Science could blossom under independence (Herald Letters)

Your front-page lead on Saturday: "Leading Scottish scientists have given support for the Union." Perhaps this should more honestly have read: "Some leading Scottish scientists" - for there are many Scottish scientists who fully support independence and see advantages to science in doing so.

Our nearest neighbour, Norway, which obtained independence from Sweden in 1905 (few Norwegians would want to return to that union) is a good example. Its Nobel Prizes are the ultimate international accolade which many scientists aspire to. Unlike the UK, where successive Unionist governments have squandered oil revenues for three decades to bolster our economy, Norway's national fund from oil, now worth billions of pounds, is being used to support vital research. Much of this is aimed at solving social and economic issues that will arise when the oil has gone. Fisheries research, in particular, has received a vital boost.

Other small countries have excellent, well-funded science bases. One of Finland's leading scientists has recently been awarded an honorary fellowship by Scotland's major national academy. Iceland's fishery research is thriving and has provided a scientific foundation for successful and sustainable commercial marine and freshwater fisheries. Of course, science is not the only element in the soul of a nation. The land of Sibelius (which has successfully become independent from both Sweden and Russia) has 15 symphony orchestras. How does a small independent country manage that?

Finally, social conscience. Hand on heart, I wonder how many of the scientists who signed Saturday's letter (organised by Professor Willie Russell - a long-time Labour member and friend of Gordon Brown) have read the manifestos of those parties committed to independence? How can any socially responsible person, scientist or not, vote for either of the main Unionist parties, both of which supported the entry of this country into a war which has used up billions of pounds which could have been devoted to research and has caused the deaths of hundreds of thousands of innocent people and created international turmoil?

Professor Peter S Maitland, Fish Conservation Centre, Haddington.

The liberal philosopher, J S Mill, wrote that "the English are the fittest people to rule over barbarous or semi-barbarous nations such as those of the East", including India, which he helped govern. He'd have been horrified at the thought of the "child-like" natives gaining full control of its universities. Likewise, the distinguished signatories to Saturday's letter on science funding in a future independent Scotland recoil in horror at the idea of the natives here gaining control over their universities. Despite a university tradition going back nearly 600 years, one which, while still relatively autonomous, produced Clerk Maxwell and nurtured Kelvin, research will not flourish, it seems, except under London control.

No-one can guarantee science funding in an independent Scotland inside the EU will match or surpass current levels. But to suggest that independence will "inevitably lead to . . . detrimental consequences" for research is nonsense and, coming at this juncture, a blatantly political act of scaremongering. Sadly, some scientists, when they venture forth from the labs into the political arena, leave behind more than their white coats. They leave behind their reason, too, substituting, in this case, ancient chauvinistic prejudices akin to Mill's.

Professor Alan Weir, Department of Philosophy, University of Glasgow.

I fear for the future of Scottish science but not because of the growing prospect of independence. Rather, I am gravely concerned by the lack of evidence for their views from the prominent scientists predicting doom from independence.

All of them surely accept that such views should be evidence-based, yet all we are offered is an assertion that things will get worse. If such prominent and accomplished figures are to advise us on politics, perhaps they might provide a few facts. Was their letter subject to peer review or was it written in New Labour HQ?

Ken Ferguson, High Street, Newburgh.

Until this election, I hadn't realised we had become such a nation of fearties. All sorts of doom and gloom scenarios have been painted by politicians, and now 62 scientists have signed a letter confessing their timidity, frightened they may be cut off from the UK apron strings.

The signatories are concerned that "the separation of Scotland from the Union" will break their ties with the UK science infrastructure, and lose them funding. But surely the collaboration and sharing of information about scientific developments and discoveries now takes place on a global basis?

Over the past two centuries or more, Scotland has gained a deserved international reputation for the many advances and innovations it has provided in engineering, scientific and medical research. Does our fearful group seriously believe an independent Scotland would be perverse and stupid enough to destroy such a vital part of its resources by refusing to provide adequate funding?

If the scientific research carried out in Scotland is of sufficient merit, the pharmaceutical companies will continue to support such research in their own interests. I'm certain that if the UK funding agencies withdrew financial support (the funds for which at present come at least partly from Scottish taxpayers' money), that support would continue to be provided by bodies set up in Scotland.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

60% OF SCOTS SUPPORT A REFERENDUM ON INDEPENDENCE

A recent poll in the Daily Telegraph has revealed that 60% of Scots want a referendum on independence. If the unionists were confident of their case (and their recent estimates that only a quarter of Scots actualy want independence) they would be happy to grant one.

