Help Sitemap Home Skip Navigation Contact Us Disability Statement

The hunt is On.
Sponsored by
The hunt is On.
Can you track down Scotland's wildest beastie?
 
 
Friday, 5th December 2008 Change Date

Premium Article !

Your account has been frozen. For your available options click the below button.

Options

Premium Article !

To read this article in full you must have registered and have a Premium Content Subscription with the The Scotsman site.

Subscribe

Registered Article !

To read this article in full you must be registered with the site.

Sign In
Register

Independence debate hosted by The Scotsman prompts a big demand



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: 23 May 2008
By DAVID LEE
THE first of a series of debates hosted by The Scotsman to open up discussion on key issues affecting Scotland in 2008 looks like being a sell-out.
Less than 100 tickets are left for the independence debate at the 500-capacity George Square Lecture Theatre at the University of Edinburgh at 7pm next Wednesday.

Nicola Sturgeon, the deputy First Minister, will trade blows with political opponent
s Cathy Jamieson (Labour), Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen, Margo MacDonald (Independent) and Patrick Harvie (Green). The panel is completed by Professor Tom Devine. As the Sir William Fraser Professor of Scottish History and Palaeography, the man regarded as one of Scotland’s greatest living historians is on home turf for the debate.

Chaired by Mike Crow of STV, who is well-versed in preventing politicians get away with waffle and prevarication, it promises to be an entertaining evening. If you want to attend – or to ask a question – see details above right. The Scotsman, along with Mr Crow, will select the best questions and put them to the panel on the night. You are also advised to reserve tickets soon for the second debate in Aberdeen on Monday, 2 June, which is also close to capacity. On the back of the Donald Trump golf resort saga, the event at the Town House in Aberdeen asks whether or not Scotland is managing to balance its economic and environmental interests. The panel will include Martin Ford, the Lib Dem councillor who defied Trump, the CBI, RSPB, and a rural economist and media commentator in an attempt to ensure all sides of the debate are covered. The event will be chaired by The Scotsman’s executive editor, Bill Jamieson.

The ScotsmanDebates have been organised in conjunction with Blake Stevenson, an independent research and consultancy company, to open up discussion on the constitutional, political, social, environmental and economic changes facing Scotland in 2008. The final debate, Progress beyond Politics, will be chaired by a director of Blake Stevenson, and will examine social change in Scotland.

The events build on the successful Scotland 300 series of debates held last year and will also include a debate on the future of the Scottish islands, to be held in Benbecula and chaired by Lesley Riddoch.

More details of other venues and panels will follow.

Mike Gilson, editor of The Scotsman, said: “We are delighted the first debate looks set to be a sell-out – and that tickets are being snapped up for other debates months away. There is clearly an incredible appetite for public debate on big issues.”

• The Scotsman would like to thank Blake Stevenson for helping to organise the ScotsmanDebates – and the George Hotel, which is hosting a dinner following the first debate on 28 May.

FACT BOX

• INDEPENDENCE: 28 May, 7pm, George Square Lecture Theatre, Edinburgh University

• TRUMP: 2 June, 7pm, Town House, Aberdeen

• ISLANDS: 24 June, 7pm, Sgoil Lionacleit, Benbecula

• ARTS: 28 August, 7pm, Traverse Theatre, Edinburgh.

• DEFENCE: 24 September, 7pm, Victoria Halls, Helensburgh

• WIND POWER: 14 October, 7pm, Town Hall, Jedburgh

• MEDIA: 24 October, 7pm, Mitchell Library, Glasgow

• PROGRESS BEYOND POLITICS: 4 December, 7pm, Albert Halls, Stirling

• To reserve tickets (max two per person per event), e-mail scotsmandebates@scotsman.com, or write to David Lee, The Scotsman, 108 Holyrood Road, Edinburgh, EH8 8AS. State clearly which debate you wish to attend.

• If you wish to ask a question at a debate, e-mail or write to the same addresses. The best ones will be asked at the debates.





