Scottish Politics Thread

[Oresai]

source, Scotsman online.

So who owns Scotland?

Date: 30 December 2008
By DAVID MADDOX & JENNY HAWORTH
THE ownership of Scotland is undergoing a revolution as vast swathes of land are bought from wealthy aristocrats by local communities.

An investigation by The Scotsman into who owns Scotland has revealed large areas of the country are now in the hands of the people.

Dozens of areas, from whole islands, to small green spaces, have been bought by community ventures. This week, The Scotsman will reveal the results of an investigation to find the 20 biggest landowners in Scotland, between them responsible for almost a fifth of the country.

It shows aristocrats and government bodies still dominate ownership of the country, but communities and charities are increasing their control.

At No11 is South Uist Estate Ltd, a community venture which owns 93,000 acres of land, including the islands of Benbecula, Eriskay and South Uist.

It is the most successful example so far of Holyrood's Land Reform Act of 2003, described by some as the devolved government's most significant piece of legislation to date.

The act gives community groups first refusal on land which comes up for sale, with the idea that areas would be transferred from the aristocracy and property speculators to people who live and work locally.

Iain Gray, the leader of the Scottish Labour Party, was instrumental in the legislation, and said it had "transformed Scotland".

"Arguably, it was legislation that Scotland had waited 1,000 years for," he said.

"Over the course of time, it will change the face of Scotland. It is fundamental. In many ways, the history of Scotland has been defined by the ownership of the land itself."

He added that giving communities the rights to ownership brings "profound" change.

"It springs from the fundamental principle that the people who live and depend on the land will have their own best interests at heart in the ways it is used, so that they are far less likely to use it in a way that would be damaging."

The Isle of Eigg was one of the first areas to be bought by a community trust, in 1997. Already, the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust has made huge advances, and has even set up a company providing mains electricity to islands for the first time in its history.

Mr Gray said: "They pulled together. They had a series of owners who had failed the community for different reasons and the legislation gave them the opportunity to take control of the land themselves.

"It has made a big difference to their lives and the sense of control over how they live."

So far, about 1 per cent of the 19 million acres of land in Scotland has passed into the control of local communities, ranging from small areas of forest, to large islands. However, Mr Gray said he believed the laws would see far more land pass into the hands of the people.

"I think what we have seen is just the start, but it is difficult to predict how far it will go. Obviously, the right to community purchase does depend on a willing seller."

Alasdair Allan, the Nationalist MSP for the Western Isles, said that putting the land into the control of the people was helping to rejuvenate communities.

The majority of the land in his constituency is now under community ownership.

"It has made a big difference," he said. "It gives power to communities to change things. If you have a landlord who's not interested, it's very difficult. It makes a big change to people's self-confidence.

"If you suddenly give them control of the land, they have the opportunity to build new houses, establish new businesses and it encourages them to stay there. It just gives people control over their own lives."

Over the years, notorious landowners have made life miserable for their tenants. The island of Gigha, a 3,400-acre island off Kintyre, was bought by a community trust in 2001, putting their destiny in their own hands for the first time. It was once owned by disgraced lord Malcolm Potier who was convicted of trying to recruit a hitman to murder the mother of his child and her boyfriend.

Parts of Rasaay, near Skye, were owned by Sussex-based laird Dr John Green, who visited the island only once.

Meanwhile, after decades of problems with absentee landlords, the Isle of Eigg was bought in 1997 by the Isle of Eigg Heritage Trust. The island's population has thrived since it went into community ownership and, earlier this year, a mains electricity grid was built, powered entirely from renewable sources. It meant that the island was served by mains electricity for the first time.

More than 17,000 acres of the Knoydart Estate, which makes up much of the Knoydart peninsula in Lochaber, on the west coast of Scotland, was bought by the community in 1999.

In June 2005, the community of Assynt bought 44,400 acres in a landmark buyout of the Glencanisp and Drumrunie Estates in Sutherland, in the north-west Highlands. The land, which includes magnificent mountains such as Suilven and Canisp, was bought from the Vestey family under the provisions of the 2003 Scottish Land Reform Act.

And residents on the Isle of Rum are preparing to take over control of their island early next year. Michael Russell, the environment minister, has announced the Scottish Government is ready to transfer the land and assets worth around £250,000 to the community from Scottish Natural Heritage.

The transfer of the community hall, village shop and tearoom, campsite and surrounding land to the Isle of Rum Community Trust will take place after February, providing there is a positive vote from the community early next month.

BACKGROUND

THE Scotsman carried out its investigation to reveal who owns Scotland, and how this has changed in recent years.

With the help of historian Andy Wightman, we identified the 20 biggest landowners in the country. Mr Wightman wrote Who Owns Scotland in 2000, based on research covering 51 per cent of the country, through the help of Land Registers Scotland. He is updating his work to cover 75 per cent of the country.

Over the past eight years, the top 20 has changed, partly due to the death of some property giants such as Edmund Vestey, whose vast wealth was based on the family meat business.

