Archive for Our Scotland - www.our-scotland.org Scottish Politics Discussion Forum / Messageboard - Dedicated to online discussion about Scottish Politics and an Independent Scotland, as well as Scottish Society today. We also have a section dedicated to Banter, Sport and Recommended Sites.
|
Avatar
|
Brown to be at forefront of campaign to defeat Nationalists | Quote: | JAMES KIRKUP
GORDON Brown today stakes his personal political credibility on his ability to defeat the Scottish National Party, promising to put himself at the head of a new campaign to save the Union between Scotland and England.
With the 300th anniversary of the Treaty of Union due next week, the Chancellor uses an interview in The Scotsman to announce a concerted effort to prevent the break-up of the UK.
How much do you want to borrow? (£)
Repayment period years
Do you have a less then perfect credit history or have you been turned down for a loan? Yes
No
Are you a mortgage payer? yes
No
Polls show the SNP with a real chance of beating Labour in May's Holyrood election, and Mr Brown is desperate to avoid a Nationalist triumph that would cast a dark shadow over what he and his inner circle assume will be his first months as prime minister.
Speaking at the Treasury in London, Mr Brown admitted that Labour must do more to explain the benefits of Scotland's place in the UK, and accepted that his party had let that argument fade. "For every generation and almost every decade you have got to make the case for the Union, for what benefits being part of Britain brings to each part of Britain," the Chancellor said.
The interview effectively fires the starting gun on a pro-Union charm offensive. Next week, Mr Brown will unveil a new commemorative £2 coin marking the Union's anniversary. And in the coming weeks, he will publish a pamphlet co-authored with Douglas Alexander, the Scottish Secretary, that will make the "21st-century case for the Union". That case will be built on family ties.
"When the Act of Union was signed, only 30,000 Scots had English relatives, and now the figure is 2.5 million," Mr Brown said. "It will seem strange to consider breaking a union when 2.5 million Scots have strong ties, family ties, with England."
Yet even as he pledged to "show the positive case for the Union" yesterday, Mr Brown demonstrated the depth of his concerns about the Nationalist threat by painting a startlingly bleak picture of life in an independent Scotland.
Raising the spectre of massive economic damage being done to Scotland, Mr Brown warned that key Scottish industries, such as financial services and scientific research, would be placed in grave danger by an SNP-led Executive.
In a new warning, the Chancellor predicted that English investors could withdraw billions of pounds from fund managers and insurance companies in an independent Scotland, effectively destroying the Scottish financial services industry and putting thousands out of work.
"Financial services is now Scotland's most expanding industry and in Edinburgh it is central to the economy; 125,000 people employed in that sector," Mr Brown said, claiming that "only a quarter of financial services work is for the Scottish population. Of the rest, nearly 90 per cent is for England".
Scotland's world-renowned scientific research sector would also be crippled by Scotland's separation from England, Mr Brown warned, suggesting that outside the Union, pioneers like "Dolly the Sheep" creator Professor Ian Wilmut would receive less support for their work.
It was announced on Thursday that Prof Wilmut is to head the new Scottish Centre for Regenerative Medicine, a unique facility co-funded by the Scottish Executive, Scottish Enterprise and Edinburgh University. Such developments would be lost outside the Union, Mr Brown said.
"Scotland gets a far higher proportion of UK research funds because our universities are of a very high quality, but split the UK research council system, split the collaborative projects that are taking place, for example stem-cell research such as that announced yesterday [by] Professor Ian Wilmut... and Scotland would not gain. We would almost certainly lose out," Mr Brown said.
The SNP has accused Labour of the politics of fear, pointing to ministers' warnings that an independent Scotland would be impoverished and at greater risk of terrorism, but Mr Brown was unrepentant about his attacks on the SNP.
"The Nationalists don't build their arguments around culture; they build it around economics, but if that argument is wrong and they are misleading people about the benefits they can gain, it is our duty to expose them."
But Mr Brown also acknowledged that the Union was coming under pressure from England, where increasing numbers of people are resentful about Scotland's financial and political status. Just as Mr Brown is concerned about Labour losing ground in Scotland, he is at pains to avoid alienating English voters by appearing too Scottish.
That priority was demonstrated by the Chancellor's obvious discomfort when asked whether his Scottishness comes before his Britishness. Mr Brown refused to say which of his national identities comes first: "I feel Scottish and British, and that's the way to put it."
