Independence Convention
-
Female,
9
- Profile views: 676
- Member since: February 2005
- Last active: 1 week ago
- www.bebo.com/SIConvention
- Tagline
- Working towards an independent Scotland
- Me, Myself, and I
- We exist to further the cause of restoring Scotland’s independence. Our platform draws together all the disparate groups, parties, organisations, politicians and individuals, in Scotland and beyond, who share this one basic, democratic objective.
The Scottish Independence Convention was born on St Andrew’s Day, 2005. Since then we have been busy working for the day when Scots will be invited to vote in a referendum on regaining our independence from the British state. We are an umbrella organisation working to unite and encourage all who want independence for Scotland to meet on common ground and have their say in the growing debate on Scotland’s constitutional future.
We welcome everyone, regardless of party political affiliation, who shares our vision of Scotland being a free and democratic independent state. Your support will hasten the day when Scotland is reborn as an independent member of the international family of nations.
www.scottishindependenceconvention.org
close Blog
-
Stephen Maxwell - Dysfunction in the UK’s regulatory state
The ways in which the British state is politically dysfunctional for Scotland are frequently rehearsed in the debates on Scotland’s place in the United Kingdom – the way it periodically hands the key decisions on Scotland’s future to Governments at Westminster rejected by Scottish voters, the cynical location of its main nuclear weapons base close to Scotland’s major population centre, its indifference to all Scottish claims to a lasting benefit from the vast oil revenues flowing from the Scottish province of the North Sea, the preferential investment lavished on London and the South East of England in terms of transport or cultural and sporting events as most recently with the London Olympics.
Less noticed in Scottish debate are the injuries of omission and commission inflicted by the ‘shadow’ state of the UK’s regulatory bodies, that network of statutory agencies with baffling acronyms charged by the Westminster Parliament with ensuring fair competition and efficiency not just in the economy overall but also in such key areas as financial services, energy supply, and communications.
Recent history suggests that this system, which is barely accountable to Westminster let alone Scotland, is no less dysfunctional in respect of Scotland than the political superstructure.
Take Ofgem, the Office for Gas and Electricity Markets. In July the (English) National Housing Federation (whose chief executive David Orr used to lead the Scottish Federation of Housing Associations) revealed that the low income customers in the UK who use pre-payment meters had overpaid the energy companies nearly £500m between 2006-8. Orr charged: “Ofgem has been asleep on the job and must urgently start defending the rights of ordinary people instead of protecting the profits of big business”. With levels of fuel poverty in Scotland at 29% of households, over twice as high as in England, Ofgem’s failure to protect the poorest energy customers will have had a disproportionate impact in Scotland. No wonder that the Scottish Fuel Poverty Forum in its 2008 report for the Scottish Government called on Ofgem to ensure that energy companies were not allowed to charge more for customers using pre-payment than for the generally better off customers using direct debit. Ofgem has a senior staff member with a designated responsibility for Scotland (among other responsibilities) and at least one of its thirteen Board members is Scottish based, but if they have been pressing the urgency of Scotland’s needs they were evidently ignored.
Or take the Competition Commission’s latest intervention in Scottish affairs, its instruction to the British Airports Authority to sell off Edinburgh Airport, or perhaps Glasgow, on general competition grounds. Scotland’s representative business bodies such as the Scottish Chambers of Commerce have repeatedly challenged the Commission’s case on the grounds that Edinburgh and Glasgow serve different publics and therefore even as separately owned concerns would not compete with one another. If in a forced sale either airport were to be bought by a regional competitor such as Manchester Airport the Scottish interest could be at risk. They complain that their evidence has simply been ignored. The Competition Commission has no designated Scottish representation and just two of its fifty Board members are Scottish based.
