Other Scottish Government. Publications on Constitutional. Reform. ANNEXES. ENDNOTES. qUesTIons. And. AnsWeRs. The Case for Independence. Scotland's Future is a government white paper published on 26 November by the Scottish Scottish National Party (SNP) Member of Parliament (MP) Angus Robertson welcomed . Create a book · Download as PDF · Printable version. The SNP set up this body avowedly to address the shortcomings in the economic case for independence made in the White Paper.
|Language:||English, Spanish, French|
|Genre:||Fiction & Literature|
|Distribution:||Free* [*Registration needed]|
SNP to pursue a referendum on independence without the support of other parties (Lodge Scottish Parliament (only the SNP) supported this white paper. .. aracer.mobi%20Releases/RTS_Q4_ pdf. The SNP Government and the Politics of Independence Malcolm Harvey and . The White Paper Choosing Scotland's Future – A National Conversation was. laptop screens polishing drafts of the snp's election manifesto in the party's . White Paper offering social democracy with distinctly Nordic overtones but . aracer.mobi
Particularly when times are tough we have to ask the rich to help the poor, the strong to help the weak, the powerful to help the powerless. But we do so in pursuit of the common weal, the community of the realm. This article will now show how such labels are ways for the SNP to attack the policy choices made by either the British government or the Labour Party and to promote its project of an independent, social democratic, Scottish State.
In his address to the SNP National Conference of October , Salmond described the Scottish Parliament's distinctive policies on personal care, transport and education as a reflection of the common weal of Scotland.
Let us tell the Labour leadership about the reality about our fellow Scots. They just want the right to live in a country which understands the importance of society. A country that knows the value and not just the price of the services we hold dear. These are the fruits not just of this party or this government, but the fruits of a Scottish Parliament that chose to reflect our nation in these ways. It is the social contract between our Parliament and our people. Some call it universality, and say its time has passed.
I call it human decency and its time is now.
Just as home rule or devolution was presented by its supporters as the only way for Scotland to protect itself against Thatcherism and defend public services in the s and early s, independence was presented by the post-devolution SNP as the only way for Scotland to protect itself from austerity measures imposed by the Unionist parties both Labour and the Conservatives , in power either in Scotland or throughout the UK.
Friends, where we have the power we have chosen a different path. Now Labour and Tory dismiss these gains as the luxuries of a something for nothing country — really? Personal care for older people, free tuition for young people, to be cast aside as something for nothing? This is not a something for nothing country but a something for something society and this party shall defend that social progress made by our parliament.
Do not let the people suffer for attitudes forged on the playing fields of Eton. I am more concerned by the Fair Society. We are not slaves to the banking system or vassals to the lords of high finance. Here is another instance of welfare nationalism: If we are to become a crucible of the new society, then we need the power of independence — we must have these powers. By having a strong sense of ourselves.
On the shared value of helping each other out, lending a hand. On a sense that society should try to be as equal as it can be. That is what we value and what we think is the purpose of government. Let us build a nation that reflects the values of our people. With a social contract — and a social conscience — at the very heart of our success.
The society, the country that Scotland desires, that Scotland believes in — it is not a country or a future on offer from the Tory government down south. Even that one institution which really made Britain great, the National Health Service, is being dismantled in England. The Tories call it a Big Society.
I call it no society at all. The speeches that Alex Salmond made as SNP leader in the years are classic instances of nation-building, in the sense that Salmond sought to construct or maintain certain collective meanings of Scottish nationhood, of who Scottish people are, while emphasising what made Scotland different.
The second was to showcase the SNP as both the national and the natural party of Scotland: As a consequence, its main frame of reference has logically been Scotland and Scottish society, rather than the UK and British society.
The party is more concerned with framing Scottish identity in a way that suits its political purposes, and with defining Scottish citizenship that is, the conditions of citizenship in an independent Scottish State , than it is engaging with current debates on Britishness and on British citizenship. On the contrary, its leaders have in the past few years repeatedly put forward the belief that a common sense of Britishness would survive after Scottish independence.
In that respect, the rhetoric of the SNP has little evolved since its early days, and in the years , Alex Salmond merely tapped into a rich SNP tradition of using a wider frame of reference than the British one, as a comparison between the following extracts, taken respectively from the s and from the s, reveals:.