The full article contains 605 words and appears in The Scotsman newspaper.
Page 1 of 1

  • Last Updated: 22 May 2008 11:10 PM
  • Source: The Scotsman
  • Location: Edinburgh
  • Related Topics: Scottish independence
 
1

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/05/2008 00:17:01
Some one in the Scotsman is a Scot.



2

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 23/05/2008 00:18:23
That 'll be a participating Scots only event ?
3

subrosa,

23/05/2008 01:14:39
Nothing in Dundee or Perth. I've still a journey of 90 minutes minimum to get to any of them.
4

Jwil,

23/05/2008 01:42:24
No mention of Wendy. Has she gone to ground? What's the point of having a debate without her? She should be there to answer for Scottish Labour. Cathy Jamieson can only be a mouthpiece, she doesn't make labour policy. It would be useful too, to have Alex Salmond there.

5

donald,

glasgow 23/05/2008 05:56:53
Surely politically illiterate Labour onionists have not got the nous to be embarrassed by their Bendiness?
6

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/05/2008 07:06:42
The elephant in the room in this debate is the Federal option.

Why is no one in there discussing this logical and superior alternative?

Come on Scotsman, remedy this omission before it's too late.

Email me today!
7

Hugo of Garven,

23/05/2008 07:15:52
Congratulations to the Scotsman for organising these events.

In spite of a declared pro-Unionist stance by the Scotsman, the events seem to be an unbiased attempt to promote rational debate about present and future politics of Scotland.

Once again the Scotsman is showing it is pro-Scotland first (which I hope will continue) and pro-Union second.
8

Auld Twa,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 07:18:55
Is the SoS going to publish the results of their on line poll before this debate ?
9

scottish person,

paisley 23/05/2008 08:00:28
Nicola Sturgeon wont have to worry about the heavy weights pitted against her.
10

,

23/05/2008 08:12:01
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
11

Alasdair,

23/05/2008 08:47:58
Yeah - I assume it is a joke.

I offer you the lastes "SNP branded..." article today that quotes a Labour goon, in this case chief goon Alexander, as fact.

This paper is a mess, and the sooner its slide in sales renders it dead, the better.
12

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:08:34
6 Not a Federalist just another unionist.

There is no Federal option all youre offering is devolution. Scotland has to become Independent first before it can negociate its way into a federation.
How many time do you want to go over this arguement???
SCOTLAND CANNOT BECOME A FEDERATION WITHIN THE ACT OF UNION.
13

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:11:37
6

There may be a case however to include the devolved option within the debate maybe they can find some clarity as to what the devolved issue is from dev min to dev max and ever option in between.
A clear debate over the more powers to Hollyrood option would show the farce of it.
14

Tellen1,

23/05/2008 09:20:50
To all the people who constantly come on these message boards and brand the Scotsman a 'joke' and 'biased' - why bother reading it if its so bad?

I agree that it does seem to be very pro-unionist in its stance but if its really so bad why do you bother going on its website and commenting on its articles? Surely you have better things to do with your lives than wasting your time reading a 'joke' publication...don't you?
15

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:28:20
15

Because they are there to be commented on why do you do it?? and what is wrong with pointing out the obvious political bias of the paper??
All independent media outlets within democracies are supposed to be non political and free of any bias those which cannot be non political are no longer independent media outlets but propaganda outlets for the political dogma they support.
So why not point that out??
16

Tellen1,

23/05/2008 09:33:32
There is nothing wrong with pointing out the political bias of a newspaper, I merely want to know why they bother to read and comment on it when it is apparently such a 'joke' publication.

