|
CAMPAIGNING FOR SCOTLAND
(Owned, Edited and Printed in Scotland since November
1926)
"Promoting all that is best in Scottish
Nationalism and all that is best in Scotland."
Content of the Flag in the Wind Web Site is the copyright of the Scots
Independent Newspaper.
[
Issue 350 - 16th February 2007] |

Compiled by Ian Goldie |
Lots of great information to
read and enjoy under our
Features Section:
Scots
Language | Scottish Food |
Dates in History |
Scot Wit and lots more
TWO OF MY
FAVOURITE SAYINGS
“There be some trees
that flourish not in the shade of other trees.”
To find out who said it, see at
the foot of this section.
“Ships are safe in
harbour, but that’s not what ships are made for.”
Both of these seem to me to have
meaning for Scotland, and indeed for any other small country close to a larger
neighbour.
We
know from the history of twentieth century Europe that small states that have
escaped from the dominance of larger states have done extremely well. We also
know that other small states that are still tied to larger states struggle to
keep up.
And, of course, if the Scots do not want to think for themselves, or act for
themselves or take responsibility for their own lives, then so be it. They can
continue to have decisions made for them in London and stagnate as a people.
They can continue to get their pocket money from down south. And they may be
safe – if they are properly looked after.
On the other hand, if they do decide to take responsibility for their own
affairs, then they can join all the other nations of Europe, discuss with them
as equals, contribute, as Scotland, to the discussions among the nations.
Of course, they will have to act and think for themselves – too many, it seems
at the moment, are too afraid to accept the challenge.
(The first saying was from Oliver Cromwell.)
HOW TO LOSE VOTES
I
haven’t seen much television lately, but other members of my family have, and
their viewing has given rise to much discussion in our family about how
different politicians come over on the box.
Not all of our SNP performers emerge covered in glory, I’m sorry to say.
Why?
Well, mostly, it seems, what really puts my family off (all of whom who are for
independence) has nothing to do with the basic message or facts or figures.
What they really dislike is behaviour that is mocking or taunting. They hate
the constant interruptions (mostly the result of very poor chairing of
discussions), arrogance, laughing while other people are making a point and even
just laughing “with the shoulders’.
So, without lying down to them, let our opponents have their say. Some of them
are very poor, and some are very arrogant. It does them no good either.
ARGUMENTS FOR
INDEPENDENCE (5)
I sometimes think that
the arguments for independence or for the Union are all to do with different
mindsets.
I believe that the basic mentalities or mindsets of
the Scots and the English are very different.
Take my English, Unionist friend Eric, again.
Recently,
I asked him if he would take the trouble to write down his arguments for the
Union and against Independence. He doesn’t have the time at the moment, but the
very suggestion gave rise to an interesting phone conversation.
Eric enjoys his idea of England, which is that of a really important world
power, having great influence among the nations, “punching above its weight”,
hosting Olympic Games and football World Cups (England, in Eric’s eyes, is a
really major world football power, and it is inexplicable that they have won the
World Cup only once!).
So naturally England must have its own seat at the UN, and so must retain – and
develop - its nuclear weapons. (England = Britain)
This
attitude can lead to some strange assumptions. For instance, Scotland ceases to
be a country and becomes merely a useful extra part of England – as Eric put it,
“Scotland and Wales are just appendages to Britain.” (Yes, Britain, he said,
but apologised later.)
And yet Eric can still not see that I want to belong to a country rather than an
appendage.
The Scottish mindset, I like to think, is rather that suited to a smaller
nation. I don’t particularly want to “punch above my weight” in international
affairs – I feel that that can lead to a dangerous arrogance.
I want to work with people of other nations to solve our mutual problems. I
don’t want to have any delusions of grandeur – a danger in itself, and another
danger when those delusions are frustrated.
Interestingly, on the emotional, subjective level, even Eric’s ideas of
ancient history and mine are very different. Eric enjoys the thought that his
ancestors were part of a great Roman Empire, bringing civilisation to the
barbarians. While I, on the other hand, like to think that my ancestors fighting
the brave fight for freedom against an arrogant Rome!
So there we have it. Two friends, who get on very well together, from different
nations, who see the world in totally different ways.
OUR NOBLE LORDS
PITCH FOR THE UNION
I have just been sent an
email with a link to the House of Lords “debate” that took place on 25 January
on the Union between Scotland and England.
