, or even just super commute.

So many people who leave are not abanonding ship mearly, going on a walk about.

P.S alway love your comments and yes we do get the politicans we voted for.
69

morris,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 07:32:59
Devolution Mk I did not satisfy the aspirations of the people,and neither will this latest Mk II concoction.
Its all designed to delay independence and get the oil revenues safely into Westminster and you my fellow scots are off your heads for allowing it.

It will be less devolution than before ,removing the powers which allow objection to Scotland being used as a nuclear power generation facility,nuclear dump and home of Trident.
Its a case of mind over matter,Westminster disnae mind and you dinnae matter!
Oil out Nuclear sh you know what in .
Its no more than you deserve of course.
STUPID DOES AS STUPID IS
70

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 07:35:14
#68 Eric

I hope the dastardly Scottish side of your family are hanging their heads in shame for even thinking of voting SNP.

Are you planning never to talk with your English rellies?

Do they think you are a bunch of haggis munching 'seperatists'

I do of course say those things in jest but some unionists would suggest that you must HATE your English relations!!, they say the SNP is all about hating our neighbours, they cannot understand that a schism has not appeared in your family. They hate people like you as you simply state a reasoned position, no hate, no dislike, no lack of intelligence.

We must fight their blatant twisting with the truth. Everytime they wheel out the 'SNP hates England' line I suggest those of us who support the SNP and have friendly relations with our neighbours (98% of all nationalists that I have met) throw it straight back at them.

I AM AN SNP SUPPORTER AND HAVE MANY ENGLISH FRIENDS, THE ENGLISH ARE NOT OUR ENEMY BUT THE UNIONISTS AND THEIR LACKIES, DO NOT DARE TO MISREPRESENT MY VIEWS.
71

Brian M,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 07:36:42
It's been stated that Sir Kenneth will not be paid for chairing this best wee committee in the world, I wonder if he will get 'expenses' and allowances instead
72

eric,

26/03/2008 07:41:12
71 True.
73

morris,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 07:43:30
72
I would think so,and everybody in the political arena knows that salaries/fees are chicken feed compared to expenses !
We have MEPs who travel to Brussels/Strasbourg for less than some Labour Mps claim from Westminster!

Rest assured the Prof will be well paid for his services. Thats why we are told he wont be!
74

Helmut Smegma,

Edinburgh. 26/03/2008 07:43:43
#18 - I bet youu`re an Aberdeen F.C.supporter?
75

morris,

edinburgh 26/03/2008 07:45:22
71
G' Day Dougie and absolutely correct of course. Keep up the Good work !
76

Phil C,

26/03/2008 07:45:52
We don't need a review, or a commission or any more wasteful hot air being spent discussing the union. Decades of misrule and abuse by the London unionist parties, supported by their egocentric Scottish representatives mainly from Labour, have shown that the only positive option is independence.

Brown and his dribbling chums will continue to procrastinate. The more we hear from them, the more people want to break from Westminster. Someone should tell them, 'when you're in a hole, stop digging!'

We who care about the future of our nation must continue to build on the ever-growing number who's eyes are being opened to the huge possibilities and underused resources available in Scotland- particularly it's downtrodden people.

AM2s arguments and usual silly figures about being British are just irrelevant claptrap. Of course we're British. We can still be British (geographically) after independence. In the main, we are not anti-English, just pro-Scottish.
77

bully wee alba,

Edinburgh 26/03/2008 07:46:42

#1 Writes:-
“Scotland’s position within the United Kingdom is, I think, perfectly secure.”

That will be why you spend so much time and effort on here trying to convince others of the security of your views?

For someone apparently so convinced by the power of your own arguments, you curiously appear to feel the need to repeat the same points ad nauseum.

It appears to me that the individual you are striving the most to convince that your beloved Union is in no danger…………………….is yourself.


1 year ago no Unionist party had any appetite for a review of the powers of the Scottish Parliament. Now they are all falling over themselves in an attempt to set up a vehicle in order to increase the powers of the Parliament.

They told us “devolution will kill the SNP stone dead”, now they are saying, “increased powers will kill the SNP government stone dead”.

Dream on!

Drip, drip, drip,…………………….
78

Drum Major,

Brisbane, Australia 26/03/2008 07:49:17
It i9s obvious to anuone outside the UK to see that there is a screaming need for a British parliament seperate from an English parliament.
79

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 07:50:24
#69 Daniel

You are being a little generous with your time for Galactic.

I would hope that the SNP view the ex-pat community as a valuable resource, if I could expand a little:-

I am 35 years old, I have a wife and three kids, I am liquid - I run my own company, I have been away from Scotland for 10 years because my wife is an Aussie.

I have never considered moving back to Scotland as we have 3 children under 5. If I did not have children I would be back in Scotland.

The vast majority of ex-pats I know under 40 are not economic or lifestyle migrants but have a partner who hails from here.

We choose to live here because of the family tie, this is coupled with the opportunities available here which haven't existed historically in Scotland, however things are changing in Scotland and that excites me and other ex-pats.

The SNP should view us a source of experience and capital. In a changing global world Scotland's greatest export could become a very profitable import.

Your walkabout analogy is spot on.

As a side note:- my cousin in Edinburgh is married to an Australian. She has not, to my knowledge, ever been labelled in any negative way by other Aussies.

80

Dougie Douglas,

Brisbane 26/03/2008 07:51:40
#76 evening Morris - thank you
81

KampungHighlander,

Jakarta 26/03/2008 07:51:51
#53

Since BP and Shell operate globally through incorporated subsidiaries in the countries where they have operations they would probably chose to set up seperate subsidiaries for Scotland. If however the Scottish Government was able to make a strong economic case of why they would be advantaged by moving their corporate presence to Edinburgh, Aberdeen or Glasgow, then I think they would give it serious consideration.
Companies loyalties are to balance sheets and shareholders not effemeral notions like Union.
82

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 26/03/2008 07:55:32
If a federal option is seriously considered then this study is bogus.

SNP don't need Westminster permission to stage an indicative referendum. The reason it doesn't must because it knows it would lose.