In actual fact they know that when secondary issues are removed (such as references to leaving the UK which suggests a republic or to staying in or leaving the EU) that there is a clear majority for independence and this is why they are running scared of letting the people decide.

A referendum is a matter of simple democracy. It will happen and must happen as soon as possible. The Liberal Democrats cannot block the people on this issue and they will lose votes by trying to do so.

LABOUR'S BRANKIN LIES ABOUT BUS PASSES

I have it on good authority (the mother of a friend) that Labour's Rhona Brankin MSP (for Midlothian) told a group of pensioners at the Mayfield Labour club that if the SNP won they would lose their bus passes!

I think this is an excellent example of just how low Labour will go to get elected and it reflects their national campaign which has been entirely about scaremongering and lies about the supposed consequences of independence.

In fact independence simply means the normal powers that every other country on the planet takes for granted. Shame on you Rhona Brankin, let's hope you receive the reward you deserve at this election.

INDEPENDENCE 'COULD FUEL RECORD GROWTH'

INDEPENDENCE could lead to record economic growth and leave the average Scottish family thousands of pounds better off, a free market economic think-tank claimed today. A research paper published by the Adam Smith Institute, said that Scotland could emulate Ireland's recent economic success if the same policies are followed.

Instead of current growth rates that trail the rest of the country, Scotland ten years into independence could out-perform the UK, the report claimed. The paper, Independent Scotland: The Road to Riches by international economist Gabriel Stein of Lombard Street Research, found that from 1992 to 2004, Scotland's gross value added growth was only 87 per cent of that of the UK.

If an independent Scotland reduced taxes, cut spending and created a business-friendly environment, the country's growth rate over a five-year period could move from 4.7 per cent to Ireland's 7 per cent, he said.

The paper claimed that a further five years of Scottish growth at that level, and before diminishing returns set in, would lead to a more than two-thirds increase in GDP. Mr Stein said that by contrast the rest of the UK would grow by just over one-quarter.

With daft Scotsman articles - who needs logic?

With 'best pals' like these, who needs auld enemies?
by Tom Brown

http://news.scotsman.com/opinion.cfm?id=618442007

GREETINGS from the capital of In-ger-land. They speak the same language, even though they can't pronounce it properly. They spend the same money, although there seems to be much more of it sloshing around in London. The relatives and friends are all as affectionate as ever.
So why does it feel like a foreign country? For one thing, there is still - but not for much longer - the stench of tobacco smoke in pubs, wine bars and restaurants.


---------

"...when he voiced this [being closest of buddies] in front of activists and MSPs at the SNP manifesto launch, they all burst out laughing at the improbability."

I very much doubt it since the SNP have been saying similar things to this for some time.

"Salmond somewhat patronisingly tells the English that Scottish independence would be good for them."

Scottish cringe alert! Why is it patronising to tell the English that independence (for both countries) will be good for them while it is suposedly not patronising for Blair to come up and lecture us about how disastrous it would be if we became independent!

Double standards surely. The Scotsman and others like to pretend nationalism is motivated by bigotry but it is simply not the case. IMPERIALISM on the other hand is a nationalism of a different colour.

Tony Blair and the British Government exhibit signs of this belief that they are superior to other countries and have a right to tell other countries what to do.

I submit that British imperialism is out of date but civic inclusive Scottish nationalism is on the rise. One is positive one is negative and it's not difficult to work out which is which.

JOE

Scottish Independence - One Million Votes Required

REFERENDUM CAMPAIGN CALLS FOR A MILLION VOTES FOR INDEPENDENCE

INDEPENDENCE FIRST, the referendum campaign has asked for one million Scots to vote for a referendum on independence. The referendum campaign recently held a successful march and rally on Saturday 31/03.

Speaking at Independence First’s national meeting in Glasgow on 14/04, Press Officer Joe Middleton told assembled members: "Independence First want people to vote for candidates who support a referendum on independence. We only need around a million votes, in total in both FPTP and PR elements to gain an absolute majority in the Scottish parliament to push through a referendum."

Mr Middleton also urged any parties supporting more powers for the parliament to “put up or shut up”. He said “Any party which is proposing more powers for our parliament must explain exactly how they are going to achieve those powers in the face of a hostile Labour run Westminster Government."

"Since no party has formulated any such plans we can only conclude that their talk of more powers is hot air. In the Liberal Democrats case we know they have been in coalition with Labour for two terms but have gained zero concessions on new powers from Westminster.”

He added “The Tories have been dropping hints that they favour more fiscal powers for the parliament, however they have no actual plans for this and historically we know that the Tories tend to say very different things in opposition to what they say when in power!"