I think celebrity magazines such as heat, hello etc are joke publications but I don't waste my time reading them or commenting on their message boards - i have better things to do with my life.
17

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:36:00
17

How would anybody know if it is a "joke publication" until they read it?? and once theyve read it why would they not comment on the fact that its a joke publication??
18

Tellen1,

23/05/2008 09:40:36
Most of the people who go on and on about the Scotsman being a joke are regular contributors to these message boards - they clearly read the Scotsman on an almost daily basis, despite the fact it is a 'joke'.
19

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:43:18
19

Well its free to read on the web so they dont have to buy it to find out if they are still a joke or maybe they just like a good laugh.
20

,

23/05/2008 09:54:22
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
21

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 09:56:01
19

Do you know any independent media outlets in the UK??
22

I should be studying,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 10:09:21
#2 "That 'll be a participating Scots only event ?"

Absolutely. Only 100% pure-bred Scots allowed. Dress code is strictly tartan. Ginger beards prefered. Scots and Gaelic speakers will be given front row seats (English translation will be provided for those second class Scots who need it). No residents of Scotland who happen to be from England, Wales, Northern Ireland or Ireland welcome. Likewise, anyone from Italian, Polish, Indian, Pakistani or Ghanian descent will not be allowed in. Only racists, bigots and "I'm more Scottish Than You" types are welcome. Every participant will receive a free "goody bag" that contains Saltire underpants, a haggis, some porridge oats and wee malt whisky minature.

Looks like you'll be the only one there then, Ard Righ? But then, I wouldn't be suprised if you were actually born in Birmingham and you're just a wee pretendy-Scot?
23

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 10:16:39
I thought there was no interest in Scotland for the constitutional conversation?? Huv we hud unionist trolls on these blogs telling us constantly that there is no interest on the constitutional debate??
In fact did this Labour party propaganda outlet no post stories by leading Labour MSPs saying that very thing??
Is this a retraction of those many stories posted on this forum??
24

Boggle fey the Bog,

23/05/2008 10:17:13
8 Auld Twa,Edinburgh 23/05/2008 07:18:55

Ah hope yer no haudin yer breath ;-)

15 Tellen1,23/05/2008 09:20:50 and various other posts

The purpose of forums, such as this, are to give people a sort of 'right to reply' and also engender 'enlightened debate' (are you paying attention at the back there, Kimba), and in this day and age are to be welcomed and should be participated in.
Else you have a situation where the lies and excesses of the 'ruling elite' goes 'unchallenged' and the blatant propaganda of their 'mouthpiece newspapers' are held to be a 'truth'.

And yes the Scotsman is a bit of a joke, it very seldom carries any 'real news' about Scotland and it's political system, it more often just regurgitates The Labour Party (North Britain Branch) 'press releases' as somehow being an epithet from a 'Supreme Being' and therefore above reproach, to this end it must be corrected.

Anyway it can be 'good fun' at times :-)

Oh and Foulkes Off the CyberNat, is right most people don't purchase it, but read the 'on-line' version, which is free, provide you do not subscribe to the 'Premium Content' (Is that the under the counter, plain brown paper envelope version?) ;-)

Anyhoo, BOT it's good to see that the Hootsmaun is at least paying lip service to the fact that an increasing number of Scots and Scots residents are in favour of Independence.

Aye Interesting Times
25

Rulesbutnotrulers,

Federation, not separation 23/05/2008 10:18:18
#13 (etc) Foulkes.

Your degree in political science is either off a cornflake packet or from the uni of numptyville. I say this as you are usually quite wrong whenever you pronounce ex cathedra.

We can negotiate for a Federation of Great Britain as soon as Westminster agrees to this. It will mean the welcome end of the Union and the even more welcome of equal status with he other countries on this island.

Within Alba we can begin the debate today, of course. There is no law against it.

(I suppose you do know the difference between ultra and infra vires, don't you? No?)

AS to independent media, even one such started by you would not be such for long as even you would seek to control its use and views at some point.

