Here is the third in the series of excerpts from my pamphlet. Please e-mail member@neil100.freeserve.co.uk if you would like a copy of the full document.
On 12th May 1999 Winnie Ewing MSP "reconvened" the Scots Parliament which "had last met on the 25th day of March 1707". The old Scots Parliament differed from the new Parliament at Holyrood in two fundamental respects. Firstly, the old Parliament wasn’t elected on the basis of a universal franchise as the new Parliament is. Secondly, the old Parliament presided over a sovereign, independent Scotland, whereas the new Parliament is a devolved institution within the British state. The new Parliament, the first truly democratic Parliament in Scotland, needs to regain the status of the old one, as the independent voice of a sovereign Scottish state.
In practical terms, regaining independence means the transfer of all powers over the governance of Scotland, currently held at Westminster, to the Parliament which sits now at Holyrood. This Scottish Parliament would become politically and constitutionally independent of Westminster. This would enable the Scottish people to use these new powers to transform the economic and social map of their country internally, and take over responsibility for representing Scotland in our dealings with other countries, including the rest of the United Kingdom, and with international bodies such as the European Union and the United Nations.
Contrary to the scaremongering of British unionist politicians, regaining our constitutional and political independence doesn’t mean rupturing the social union between Scotland and the rest of the United Kingdom. Scotland, with the Queen as Head of State, would, like the re-shaped UK, Canada and New Zealand, be a member of the Commonwealth with all that implies for continuity of the links that exist in this unique family of nations.
As members of the European Union, there would continue to be free movement of people and trade in goods, services and capital between a self-governing Scotland and the other parts of the United Kingdom. Visiting or communicating with friends, relatives and business associates in England, Wales or Northern Ireland would be as easy as it is today.
In addition to Commonwealth links we can look to further develop the Council of the British Isles. In a similar fashion to the way the Nordic Council services the Scandinavian countries (Norway, Denmark, Finland, Iceland, Sweden and the autonomous territories of the Faroe and Aland Islands) so the Council of the British Isles would be the mechanism through which an independent Scotland, the Republic of Ireland and Westminster would co-operate in areas of policy where it is in their joint interests to do so. Thus a British dimension to policy would be maintained but, unlike the current constitutional arrangement, the Scottish Government would have equal status to the Republic of Ireland and the Westminster Government and wouldn’t be a subservient bystander.
Like the rest of the UK, Scotland would also remain part of the European Union, equal in status to the other 27 member states and not, as at present, a weak province of one of those states. Thus we would remain part of an economic union which provided a home market with a total population of nearly 500 million people where there would be free movement of people, goods and services and capital.
To paint modern day self-government as a lurch back into an old fashioned, 19th century concept of separatism and isolationism, as unionist politicians do, is deliberately misleading. Indeed, one of the core arguments for Scottish independence is that it would allow Scotland to participate in the decision-making counsels of Europe and the wider world directly without having to play second fiddle to Westminster and Whitehall. Far from becoming isolated and separatist, we would be much more involved in dealing directly with other countries, participating positively in a wide range of international and intergovernmental institutions in ways which aren’t possible, as a part of the British state.
Like every other nation state, we would play our part in the senior counsels of the European Union, be a full member of the United Nations, the World Trade Organisation and a plethora of other international bodies. An independent Scottish Parliament would appoint its own representatives to these organisations, would make its own financial contribution to them and would cast its votes as it saw fit, on behalf of the Scottish people. We would aspire to emulate small nations like Norway which has played a key role as peacemaker in international affairs. We would aspire to live up to our long-standing international reputation, best summed up by Winston Churchill who said that the Scots were second only to the Greeks in terms of our contribution to civilisation down the ages.
Along with the power that goes with self-governance comes responsibility. The Scottish people are adults and are able to exercise responsibility. They recognise that increasingly, decisions on domestic policy often have an international dimension and vice versa. Examples of these stretch across nearly every department of government. Economic policies would have to be realistic, taking account of the opportunities and the constraints of living in a global economy. Taxation policy would have to recognise the consequences arising from the international mobility of both capital and labour. More than ever, environmental policies would have to be viewed in terms of their impact, not just on our immediate neighbours, but also on worldwide phenomena like climate change. We would have to play our part in the struggle against international terrorism. Our defence policies would have to be devised and designed within the framework of the realpolitik of international security. As a nation we want to contribute to international peacekeeping through the United Nations. Also, we need and want to make a much greater contribution to international aid. Only self-government enables us to meet these responsibilities.
Self-governance is a relative, not an absolute concept. For example, Scotland would be more independent than most other European nations in terms of our oil and gas supplies, because of the resources still under the North Sea. Indeed, that would be true for our energy supplies generally, because we have been so well-endowed with natural resources. In other respects, such as the percentage of our GDP we rely on for foreign trade, other countries may be more independent than Scotland.
