The Scottish Government

'Who needs democracy?'

The Queen's speech made no mention of electoral reform.

Not even a reference to PM Brown's previous announcement that Labour will offer a referendum on the Alternative vote (AV) in its next manifesto.

To this a spokesman for the Electoral Reform Society had this to say:

"Today Gordon Brown spoke of the 'change we choose'. What he meant was the change he chose.."

(Lord Hailsham, the then Lord Chancellor, spoke thus, in his Richard Dimblebey lecture of 1976 "...To begin with there has been a continuous enlargement of the scale and range of government itself...and a change in the relative influence of the different elements in government, so as to place all effective powers in the hands of one of them (the Prime Minister) ...the checks and balances, which in practice use to prevent abuse, have now disappeared") see #11 'FATHER OF A NATION' (...Scotland performs)

"The Alternative Vote (AV) would be a very minor reform - it would not get rid of safe seats or make elections competitive everywhere, it would not guarantee a more representative (westminster) parliament or one better able to hold the (westminster) government to account, and it will do little to change the nature of (westminster) politics.....With the expenses scandal and revelations over MPs' second incomes, we need a radical option that would restore faith and confidence in (westminster) politics"

With independence Scotland gets a parliament fit for the twenty-first century - but until the union that binds us to England is dissolved we remain shackled to the past.

see #672 (Donald Dewar's vision...etc).

48. Ken - Perth

"... such as fishing quotas".

Scotland, with a large length of coastline and coastal waters in relation to its land mass is more dependent on fishing for a substantial part of its economy than Luxembourg for instance with no coastline, and therefore Scotland should have a far higher proportion of the overall EU quota than many if not all other EU countries.

I guess the idea is that Scotland can negotiate this better on its own as part of its whole economical package, than as just a part of Britain which has a lower dependency as a whole.

Certainly makes sense to me.

48

Ken I think you are being a little naive if think the UK does not on occasion "ignore Scotland in its dealings".

The UK is a supposed partnership with England the largest "shareholder" , therefore in each and every decision or deal their interests are to the front.

It is very simple with our current Westminster leaders to busy looking for ways to increase there earnings or look for loop holes in there expenses claims it is about time the people of Scotland had a party to put Scotland at the forefront of all "dealings".

In respect of your point about Europe, Independence would remove the barrier that our senior civil servants having to go cap in hand to Westminster prior to any dealings with our European counterparts.
Again very simple, I want people to negotiate on the behalf of Scotland not spend there efforts and our money "having substantial amount of conversation with Westminster"

'The future is not ours , it belongs to our children.'

Arlene phillips, well known as a judge on the BBC One programme 'Strictly come Dancing', in an interview with Kirsty Young on Radio Four's 'Desert Island discs', spoke of how her mother died of hodgkin's desease at the early age of forty.

She remarked that the hospital in Manchester where her mother was treated was, at the time, experiencing a surge in the number of cases of the desease.

We now know that it was less than coincidental that the surge followed soon after the world's first nuclear disaster at Calder Hall nuclear power plant, now called Sellafield.

The fire at the plant in 1957 caused a radioactive cloud to be released via one of its chimneys, which drifted in a south easterly direction towards the cities of north England.

The legacy of that disastrous fire is embodied in one of the chimneys which to this day remains sealed from the outside world.

Of our neighbours, the Norwegians have been the most vocal in their concerns at the prospect of another release of radioactive material from the site.

Ignored by the Westminster government they have conducted a study on a hypothetical accident at Sellafield - And they are not happy.

The report concludes: 'The Norwegian authorities have repeatedly expressed their serious concern about security and safety at Sellafield and the liquid radioactive waste stored there. This report shows that their concern is justified, and it is important to strengthen the dialogue with the British authorities to ensure that the risk level is reduced as rapidly as possible.'

For too many years Scotland was without an independent voice. Reduced to mere bystanders, helpless to influence events happening within its own borders.