"Independence First urge both these parties to put up or shut up and for Scottish pollsters to refrain from asking meaningless questions about more powers which are not on offer at this election.”

“The only way to genuinely increase the powers of the Scottish parliament is to vote for a democratic independence referendum. We urge the Scottish people to do just that on May 3rd.”

Lib Dems warned not to shun SNP

A senior Liberal Democrat has warned his party not to close down the option of coalition talks with the SNP. Newly retired MSP Donald Gorrie said it should "never say never" to an independence referendum.

The Nationalists are committed to one, but Scots Lib Dem leader Nicol Stephen has regarded it as a "significant block" to a power-sharing deal. Mr Gorrie said this need not be the case, and has urged all party leaders to set aside "macho posturing".

He said they should be prepared to "negotiate away disagreements" after the May election, adding that Labour would have the Lib Dems "over a barrel" if it became clear they would not talk to the SNP.

Personally, Mr Gorrie favours referendums, but politically, he expressed concern that the Liberal Democrats would weaken their negotiating position by ruling one out. The Holyrood and Westminster veteran has suggested a multi-option referendum as a possible compromise.

The Liberal Democrats, he claimed, may have to choose whether to form a coalition with Labour or the SNP. He said they should do so on the basis of which party would help deliver the Liberal Democrats manifesto.

Unions endorse Labour by ONE vote!

JACK McConnell will today try to prevent a haemorrhaging of Labour's traditional support after his party only narrowly won the endorsement of Scotland's trades unions. The First Minister will use his keynote address to the Scottish Trades Union Congress to seek to re-establish his party's credentials after the STUC's general council, its ruling body, decided by only one vote to back Labour in the Holyrood and council elections.

www.scotsman.com

Why are Lib-Dems denying Scots a choice?

LibDem leader Nicol Stephen states categorically that he is not in favour of independence for Scotland; nor is he in favour of a referendum on independence. I can understand the first part of his statement. For many years his party has argued for a system of federal regions throughout the UK, although it is now clear that this is never going to happen.

The concept has virtually no support in England and was recently rejected by the north-east (in a referendum, by the way). The policy would also mean Scotland becoming the seventh or eighth "region" of the UK, an even more demeaning status than the present half-way house.

But why should the Liberal Democrat party also oppose the liberal and democratic idea of the Scottish people deciding for themselves if they want Scotland to be an independent nation again? After all, the LibDems actively supported the devolution referendum 10 years ago and earlier the UK referendum on joining the EEC.

Both of these were recognised as major constitutional issues that should not be decided only by politicians. A decision on independence for Scotland is also a major constitutional decision and should be made by all the people.

Nicol Stephen and his party are perfectly entitled to dislike the idea of independence and to campaign against it in the run-up to a referendum. But they are not entitled to deny a sovereign people the final say in their own future. They should remember that all politicians are elected to serve the people, not to rule them.

Iain A D Mann, 7 Kelvin Court, Glasgow.

Your editorial on the prospect of an SNP administration agreeing to a referendum which includes a sop to the Liberal Democrats of including an option of simply "more" powers for the Scottish Parliament misses a key point.A referendum with a single question on independence comes with the right to secede from the UK if a positive vote were to be won.

This principle is enshrined in international and EU law and politicians such as David Cameron and Douglas Alexander have acknowledged that victory in such a plebiscite would decide the matter.

A victory for the "more powers" camp, on the other hand, would be pointless, as the Scottish Parliament does not have the right under any law simply to demand "more" powers from Westminster, which could simply say no. Any multi-option poll would be muddied in confusion and its result ambiguous. The SNP should stick to its guns and after 300 years of a Union that no-one voted for, give Scots a clear choice of yes or no to independence and nothing less.

Gavin Fleming, 517 Webster's Land, Grassmarket, Edinburgh.

Does the SNP think the rest of the UK is going to sit back and wait for Scotland to take three years for us to make a decision on independence? This will have a direct effect on them with regards to defence, inward investment, foreign policy, etc.

If the SNP won I would expect the other nations in the UK to demand a referendum immediately to stop the uncertainty.

Andy Moffat, 52 Bradda Avenue, Rutherglen.

It is an illiberal party that denies the people a voice

by
IAIN MacWHIRTER April 16 2007

Last week, at their manifesto launch in Edinburgh, the Scottish Liberal Democrats' leader, Nicol Stephen, retired exhausted following an arduous 15 minutes of questions. The assembled hacks demanded extra time to discuss the party's opposition to a referendum on devolution and other matters.

