S'accréditer |
S'abonner |
Se connecter |
Faire un donS'accréditer |
S'abonner |
Se connecter |
Faire un don
Plans by the Scottish opposition parties (Labour, Conservatives and the Liberal Democrats) to form a Commission in response to the "National Conversation" of the Scottish Nationalist Party (SNP), will look at how Scotland can gain more powers, without becoming fully independent.
The Commission aims to be publicly funded and will be the first time that these three parties have come together on the issue of increasing Governmental powers in Scotland. However, in contrast to the National Conversation, the Commission to be set up will exclude the option of independence.
In a speech in the Scottish Parliament, Labour Leader in Scotland, Wendy Alexander said:
"…if we offer Scotland what it wants - speaking for Scotland, standing up for Scotland, siding with Scotland - it is much more attractive to Scots than using them in order to push [the SNP's] political agenda."
However, by setting up the Commission without looking at the possibility of independence for Scotland, Alexander is presuming she already knows what the Scottish people want. Unlike the opposition Commission, the SNP are at least modest enough to include all options in their 'Choosing Scotland's Future' document, as is right and fair in a national Constitutional discussion.
The opposition Commission expects to receive public funds from the Scottish Parliament to set it up, but after the latest Labour imposed budget cuts this year the SNP are questioning if the money is available. If Alexander is so determined to waste public money on such a study that falls short of what the SNP already have put in place, perhaps she should be asked to get her hands on some –no questions asked - ready cash to put into the kitty. After all, Alexander seems to have some very affluent backers – even if they are not from Scotland!
The Celtic League, in close cooperation with the Alba/Scottish Branch of the League, have responded to the SNP National Conversation (see below) and to our mind, there is little or no point in undertaking another consultation in conjunction with this.
"A National Conversation, Constitution Unit, G-A North, Victoria Quay, Edinburgh EH6 6QQ
Dear Sir/Madam
Celtic League's response to Choosing Scotland's Future: A National Conversation: Independence and Responsibility in the Modern World
The Celtic League would like to first congratulate the SNP on its White Paper Choosing Scotland's Future and the 'National Conversation' that was launched as a consequence of the publication of this document. We are very much in favour of the way that the SNP has set out its vision in the document and the process of public engagement and consultation that has followed.
As part of this process, the Celtic League would also like to make its views known and have done so below. In addition to this, we would also like to highlight our support for a campaign for a referendum on independence and will seek to widen the acceptance of this aim at a civil level, within the Celtic countries and elsewhere. The aim of the Celtic League is the full independence of the Celtic nations, but of course we are fully supportive of the referendum process, so that people are free to decide their own future. For this reason, the following resolution was passed at our September 2007 AGM in Caerdydd/Cardiff, Cymru/Wales:
In the light of the SNP White Paper on Independence , the Celtic League supports the campaign for a referendum on independence and seeks to widen acceptance for this goal.
In cooperation with other Branches of the League and Alba/Scotland Branch especially, I have set out below some of our observations and comments relating to the Choosing Scotland's Future document. I would also like to point out that we are happy for our comments to be made public.
(The Celtic League (League of Celtic Nations) founded in 1961, is non-party political organisation. The remit of our organisation is broad and consequently our membership base is diverse. The Celtic League has always supported Scottish independence, our aim is to contribute to the achievement of full independence for all six Celtic countries, encourage inter Celtic cooperation and the development of formal links between the institutions of each country).
Comments and observations from the Celtic League relating to the Choosing Scotland's Future document:
As an international organisation, we are pleased that the "National Conversation" document, from its very beginning, acknowledges that Scotland does not exist in a vacuum. We believe that Scottish independence will have a positive effect on Wales/Cymru and also go a long way to alleviate the problems in the Six Counties/Northern Ireland. It will also be a factor in creating better relations between all the countries and nations of these islands, as well as having a positive knock-on effect on the stateless nations of the continent.
Our hope for Scotland is full independence and we believe that stronger powers for the Scottish Parliament would be an improvement on the status quo, but no substitute for it. Nature of Referendum
An unambiguous, legally "watertight" question will be required on any independence referendum. The question given in the appendix of Choosing Scotland's Future appears to fulfil this obligation.
The referendum must be neither a party political nor an exclusively UK monitored affair. It must be overseen by international observers, and backed by groups other than the UK to have credibility and transparency.
It would be preferable if these observers did not come from one of the Commonwealth countries, or ones with strong ties with the UK . Without such neutral observers, we run the risk that the referendum will be sabotaged in a similar manner to how the Scottish devolution referendum of 1979 was.
We agree that meetings should be held on the matter in all regional centres. These should be well funded and advertised, and we believe there is no conflict in using public funds as numerous precedents can be provided.
Role of the British Royal Family
The paper discusses the abolition of the Union of 1707, between the Scottish and English parliaments, not that of 1603, between the Scottish and English crowns. However, we believe that the 'Royal' of the British Royal Family is not being properly analysed. The establishment of a democratic republic, with proper human rights safeguards and a written constitution with a democratically elected President should be the aim of the Scottish people.