Now that we have a Scottish parliament whose views on the need for additional nuclear power generation are at variance to those of the Westminster parliament, it is important that these views be expressed independently at the Copenhagen Climate Change Conference.

But also to argue the case for the alternatives (wind,wave and tidal) whose impact on the environment are benign rather than toxic as is the case for nuclear generation.

for further reading see #603,618 (your voice heard).
#25

I picked this out of one of the documents here:

"In other areas, Scotland's position is weakened by our reliance on the UK. In Europe, for example, critically important Scottish issues such as fishing quotas, agricultural subsidies and stewardship of our natural resources, are often damaged by a UK Government position which fails to recognise these unique Scottish elements." - Michael Russell MSP Minister for Culture, External Affairs and THE Constitution

Now in my opinion UK policy on food production in EU is pretty good, only wish they would get tougher on fisherman who are dangerously overfishing our seas and whinge that they cant make a living (well that’s what happens when you refuse to make timely cut-backs and argue over everything designed to save a long-term future for your industry. SNP would simply accelerate this process of complete fishery annihilation with everything coming from a fish farm. As regards Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) UK govt. has consistently argued against price mechanisms that artificially inflate prices and dumping of excess produce in the third world. UK has always supported a cheap food policy against the unfair multiplication of taxes we pay on food at the expense of poorest in society to subsidise a tiny minority of the population who farm in uneconomically sized units. UK has placed emphasis on transfers being determined on other basis than artificial price mechanisms, have secured moves away from butter mountains, and wine lakes, and has secured a review of CAP that will make uncomfortable reading for French and Bavarian farmers.

Is this SNP Minister suggesting either it could get the EU to move further and faster in this direction on its own, or is it saying that it supports an unreformed CAP, a highly regressive form of taxation that perpetuates inequality on access to the most basic items all of us require to satisfy a tiny minority of individuals in rural constituencies?

What is the unique Scottish element in Fishing and Agriculture? And how does the UK ignore Scotland in its dealings, I am pretty sure the senior civil servant in charge fisheries in Scotland has a substantial amount of conversation with Westminster and European negotiation counterparts, or do they not? I wish Michael Russell was here to tell me and explain if this is the case or not as he is apparently far more informed about some kind of block on communication between north and south of the border than I am.

Dave 46.

Planning is already a Scotland determined thing, with Scottish Govt. able to call in planning applications for various reasons. Having an independent Scotland would not make an iota of difference.

I think I would be a bit worried about a giant coal fired power-station, you will not get much sympathy if the Scottish Exec call it in as you do not have enough strong SNP candidates in Ayrshire from what I know. You know why there is no carbon capture requirement, because it has not been invented yet!

Personally do not know what all the fuss about wind turbines is, every town used to have a windmill in the olden days, and I think they look cool. Anybody who looks at the fields in this country and suggests that this is not already an industrial commercial utilisation of space and is somehow natural is significantly deluded. Wish people would stop objecting to things like windmills, or else it really does make the whole energy rich nation statements a bit ridiculous esp if we need to opt for very expensive offshore wind.

45. Ian Innes - Moray and 44.
Ken - Perth

In Ayrshire, last minute and without local consultation, a new coal fired power station at Hunterston has been added to NPF2 (National Planning Framework for Scotland 2). In theory this new station is supposed to have Carbon Capture and storage, but this is apparently NOT to be a condition of building - so all we have is vague and useless promises (a pocket full of mumbles).

So, already having a dirty and 24 hour noisy coal importing plant at Fairlie, we can look forward to dirt, stink, soot and health problems even more in North Ayrshire, despite very strong local oppostion (which would by the way welcome a new nuclear power station). This is to satisfy Holyrood.

Down the centre of Scotland we are now, despite many protests, to have our scenery ruined by huge pylons to carry electricity. This is to satisfy demands from England and overseas, and effectively to satisfy Westminster, not us.