Another example of the relativity of self-governance is the Republic of Ireland. It became more independent of the UK economically after both countries entered the EU; Irish trade is not as dependent on its UK markets as it used to be. That reduced dependency has enhanced the Republic’s political independence from Britain. Similarly on defence matters, Canada, for example, is much less independent of the USA than most countries in South America.
In the balance between self-government and interdependence in the global community, Scotland’s ability to forge policies of national interest will be enhanced by having an independent parliament and government.
Friday 23 March 2007
Thursday 22 March 2007
The realities of governance today
Here is the second in the series of excerpts from my pamphlet. As before, if you would like a full copy then please e-mail me at member@neil100.freeserve.co.uk
British unionist politicians cannot conceive an independent role for modern Scotland. They would prefer that we continue to live in our own kailyard, taking our main orders from London, allowing them to play a Westminster game which is increasingly out of touch with the aspirations of modern Scotland. Be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat they believe in the myth that Britain is still a major power of the first rank. They cannot face the reality that Britain no longer has an empire, Britannia no longer rules the waves and the retention of a few dangerous nuclear warheads no longer delivers the international prestige we had in bygone days.
The huge resource burdens which the drive for international prestige has placed on Britain for the last 60 years is one of the main reasons the British economy became so uncompetitive. While we were wasting billions to satisfy the Westminster appetite for prestige, our industrial competitors were dedicating their resources to economic growth, as a result of which, ironically many of them ended up with far greater international prestige and clout than Britain.
Despite the lessons of the last 60 years, in that Britain no longer has the economic wherewithal to play the role of world policeman, Westminster politicians of the unionist parties continue to refuse to face the realities of the modern world. They cling to the outmoded notion that Britain is still a great power. Consequently, they go on wasting billions of pounds on useless nuclear weaponry and become immersed in military adventures of dubious benefit to Britain, let alone to mankind.
Why should Scotland continue to be part of this dangerous charade? Why should we be forced into illegal and immoral wars we don’t support, like the ill advised invasion of Iraq? Why should we be forced to harbour nuclear weapons in Scottish waters when we do not need them?
It’s not just in the field of foreign and defence policy that Scotland differs from Westminster. There are many other examples where our values and interests diverge, including energy, pension reform, immigration and asylum policies, privatisation, our attitude to poverty and welfare reform, and so on.
A practical example of Scotland’s interests differing markedly from those England, is in relation to the draft EU Constitution, which the Prime Minister was ready to recommend for approval in a UK referendum, had it not been scuppered by the French and the Dutch.
Both Labour and Liberal Democrats supported the draft European Constitution even although parts of it would have relegated the Scottish Parliament to something akin to the Parish Council the Prime Minister previously described. Under the draft Constitution, the so-called subsidiarity mechanism to involve national parliaments more closely in the decision-making process would have left the House of Lords with more say with the EU over devolved matters than the Scottish Parliament, which would have had none. The power to send measures back to the Commission for reconsideration would not apply to the Scottish Parliament, even when related to matters within its “control”.
The same draft Constitution took no account of Scotland’s distinct legal system and would have cemented control over our natural resources in such a way that land-locked nations would continue to have a say over Scotland’s fishing industry, for example, while the Scottish Parliament would have had none. Furthermore the provisions in the draft Constitution for shared competency over energy policy would have been totally unacceptable to any Scottish government protecting a vital national interest.
More importantly, because an independent Scotland would have been able to veto the draft Constitution, many of the provisions referred to above would never have seen the light of day for that very reason. For example, we would have been able to protect our energy and fishing industries and to ensure that all decisions about their futures were taken in Edinburgh, not London or Brussels. That’s a very good example of how and why those who argue that independence has little or no relevance to the economic and social condition of Scotland are talking nonsense.
The near miss over the draft Constitution, which is to be re-visited by the EU soon, is a classic example of how self-governance and only self-governance can give Scotland the level of power and influence we need to promote and protect our own vital national interests.
These are not minor issues. They matter a great deal. If Scotland’s interests and priorities continue to be ignored, or subjugated by the will of Westminster and Brussels, then Scotland is destined to remain a provincial backwater with little prospect of being able to achieve its real potential as a nation.
The case for Scotland remaining in Westminster is a weak one. The current constitutional arrangements, whereby we are ruled as part of the British state, bring Scotland neither peace nor prosperity. Yet, after devolution, neither are the current constitutional arrangements fair or satisfactory to the English. It’s unacceptable to them that MPs from Scotland determine policy for education and health in England, but English MPs have no say over these areas of policy for Scotland, the so-called West Lothian Question.