Tavish Scott, the party's transport spokesman, was obliged to convene an impromptu news conference in order to soothe the brow of the beast. He did a pretty good job as it happened . . . of imitating the Rev Ian Paisley.

Aren't the LibDems prepared at least to negotiate on the referendum? No, said Tavish. Would they accept a referendum with three questions on it, one of which might be the Liberal Democrat option of federalism; ie, more powers for the parliament? No!

What about the Constitutional Convention mark II, which they propose to set up to give Holyrood more powers? Would they consider putting its findings before the people in a referendum? No! No! No! Truly, Tavish is now the Abominable No Man of Scottish politics.

The Liberal Democrats are in danger of making themselves look ridiculous. Correction, the Liberal Democrats are looking ridiculous over their opposition - under any circumstances, until hell freezes over - to a referendum on the constitution. This was always a very strange position for a party of constitutional reformers that has participated in numerous referendums over the years.

Whether on Europe, Scottish and Welsh devolution or the Good Friday Agreement, referendums are how we do things in this country. Over three decades, they have become the accepted means of resolving constitutional issues. What makes the Liberal Democrats think they can dictate otherwise?

Try turning the issue on its head. If, as the LibDem leader, Nicol Stephen, insisted last week the "real referendum is on May 3", what does that mean if the SNP wins? Does it give the Nationalists the right to break up Britain, begin negotiations with Westminster over secession, without first getting a further explicit endorsement from the people? Of course not.

People vote on all manner of issues in a General Election. You cannot simply infer a nation's attitude to one of the most profound constitutional issues in a generation from how many people voted Alex Salmond on the ballot paper. Many people in May will be voting to scrap council tax, remove Trident or because they don't like Jack McConnell's face.

The Constitutional Commission, chaired by the LibDems' former leader, Lord Steel, 18 months ago proposed a whole range of new powers for Holyrood, from fiscal autonomy to welfare and immigration. The Steel Report actually looks a lot more Nationalist than the SNP's own very tame manifesto published last week. Given the history of devolution referendums, it would be unthinkable to wrest so many new powers from Westminster without the people of Scotland being given a chance explicitly to endorse such a move.

Yet the referendum is the only issue upon which the ideology-lite Liberal Democrats refuse to compromise. In the eternally shifting sands of LibDem policy, where everything is provisional and principles are merely negotiating postures, their rejection of a constitutional vote is the one bedrock, the one issue upon which they will not be moved; it's the one item on which they cannot be bought. They aren't the Liberal Democrats anymore; in this election they are the No Referendum Party.

Ludicrously, they say they will not even sit down with the SNP, should the Nationalists be returned as the largest party, unless Alex Salmond abandons the referendum and presumably goes back to the old SNP policy of regarding an election victory as a mandate for independence. If he refuses, the Liberal Democrat ministers will forgo their ministerial cars, along with their red boxes, and sulk on the back benches, rather than allow Scotland to choose the constitutional arrangement which best suits it. It beggars belief.

Indeed, and most people simply don't believe the Liberal Democrats. Such is their form, on issues like road pricing, that no-one believes they will actually do as they say.

The Mail on Sunday ran a story yesterday claiming that a deal has already been struck behind the scenes with the SNP. This is denied fiercely by the LibDems, and seems to have more to do with SNP open-mindedness on the nature of the referendum than anything that's coming from the LibDems.

Alex Salmond has moved a long way in the past week. At the SNP's manifesto launch, he told the media that his "preference' was for a single-question referendum putting only the option of independence or the status quo. But he refused pointedly to rule out there being other options on the ballot paper. This was a pretty remarkable concession.

Look at the arithmetic. If the polls are to be believed, in any multi-option referendum, the Nationalists would lose. In the recent Times ICM poll, 88% of Scots said they wanted more powers for Holyrood, but only 27% wanted full independence. Of course, the precise level of support for Scottish independence is hard to determine because it depends very much on how the question is phrased. But most polling experts accept that, while a comfortable majority of Scots want more powers for Holyrood, only around one-third favour leaving the UK.

[Not the case if secondary issues (such as EU and monarchy) are removed there is a majority for independence. The question of more powers confuses the issue and is disingenious - no more powers are on offer and the Lib Dems haven't said how any new powers could be achieved. - JOE]

In other words, the Liberal Democrats are rejecting a constitutional referendum which they would almost certainly win and which would probably cement Scotland's place in the United Kingdom for the next decade. What are they waiting for? They should be claiming game, set and match.

