The unionist parties have started their defense of the union. Danny Alexander & Micheal Moore, both Scottish LibDem MP's have made speeches this week on the value of the Union.
I have not been able to read their speeches in full and so have had to relay on newspaper reports. From these, it seems as if the same old arguments are being trotted out. Is it the correct way to defend the union, by attack independence and Scotland's ability to be an independent nation? As the Guardian today put it "Alexander said it would have been "catastrophic" for Scotland to deal with a collapsing banking sector had it not been part of the UK and said that if it had stood alone "Scotland's deficit would have been one of the largest in Europe"."
This was the argument that was put forward last May and was soundly rejected by the Scottish electorate. Why do they think that it is going to work now? Have the Scottish LibDem's not learnt that the electorate in Scotland do not want their country to be put down. For their politicians to say Scotland cannot stand on its own two feet, it needs England to support it. Do they think that if they say it again and again that the Scots will start to believe it. Is it a little like our attitude when we met someone who can't speak English we speak louder & repeat ourselves.
Why can't the Unionist parties put forward positive reasons for staying as part of the UK & Gt Britain. Why do they always have to put forward the argument that Scotland would not be able to stand alone. Most economist say that we could.
Figures are put forward about debit, output, tax revenue etc. Let's be honest, the unionist parties will paint as black a picture as possible and the independence parties will paint as rosier picture as possible. Why can't there be a grown up debate setting out the true costs and true economic picture.
So far the whole unionist argument is about economics and not about Scotland as a nation. National identity is not about how much we have in our pockets, it is also how much we have in our hearts. Scotland has always been a more liberal and socially aware country than England. Free education has been one of the cornerstones of Scotland, the Declaration of Arbroath stating that "all men are equal." Let's not get all misty eyed about the past but the past shapes the future. The long history of leading lights of the Labour & Liberal/LibDems parties coming from Scotland, as well as a huge percentage of their MP's.
Let us not just have the debate of will Scotland have to apply for entry into the EEC but would, what every of the UK is called, also have to apply? The United Kingdom would be broken, if Scotland left would it still be a legal entity? I don't know but if the rest of the 'UK' had to apply there would be the usual clamor for a referendum? What would be the result? Also, would the same happen about membership of the United Nations. Would that be the excuse for a number of nations who want the United Kingdom to lose its permanent seat on the Security Council, to try to secure it?
Why are these questions not debated? Why is it that it is always Scotland would not be able to do this or that or the other.
The Scottish people rejected the status quo last May. The unionist parties seem to offering nothing new from what they offered then. Why should shouting & repeating the same arguments convince the Scottish electorate this time.
It is time to be grown up and time to treat the electorate with respect. Let's have a proper debate about what we want for a future Scotland and what is the best way to achieve it. I doubt that it is possible in our political system.
I have not been able to read their speeches in full and so have had to relay on newspaper reports. From these, it seems as if the same old arguments are being trotted out. Is it the correct way to defend the union, by attack independence and Scotland's ability to be an independent nation? As the Guardian today put it "Alexander said it would have been "catastrophic" for Scotland to deal with a collapsing banking sector had it not been part of the UK and said that if it had stood alone "Scotland's deficit would have been one of the largest in Europe"."
This was the argument that was put forward last May and was soundly rejected by the Scottish electorate. Why do they think that it is going to work now? Have the Scottish LibDem's not learnt that the electorate in Scotland do not want their country to be put down. For their politicians to say Scotland cannot stand on its own two feet, it needs England to support it. Do they think that if they say it again and again that the Scots will start to believe it. Is it a little like our attitude when we met someone who can't speak English we speak louder & repeat ourselves.
Why can't the Unionist parties put forward positive reasons for staying as part of the UK & Gt Britain. Why do they always have to put forward the argument that Scotland would not be able to stand alone. Most economist say that we could.
Figures are put forward about debit, output, tax revenue etc. Let's be honest, the unionist parties will paint as black a picture as possible and the independence parties will paint as rosier picture as possible. Why can't there be a grown up debate setting out the true costs and true economic picture.
So far the whole unionist argument is about economics and not about Scotland as a nation. National identity is not about how much we have in our pockets, it is also how much we have in our hearts. Scotland has always been a more liberal and socially aware country than England. Free education has been one of the cornerstones of Scotland, the Declaration of Arbroath stating that "all men are equal." Let's not get all misty eyed about the past but the past shapes the future. The long history of leading lights of the Labour & Liberal/LibDems parties coming from Scotland, as well as a huge percentage of their MP's.
Let us not just have the debate of will Scotland have to apply for entry into the EEC but would, what every of the UK is called, also have to apply? The United Kingdom would be broken, if Scotland left would it still be a legal entity? I don't know but if the rest of the 'UK' had to apply there would be the usual clamor for a referendum? What would be the result? Also, would the same happen about membership of the United Nations. Would that be the excuse for a number of nations who want the United Kingdom to lose its permanent seat on the Security Council, to try to secure it?
Why are these questions not debated? Why is it that it is always Scotland would not be able to do this or that or the other.
The Scottish people rejected the status quo last May. The unionist parties seem to offering nothing new from what they offered then. Why should shouting & repeating the same arguments convince the Scottish electorate this time.
It is time to be grown up and time to treat the electorate with respect. Let's have a proper debate about what we want for a future Scotland and what is the best way to achieve it. I doubt that it is possible in our political system.
No comments:
Post a Comment