Then there is the case of Ofcom, the regulator of the UK’s communications industry including broadcasting. Despite the persistent evidence of Scottish dissatisfaction with the low level of Scottish broadcast output including Scottish material and a major decline in Scottish production, Ofcom failed to identify a problem until stirred by the establishment of the Scottish Broadcasting Commission by the new Scottish Government in 2007. Even its recent report Digital Britain contained only perfunctory reference to the Scottish Commission’s proposal for a Scottish Dig0 Comments 51 days
-
Aileen Orr on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi
I write as a former resident of Lockerbie, and former pupil of Lockerbie Academy. I have listened with dismay the protestations from the US and from the FBI ‘s Robert S. Mueller. For the record, I believe Magrahi was involved in the plot and rightfully convicted, but he did not work in isolation, nor do we know what his role was. So yes, we got one, but only a cog in the wheel. I supported Kenny McAskill’s difficult decision and I thought his delivery was statesmanlike and thoughtful. Sadly, as opposition politicians do, their first thought is “taking him out.” So no support for the intellectual or humanitarian argument there then.
I saw the aftermath of the Lockerbie disaster, it was hell on earth. The sight of a child’s dress fluttering on a barbed wire fence miles from the plane, still partly in its festive wrapping, a present undelivered, a life unseen, and the first shock of the massive, and they were huge, slices of fluorescent green fuselage scattered along the Lockerbie hills on the road from Langholm. Dollar bills blowing about the road like leaves, no traveller had the stomach to pick them up.
But many of us believe the Lockerbie bombing would never have happened had the US navy not downed Iran Flight 655 on 3rd July 1988. This incident seems to have fallen off the radar, unlike the day the crew of the USS Vincennes spotted the civilian airliner on their equipment and, without checking further, bombed the Airbus A300 with 290 passengers, including 66 children. The flight was inside Iranian airspace as was the Vincennes.
On return to the US the captain and crew were given a heroes welcome, and honoured with Combat Action Ribbons for having actively participated in ground or surface combat. It is on this act alone I have to ask, if its OK for the US to bomb innocent passengers in a civilian airliner, and on return to their country, the participants are celebrated and showered with honours, why are we forced to believe this diatribe from the US Senate and FBI when they not only supported the same act, they celebrated it? Having worked for an American company for many years I enjoyed a lot of US hospitality, it’s a fantastic country, but its agencies bully people who don’t share its point of view and has little reputation for listening. Its time it listened to Scotland.
I have today (Sunday) listened to the mind-numbing Charles Wolf on BBC news as supposed US commentator. He insulted every bone of my Scots body; it is believed we are a small country and unable to make decisions of such magnitude. His arrogance knew no bounds. Shame he has not taken time to know his own country’s history, John Paul Jones, the father of the US navy was born close to Lockerbie, how would Jones have looked on the actions of the USS Vincennes? Who knows, all I see is a lot of trade agreements waiting to be signed and this process just exposed them, the welfare of the victims are a lot further down the agenda, if at all. Well, lets see who moves on Libya first, trade missions I mean, not bombs.1 Comment 74 days
-
Jamie, Earl of Mar and Kellie
Lib Dem peer Jamie, Earl of Mar and Kellie, a staunch supporter of Scottish independence, is a serving member of the Council of the Scottish Independence Convention. Jamie's analysis of the Lord’s Ad Hoc committee report The Barnett Formula is not likely to endear him to his colleagues in Liberal Democrat circles, nor for that matter to his fellow Unionist peers, but we suspect his views are shared by many others in his party.
The House of Lords Committee was appointed by the House in December 2008: “to examine the purpose, methodology and application of the Barnett Formula as a means of determining funding for the devolved administrations of the United Kingdom, to assess the effectiveness of the calculation mechanism to meet its purpose and to consider alternative mechanisms”
As Jamie says, the controversial report, written by Unionists, has released the genie of the Unionist bribe that the Barnett Formula clearly is.
The report is available at http://www.parliament.uk/hlbarnettfo...
I WAS a member of the House of Lords ad hoc committee which was set up to examine the Barnett Formula – the funding of the Devolved Institutions – and to look for an alternative and fairer method of funding these institutions, without departing from the concept of a block-grant from the UK Treasury.
