The Smith Commission To all parties concerned, from the Yes Giffnock Community Page Firstly, we have to question the choice of Lord Smith of Kelvin to be chairing this Commission. Given the nature of it, we would expect it to be chaired by someone who is completely neutral and has no vested interests in the decisions of the Commission either way. Given that Lord Smith is well known to the Conservative Party, is a supporter of fracking in a country that neither wants it or needs it, was previously Chairman of the Weir Group who threatened to remove their business from Scotland, and also the very fact that he has a seat in the House of Lords, does not fill the majority of Scotland with confidence that he is able to be impartial in any matters to do with devolution to Scotland. In fact, we feel that Mr Cameron would have found it difficult to find someone seemingly less impartial to chair this Commission, and therefore feel that the findings of the Commission are highly unlikely to provide what is fair and just to the people of Scotland. Will anything produced under these circumstances actually hold water, given the clear bias of the person chairing the Commission? The fact remains that David Cameron, Nick Clegg, and Ed Milliband, in September 2014, made a vow to the people of Scotland that Devolution Max will be delivered to the people of Scotland by February 2015, and that is exactly what we expect to receive. Should this not be the case, then we consider any and all agreements null and void as the promises made in order to secure a vote will not have been fulfilled, therefore people have not been allowed to vote whilst in full possession of the facts. Also, since this Vow was made AFTER postal votes had already begun to be sent back, we would question the legality of it at all, since postal voters through no fault of their own voted without this knowledge. We would also question the legality of the producing of this Vow during purdah, since the Edinburgh Agreement clearly stated at the time that no new information could be produced unless it had been PREVIOUSLY requested. The demand made by the Daily Record to know what new powers would be given to Scotland was not made before purdah, so no response to it from any political party should have been allowed, and especially should not have been published at the time. However, we are still taking our submission to the Commission very seriously, and would hope that the points included in this document will be taken into consideration by all parties, as this is the consolidation of many peoples opinions as to the future of Scotland and what is going to be most beneficial to THEM. We would ask that the following powers be devolved to the Scottish Parliament: FULL fiscal autonomy for Scotland: All taxation levied in Scotland should stay in Scotland. This will include all monies raised from oil revenue, whisky, tourism, agriculture & fisheries, renewable energy to name but a few. This would in turn enable Scotland to finance our own NHS, police and other emergency services amongst other things. David Cameron as part of the Vow said the NHS would be protected and this would ensure the protection of it in the best possible way. Instead of a block grant being issued by the UK Exchequer as at present, the Scottish Parliament will negotiate, on a yearly basis and with the participation of all concerned parties, a payment to the UK Government to cover Scotlands share of UK-wide costs. This would be beneficial to all, but most especially to Scotland. It will also ensure a fairer deal for Scotland than we are receiving at present. Devolution of all power over fracking to be devolved to the Scottish Parliament: The people of Scotland neither want nor need fracking in our country. We have plenty of North Sea Oil resources at present, and now that the oil that was lost in between both reports issued by the Wood Group, was found again just a few days after the referendum, we have sufficient oil to last us some time. Should it run out, it should be taken into consideration that the climate and landscape in Scotland is vastly different to that of England: we have plenty of scope for clean and renewable energy, as backed by at least two parties in Scotland. Furthermore, the decision to remove our rights as householders to refuse permission for fracking beneath our homes MUST be revoked, in part due to the fact that the people of Scotland played NO part in this decision, and in the main due to the underhand manner in which this power was secretly removed with very little, if any, public knowledge or participation, and with a handful of MPs as the decision was taken just a few days before Christmas last year and most MPs were already on holiday. Had a proper consultation from the public, and a proper vote been held, many MPs would have been against this decision along with the vast majority of the public. A decision of this magnitude MUST be seen to be decided upon out in the open, with input from ALL who are going to be affected by this. Considering that the removal of our right to object means that fracking companies can pump extremely poisonous chemicals under our homes, which has already been documented in many countries including America and Canada as causing severe health problems, should the fight to regain our right to refuse permission for fracking to take place beneath our homes to the European Court of Human Rights, it would indeed be a breach of our Human Rights to do so in this manner. Just some of the possible negative consequences of fracking for the population of Scotland are: Contaminated water supply, when Scotland is lucky to have one of the cleanest water supplies in the world. Potential for earthquakes in and around the areas affected by fracking, as has been well documented in countries already subjected to fracking Health issues due to both a contaminated water supply and the poisonous chemicals seeping through the ground. The effect on properties and housing: