Comments for Scotland's Referendum: Informing the Debate https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum Informing the Debate Fri, 06 Jul 2018 14:37:22 +0000 hourly 1 Comment on The Uncelebrated Union by John https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/the-uncelebrated-union/#comment-67702 Fri, 12 Sep 2014 05:42:23 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=835#comment-67702 The real meaning of independence is to separate from the United KINGDOM, so it is a complete irony for Scotland to recognise the UK’s monarch after getting its independence. Does Alex Salmond really understand the meaning of independence?? If Scotland wants to recognise the monarch, then remain in the UK. By the way, Pound Sterling is the copyright of the UK. So if Scotland wants to re-enter into the EU, then the EU will compel Scotland to use Euro.

There is no case for Scottish independence, if Scotland still wants to retain the Pound and the Monarch. Alex Salmond is just craving more power for himself rather than for Scotland.

]]>
Comment on Should Scotland vote for what is best for Scotland? by sandra brown https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/should-scotland-vote-for-what-is-best-for-scotland/#comment-67666 Thu, 11 Sep 2014 17:53:02 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=831#comment-67666 No one seems to be thinking about what will happen if the vote is very close, such as
49% to 51% , if nearly half of Scotlands population do not get the outcome they had hoped for , are they just going to except what has happened ,or will there be a lot of
anger and outrage, and rather than uniting Scotland, it could tear the country apart
None of the politicians will of course will be concerned about this , because they are all only interested in their own egos.

]]>
Comment on Labour’s Devolution Proposals: More questions than answers by Malcolm https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/labours-devolution-proposals-more-questions-than-answers/#comment-67540 Wed, 10 Sep 2014 13:12:43 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=802#comment-67540 If Scotland re-enters into the EU, the EU will compel Scotland to use the Euro currency!

]]>
Comment on What future for childcare? by What future for childcare? | SPS Research https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/what-future-for-childcare/#comment-65527 Mon, 18 Aug 2014 10:07:58 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=839#comment-65527 […] Read in full at  Scotland’s Referendum: Informing the Debate. […]

]]>
Comment on Can Independence Improve Services for Scotland’s Children? by What future for childcare? | Scotland's Referendum: Informing the Debate https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/can-independence-improve-services-for-scotlands-children/#comment-65265 Sat, 16 Aug 2014 00:01:30 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=542#comment-65265 […] Bronwen Cohen is Honorary Professor in Social Policy at the University of Edinburgh. This piece is a follow-up on work published by Professor Cohen in August 2003. […]

]]>
Comment on The Uncelebrated Union by The Uncelebrated Union | SPS Research https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/the-uncelebrated-union/#comment-64740 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 10:01:00 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=835#comment-64740 […] Read in full at Scotland’s Referendum: Informing the Debate. […]

]]>
Comment on Should Scotland vote for what is best for Scotland? by RevStu https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/should-scotland-vote-for-what-is-best-for-scotland/#comment-64735 Wed, 13 Aug 2014 09:52:41 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=831#comment-64735 “First, three out of thirteen elections seems significant to me. That is almost one in four.”

It’s a highly misleading assessment, though. The actual effect of Scottish votes in those elections were trivial. The 1964 and 1974 votes produced weak Labour governments with tiny majorities which only lasted for a combined total of about two years. Without Scottish votes, similarly weak and short-lived Tory administrations would probably have resulted.

(In 1974, Labour could have simply allied with the Liberals from the word go to provide a majority, rather than forming the Lib-Lab Pact later.)

And in 2010 the difference was pretty insignificant. Without Scotland we’d have ended up with David Cameron and George Osborne in charge. Well, lucky we dodged THAT bullet, eh?

]]>
Comment on Should Scotland vote for what is best for Scotland? by LCB https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/should-scotland-vote-for-what-is-best-for-scotland/#comment-62670 Wed, 16 Jul 2014 18:49:07 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=831#comment-62670 “What they both seem to assume is that “what is best for Scotland?” is the relevant question to ask. But why? The referendum will have an impact on people beyond Scotland’s borders. So isn’t the relevant question to ask, “what is best for everyone affected by the referendum, wherever they live?” Clearly, the outsiders who will be most affected are those living in the rest of the UK. ”

The question “what is best for everyone affected by the referendum, wherever they live?” is only relevant in as much as Scots wish to consider it. Here I’m considering only the relevance of the rest of the UK on a decision to be made by Scottish people, and not an internationalist approach which the article author writes of.