Your emotional reach excedes your intellectual grasp.
26

,

23/05/2008 10:30:43
Comment Removed By Administrator
Reason:
27

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 10:36:23
26

What you are offering is for Scotland to give up its claims to being a nation for more powers of local government within the Union of Great Britain.
IN OTHER WORDS WE MUST GIVE UP OUR RIGHT TO BEING A NATION IN ORDER TO ACHEIVE A HIGHER LEVEL OF DEVOLUTION FROM WESTMINSTER.
And you want to disguise this by changing the name from the UNITED KINGDOMS OF GREATER BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND TO THE FEDERAL STATE OF GREATER BRITAIN AND NORTHERN IRELAND.
What happens to the Royal family then??
Do you honestly think people are this stupid??
28

Alasdair,

23/05/2008 10:38:45
Tellen1 - the point is that The Scotsman DOESN'T openly admit it's rampant bias.
Yet markets itself as "quality".
This hypocrisy should be exposed at ever opportunity.

Look at it this way, say we split the UK press into two groups, tabloids and broadsheets. Now, I accept that physically some papers like the Scotsman, Times, Independent, have changed to tabloid size, but they still purport to contain the same quality material as before.

The tabloids rarely if ever openly admit their bias. They don't challenge readers - they spout rhetoric based on the political alleigiances of their owners, and they write said opinion as fact. They assume their readers are idiots, and sadly are usually correct.

On the other hand, we have the braodsheets. They have traditionally openly accepted, procalimed even, their position on the political spectrum, and they keep their strongest politicising to the editorials page. The Telegraph and The Guardian may operate on different sides of the spectrum, but they feature articles that disagree with their stance as a paper, and are respected for treating their readers as capable of adult comprehension of the matters in hand.
The Times and Indie like to operate to the right and left of the centre, and endeavour to present themselves as balanced.

Up here in Scotland, both The Scotsman and The Herald have traditionally tried to keep a balance also. Both have been regarded as liberal on outlook, although (small "c") conservative as far as being outspoken is concerned.

BOTH regarded as quality papers for a very long time.

Only one of the two still is, and it ain't The Scotsman. I don't know about you, but as someone that once liked this paper, I find that sad. It lacks the honesty to admit its bias, its articles are frequently written as overspill editorials, usually against the SNP, and its coverage of Scottish news outside of Edinburgh is negligable and often trite.
But it still calls itself "Scotland's National Newspaper"?
29

Alasdair,

23/05/2008 10:39:12
.....It doesn't speak for me, and judging by sales, it doesn't speak for many others too.
30

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 10:50:02
26

And again let me challange yer so called Federalist credentials.
Wouldnt a true Federalist want Scotland to be a member of the best Federation it could negociate itself into rather than a smaller weaker less profitable Federation made up of smaller weaker nations??
Why does your "Federalism" only manifest itself within a Federation of Great Britain??
31

Peeablo,

Running from the Tories 23/05/2008 10:54:11
#29 Alasdair

Great Post and I agree 100%. In fact you took the words out of my mouth.

Cheers
32

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 10:56:25
Some of the anonymous posters speak of "The Scotsman", but that is a moving target as editors and editorial policy develop.

It should be obvious that there has been some shifting of ground of late, perhaps due to market research supporting some of the bulletin board comments.

Alistair, I have read the Scotsman most of my adult life and I would say it reluctantly began a long shift from Conservatism from the 1970s, following the long-standing decline in Conservative fortunes. This led it to a kind of parochial devolutionist stance (pro Lib Dem) by the 1990s, with Conservative dissent from Allan Massie etc.

The fact on the ground of an SNP government doing quite well is causing it to shift ground again, though it's yet to reach the heights of Andrew Jaspan's early editorship of Scotland on Sunday. Let's encourage it.
33

Alasdair,

23/05/2008 11:01:01
Cheers, mate. I'd like to say that hopefully some of this will get through to the owners, but if Johnston Press don't care about falling sales, then I doubt it..
34

Alasdair,

23/05/2008 11:05:15
Stephen Cowley - I like your optimistic take on this, and with any luck you'll be right, as we need a strong and balanced Scottish media.
However, I have to say that I think we're on the point of no return. The slip in sales that began under Andrew Neil and the Barclays has actually worsened under Johnston.