House prices in areas affected by fracking would drop dramatically: and since fracking is one of the few things that does not discriminate between social classes, this would not only affect the working classes, it would affect EVERYBODY. Selling a property in an area subjected to fracking would be extremely difficult, and not likely to reach anywhere near market value. Given the potential for structural damage caused to peoples houses (also well-documented), along with other risks detailed below will cause house insurance to rise dramatically and potentially become unaffordable for a majority of people Fracking is known to cause sink-holes, and these too do not discriminate as to where they appear. As the earth below properties is eroded by the chemicals used in fracking, the weight above will press down and potentially collapse, creating sink-holes which are in some cases massive in size. The risk of this happening under peoples homes, with them potentially in it, really is not acceptable. The fact that the area of Scotland that has been earmarked for fracking contains 80% of the population of Scotland is simply not acceptable. The damage caused to the environment by fracking is, in the main, irreversible, and some of our most beautiful country parks and tourist attractions are within the area identified. The costs involved in the setup and implementation of the fracking procedure are VAST in comparison to that of setting up and implementing methods of clean and renewable energy. Fracking will produce no guaranteed result, and any gas produced will not last long in comparison with that of energy produced by clean and renewable methods. The positive consequences of fracking for the population of Scotland are: The possibility, no guarantee whatsoever, that this highly destructive procedure MIGHT produce some gas. NOTHING. Unless of course you are fortunate enough, as it seems many of our Lords and MPs are, to have a financial interest in any of the companies involved in the fracking procedure in which case you will stand to make a profit. Autonomy with regard to voting within the EU is a must: if Scottish politicians vote no against such agreements as the ongoing ones between the EU and TTIP/CETA, which has nothing to offer the people of any country, and everything to offer the corporations behind it and those with vested interests in said corporations, then Scotland should not then be forced to be subject to the rules introduced with it. We want no further privatisation, we want no lower standards with regard to our food. This list could be much longer, with no positive consequences whatsoever to the people of Scotland. One thing however, should be VERY CLEAR – we are not willing to accept any sort of agreement which allows companies to put profits before people. We can think of no scenario in which making money would be more important than the well-being of the population of the country, unless of course you are the one making the money. It is quite clear that the public will make NOTHING out of this, yet will suffer ALL of the negative consequences. Should the parliament in Westminster vote to leave the EU, and that of Scotland vote to stay, Scotland should have the option of staying in the EU Welfare State and Pensions: The Scottish Parliament should have full power over the welfare state, covering such things as health, eduction, employment and social security. This should also include state pensions being devolved to the Scottish Parliament. Media Control: Given the extremely biased reporting seen from ALL media outlets other than one over the last few months, there is a clear need for the Scottish Parliament to have the power to require broadcasting and publishing within Scotland to be fair and unbiased, with an independent body defined by statute e.g. A Scottish Broadcasting Corporation reporting what is in the interests of the PEOPLE OF SCOTLAND TO KNOW. For the BBC to survive in Scotland, there would need to be a separate branch of the BBC in Scotland which is not under the control of the BBC in London. Licence fees would go the the Scottish Broadcasting Corporation and the fee itself would be set by the Scottish Parliament. They would be answerable to Holyrood in the same manner as the BBC is answerable to Westminster. Complete dismantling and removal of Trident from Scotland: Trident costs the taxpayer over £1 billion per year. It is currently positioned only 40 miles away from Glasgow, the most populated city in Scotland. For the MoD to actually say that Trident could not be accommodated in Plymouth as the risk to lives would be considered too high is quite frankly insulting to every person in Scotland as many more lives would be lost or permanently and severely changed should an accident occur. There have been more than 260 safety incidents in less than 5 years and this is also unacceptable. The money saved by getting rid of Trident from Scotland would enable more to be spent on health, more to be spent on education – in reality, scrapping Trident would save enough money to pay every nurse in Britain an extra £1000 and put £1000 extra into every classroom in Britain, every year for the next 26 years. Considering that all local authorities in Scotland are finding it difficult to finance education to the standard they would like, with many schools closed and others overcrowded as a result to try and cut costs, this would have a very positive effect on the standard of education of every child in Scotland, and they essentially are the FUTURE of our country. In conclusion, we, the undersigned would like all of the above to be taken into consideration as part of the discussions of the Smith Commission. We would also like to make it clear that the Scottish people were given a promise – a Vow in fact, and that we fully expect to receive exactly what we were promised, IN FULL. Lesley Boal Philip Simons Derek Mullin
Posted on: Tue, 28 Oct 2014 19:36:55 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015