Before he died, he sold off about half of his 84,000 acres to a community ownership group, talking his family out of the top 20.

16 Scottish Natural Heritage – 84,000 acres

SCOTTISH Natural Heritage (SNH) is a quango set up under the Natural Heritage (Scotland) Act 1991 to manage and protect vast tracks of land and wildlife across the country.

Following devolution it became directly responsible to the Scottish Government. As well as being responsible for environmental protection, SNH also has an economic role. Around 93,000 jobs are dependent on it and it has generated an estimated £2 billion for the Scottish economy, mainly through tourism.

SNH's biggest responsibility is for Scotland's 71 National Nature Reserves (NNRs) which cover 328,650 acres. These were set up in 1949 along with the National Parks in England and Wales to protect the environment wildlife and heritage of the areas and they can be found from Hermaness at the tip of Shetland in the north to Caerlaverock, Dumfriesshire, in the south.

SNH owns only some of them outright; others are leased and some run through agreements with landowners. SNH owns nearly 100 per cent of the land on 17, more than 50 per cent on six, and less than 50 per cent on 11.

A full list of reserves owned and managed by SNH is on www.snh.org.uk.

17 Fleming family – 80,000 acres

THE bulk of the Fleming family's property is the spectacular Black Mount Estate in Argyll and Bute, known for skiing, climbing and picturesque walks.

The most famous member of the family is Ian Fleming, the creator of James Bond, but the family's fortune was based on its private bank – Robert Fleming & Co, which was sold to the Chase Manhattan Bank in 2000.

Several branches of the family were involved with the bank, but its patriarch for many years was Robin Fleming, who was down as the official owner of the Scottish estate.

Ian Fleming was not the only successful writer in the family. There is a monument on the estate in memory of Peter Fleming, the travel writer and brother of Ian.

The estate hit the headlines in March 2008 when a mystery skeleton was found in the Auch Forest, near Bridge of Orchy. It was noticed by forestry workers creating a scenic path.

The estate is also known for falling on one of Britain's best-loved long-distance walks, the West Highland Way, which runs from Milngavie to Fort William.

The Fleming family has used the area's natural assets to turn its estate into an attraction for lovers of outdoor pursuits.

18 Charles Pearson – 77,000 acres

THE Hon Charles Pearson owns the Dunecht Estates, spread over thousands of acres in Aberdeenshire and Kincardineshire, and managed from Dunecht village.

He runs the shoots on the Cowdray Estate in Sussex, where he spends much of his time, living at Shotters Farm, Lickfold, near Petworth.

The aristocrat has hit the headlines for infuriating animal rights campaigners for allegedly allowing snaring on his estates, and he was named as the UK's most cruel landlord by the National Anti-Snaring Campaign (NASC).

The NASC has alleged that on Dunecht there is a "ruthless persecution of foxes" with a "keepers sweep competition for killing the most in a day". Police were called in after a badger was allegedly found dead in a snare on the Dunecht estate.

Snaring has been a more fiercely fought issue in Scotland than south of the Border, partly because landowners with large shooting estates, such as Mr Pearson, dominate the landscape more than they do in England, and practices on Dunecht Estates have been used to back a ban.

However, campaigners in Scotland have so far not succeeded. The SNP has caused anger among campaigners by not supporting a complete ban, although Mike Russell, the environment minister, has instituted some strict regulations.

19 Lord Margadale – 73,000 acres

THE current Baron Margadale is Alastair Morrison, who inherited the family estates in 2003. He owns tracts of property in England, too, but his main estate north of the Border is one of Scotland's jewels – the island of Islay, where some of the most renowned whisky is distilled.

In 1853 the family bought the island, including Islay House, built in 1677 and one of the most impressive aristocratic piles in Scotland. It became a holiday home for the Morrison family and a visiting place for almost every prime minister until Harold Wilson.

The family sold the house in 1985 and it is now owned by Tom Friedrich, a former US fighter pilot, but Lord Margadale still owns the island.

The first Lord Margadale was John Morrison, chairman of the 1922 Committee and a member of the Magic Circle which ensured Alec Douglas-Home became leader of the Conservative Party and prime minister, succeeding Harold Macmillan in 1963, instead of Rab Butler, who had been expected to take over.

The machinations led to the Tories reforming and allowing MPs to elect their leader, rather than one simply being appointed by the Queen. There were suspicions that the first Lord Margadale was elevated to the House of Lords out of gratitude from Douglas-Home.

20 Tycoon Mr X – 71,000 acres

TOURISTS going to the famous Queen's View beauty spot in Glen Avon, Moray, where Queen Victoria used to look down on her Royal estate, now see land owned by the Andras Conglomerate based in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia.

In reality, the conglomerate is a front for a mysterious and reclusive Malaysian-based businessman, who has never been identified, but is known in his estates as Mr Salleh.