Despite the efforts of successive politicians to solve this conundrum, the truth is that there isn’t a unionist solution. In a Parliament which is so dominated by one constituent part, England, it is impossible to solve the West Lothian Question in a way which is acceptable to both the English and the Scots. If the Tory proposal to have “English Bills” which only English MPs can vote on is adopted how could any future Government with an overall majority in the House of Commons, but without a majority of English members, implement its policies? There is no sensible answer to that question.
British unionist politicians cannot conceive an independent role for modern Scotland. They would prefer that we continue to live in our own kailyard, taking our main orders from London, allowing them to play a Westminster game which is increasingly out of touch with the aspirations of modern Scotland. Be they Conservative, Labour or Liberal Democrat they believe in the myth that Britain is still a major power of the first rank. They cannot face the reality that Britain no longer has an empire, Britannia no longer rules the waves and the retention of a few dangerous nuclear warheads no longer delivers the international prestige we had in bygone days.
The huge resource burdens which the drive for international prestige has placed on Britain for the last 60 years is one of the main reasons the British economy became so uncompetitive. While we were wasting billions to satisfy the Westminster appetite for prestige, our industrial competitors were dedicating their resources to economic growth, as a result of which, ironically many of them ended up with far greater international prestige and clout than Britain.
Despite the lessons of the last 60 years, in that Britain no longer has the economic wherewithal to play the role of world policeman, Westminster politicians of the unionist parties continue to refuse to face the realities of the modern world. They cling to the outmoded notion that Britain is still a great power. Consequently, they go on wasting billions of pounds on useless nuclear weaponry and become immersed in military adventures of dubious benefit to Britain, let alone to mankind.
Why should Scotland continue to be part of this dangerous charade? Why should we be forced into illegal and immoral wars we don’t support, like the ill advised invasion of Iraq? Why should we be forced to harbour nuclear weapons in Scottish waters when we do not need them?
It’s not just in the field of foreign and defence policy that Scotland differs from Westminster. There are many other examples where our values and interests diverge, including energy, pension reform, immigration and asylum policies, privatisation, our attitude to poverty and welfare reform, and so on.
A practical example of Scotland’s interests differing markedly from those England, is in relation to the draft EU Constitution, which the Prime Minister was ready to recommend for approval in a UK referendum, had it not been scuppered by the French and the Dutch.
Both Labour and Liberal Democrats supported the draft European Constitution even although parts of it would have relegated the Scottish Parliament to something akin to the Parish Council the Prime Minister previously described. Under the draft Constitution, the so-called subsidiarity mechanism to involve national parliaments more closely in the decision-making process would have left the House of Lords with more say with the EU over devolved matters than the Scottish Parliament, which would have had none. The power to send measures back to the Commission for reconsideration would not apply to the Scottish Parliament, even when related to matters within its “control”.
The same draft Constitution took no account of Scotland’s distinct legal system and would have cemented control over our natural resources in such a way that land-locked nations would continue to have a say over Scotland’s fishing industry, for example, while the Scottish Parliament would have had none. Furthermore the provisions in the draft Constitution for shared competency over energy policy would have been totally unacceptable to any Scottish government protecting a vital national interest.
More importantly, because an independent Scotland would have been able to veto the draft Constitution, many of the provisions referred to above would never have seen the light of day for that very reason. For example, we would have been able to protect our energy and fishing industries and to ensure that all decisions about their futures were taken in Edinburgh, not London or Brussels. That’s a very good example of how and why those who argue that independence has little or no relevance to the economic and social condition of Scotland are talking nonsense.
The near miss over the draft Constitution, which is to be re-visited by the EU soon, is a classic example of how self-governance and only self-governance can give Scotland the level of power and influence we need to promote and protect our own vital national interests.
These are not minor issues. They matter a great deal. If Scotland’s interests and priorities continue to be ignored, or subjugated by the will of Westminster and Brussels, then Scotland is destined to remain a provincial backwater with little prospect of being able to achieve its real potential as a nation.
The case for Scotland remaining in Westminster is a weak one. The current constitutional arrangements, whereby we are ruled as part of the British state, bring Scotland neither peace nor prosperity. Yet, after devolution, neither are the current constitutional arrangements fair or satisfactory to the English. It’s unacceptable to them that MPs from Scotland determine policy for education and health in England, but English MPs have no say over these areas of policy for Scotland, the so-called West Lothian Question.
Despite the efforts of successive politicians to solve this conundrum, the truth is that there isn’t a unionist solution. In a Parliament which is so dominated by one constituent part, England, it is impossible to solve the West Lothian Question in a way which is acceptable to both the English and the Scots. If the Tory proposal to have “English Bills” which only English MPs can vote on is adopted how could any future Government with an overall majority in the House of Commons, but without a majority of English members, implement its policies? There is no sensible answer to that question.