But the LibDems say they will do nothing to endanger the Union. That the SNP would turn their joint administration into a battering ram for independence, by fomenting rows with London, to prepare the ground for 2010. But surely the Nationalists would do that anyway, whether or not there is a referendum. In fact, a referendum would surely encourage the SNP to behave as responsibly as possible to demonstrate to the people of Scotland that it is capable of running a responsible administration.

But where this becomes objectionable is in the way the Liberal Democrats seem to believe that they can have a veto over the parliament itself. This is a decision of Holyrood, not any particular party. We have had two referendums on devolution - 1979 and 1997 - and it is the height of arrogance for one party to decide, unilaterally, that there should not be a third before further radical change.

The precedents are too well established now for the LibDems to dump this. Their rejectionism is constitutionally unsustainable, morally insupportable and politically inept. If the Liberal Democrats really want to give Scotland a reason for rejecting them, this is the way to do it.

How Scottish newspapers are out of touch with their readers politics

by Murray Ritchie

on http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com

The notoriously anti-democratic bias of Scotland’s newspapers is exposed by a remarkable set of figures in a recent YouGov opinion poll.

The survey shows that the SNP is clearly the most popular party among readers of Scotland’s indigenous daily newspapers – the Herald, Scotsman, Press and Journal, Courier, and Daily Record.

Yet the Scottish press remains unanimously and implacably opposed to the SNP’s flagship policy of independence. Not one paper in the country reflects the main political aspiration of its own readership. It could only happen in Scotland.

The figures are truly astonishing. So here are the figures, published for the first time.The survey was conducted by YouGov on the back of a recent poll commissioned by the SNP on voting intentions for the Scottish general election.

Pollsters asked 1063 respondents across Scotland from March 27-30 which newspaper they read. They were then asked which party they supported.The results show that even the slavishly pro-Labour Daily Record’s readers prefer the SNP to Labour by 40% to 37% in the constituencies (and 39% to 36% in the regions).

Readers of Scotland on Sunday are the most pro-SNP of any newspaper surveyed. Yet SoS continues to adopt a stridently unsympathetic approach to independence while its readers show a simple majority in favour of the SNP - 52% in the constituencies compared with Labour’s 15%, and 47% in the regions compared with Labour’s 20%. SoS is the only paper with an overall majority of SNP voters.The Scotsman, once the Union’s most passionate supporter in the days of Andrew Neil, has a readership of whom 42% favour the Nationalists over Labour’s 19% in the constituencies. In the regions the Scotsman’s figures are 37% and 22% in the SNP’s favour.

And what of The Herald? The survey suggests 45% of its readers in the constituencies back the SNP (Labour 22%). The Herald’s regional figures are SNP 37% and Labour 21%.Other titles - Aberdeen Press and Journal, Dundee Courier, the “Scottish” Daily Express, Sunday Herald, Sunday Times, News of the World, Sunday Mail, Mail on Sunday, and the Sunday Post - show similar majorities for the SNP over the other parties.

Will our editors now show a little more balance, thus reflecting the sympathies of their readers?

Well, what do you think?

Re: Scottish National Party—still Tartan Tories beneath the left veneer

Letter to the Editor - WSWS

RE: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2007/apr2007/snp-a13.shtml

The clear choice in this election is between independence and the freedom to decide our own political destiny and a continuation of a union where eternal right wing government is guaranteed.

I think you could make considerably better use of this site by actually attempting to consider what is actually happening rather than what you want to happen with your three men and a dog 'socialist unity party'.

If this is a WORLD socialist web site why does it hate the social democratic SNP, the socialist SSP, the socialist solidarity and the Scottish Greens who all have genuine support in Scotland? It's bizarre and in no way reflects any genuine strand of opinion in Scotland.

By all means remain Brits and argue for continuation of the union like every other fringe left grouping based in London in the last twenty years but please don't pretend to a 'holier than thou' attitude which you don't deserve.

Scottish socialists in Scotland want a better future for our country. That might be acheived with independence or it might not but at the end of the day at least the Scottish people will decide our future destiny (every party based in Scotland opposes Trident for a start). Scotland has a fundamental right to self determination.

Labour and the Lib Dems denial of this right will see them get cuffed at the next election. If you want to keep playing their games and attacking the SNP on dubious grounds then do so but realise that YOU are also ignoring Scotland's democratic aspirations towards normal national powers which could be used to provide a much more progressive society for our citizens, something a WORLD socialist web site might be expected to support!

You might want to look at this article:

http://www.swans.com/library/art12/joemid02.html

I doubt it will make any difference however!

Joe Middleton

Some cracking vids of the 31/03 IF Rally

More here:

http://youtube.com/group/independencefirst

Scottish Independence: The time is right for us to grasp the thistle

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=51&id=501372007