However I suppose it would seem rather pointless in a determination of whether independence is to manifest or not if the effect of the referendum on everyone, everywhere were to be thought the ultimate consideration, reigning over the question about what is good for “one”. It’s difficult to hold that ideas which may be viewed somewhat in the way of charitable dispositions ought to be the most relevant factor, whether independence or remaining in a historic, single, national union of lands is favoured.

Consider the man or woman in a company who’s needs and potential are felt not to be fulfilled or are substantially constrained somehow. The person tninks, significantly, things are not going so well and there is a lot to be unhappy with and regret about their working life. The person considers staying with the company because they are persuaded they are thought good for it and are well liked. (Aside, it’s no irrelevant point whether the person feels liked and of worth herself.) Further, consider the person who contemplates staying ultimately because others express those notions mentioned to good extents. However, here they are said because the others in the company do not like change, or are insecure in their own identity and sense of present sense and future (obscured by a sense of being lost within what has already been), or both.

Is there good reason in any of these cases to consider the apparent interests of others above one’s own singular potential, purpose, needs and preferences? Even where the wish of the others in the company to retain the person is based on genuinely liking things as they are, concluding that things do appear to work reasonably well enough, is this really enough to override differing, independent impulses for satisfaction and the best situation for this person?

Further, of course, is the issue inherent this company’s identity, over such a long period during the status quo which has been, and indeed strongly evidence recently, of a desire to control and a desire to possess. This has often said to be connected with a sense of knowing what’s best for others rather than allowing them their own, final, unfettered, independent will.

Long has this strong disposition been connected with a history that has seen the company mostly forcibly, sometimes a little more amicably, commandeer control of a vast amount of other sovereign companies in building the hugest conglomeration of companies throughout much of the extent of where companies can possibly be found. It’s not to say the person considering leaving the company did not find themselves similarly defined during the long history. However what is very, very clear is that this is not, or at least should not be, about the past. Present and future should never be about the past.

These points ought to make one at least question, if not be very wary, of assessing one’s own interests with a preference for considering as most relevant the apparent, purported or estimated interests of the noted others as well.

What these essential considerations may further highlight is that certain others, despite what they may proclaim in good, better, worse or worse still faith, may not really have much of an accurate clue what is even really in their interests. Let alone what they strongly propose to be, for one, in one’s own best interest.

My own instinct is that the prevailing and ever increasing entrenchment in awareness of the identity of this nation which seems to be somehow made up of smaller, distinct and distinctly regional, quasi-independent defined strongholds has become something, no, very much of a farce. Today I read in the Financial Times, bizarrely, but I suppose with some wit and much acuity, that the UK has become a truly multinational nation. The FT is referring to the ever growing strength of distinction, of fierce separatism in identity within pat least parts of the four lands which make it, rather than global corporate issues.

If the FT have gauged things accurately, and I think they have, it is making clear to me I don’t think I wish to live in a political entity which appears to be more or less a complete contradiction in terms. Typically what’s painted now is an irresolvable, living paradox, where, over there and over there and over there, other nations seem not to be defined by such a baffling, intrinsic paradox or contradiction, simply.

I always liked the idea of the UK, the four regions, yes regions, within a predictably arranged nation (just the one, please; any more when referring to the same “country” is bound to confuse the children at least). That is, one nation where there is only one sovereign nation. Where there truly is more than one nation, let’s think, can’t we be honest about this and bring ourselves into a position of defining units accurately, properly, sympathetically for what is felt, meant, desired? By all means, if we are to continue to fiercely describe, and seemingly just as fiercely prescribe, that our land is made of four nations rather than that our nation is made of four regional parts it is easily time to move to something at least a little more honest in the constitutional books, to be written wherever.