Click on
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld200607/ldhansard/text/70125-0002.htm
I have just printed it all out – all 45 pages – as I reckon it is a good chance
to have the arguments for the union in one easy place. I haven’t had time to go
through it in detail yet. I reckon the interesting contributions will be the
first and second (Lords Forsyth and Maxton), from Lord Steel (column 1217), the
Duke of Montrose (column 1215), the Earl of Mar and Kellie (column 1227), Lord
lang of Monkton (column 1229), Lord Patten (1238), Lord Sewel (Column 1240),
Lord Sanderson of Bowden (column 1244), the Earl of Caithness (column 1251),
Lord Maclennan of Rogart (column 1254), Lord Strathclyde (column 1257), Lord
Falconer of Thoroton (column 1259).
At the end of it all, Lord Forsyth thanks their lordships for “a splendid
debate”. But in fact, there was no debate. In almost four hours, only one
voice was raised against the Union. Talk about being unrepresentative! Talk
about propaganda!
The Working Life of Linda
Fabiani MSP

Click here to read SNP MSP Linda Fabiani's working diary.
Wednesday 7 February 2007
IT’S TIME FOR REAL REFORM OF HOUSE OF LORDS
SNP Leader Alex Salmond MP has hit out at the 'nonsensical' proposals put
forward by Leader of the House, Jack Straw, on House of Lords Reform during
a statement in the House of Commons.
Mr
Salmond commented:
"These proposals from Jack Straw for a hybrid house are a hotchpotch of
nonsense; neither fish nor fowl.
"It seems that in the Leader of the House's discussions with the Tory and
Liberal Democrat parties, no one advanced the intellectually robust argument
that the Upper House should be abolished or alternatively moved to a fully
elected basis.
"It is extraordinary that in an atmosphere of public scepticism about the
systems of patronage which has brought this Government and in particular
this Prime Minister to the brink of total disgrace, that we should actually
be asked to consider a proposal that seriously suggests keeping 50% of Lords
appointed .
"The Leader of the House was also unable to answer some simple questions.
For example: Why continue to call a reformed House 'The House of Lords'?;
Why have guaranteed places for Church of England Bishops in a modernised
chamber as opposed to allowing representation of all faiths and
denominations?; Would the Honours (Prevention of Abuses) Act still apply if
appointments continue even after reform?
"Until there is a coherent response it seems unlikely that Jack Straw will
find the consensus he desires."
Sunday 11 February
SALMOND WELCOMES TOP ECONOMIST'S SUPPORT
PROF DAVID SIMPSON BACKS INDEPENDENCE
SNP Leader Alex Salmond MP today (Sunday) welcomed the support of eminent
economist Professor David Simpson, who has added his name to the growing
list of senior academics and business people who back the economic case for
Independence.
Writing in today's Sunday Times, Professor Simpson, who was the founding
Director of the Fraser of Allander Institute and was chief economic advisor
to Standard Life, set out the positive case for
Scottish Independence from an economic perspective. Professor Simpson also
dismissed Labour's scaremongering attacks on the economics of Independence.
Speaking today, Mr Salmond said:
"I welcome Professor Simpson's heavyweight analysis, and the positive case
he makes for the economic benefits of Independence. Professor Simpson's
academic and business expertise is second to none, and so his argument will
resonate throughout the business community in Scotland.
"The SNP are committed to a successful, wealthier Scotland, where we can
grow our economy and allow our businesses to flourish. That's why more and
more Scots believe that it's time for a fresh approach to moving our economy
forward that only the SNP can deliver."
The full text of Professor Simpson's article is as follows:
Independence for Growth
David Simpson
A growing number of people in Scotland today seem to share my view that if
the economy is to flourish so that we can escape from our culture of
dependence, that is most likely to be brought about by political
independence. Only a sovereign government can undertake the internal
arrangements and negotiate the international agreements necessary to serve
and protect Scotland's interests.
Much recent discussion on the economics of Scottish independence has centred
on the budgetary position in any one year, whether that be the Government's
own estimates, which look at the outturn figures from two years ago, or
alternatively independent calculations for the current financial year.
According to the latter, the non-oil budget deficit for this year is likely
to be somewhat less than the official estimate for two years ago, while we
know that the oil revenue estimate is more than £ 10 billion, and Treasury
forecasts show continuing high oil revenues in future years. Such is the
strength of oil revenues in the current financial year that it might even be
that Scotland is one of the few countries in the world currently recording a
fiscal surplus.
However, the central issue of the economic prospects for an independent
Scotland cannot be addressed by concentrating on current fiscal arrangements
budgetary balances, important though those may be. The real economic
argument about Scottish independence must rather focus on whether the policy
initiatives that independence would make possible could create a more rapid
and sustainable rate of growth than has been the experience of the Scottish
economy over the last generation.