Gordon Brown tells Scotsman Editor Mike Gilson why, as we approach the 300th anniversary of the Union of the Parliaments, we must fight to preserve it
Mike Gilson: On Tuesday, we reach the 300th anniversary of the vote in the Scottish Parliament to support the Act of Union. Why do you think as we approach that date the Scottish appetite for independence is growing?
Gordon Brown: I don't think it is growing. I think if you actually look at the figures for those who favour separation, they are roughly what they have been in the past. I think what has happened, though, is that for every generation and almost every decade you have got to make the case for the Union, for what benefits being part of Britain brings to each part of Britain. Once the debate starts over the next few weeks, and to some extent The Scotsman started this a month or two ago, the debate will fashion itself around some key issues and people will start to see that family ties between Scotland and the rest of Britain are incredibly strong. When the Act of Union was signed, only 30,000 Scots had English relatives and now the figure is 2.5 million. It will seem strange to consider breaking a union when 2.5 million of your population have strong ties, family ties, with England. I think that when we put the economic argument, that it is about shared networks, business relationships and connections ... people [will] see the influence of the Union. Financial services is now Scotland's most expanding industry and in Edinburgh it is central to the economy; 125,000 people employed in that sector. Only a quarter of financial services work is for the Scottish population. Of the rest, nearly 90 per cent is for England. When the most important sectors of your economy have that much trade with England, then you can start to see the interdependence.
MG: But why do family ties and the economy have to suffer because of independence?
GB: A separate state would have to have a separate currency that would have to be backed by a separate inflation rate, separate interest rates and separate borders. Take the financial services industry - it would be regulated by an English regulator and a Scottish regulator. It would be subject to two separate currencies and transactions. I could go through a whole series of industries ... my point is the interconnections between our two economies, built up over hundreds of years, are far more ingrained than any other trading area.
MG: Some might say that a Scotland freed from the yoke of Westminster, freed from your taxes, with an Irish style regime ...
GB: There's absolutely no chance, with the current public expenditure relationships, of Scotland having a surplus as a result of breaking away from the UK. Look, when I was young the SNP used to say the Scottish currency would float on whisky; recently they've said it would float on oil. You see, the big argument that this was all built around was that Scotland was doing worse than the rest of Britain, that Scotland had higher unemployment, that Scotland's growth rate was always going to be lower. In fact, in the last three years, Scotland's growth rate has been higher, unemployment is lower than the rest of the UK, lower than London for example - 200,000 jobs have been created since 1997.
MG: But it appears that those points, if you look at the opinion polls, don't seem to be getting through to significant numbers of people. Take the Oban conference - the big guns from London came up for a full-on attack on the SNP, but there was a discernible sense that it backfired. It can't have been the reaction you wanted.
GB: Look, the nationalists don't build their arguments around culture, they build it around economics, but if that argument is wrong, it is our duty to expose them. But equally so, we have got to show the positive case for Union. You know, the Nationalists don't have answers. What is their policy on the Scottish pound? What is their policy on Scottish interest rates? What is their policy on the Scottish inflation target? What is their policy about borders? What is their policy about financial regulation affecting financial services? What would happen to the Scottish shipbuilding industry because most of the orders are made for naval orders for the UK? Scotland gets a far higher proportion of UK research funds because our universities are of a very high quality... but split the UK research council system, split the collaborative projects that are taking place (for example stem-cell research such as that announced yesterday by Prof Ian Wilmut) and Scotland would not gain. We would almost certainly lose out.
MG: But there, you see, why would Prof Wilmut be any less of a pioneer in an independent Scotland?
GB: Because the funding of university research in Britain is under a collaborative basis across Britain. If you take life sciences at Dundee - 700 scientists working from 56 countries, but the funding is actually partly UK-funded. If you look at stem-cell research, it is the UK leading because there are four universities in the UK that are pioneering. Scotland, with 9 per cent of the population, gets 12 per cent of UK funding for research, 13 per cent for government research, 12 per cent of EU research resources. So Scotland succeeds with a UK framework.
MG: What do you do, what can you do, with the Barnett formula, given the well-documented signs of an English backlash?
GB: All parties agree with the principle that underlies the formula: resources in the UK should be distributed according to the needs of different parts, and that is a benefit. It helps Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland, which historically had bigger social problems to meet, and, of course, Scotland is in a position where it is only 9 per cent of the population but a third of the land area of the UK so it has high costs to pay for transport and rural areas. The principle is accepted and has been for the last 40 years.
MG: But what about the feeling that many in England are beginning to think that Scotland should go it alone?