Again, I always liked the idea of the UK, the four regions, yes regions, within a predictably arranged nation, just like most others nations. The day has long passed, however, since when that simple sentiment, once thought an overriding, unquestionable, fundamental and simple reality has been trodden down. It has become impossible to me to see that country, UK, anymore, except in terms of something of a legend. In the good days now I remember it was real, though.

Those days are a lot better than what is more usually allowed through in the modern psyche of the mid twenty-teens, that that simple, perhaps typical nation, UK, only ever was a legend. This not being a good state for things, my best estimate is that this is truly a time which can best embrace change, and perhaps really needs to. Not for economic benefits, that’s not the point, the estimates see things changing not at all to only slightly there. But for the things which make and use the money which makes any economy or economies: human beings.

I wonder, are many people really convinced of the reasons given to avoid such change? Or are they simply holding on emotively for they haven’t yet really attained a position of sight, insight and foresight in being able and calmly awake enough to assess really meaningful reasons for or against change? This means identifying who they are by way of what they truly want and what and how they want to be, with the most thought, but without being emotionally blinkered.

]]>
Comment on Should Scotland vote for what is best for Scotland? by Should Scotland vote for what is best for Scotland? | SPS Research https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/should-scotland-vote-for-what-is-best-for-scotland/#comment-62442 Tue, 08 Jul 2014 14:11:19 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=831#comment-62442 […] Read more via Scotland’s Referendum: Informing the Debate. […]

]]>
Comment on A New Direction for the Conservatives on Devolution? by Michael Clouser https://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/a-new-direction-for-the-conservatives-on-devolution/#comment-52131 Thu, 05 Jun 2014 20:50:07 +0000 http://blogs.sps.ed.ac.uk/referendum/?p=824#comment-52131 Thanks Coree for an insightful post on whether or not there is indeed a new direction for the Scottish Conservatives on the Scottish case and potential for further devolved powers. The Academic Entrepreneur agrees that there is apparent recycling of English policies for a Scottish agenda. However, through reading the reports of the other major political parties, he is convinced that the larger problem is that the bigger picture to be concerned with is the recycling of industrial age policies. The leaders of these parties, most of them baby boomers and beyond, are stuck in the mindframe of the glory days of the factory model and use it as an underlying assumption unbeknowst even to themselves. This is of major concern for the progress and economic growth of not only Scotland, but also the United Kingdom as a whole. The opportunity of policy should start with the innovators, the entrepreneurs, the creatives, the artists, the knowledge translators. For example, when it comes to tax policy, as the Tories are given credit for addressing now, policies that would increase the flow of entrepreneurs into Scotland, and the leveraging of knowledge assets should be considered. What about giving the Scottish Parliament the right to not only lower taxes and spending, but to create tax free zones in and around universities for startup companies and innovative branches of firms that wish to open up new subsidiaries in the country? This might seem really liberal, or conservative, depending on which historical meaning of these terms you wish to use in this context. Sound wild? Not really, especially as New York State has done just that very thing, as the Academic Entrepreneur highlights in a recent blog post “Triple Helix Power Play: Cornell University and others in New York State to Provide Tax-Free Zones for State Start-ups” http://academicentrepreneur.wordpress.com/2014/05/26/triple-helix-power-play-cornell-university-and-others-in-new-york-state-to-provide-tax-free-zones-for-state-start-ups/. Now this is tax policy for an innovation economy.

These and other innovation policies for the Third Wave economy should be prescribed, and the powers that enable them under consideration for further devolution. The greatest lever of policy amongst them all is immigration. It is immigration policy that holds the most promise for liberalisation that will lead to knowledge gain, innovation, creativity, and new venture creation including born global organizations. However, this is the one area that none of the parties want to give up much control of to a devolved Scotland. Interestingly, it is also this policy that is being exploited as the most compelling lever of influence by the UKIP. Surely liberal immigration policy raises other issues such as a more stringent border, but the cost -benefit analysis of such I have yet to see or even hear discussed.

The empowered Triple Helix in Scotland can leverage knowledge resources and create economic goodwill and growth without minimal ecological impact. The days of the industrial revolution are long over. What is needed is a complete re-visitation of stale policies and institutions that are getting in the way of creativity and innovation .

]]>