At the insistence of Lord Barnett, the House of Lords commissioned a report into the working of the Barnett Formula, and towards a new method of distributing funds from Westminster to the three devolved institutions.
Lord Barnett told us in evidence that he considered the current funding process to be unfair, particularly as Scotland receives far more than it logically deserves; and that he disliked being associated with that unfairness. He told us that, as Joel Barnett MP he was, in 1978, Chief Secretary to the Treasury, responsible for distributing funds around government departments. In a difficult spending round, the formula was devised to end arguments with the three Secretaries of State (Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland). Once the English departments had been allocated their share, the three Secretaries of State would get their pre-published percentages of English spending, largely according to their populations.
This formulaic approach is much liked by the Treasury, who have persisted with it ever since 1978, and told us that they expect to continue with it in the future.
However, over the 31 years, Scotland has come to receive more than it ‘needs’, while Wales and Northern Ireland have received less than ‘needed’. This is due to the Barnett Formula being unable to respond to population changes. Scotland’s baseline assumes that the population has not declined, and Wales’s and Northern Ireland’s as if theirs has not increased.
A further problem has arisen with the Barnett Formula in that it is driven by spending programmes for English departments. Devolution has, rightly, produced policy divergence e.g. free personal care for the elderly, abolition of tuition fees, free prescriptions, a possible departure from Council Tax. Already there are anomalies, and these will become greater. Consider the effect of a departure in England from the NHS to, say, compulsory private health insurance. This would remove £10bn from the Scottish block grant.
Another problem with the Barnett Formula is this: the Treasury decide whether spending in England is English or British. If it is English, then it has a consequential payment to the Devolved Institutions, but if it is British, then there is no consequential payment- eg the Olympic Games. Similarly the Treasury used to decide whether additional spending could be added in a process known as formula bypass, though this has not happened much since Devolution.
The ad hoc committee’s report published in July of this year, recommends that the Barnett Formula be brought to an end, and that an objective needs assessment formula be enacted, with an independent Fundi0 Comments 81 days
Be the difference under an independent scotland? I realise it has been a long time but i would like to know what davids opinion on this is?x
Its been a while since iv commented on this page. However iv begun to see gordon brown as a fail as a leader recently. I realise iv been anti independece for scotland on previous comments iv made. However i've realised that while i may not agree with political parties with national in their titles, perhaps labour are just to poor to deal with not only local problems such as unemployment but more global problems(such as afghanistan, where troops are being killed daily). I simply wonder now, what would be
New Blog from Stephen Maxwell: Dysfunction in the UK’s regulatory state
2)
parliament is ment to represent the people, but they never ask us, they deny us.
the parliament, is no longer a parliament in the sense, that the parties have agreed to block, other parties before it's
even been raised in parliament. and if the people want it or not. the parliament has said it wont work for them , has'nt it?
If this preposal interests your groups,please make your way over to
http://www.bebo.com/Profile.jsp?Memb...
and go to our forum post "Joint support"
Scott Morrison (I4S Leader)
1)
joint support
lets get our voice heard, numbers are important, and we can unite as the people of scotland, we can have a much greater voice,
As it has always been, we have been divided, and we have been conquered, Lets base this on common ground.
My view, and my Aim
The media ridicule and lie everyday, all media appears to be in the pocket,
David Maddox for example , hes as good as a spin Doctor.
The steering group, to push through calman_ which includes all unionist parties, and members of the media to spin it,
a group who decides to Block, in this case all Nationalist efforts toward independence.
the media , should report, ballance up, and be impartial, which is clearly not the case.
all the media spin, and time wasted debating it, for the cost of the calman commisson, and the National conversation etc,
why have'nt they just have a Referendum.
The Sunday Mail has canceled Elaine C Smith's column, it would seem that her pro-independence opinions are no longer welcome to group editor Bruce Waddell.
The last column she submitted, supporting Justice Secretary Kenny McAskill was pulled at the last minute.