Thus, even if the budgetary balance at the date of independence were to be
positive, then wrong- headed economic policies would soon produce a rake's
progress, and the consequent dissipation of that advantage. On the other
hand, even if the budgetary balance at that time were negative, wise
policies would produce within a very few years a transformed fiscal
position.
Incidentally, I find it strange that the existence of a continuing non-oil
deficit should ever be regarded as an argument for the political status quo,
since that surely illustrates the failure of past and current economic
policies in Scotland.
The debate on the economics of independence cannot be conducted as a balance
sheet exercise in any single past year, however interesting that might be to
the main participants. The key issue is what happens after the date of
independence, and what really matters then is the rate of growth of the
economy. Here, any objective measurement of the last 25 years will tell us
that something fundamental needs to change if Scotland's position, and the
performance of the Scottish economy, is to be improved over the next
generation. Our rate of growth has been a little under 2 per cent,
decidedly less than the UK as a whole, and only half the average rate of
growth of small western European countries.
These differences may seem minor in any one year, but over a decade they
make a decisive difference to economic prospects and welfare.
Thus, from a position of budgetary penury in the 1980s, the Irish finance
minister now sits in Dublin commanding a substantial budget surplus, thanks
in no small measure to their low Corporation Tax strategy boosting economic
activity. The only remaining problems for Ireland are how to disburse this
largesse in a sensible and non-inflationary way.
Across our east coast in Norway the Norwegian finance minister succeeded
perhaps better than any country in the world in avoiding the "resource
curse" of having too much of a good thing by investing the oil wealth in a
capital fund which will last almost forever.
Some people would argue that somehow Scotland would find it impossible to
pursue such competitive and successful economic policies. However, the
evident success of our near neighbours makes it difficult to sustain such an
argument.
If Scotland does decide on independence, our future will lie not in the
stars but in ourselves, in our ability to build a competitive economic
structure, to determine policies suitable for Scottish economic conditions,
and to encourage an economy based on long term growth, not short term
thinking.
It is on these aspects that the policies of the various parties towards the
Scottish economy should be judged, and it is on these factors that the
economic case for independence must rest.
Economic growth and, in particular, growth in sustainable employment are
largely the result of decisions taken by businesses. An independent
government cannot directly create profitable commercial opportunities but it
can help companies to realise these by pursuing business friendly policies.
This is all the more important because we are living in a world of
increasing mobility of capital and enterprise where there is intense
competition between governments to create tax and regulatory environments
that are friendly to business.
The best way that a government can help businesses plan for future growth,
in addition to providing low corporate taxes, is to do whatever is in its
power to reduce the range of uncertainty affecting business decisions. An
independent government is in a much stronger position than a devolved
administration to achieve this objective because it has direct control over
its budget, regulatory system and international economic relations.
Sunday 11 February 2007
SNP PUBLISH DOSSIER OF BUSINESS/ECONOMY SUPPORT
“SNP POSITIVE WINNING OVER LABOUR NEGATIVE”
Following the support of Professor David Simpson – founder Director of the
Fraser of Allander Institute and former senior economic adviser to Standard
Life – for Scottish Independence in the Sunday Times on 11 February the SNP
published a dossier of positive public quotes from senior business people
and academics in Scotland.
Several newspaper reports reveal that Labour’s Gordon Brown, Douglas
Alexander and Alistair Darling tried and failed to convince business people
to come forward to support the Union.
An
SNP Spokeserson said:
“The SNP’s positive campaign to win the Holyrood election, build a more
successful Scotland, and give the Scottish people control over Scotland’s
future, is rallying all sections of society, including the business and
academic communities.
“Senior Labour figures, by contrast, are scuttling round in a negative and
inept attempt to get people to actually talk Scotland down. No wonder they
are failing.
“There is a sea-change in attitudes to Scotland’s economic prospects as a
successful independent nation. The SNP’s positive campaign is winning out
over Labour’s negativity.”
Businessmen
Ben Thomson, chief executive of the Edinburgh-based investment bank Noble
Group:
"I'm not at all afraid either of fiscal autonomy or independence. I would
welcome it if it were used as a platform to help business in ways such as
the SNP's proposal for lower corporate taxes in Scotland. Look at the wealth
the City of London generates for England. If we could create something that
would make it more attractive for more financial firms to be based in
Scotland, then it would bring a huge amount of wealth, which would improve
our overall tax take because earnings in Scotland would rise.”