Despite strong local opposition, Trump is going ahead with a development involving compulsory purchase, a development which is not infrastructural or even economically neccessary for Scotland. Local overruled by national, in this case Holyrood.

Green energy is good, but to counter the drawbacks (ruined coastline and other scenery, lost tourism and dare I say, enjoyment by us inhabitants of our own homes and surroundings), we have to have very strong benefits - particularly local.

All the UK negotiating power in the EU is useless to us in Scotland, if the benefit is to be preceived as being UK rather than Scottish. Holyrood overruled by Westminster.

With Indpendence, at least that hurdle is removed as Scottish interests can be truly looked after.

Within Scotland - local overruled by Holyrood - well, Holyrood is smaller and will have to more accountable to us in North Ayrshire, than Westmonster would ever be.

'Land of brown heath and shaggy wood, land of the mountain and the flood.'

And while we have tamed some of the torrents to provide hydro-electric power there is still more to be done.

Add Wind, Wave and Tidal power and we have the makings of a second industrial revolution.

Thirty thousand jobs, it is estimated could be created.

And yet Westminster seems determined to prevent the development of its full potential.

Why?

In the battle to save the planet from the worst effects of global warming there is no room for petty politics.

The EU commission must insist that westminster unblocks the log jam it has created by penalising the generators of green energy at the margins of the country.

see #34 'The emperor has no clothes and #43.

42 - Dave

I guess my point is that the UK as whole say on climate control is better positioned to prevent other nations free-riding on our environmental controls and putting UK (inc Scottish) jobs at risk because we have morally accepted that we need to do something about it domestically. As regards China, nobody is portraying them as villains as far as I am aware however given that they account for a large portion of the worlds population it is ridiculous to ignore their climate impact as their rapid industrialisation is rapidly increasing their per head contribution to carbon emissions. I think most people are aware however that the US has in the past avoided placing curbs on carbon emissions and they are the biggest polluter, both nations are avoiding any suggestion that they would reduce emissions to Kyoto agreed levels but potentially 2005 levels for China this would appear to be valid given their relative stage in the process of industrialisation, but the US..... not so sure. This argument also fails to recognise that much of China’s explosive growth in emissions is generated by demand here.

I think in relation to incentivising China to find green alternatives to how the West powered its economic development is right and Scotland should be part of that, especially regards Scotland/China business relations but I think again the UK independently and as force to lobby EU (with its new and enhanced voting rights - Lisbon Treaty) is in a better position to create bigger and better incentives.

I do not think forcing your own views on other people is necessarily the best thing either, but when others are acting directly in contradiction to your interests, it is often useful to be able to influence others within a coalition to argue against and if desirable put a stop to a course of action. There are clearly degrees of influence and to usurp another nations sovereignty is not desirable, however if you are able to incentivise and win the theoretical and moral argument on issues this can be a catalyst for internal change within another nation, French Revolution might be an example of this although they attempted to force it on people across Europe it was not that but the power of ideas imported from abroad that made many of its central features common across Europe, US, and many other places around the world.

Your argument about the Transylvanian tiddleywinks team having a nuclear warhead, are you comparing the UK to a tiddleywink team or Scotland, hardly an argument that Scotland’s sheer insignificance deserves a separate space on the world stage as an independent nation. I would not take that view myself I simply believe we have a system of representative democracy that is adequate except maybe at a local level where city regions and other smaller units of government should be given more control not quite at the tiddleywink team level but enough to negate the requirement for an unresponsive Scottish Executive.

I refer to #35 the title of which is:

'THE EMPEROR HAS NO CLOTHES'

Given the unique position Scotland finds itself in, with its potential to make a significant contribution towards reducing carbon emissions, the EU Commision must insist that the Westminster government brings proposals to the Copenhagen Climate Conference outlining the steps it will take to remove the barriers which deter the development of that potential.

The clear right of any country, including Scotland, within the EU to develop its natural resources for the greater good of all citizens of the European Union must not be allowed to fall victim to internal petty party politics.