ANN Williamson (Letters, The National, August 30) expressed disappointment over some elements of the Draft Constitution for Scotland referred to in our letter (The National, August 24) and we are gratified that we have also received several responses directly to our website at the CSCS.
Perhaps I did not make it sufficiently clear that this is a draft of a consultative document to be published online later this year. It is expected that it will be taken apart word by word, examined and rebuilt by everyone with an interest in the shaping of an independent Scotland.
It is specifically not a statement of any fixed preconceptions or a considered conclusion. It is an aide memoire containing most of the important issues we have to collectively decide upon. It is a framework, for a potential three-tier system of government that includes empowerment at community level. A framework, which may well end up entirely different from this initial draft, and it is meant to be controversial and thought-provoking.
It is no mean task we have set ourselves but if we can achieve the widest possible participation and input then we believe the final document should underpin the case for independence.
We are well into the work involved but it is always encouraging to hear from any readers who identify with our objective.
Robert Ingram
Centre for Scottish Constitutional Studies
THE future for sport in Scotland is a dimension of the independence debate. Before we form a view we should, avoiding finger-pointing or whining, have a look at how we came to be where we are.
Football is our main participatory and spectator sport, for which our national stadium is Hampden Park – redeveloped in the late 1990s, costing £71 million (including £24.2m of funding from Millennium Commission), capacity 52,000.
Funding of the £750m Wembley arena included £50m and £120m respectively from taxpayers and the National Lottery, while the Millennium Stadium in Cardiff attracted taxpayer funding of £46m. Our iconic football event was the annual match against the Auld Enemy alternating between Hampden and Wembley – the first event being in 1872, followed by 114 regular contests, and the record crowd being 149,000 at Hampden. The English FA, for their own reasons, abandoned the the most famous football match worldwide in the late 90s – the last regular game taking place in 1999.
Rugby Union is perhaps our second most popular spectator/participatory sport which, despite suggestions by the RFU in England to reorganise the now six-nations annual event, which would see Scotland in a second-tier position, still has the annual inter-nations clashes as routine. It is worth noting that the RFU some years ago, when TV rights really elevated these events into multi-million sterling earners, secured, against protest by the other rugby bodies, the lion’s share of the income – which would have been compromised if the latter had taken a more sturdy negotiating position.
It is gratifying to see the go-ahead for a national tennis/golf campus, promoted by Judy Murray. This is long overdue and is no doubt the result of the Murray family’s success in recent years. It is quite regrettable that some Scots have seen fit to criticise the Scottish Government’s foresight in supporting the programme, but some views are difficult to accommodate.
It is probable that an independent Scotland would be able financially to support all sporting activities which would improve considerably the nation’s status, and its health. Surely a laudable ambition.
John Hamilton
Bearsden
THE GERS figures are supposedly the total taxation raised in Scotland, and although I am retired I still pay tax, but the tax taken from my pensions is deducted from two English tax centres – one deals with my company pension and the other my private pension.
Can one of my fellow readers tell me if I am, therefore, classed as a Scottish taxpayer or an English taxpayer?
As there must be numerous people in Scotland who are in a similar situation, is the tax we pay included in the GERS figures? And if not it would again serve to highlight their inaccuracy.
Robert Neeson
Glasgow
Why are you making commenting on The National only available to subscribers?
We know there are thousands of National readers who want to debate, argue and go back and forth in the comments section of our stories. We’ve got the most informed readers in Scotland, asking each other the big questions about the future of our country.
Unfortunately, though, these important debates are being spoiled by a vocal minority of trolls who aren’t really interested in the issues, try to derail the conversations, register under fake names, and post vile abuse.
So that’s why we’ve decided to make the ability to comment only available to our paying subscribers. That way, all the trolls who post abuse on our website will have to pay if they want to join the debate – and risk a permanent ban from the account that they subscribe with.
The conversation will go back to what it should be about – people who care passionately about the issues, but disagree constructively on what we should do about them. Let’s get that debate started!
Callum Baird, Editor of The National
Comments: Our rules
We want our comments to be a lively and valuable part of our community - a place where readers can debate and engage with the most important local issues. The ability to comment on our stories is a privilege, not a right, however, and that privilege may be withdrawn if it is abused or misused.
Please report any comments that break our rules.
Read the rules hereLast Updated:
Report this comment Cancel