Source: Sunday Times, November 5, 2006
Crawford Beveridge, former chief Executive of Scottish Enterprise:
“I, for one, believe independence could focus the minds of politicians
to create the conditions for economic growth, which would translate to
better jobs, higher wages and stronger communities. My opinion on
independence is based on my confidence that Scotland is just as capable of
running its own affairs as any other country.”
Sunday Herald, 14 February 2007
Sir Tom Farmer, businessman:
"What we have got in Scotland at the moment with devolution is a half-way
house and that is just not right. The question is how do we go forward from
this?" he said.
"None of us has a crystal ball, but there is a very, very high chance that
we will end up with independence. If you really press me I think it is going
to happen. We are five million people wanting to be the greatest small
country in the world, wondering why things haven't happened quicker.
Maybe being part of a small independent country we'd realise that government
can't do everything for us — that we need each other. Maybe people will feel
their involvement is worth more in a small country than in a big one. Maybe
there's an opportunity here that we should be reaching out and grasping.
There is currently some frustration among the Scots about the say they have
over what happens here, and that is part of what is pushing the independence
movement. I can see this coming, perhaps not in the next few years, but
before too long."
Source: Sunday Times Scotland, October 15, 2006
Sandy Orr, Hotel chain tycoon and leading figure in the Scottish arts:
"Scotland is a nation, it's not just a rugby or football jersey.
Scotland is not doing brilliantly. We are losing a lot of headquarters and
I get the sense that we'd have a better chance of Scotland attracting
decision makers if we were able to take all our own decisions. From an
economic and social point of view, I think the prospect of Scotland being
independent is quite exciting but it has to be fully debated."
Source: Sunday Times Scotland, November 19, 2006
Economists
Professor David Simpson, founder Director of the Fraser of Allander
Institute and senior economic adviser to Standard Life
“A growing number of people in Scotland today seem to share my view that if
the economy is to flourish so that we can escape from our culture of
dependence, that is most likely to be brought about by political
independence. Only a sovereign government can undertake the internal
arrangements and negotiate the international agreements necessary to serve
and protect Scotland's interests.”
John Blundell, the director general of the Institute of Economic Affairs
in London:
"All this doom-saying by John Reid is just gobbledegook. I am in favour of
Scottish independence. I want Scotland to be a proper nation standing on its
own two feet," he said.
"If they look around the world and copy what successful countries do there
is no reason why they couldn't be a fabulous success themselves."
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Robert Wright, professor of economics at Strathclyde University:
"All you have to do is look at the evidence. The reality is small countries
do well within the European Union."
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Ronald MacDonald, the Adam Smith professor of political economy at
Glasgow University:
"I don't think there is any doubt that Scotland would be viable if it
were independent. For a country with Scotland's resource base it's
certainly true that it would be sustainable and self-sufficient."
MacDonald added that greater financial powers for the Scottish parliament,
under independence or devolution, could fuel greater economic growth.
Source: The Sunday Times December 10, 2006
Tony Mackay, managing director of Inverness-based Mackay Consultants:
said Alex Salmond and several SNP colleagues possessed "very good economic
brains". Mackay accused ministers of mismanaging Scotland's economy and said
independence could foster greater economic discipline.
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Paul Hallwood, professor of economics at the University of Connecticut:
"The incentivising effect on Scottish government of being responsible for
raising its own taxes could be very effective for inducing the Scots to get
a grip on their bloated public sector, with its disincentive effects on work
and risk taking."
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Professor Neil Kay of Strathclyde University:
said it was "patronising and insulting" to see Scots as incapable of being
independent.
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Andrew Hughes Hallett professor of economics at the George Mason
University in Virginia:
said he could see "no basis in logic why Scotland could not operate
successfully as an independent country".
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Professor Hervey Gibson, chairman of the international economic
development consultancy Cogentsi, which advises the executive,
agreed Scotland could do better under independence.
Source: The Sunday Times, December 10, 2006
Professor Mike Danson of Paisley University's business school
…said a separate Scotland should do "at least as well as other small
independent nations. One reason is that Scotland has got more natural
resources than most European countries," he explained. "Our energy demands
can be more than met by supply and our potential in renewables puts us well
ahead of any other country in Europe. We have also got a higher proportion
of graduates than elsewhere in the world."
Source: The Sunday Times December 10, 2006
Professor Alistair Dow, from the Caledonia Business School:
"I do not think independence would have an effect on Scotland's financial
services. I think the reputation of these Scottish institutions would be
strong enough to keep their customers."
Source: Scotsman, 15 Dec 2006
|