I read this online, but it's other papers like the Guardian, Herald, Telegraph, Observer that I am prepaerd to pay for.
35

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:06:05
26

Whats the matter no answers for my post at 27??
Yer a fake. More probabaly just another troll poster working for the Scotsman.
36

Stephen Cowley,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:15:04
I should also say that there is some useful fact-based journalism in here and no doubt that is why so many people read the thing.

Obviously taking an editorial line whilst attempting a appeal across the spectrum of Scottish opinion has its problems. At worst, it leads to watered down, lowest common denominator, opinion pieces, and the lowest political denominator in Scotland has been a kind of parochial, home rule stance that grates with a good few readers.
37

Alan B,

23/05/2008 11:16:34
#Rulesbutnotrulers

While a federation would not be my first choice, it would certainly be better than the current situation if done in conjunction with dev max and fiscal autonomy.

The problem with u, is when challenged about what model of federalism u want, (with what powers pulled and what devolved) u have no idea.

As such u are probably the least convincing of those that propose federalism on these boards.
38

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:30:19
38

Alan there is NO Federal option being proposed by anybody. All of the so called Federal proposals are nothing more than devolved proposals within the UNION.
There is no Devolution max because devolution max can only be Independence with full autonomy anything else is devolution less max.

The closest comparrison to what the so called Federalists are offering is the old Yugoslav federal republic.
Serbia = England
Croatia = Scotland
Bosnia = Wales
NI = Macedonia
We have to give up our right to call ourselves a nation we even have to give up our right to a Parliament in order for it to become nothing more than a local council. Now how can that be even a second or third fourth or any choice at all??
Why dont you just advocate going back to predevolution.
39

Alan B,

23/05/2008 11:42:14
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

We have had this discussion before. Like u i believe in independence.

My challenge to Rule was to outline what type of federal solution he wants. Time and time again he has not be able to do so. (last time he said he did not know). As such it is very unconvincing.

Dev max is the term used to mean much more devolution. Yes complete devolution of powers to the sp is independence but ur agrument here is just semantics. We all know what is meant by the term dev max but not what powers it would actually involve as it can mean different things to different people.

I disagree with u about federalism as to me federalism is just having a central parliament and regional (in the uk case along national lines) parliaments. The US and germany are 2 examples that have federal type of structures.

"Federal proposals are nothing more than devolved proposals within the UNION"
that to me is federal. I would say the structure we have at the moment is federal.

U seem to have a different definition of federal. Last time u seemed to suggest that we would have to be independent first before we could become federal. I disagree as i see a federal structure as being the result not the way u get there.

All in all. I prefer independence, but having significantly more powers for the sp would be better than now and would be a good start.

Personally i would like to see fiscal autonomy before we move to independence for a variety of reasons.
40

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:51:49
40

No you cant have a "Parliament" without having a "government" to occupy it. Germany and the US have only 1 "Parliament" with 2 houses and 1 Federal Government.
Since when can a KINGDOM become a Federal state without a Royal abdication or the overthrow of the Royal family??
How can a KINGDOM become a Federal state within a UNION OF KINGDOMS without first having to abolish the UNION OF KINGDOMS and renouncing the monarchy???
And how can the KINGDOM OF SCOTLAND leave the UNION without becomming Independent first???
And why would Scots Federalist not want Scotland to join the best Federation it can negociate itself into?? Why would Scots Federalists want to join a second third or fourth string Federation when it can have better outside of Great Britain??