I hope as many of you as possible will phone, write, email.
New Blog from Aileen Orr on the release of Abdelbaset Ali Mohmed Al Megrahi. Visit http://www.scottishindependenceconve...
New Blog from Liberal Democrat peer Jamie, Earl of Mar and Kellie, on the Barnett Formula... visit www.scottishindependenceconvention.o...
Without the Barnett formula, that stuff would still have to be paid for. The only difference it makes is that you've more idea how much is being spent.
It also doesn't take account of non-identifiable expenditure, something which we pay proportionately more towards in Scotland than in England due to the average household income.
Chadd,
Scotland has done very well out of the Barnett Formula, in every country less populated areas provide natural resources (incl. water) to the more populated areas, and as for 50% tax, there is no way it would be lower in an independent Scotland, given us Scots bizarre propensity to love corporatist statism. Iraq, I concede, was a mistake, but I do not think that one policy mistake (by the Scottish PM Blair, backed by his Scottish No. 2, Brown &c. invalidates the Union. We must learn from it.
We are freer in Union, better able to defend ourselves, more respected around the world, less likely to have our economy wrecked by Iceland-style troubles, heard in the UN, more efficiently able to address common interests, and united by a common culture and language.
Most recent independence poll shows that 42% oppose, 38% agree whilst a massive 20% are uncertain. You'd have to be really in denial to think that independence for Scotland is not coming...
The Union has taken Scotland granted. The Union has stolen Scottish oil profits, handed Scottish Waters over to England, taxed us 50%, and allowed two hundred of British citizens to be killed in a pointless Iraq war.
God bless Alex Salmond and the entire SNP.
Allan Massie was right, it is now the Unionists that are believing and fighting with their hearts while the Separatists muster rationalistic arguments. I belong to that section of Unionists who do not resent the Nationalists, but admire and respect their contribution to the debate.
Nationalism makes me realise that I too easily take the Union for granted. It makes me want to work for a better, not just stronger, Union. It makes me keen to contribute as a Scot to the well-being of the whole of the UK, so that English, Welsh, Cornish, Northern Irish &c. may understand that there are those of us in Scotland that are absolutely passionate about making the marriage work, that breathe our shared history, that take ownership not just of Shakespeare, Byron, Telford, George Sturt and Churchill, but also the errors of Empire, our wicked modern surveillance society, football hooliganism, and so on. It leaves me extraordinarily well disposed to yer average non-Scottish Brit.
I used to assent in my head that the Union was the better constitutional arrangement. Thanks to Nationalism, I now love the Union with my heart, with something approaching quasi-romantic fervour.
Time for a moratorium on devolution. Those in favour of scrapping the Scottish Parliament are 11% of the population and growing. One day, we'll have our third referendum!
Proud to be Scottish and British !
RULE BRITANNIA !!!!
NEVER voting for independence !
New Blog from Stephen Maxwell on the lack of representation of Scots in the Guardians Top 100 movers and shakers in the UK media www.scottishindependenceconvention.o...
Join this group if you like to debate about Scotlands politics or/and passionate about the fight for Scottish independence!
We are an official organisastion with an upcoming website and forum!
New Blog from Stephen Maxwell - Perfect Storm for Independence? Visit http://www.scottishindependenceconve...
New Blog from David McCann... Conspiracy theories and BBC Alba's Diomhair programme... visit www.scottishindependenceconvention.org
SNP win Maryfield by-election in Dundee!
SNP 1550 48%
Labour 1013 31%
LibDem 354 11%
Tory 224 7%
SSP 52 2%
Independent (Simmons) 35 1%
Independent (Young) 28 1%
SNP 14 Councillors
Labour 9 Councillors
Lib Dem 2 Councillors
Tories 3 Councillors
When you say experience...... If you ask if the SNP are experienced enough then I will give you an answer. No party has enough experience untill they get the job. The SNP has done more for Scotland than Labour. They have nearly three years experience under their wing and in such a financial climate as just now. Now is that not a stupid question?