GB: I would like there to be a big debate about British values that recognises the diversity of the UK but acknowledges and celebrates what we have in common. Britain has been understated as an idea.
MG: For the benefit of Scotsman readers, Chancellor, how do you describe yourself. Are you Scottish, British? Which do you put first?
GB: I am Scottish and British and I think most people ...
MG: Do you put it in any order?
GB: Look I, er, feel in the last two or three years that the argument for devolution has been won.
I am talking about shared institutions like the monarchy, armed forces and also the NHS, the BBC, with substantial devolution but a British institution. Pensions, unemployment benefit and the protection of the individual is the right of every person in every part of Britain.
MG: But why is it hard for you to say that you feel Scottish first?
GB: I said I feel Scottish and British, and that's the way to put it.
MG: If the polls are right and the SNP triumphs in May, there's a potential for people to say you were a Prime Minister who couldn't deliver his own backyard. Doesn't that keep you up at nights?
GB: At every election ... every time people have listened to the arguments which have been put, they have come to the conclusion that we are stronger together and weaker apart.
MG: Did you learn anything from the Dunfermline by-election last year? Will you be highly visible in this election?
GB: You learn something from all elections. It is the people speaking. Never take the people for granted ... never be complacent.
MG: Would the Prime Minister be an asset for the May campaign?
GB: Of course. Tony spoke very eloquently at the Scottish conference on the importance he attached on Scotland being part of the Union. Tony Blair and others will play their part.
MG: It seems to me, Chancellor, that you have embarked on a mission moving yourself away from the Prime Minister. I give you two examples. The one today about taking flights, which seemed to take a different line from Mr Blair, saying you would fly less to cut emissions, and the swiftness with which you condemned the manner of Saddam's execution when Mr Blair was refusing to comment.
GB: I think that is wrong. With the execution, I happened to be in a television studio and was asked about the issue the day before Tony Blair himself was on television and was asked about the issue, and we both said almost exactly the same thing. On flights, I was saying what I know Tony Blair also believes, that this is a matter for individual choice but people should know what the full costs and consequences are.
MG: It doesn't grieve you that the Prime Minister doesn't, or can't, say Gordon Brown should be next Prime Minister?
GB: I've always said that is a matter for him.
MG: Is devolution a process or has it finished? Is what we've got as far as it goes for you?
GB: Proposals come up now and again for reform, but I think that what we've got is what the Scottish people voted for in a referendum. |
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=64822007
|
Aventinian
|
"MG: But why is it hard for you to say that you feel Scottish first?
GB: I said I feel Scottish and British, and that's the way to put it. "
Quite right too. Imposing some sort of hierarchy on identity is ridiculous. I obviously feel far more attached to my hometown and my county than I do to Scotland or Britain (particularly since my exile from the former group, and I'd imagine most people feel this way, but yet I wouldn't say "I feel more ____ian than British" since, well, it's nonsense. They're two very separate things.
|
Economist
|
I think, if anything, this intervention will go down worse in England than it will in Scotland (and it'll go down badly enough in Scotland).
Good.
|
IF Convenor
|
Re: Brown to be at forefront of campaign to defeat Nationali | Avatar wrote: | | Quote: | JAMES KIRKUP
MG: Is devolution a process or has it finished? Is what we've got as far as it goes for you?
GB: Proposals come up now and again for reform, but I think that what we've got is what the Scottish people voted for in a referendum. |
http://news.scotsman.com/index.cfm?id=64822007 |
If Gordon Brown think a referendum gives the present devolution settlement legitimacy, why won't the government hold a referendum on independence? Let's see just how legitimate this great union of his is! Come on Gordon, let's have a referendum and see who's right.
|
Niall
|
A Chairadean mhath.
What a deliciously satisfying spectacle, a panicking Broonie having to change his underpants several times a day whenever he is confronted with the very real spectre of Scotland repealing the Act of Union and going it alone. Here's another thought for you Mr Brown, When Scotland becomes Independent, you won't have a career any more and you'll have to sign on at the Buroo in Dunfermline. "whats that you just said?" 'I'm awa tae change my breeks, Ah've jist keeched them!'
Evening Standard newsflash! "Mrs Brown buys up London's entire stock of Kalvin Klein size 46 boxer shorts. 'Quote: 'It's going to be long shitty months until May 3rd and I can't keep Gordon going in underwear.'
S' Mise
Niall
|
George
|
| Aventinian wrote: | "MG: But why is it hard for you to say that you feel Scottish first?