Answer those questions and you may make a Federalist out of me.
41

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 11:53:41
40

By becomming a Federal state we give up all rights to Independence as a Nation. It cant be a stepping stone to full autonomy its a step backwards from Devolution.
42

Deekie fae Midstocket,

Aberdeen 23/05/2008 12:11:05
Good to see this debate on the cards. Now can we have in the Scotsman some proper discussion of the issues, e.g. McCrone papers, broadcasting ,rather than the biased pro-Union Labour press releases taken on face value?
Thank you.
43

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 12:16:28
40

Yes we did have this conversation before and you left the same questions hanging then as well.
44

Alan B,

23/05/2008 12:50:59
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

U have a completely different definition of federalism that me. I have told u what mine is. There is not reason the uk could not move to this model however as i am more concerned with independence, while i acknowlege it is abit irrelevent to me. (ie a distant 2nd choice)

ie
"Since when can a KINGDOM become a Federal state without a Royal abdication or the overthrow of the Royal family?? "

Not having royality is a republic (too me it has nothing to do with federal). There is no reason u could not have a federal structure with a monarchy as head of state. (for the record I also support scotland as an independet republic).



45

Alan B,

23/05/2008 12:55:27
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

"By becomming a Federal state we give up all rights to Independence as a Nation. It cant be a stepping stone to full autonomy its a step backwards from Devolution."

My actual quote was "Personally i would like to see fiscal autonomy before we move to independence for a variety of reasons."

I did not say moving to a federal solution would be a stepping stone to independence.

I do think dev max with fiscal autonomy is a step closer towards independence. (i have posted what i meant by fiscal autonomy before, so lets not get into a semantical discussion of fiscal autonomy)
46

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 13:16:42
45 46

Come on Alan Dev Max plus fiscal autonomy cannot be anything other than full Independence.
You seem to think that a "Federal" option is possible within the act of union and I keep pointing out to you it isnt. You say

"There is not reason the uk could not move to this model"
Referring to the Federalist model yet you cant explain the reasons how its possible within the act of union nor how its even possible for a Kingdom to become a federalist state and still keep its monarchy or how its possible for one Kingdom within a union of kingdoms to autonomously become a federal state within a UNION OF UNITED KINGDOMS without first becomming INDEPENDENT OF THAT UNION.

The so called Federalist option is simply white settlers giving fire water to the Indians for land.
Or more accurately the US federal government giving some of the land back to the Indians from the area of land they use to own in order for them to give up any claim they have to the rest.

THERE IS NO FEDERALIST OPTIONS POSSIBLE WITHIN THE ACT OF UNION BETWEEN KINGDOMS.
47

Alan B,

23/05/2008 13:40:54
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

"You seem to think that a "Federal" option is possible within the act of union and I keep pointing out to you it isnt."

And as i keep saying u are defining federal to mean something that i do not.

What i have defined as federal is possible within the union. That is u have a central parliament and regional parliament ie germany. I have already said we already have a federal strucutre aswell.

As such u have not pointed out federal as i describe it is not possible. Only that u have a different definition.

As such u are just really questioning my definition of federal and getting caught up in semantical definitions.

I am not proposing ur definition of federal and as such am not having to defend why ur definition is workable.

What i really do not understand about ur posts are: I question those that advocate federal to see what advantage they think scotland can gain from it. And to try display the weakness in this option.

U then enter the debate with completely a different definition to federal to all those posting and then claiming what they want is not achievable when u are by definition talking about something else.

I would suggest u forget attached to a certain model and discuss the model being advocated.





48

Alan B,

23/05/2008 13:44:23
#Foulkes Off the CyberNat

Come on Alan Dev Max plus fiscal autonomy cannot be anything other than full Independence."

U are completely caught up with symantics.

Dev max : is significantly more powers for the sp within the union. simple really.

Yes if u devolve all powers u have independence but that is not what people mean when they say dev max.

We are discussing the constitutional options for scotland not whether u personally feel the label put to an option is symantically accurate.

fiscal autonomy : again u know what is meant by fiscal autonomy. i have told u what the generally accepted definition of it is.
49

A Better Way,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 15:08:34
I SHOULD BE STUDYING

Very nasty assumption on your part. Being PRO SCOTTISH is not a crime as far as I am aware. I really dont know who you have been hanging around with, but the Scottish Nats I know are in fact very outspoken in their view that ANYONE WHO IS COMMITTED to the Scottish peoples right to return to the point where Scots govern their own country as a Sovereign Nation without the shackles of control from a foreign country. Doesnt matter what your religous beliefs are or what colour your skin is, providing you put the interests of Scots first in every case.