Friday 16 March 2007
Interdependence and Globalisation
Recently I undertook the exercise of writing a brief pamphlet spelling out the need for independence for Scotland in the 21st Century and how we can get there, along with some measures that a Scottish Government must take to improve living standards in our country. I intend publishing selected extracts from that text here on my blog, and this is the first of them. If you would like a copy of the whole pamphlet then please e-mail me at member@neil100.freeserve.co.uk
Two major forces are at work in the world today. One is the greater interdependence between nations and the other is of more nations gaining their independence. These forces are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. As economies become more globalised, the need for small nations to exercise their independence increases rather than diminishes. They need to manage indigenous resources in ways they see fit to maximise their ability to carve niche markets within the global economy. Small nations are using their powers over corporate taxes to help them compete for global investment and to help their indigenous businesses prosper; examples of this are the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Finland and Sweden, all of which have populations of less than 10 million people.
As interdependence between nations increases, the way in which that interdependence is managed is also changing. Interdependence no longer requires the creation of super states, like in the 19th century when Germany and Italy were each forged into large states. Today, interdependence between countries is managed through the creation and development of inter-governmental and international institutions. The oil producing countries of the Middle East, large and small, co-operate on oil policy through OPEC. Regional trading blocs in North America, Europe and the Pacific Basin have been established to increase the flow of goods and services between their member states. Inter-dependence and co-operation on climate change is being managed through the Kyoto process.
The European Union now has a membership of 27 independent nation states, ranging from Luxembourg with a population of less than half a million, to Germany, with a population of 82.5 million. The EU is probably the most highly-developed institution in the world today for managing international inter-dependence and the challenges of globalisation.
Its member states participate in a confederal political and economic union in which they agree to transfer and pool their sovereignty in certain areas of policy where it is in their interests to do so. Thus, for example, the EU handles many aspects of trade policy on behalf of the 27 member states, acting as one. Similarly, the EU, through its Council of Ministers, Commission and Parliament, has responsibility for a wide range of policy areas including some aspects of taxation, employment law, industrial policy, regional policy, agriculture, fishing, the environment, fair trading rules within the single market and industrial co-operation in key sectors.
Within the EU, a balance is struck between the rights and responsibilities of the member states which retain their national sovereignty voluntarily while transferring responsibility for policy areas where there is mutual benefit. Independence for Scotland would simply mean Scotland participating in this arrangement as one of the nation state members of the EU.
Two major forces are at work in the world today. One is the greater interdependence between nations and the other is of more nations gaining their independence. These forces are neither contradictory nor mutually exclusive. As economies become more globalised, the need for small nations to exercise their independence increases rather than diminishes. They need to manage indigenous resources in ways they see fit to maximise their ability to carve niche markets within the global economy. Small nations are using their powers over corporate taxes to help them compete for global investment and to help their indigenous businesses prosper; examples of this are the three Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania as well as Finland and Sweden, all of which have populations of less than 10 million people.
As interdependence between nations increases, the way in which that interdependence is managed is also changing. Interdependence no longer requires the creation of super states, like in the 19th century when Germany and Italy were each forged into large states. Today, interdependence between countries is managed through the creation and development of inter-governmental and international institutions. The oil producing countries of the Middle East, large and small, co-operate on oil policy through OPEC. Regional trading blocs in North America, Europe and the Pacific Basin have been established to increase the flow of goods and services between their member states. Inter-dependence and co-operation on climate change is being managed through the Kyoto process.
The European Union now has a membership of 27 independent nation states, ranging from Luxembourg with a population of less than half a million, to Germany, with a population of 82.5 million. The EU is probably the most highly-developed institution in the world today for managing international inter-dependence and the challenges of globalisation.
Its member states participate in a confederal political and economic union in which they agree to transfer and pool their sovereignty in certain areas of policy where it is in their interests to do so. Thus, for example, the EU handles many aspects of trade policy on behalf of the 27 member states, acting as one. Similarly, the EU, through its Council of Ministers, Commission and Parliament, has responsibility for a wide range of policy areas including some aspects of taxation, employment law, industrial policy, regional policy, agriculture, fishing, the environment, fair trading rules within the single market and industrial co-operation in key sectors.
Within the EU, a balance is struck between the rights and responsibilities of the member states which retain their national sovereignty voluntarily while transferring responsibility for policy areas where there is mutual benefit. Independence for Scotland would simply mean Scotland participating in this arrangement as one of the nation state members of the EU.
Wednesday 14 March 2007
Welcome
Hello and welcome to my new blog site. I have chosen to set up this website to allow me to share my views on the latest developments in Scottish politics and society, and as a method of communicating with people in the Hamilton North and Bellshill seat which I will contest on behalf of the SNP in just fifty days time at the third Scottish Parliament election. Please feel free to leave comments at this site. It is important to me that the process of communication here is a two way street.
I hope you enjoy my musings between now and the election which I shall endeavour to post up here as regularly as I can.
I hope you enjoy my musings between now and the election which I shall endeavour to post up here as regularly as I can.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