GB: I said I feel Scottish and British, and that's the way to put it. "
Quite right too. Imposing some sort of hierarchy on identity is ridiculous. I obviously feel far more attached to my hometown and my county than I do to Scotland or Britain (particularly since my exile from the former group, and I'd imagine most people feel this way, but yet I wouldn't say "I feel more ____ian than British" since, well, it's nonsense. They're two very separate things. |
I suppose it comes down to this:
If you found yourself in a foreign country speaking to a national from that country and the national asked: Where are you from?
Would you instinctively reply Scotland or would you reply Great Britain?.......instinctively is the operative word here!!
Well?................
|
SLG
|
| Aventinian wrote: | "MG: But why is it hard for you to say that you feel Scottish first?
GB: I said I feel Scottish and British, and that's the way to put it. "
Quite right too. Imposing some sort of hierarchy on identity is ridiculous. I obviously feel far more attached to my hometown and my county than I do to Scotland or Britain (particularly since my exile from the former group, and I'd imagine most people feel this way, but yet I wouldn't say "I feel more ____ian than British" since, well, it's nonsense. They're two very separate things. |
But by all accounts, Brown has changed his opinion on this as it has become more politically relevant to him. It's not about 'imposing a hierarchy on identity', it's just a fact of life. Most Scots feel more Scottish than British. Some feel equally so, and a small number more British than Scottish.
|
DUNDEE2007
|
BRING ON THE FAT UNIONISTHe can expect more of this ....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C88oOLDt8WA
|
Aventinian
|
| George wrote: | I suppose it comes down to this:
If you found yourself in a foreign country speaking to a national from that country and the national asked: Where are you from?
Would you instinctively reply Scotland or would you reply Great Britain?.......instinctively is the operative word here!!
Well?................ |
Depends where the most local place I thought they would have heard of is.
|
Firefox
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | George wrote: | I suppose it comes down to this:
If you found yourself in a foreign country speaking to a national from that country and the national asked: Where are you from?
Would you instinctively reply Scotland or would you reply Great Britain?.......instinctively is the operative word here!!
Well?................ |
Depends where the most local place I thought they would have heard of is. |
That suggests opportunism which (unconsciously) reveals a lot about you.
|
SLG
|
I'm not sure about that. In most places in Europe, I would probably say I was from Edinburgh. Further afield I would say Scotland.
If someone was to ask what country I was from I would always say Scotland though. I don't imagine anyone could answer I'm from both Scotland and the UK to that.
|
George
|
| Aventinian wrote: | | George wrote: | I suppose it comes down to this:
If you found yourself in a foreign country speaking to a national from that country and the national asked: Where are you from?
Would you instinctively reply Scotland or would you reply Great Britain?.......instinctively is the operative word here!!
Well?................ |
Depends where the most local place I thought they would have heard of is. |
Well that wouldn't constitute an instinctive reply then would it?
Care to have another go?
|
Aventinian
|
| Firefox wrote: | | Aventinian wrote: | | George wrote: | I suppose it comes down to this:
If you found yourself in a foreign country speaking to a national from that country and the national asked: Where are you from?
Would you instinctively reply Scotland or would you reply Great Britain?.......instinctively is the operative word here!!
Well?................ |
Depends where the most local place I thought they would have heard of is. |
That suggests opportunism which (unconsciously) reveals a lot about you. |
Not to labour the point: but what the bloody hell are you raving on about? This is what normal people do, people who don't give a toss about politics or nationality. How the hell is that opportunism? I am frustrated by the total nonsense in your post.
| SLG wrote: | I'm not sure about that. In most places in Europe, I would probably say I was from Edinburgh. Further afield I would say Scotland.
If someone was to ask what country I was from I would always say Scotland though. I don't imagine anyone could answer I'm from both Scotland and the UK to that. |
Nope, because Scotland isn't a country. I'd say the UK or Britain to answer that. Although equally, I'd say I was from Edinburgh, if indeed I was still living there, wherever I thought the place would be understood. I imagine, for example, most Londoners rarely say they're from England or the UK when responding to this question from foreigners.
| George wrote: | Well that wouldn't constitute an instinctive reply then would it?
Care to have another go? |
My instinct would not drive me to make any certain reply to this question, I would rely on my reason.
|
Avatar
|
| Quote: | | Nope, because Scotland isn't a country. I'd say the UK or Britain |
Of course Scotland is a country, Britain on the other hand isn't a country its an Island just to be pedantic. Personally I wouldnt describe the UK as a country either its a union, no more a country than the EU is or will become.
|
|
|
|