Doesnt seem to much to ask. Surely that is more desirable than Westminsters persecution of the English Muslims by the jackbooted thought police who drag them off to 42 days detention without charge. If you want racism just have a look at Gordon Brown bending over for George Bush. Of course they cannot get at Scottish People who just happen to be muslims, because WE HAVE A LEGAL SYSTEM THAT DOES NOT LET ANY NAZI STYLED SECRET SERVICE DECIDE TO VILIFY AND ABUSE OUR PEOPLE. Perhaps you support Browns Jackboots style race relations, or the invasion of Iran. We dont.
50

John Blackley,

Florida 23/05/2008 15:16:16
The invited speakers "will trade blows with political opponents".

Goody! The only honest form of political debate - a punchup!
51

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

Kent 23/05/2008 15:43:25
Foulkes is right when he says there can be No Federation whilst the Union exists. To all intents and purposes the Union is Federalism under another name, especially now with the existance of the SP. eg America - Central Government ie Senate and each State with it's own ability to Legislate/ Tax/ etc hence the differing standards across the 50 odd states.

This is not an ideal solution for our country let alone the US.

Far better to have your Independence from us and then work your ticket from there . . . what do you have to lose?
52

Alan B,

23/05/2008 16:23:32
#53

"Foulkes is right when he says there can be No Federation whilst the Union exists. "

"To all intents and purposes the Union is Federalism under another name, especially now with the existance of the SP"

ur 2 sentenses contradict each other.

I agree with ur 2nd sentence.

But my aspiration is independence.
53

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

23/05/2008 16:42:30
55 Alan B

Yes I can see the (small) contradiction there, sorry. Should have put "but" between the two sentences.

My aspiration is also Independence for you, there really is no other option. A policy of Federation will just put you in the Back Seat again which, after all you've struggled for, would be pointless. And, as I say, after Independence you would be able to work from a clean slate. However with regard to another debate elsewhere in this 'paper' I wonder if, as a new Independent Sovereign Nation, you would already be IN the EU or not? If not, would you be in a position to 'negotiate' a fairer deal for Scotland or would you have to 'like it or lump it?
54

Chris42,

23/05/2008 16:45:00
W Alexander recently said publicy, in the context of Calman Review/Commission, that fiscal autonomy was just another term for independence. We can assume, therefore, that fiscal autonomy will not be one of the recommendations.
55

Neal! Whit? Haud yer Whisht!!,

23/05/2008 17:08:10
By the way, it's good to be able to comment on this and related subjects but I'm a bit niffed I had to come 'all the way to Scotland' to do it. These subjects just are NOT covered by the broad's and tabloids down here in the far south.

Thank you all for an informative debate on an important issue.
56

mesmiths,

fife 23/05/2008 17:18:22
Would like to get to the debates but can't make it. Nice to see that there is a balance, in numbers, between those who favour independence and unionists. I never seen that before.

SCOTSMAN EDITORS; Please film them and put them up for everyone to see, on youtube or on this site.
57

Alan B,

23/05/2008 18:51:37
#Chris42

Wendy has talked about fiscal federalism. However not full fiscal federalism. ie scotland would have more control over taxes but not to cover all scottish expenditure.

It is hard to work out what exactly she means as most has been hints to reporters. Political speak or the code they use, without actually saying it.

She has since moved rowed back abit, as it did not match browns position and limited more.

I think her views are probably taken from her husband who is a snr economist. But then have been constrained by labour party politics.