There is no desire to isolate Scotland from the other nations of the British Isles and Commonwealth.
The Scottish people and the people of these nations have the strongest ties of kinship, history and interest which would not be weakened but immeasurably strengthened by the fuller, more direct and more satisfying relationship which self-government would make possible. If Scotland becomes independent, it will continue to share close ties with its neighbouring countries. The first is that the ties that bind the nations of these islands will continue and flourish after Scotland becomes independent.
McEwen, Nicola, Nationalism and the State.
Scottish Government, Choosing Scotland's Future. A National Conversation. Scottish Government, Scottish Independence Bill: SNP, Citizens not Subjects. STV News, http: In the event, the Scottish independence referendum took place on 18 September McEwen, Nationalism and the State.
Lord Advocate SC See for instance http: Main journal in British area studies published in France. It covers all social sciences, including history and the Empire. French Journal of British Studies. These two reasons led to the matter being swiftly settled by a political deal between Edinburgh and London, signed in October , two years before the actual referendum was held.
This again clearly marks the Scottish case out from the Catalan one, which is characterised by constitutional conflict. On the contrary, it was noted that: 5 Ibid. Outside the colonial context, the principle of self-determination is controversial.
Generally speaking, theories of secession are divided into two categories: those which present secession as a primary right, and remedial-right-only theories, according to which secession is only justified in cases where it can be a remedy in an unjust situation.
In this independence White Paper, Catalan nationalists invoked both types of theories. Independence and Respons The Union between Scotland and the other nations of the UK did not remove from the people of Scotland their fundamental political right to determine their own constitutional future.
The Republic of Ireland and the countries of the former British Empire chose to move to independence from similar constitutional arrangements. The people of Scotland remain sovereign and have the same right to choose the form of their own Government as the peoples of other nations that have secured independence after periods of union with, or in, other states.
Self-determination developed during the 20th century and has been codified in the fundamental and universal documents of the international system, such as the Charter of the United Nations in and the International Covenants on Civil and Political Rights and Economic, Social and Cultural Rights of The referendum, and becoming an independent country, would be an act of self-determination by the people of Scotland.
However self-determination is permanent and that principle would continue to be respected following independence by the on-going democratic nature of Government in Scotland. By contrast, in the Catalan case, the nationalist argumentation on self-determination was made in order to convince the Spanish authorities of the legitimacy of a Catalan independence referendum.
For an Englis This is a belief that all British parties including the SNP share and that is arguably at the very heart of the British political system. All the Unionist parties then agreed that a Scottish independence referendum was both legitimate and inevitable. The following three quotes, from the same debate in the House of Commons and from representatives of the three major Unionist parties, clearly demonstrate this, as well as being evidence of a shared belief in the doctrine of the mandate.
The SNP won the right, through its election manifesto, to ask the question of the Scottish people. Until then, nobody had expected any one political party to be able to win a total majority of seats in the Scottish Parliament, due to the mixed and therefore partly proportional electoral system used for Scottish elections. However that may be, what is unusual about the Scottish case is that the holding of an independence referendum was governed by a belief in a political doctrine the doctrine of the mandate , rather than by the upholding of a constitutional rule.
As a consequence, Catalan nationalists have tried to build their case on constitutional and legal arguments, as opposed to political ones. To that end, in January , the Catalan Parliament submitted to the Spanish Congress a motion 34 demanding that an independence referendum be organised under article The holding of a consultation must be considered a normal scenario that is fully comparable with that of countries with a democratic tradition and nature, such as Canada and Great Britain which, faced with demands made by a national community linked to a territory that is clearly delimited politically and administratively Quebec and Scotland, respectively , consider that the best form of expression of this collective will is a referendum.
On 19 September , it endorsed a law allowing a non-binding consultation. As a result, the resort to courts has become a key instrument to deal with the conflict and, ultimately, preserve the unity of Spain. The main point made by this article still stands. Comparing the Scottish and Catalan cases makes the Scottish case appear quite remarkable. A Scottish independence referendum was allowed by the British Government even though it could have blocked it by legal and constitutional means.
Moreover, the Clarity Act voted in Canada in allows for the possibility that in the future, a simple majority vote in a Quebec referendum will not be enough to launch the secession process and that a qualified majority will be needed.