We believe the Royal Oath in Holyrood to be unnecessary, anachronistic and offensive and are not required for either the Welsh or the Stormont Assembly, albeit for different reasons. We also note that since the beginning of the Parliament, a number of MSPs from several parties, have made their opposition to the Royal Oath very clear. We do not believe that elected representatives of the people should have to pledge feudal loyalty to an unelected leadership.
We further note that the British monarchy persists in using English numerals and titles in Scotland, such as "Your/Her Majesty" and "Elizabeth the Second" – there has never been previous Queen Elizabeth in Scotland, and "His/Her Grace" was the proper title of the Kings/Queens of Scots. This we believe, only serves to highlight the fact that it can no longer be described as a Scottish monarchy. As long as the British monarchy continues in Scotland, it should reflect Scottish tradition.
There is not much indication that monarchism, in its stronger forms, is particularly widespread in Scotland, except amongst certain communities in west central Scotland (where it is bolstered by religious and football related bigotry) and some sections of the upper class/upper middle class.
The retention of the British Monarchy brings with it many dangers for the nascent Scottish state, such as the imposition of an unelected Governor General. Notoriously, such a person, John Kerr removed Australian Prime Minister Gough Whitlam, and his government in 1975. Gough Whitlam had been elected by the Australian people, whereas John Kerr, had been appointed by the British monarchy in London, and the Australian people had no say in that appointment.
Sewel Motions, Civil Service and Scottish Office
If in the Scotland Act, "areas devolved largely corresponded" to those of the Scottish Office, why does the Scottish Office still exist? The Scottish and Welsh Offices are redundant with devolution, and represent an unnecessary expense.
A major overhaul of Scottish and Welsh government bodies based in England must occur too. This should include the abolition of the Scottish and Welsh Offices and the establishment of separate Scottish and Welsh Civil Services for the legislatures based in those countries. It is logical that Scotland (and Wales/Cymru) should have their own civil services, as Six Counties/Northern Ireland currently does.
A serious problem in the current Scottish devolution setup is the Sewel Motion which allows it to dodge its responsibilities, and pass legislation to Westminster. We believe this should be abolished, with both independence and enhanced devolution, as it runs contrary to the principle of a Scottish Parliament.
Other matters regarding Scottish self-determination
The UK 's membership of the EU and NATO, and the British monarchy should be subjected to public scrutiny as well, possibly separately, so long as this scrutiny does not hinder Scottish self determination
The paper mentions immigration. It should be noted that Scotland's emigration or "brain drain" is a far more serious issue in many respects – as long as it continues to a large degree, Scotland's future is negatively affected.
The status of Gaelic as an official language of Scotland (as laid out in the Gaelic Language (Scotland) Act 2005) should be recognised in any future Scottish constitution. Moreover, any move towards increased powers within a devolved framework, pre-independence, should also ensure that any new areas that are devolved are covered by the Gaelic Language ( Scotland) Act
In a situation of increased devolved powers for Scotland how far have the Westminster Government been pressed on this issue? For example even though the Isle of Man is a dependent territory (and therefore in no way independent of the UK - albeit a separate constitutional entity) the UK government does not extend International Conventions to Mann without the agreement of the Manx government. Similarly the Manx government sends delegations to provide evidence and submit reports to other UN bodies e.g. the UNHCR over the International Covenant and the Committee on the Rights of the Child. In respect of these bodies which produce five yearly reports their 'Concluding Observations' would be submitted to the Manx government for response prior to publication.
Even if the eventual result of the current moves in Scotland fall short of our aspiration (full independence) the Scottish Government could still be treated for purposes of International Treaty and law as a distinct entity. To a certain extent the SNP has mapped out this road by talking about 'observer' status at the UN. It is possible however that even within the confines of the current devolved settlement, the Scottish Government could have precedent on their doorstep ( i.e. the 'metropolitan dependencies') to push it further.
In regard to Annex B, we believe that there is a strong possibility that the British State, or supporters of the Union, may try to hinder Scottish self-determination by undemocratic means. Amongst many other things, this may involve the annulment of a referendum, similar to that of the 1979 fiasco, where the majority of Scottish voters chose a Scottish Parliament. Legal loopholes may also be used, and/or technicalities, royal interference, or even interference from other countries which have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the British State for whatever purposes. This is yet more reason for our referendum to be monitored internationally.
In regard to Annex A, the following is a selection of some of the powers we believe that a devolved (as opposed to independent) Scottish Parliament should have:
- Control over Scottish banknotes, including mandatory bilingual designs
- Broadcasting in Scotland, and a separate proper Scottish television channel (rather than a regional variant of various English channels, as we currently have)
- The designation of assisted areas.
- Research councils.
- A casting vote on any discussion of "British Summer Time", as our northerly latitude makes this of far more importance to Scots, than people in Southern England. Any proposed changes, or abolition of BST, must be put before Scotland's parliament.
Yours sincerely
Rhisiart Tal-e-bot General Secretary Celtic League
(Lead in article and submission prepared for Celtic News by Rhisiart Tal-e-bot)
J B Moffatt Director of Information Celtic League
12/12/07
Vidéos
Newsletters
Flux RSS - français
ABP sur Facebook
ABP surTwitter
Chaîne Youtube ABP
ABP sur Google