58

Foulkes Off the CyberNat,

Edinburgh 23/05/2008 18:55:00
53 55

A Union of Kingdoms cannot be a Federal union a Union of Kingdoms is a Union of nations not a union of Federal regions within ONE NATION.
A federal option means losing the Nation state in exchange for a Federal reqional identity instead and cannot be acheived inside a Union of nations.
Its not rocket science.
59

Alan B,

23/05/2008 18:55:25
#Chris42

Article u maybe interested in

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article2328078.ece

This is how it starts

"WENDY ALEXANDER has been dealt an embarrassing blow in her first week as Scottish Labour leader after footage emerged of her husband making a case for independence.

Professor Brian Ashcroft, policy director of the pro-Union economic think-tank, the Fraser of Allander Institute, was filmed arguing that Scotland would be more prosperous as a separate country than having full tax-raising powers as part of the UK.

Addressing a private seminar in May, Ashcroft said an independent Scotland would join an “arc of prosperity”, comprising other affluent small European states.

One of his wife’s first actions as leader was to commit to a review of the devolution settlement with the option of giving the Scottish parliament the power to raise all of the £30 billion it spends every year. "
60

Alan B,

23/05/2008 19:03:26
#62

We have been through it. U have a different definintion to federalism that i do. I have told u my definition. As such all we are doing is u saying ur definition is right and me saying i have a different take on it.

But lets face it what ever u call it we know what people who are advocating it means ie a central parliament with regional parliaments.

I look up a definition in the internet of federalism:

"Political federalism is a political philosophy in which a group of members are bound together (Latin: foedus, covenant) with a governing representative head. The term federalism is also used to describe a system of the government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation. Proponents are often called federalists.

In Europe, "federalism" is often used to describe those who favor a stronger federal government (for example, with governance under the European Union) and weaker provincial governments. In federal nations of Europe (such as Germany, Austria and Switzerland) or South America (such as Argentina or Brazil), the term "strong federalism" means sub-national states having more power than the national(federal) government, in contrast with a centralist system."

It is a definition i am happy with.
61

Alan B,

23/05/2008 19:05:04
#62 Here is another

"A federation (Latin: foedus, covenant) is a union comprising a number of partially self-governing states or regions united by a central ("federal") government. In a federation, the self-governing status of the component states is typically constitutionally entrenched and may not be altered by a unilateral decision of the central government.

The form of government or constitutional structure found in a federation is known as federalism (see also federalism as a political philosophy). It can be considered the opposite of another system, the unitary state. The government of Germany with sixteen federated Länder is an example of a federation, whereas neighboring Austria and its Bundesländer is a unitary state with administrative divisions that became federated, and neighboring France is by contrast fully unitary, though its subnational entities appear similar to states of a federation government."
62

lulach mac gille coemgain,

23/05/2008 19:38:37
Scotsman - statistically a very small circulation for a publication in the Scottish Nation - whatever their debate raises - nothing that has to be regarded as any kind of real relevence to Independence.

Ask for the circulation figures - count the haed of population legally entitled to vote - I rest my case your honour
63

MartinR,

Inverness 23/05/2008 20:12:51
Should be a good debate, especially when Sturgeon has to explain how an independent Scotland will get its future energy needs when the SNP have blocked both the nuclear energy plants and the wind turbines that Scotland needs...perhaps from Salmond's hot air?
64

overshot,

perth 24/05/2008 05:02:15
67
Did you know wind turbines have to be shut down when the wind is too strong. They are not as efficient as made out to be.
65

Ard Righ,

The Rock Of Edinburgh 24/05/2008 15:02:02
23 Are insulting pastiches your only argument, shame the traditionalists are inclusive, we all laugh at the pastiche, Brigadoon, Braveheart, etc.

Go back to your Oxford dictionaries. Ever considered that the world is infinitely more simple and (conversely) complex than the english version of history?


 

Comment on this Story

 

In order to post comments you must Register or Sign In

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

 
 


Sister Newspapers:
Press Complaints Commission

This website and its associated newspaper adheres to the Press Complaints Commission’s Code of Practice. If you have a complaint about editorial content which relates to inaccuracy or intrusion, then contact the Editor by clicking here.

If you remain dissatisfied with the response provided then you can contact the PCC by clicking here.