The estate is the largest part of the 70,000 acres of land he now owns in Scotland and is well known still for its shooting parties. The businessman bought the 40,000-acre Glenavon estate, once owned by the Wills family, for £6 million in 1995 and has increased his holding since.

The second secretive businessman's estate is the 30,000-acre Braulen estate around Glen Strathfarrar in the North-west Highlands in Inverness-shire.

This slightly smaller estate was the scene of a legal battle over land access. The businessman took Scottish Natural Heritage to court to prevent the agency sending in nature conservation inspectors on parts of the land it is responsible for.

Mr Salleh is said to visit his estates from Malaysia two or three times a year.

[British and Proud]

Here's my latest blog post, minus the pictures:

The Break Up of the United Kingdom - Another Labour Legacy?


The Labour government provided the vehicle for Scots Nationalists to accomplish their objective, of full independence, by establishing a devolved government in Holyrood. Consequently there is a very real possibility that Scotland could secede from the Union. Some predicted this a long time ago - indeed Wikipedia maintains that 'When Labour won the 1997 General Election, Powell told his wife that the electorate had voted to break up the United Kingdom' - however I didn't believe it was a genuine possibility until the start of the economic slump.

When people are actually impoverished by the current regime they are tempted by radical solutions. People will generally be less likely to gamble on significant change when they are reasonably affluent and able to watch their soaps on a big TV, enjoy takeaway food, go boozing and shopping and spend a fortnight in Spain each year. Once their quality of life begins to seriously diminish, however, their attitude will change and they will be more likely to seek alternatives to the status quo. The press are already frantic about the possibility the BNP will take advantage of the government's ineptitude south of the border, however in Scotland it is the pseudo-nationalist SNP who will benefit from discontented voters. The proof being the loss of the East Glasgow parliamentary seat to the SNP last year, a seat which Labour had held for the previous 86 years. Here are the results in full:

John Mason, SNP - 11,277
Margaret Curran, Labour - 10,912
Davena Rankin, Conservative - 1,639
Ian Robertson, Lib Dem - 915
Frances Curran, Scottish Socialist Party - 555
Tricia McLeish, Solidarity - 512
Dr Eileen Duke, Scottish Greens - 232
Chris Creighton, Independent - 67
Hamish Howitt, Freedom 4 Choice - 65

Clearly the SNP were the only party to challenge Labour, and this is the case in many constituencies in Scotland. In Holyrood, the 'nationalists' are currently the largest party and together with the Lib Dems and the Greens actually form the government. It is only the fact they currently don't have an overall majority that prevents them from holding a referendum on independence.

Now, assuming that the economic slump worsens over the next couple of years, thus fuelling further resentment towards Nu Labour, the SNP may well form a majority government in Holyrood. This, coupled with a Conservative victory at the next general election, may be enough to convince the Scottish electorate to support independence, especially if the SNP evoke memories of Thatcher, the Poll Tax and remind the Scottish public just how much they despise the Tories.

Nu Labour's legacy may well be the destruction of Britain as a political entity. Devolution has opened a can of worms, the West Lothian Question has stirred the English, spawning parties such as The English Democrats. The following passage comes from their website:

The fact is there is no political party putting the interests of England first. All three major parties are “unionist” in outlook. This means that they see themselves representing the interests of all three nations in the UK, irrespective of whether policies that support Wales and Scotland disadvantage England. England has over 55 million people, we need our own distinct voice, no unionist party will put England first – we will.

Above: An example of how anti-Scottish sentiment has grown thanks to Nu Labour

Simon Heffer has recently written about the predominance of Scots in government at Westminster, in a rather abrasive article entitled 'Scots have brought Britain to its knees', in which he writes the following:

Some of my dear readers have observed – indeed, are observing with creeping ferocity – that the English have been the victims of a plot by Scots to destroy the auld enemy. I prefer to think it is a cock-up. The little berk who is the only Tory MP in Scotland (and therefore shadow Scottish secretary – it's lucky for him a sheep didn't get elected too), David Mundell, has demanded that English retailers be forced to accept Scottish banknotes. What a good idea: let's see if we can drive a few more small businesses out of existence. After all, the way RBS is going, its notes will soon be worth less than the paper they are printed on.

The sooner the bunch of Scots who govern us are booted into history the better. I don't say that the English would be any better, but at least we would be paying for our own mistakes rather than someone else's. Never has the case for English independence from the Scots been so overwhelming. Sadly, I suspect that in the present state of penury England will be saddled with them for another 302 years of high-end welfarism at least.

In another article entitled 'The Union of England and Scotland is over' he likens the Union to the demise of the Empire:

Back in the 1950s, in the two or three years before Suez, there was a strong constituency in the Tory party that blathered on about the need to maintain the British Empire: the Suez Group was the main focus of this. They were absurd, because the empire had ceased to exist in 1947 when India went. Once the jewel in the crown was lost, the rest of the structure would fall apart inevitably. So it is now with some in the Labour Party. The Union is over, morally at least. When Scotland voted for devolution in 1997 the Union fell into a coma. When Alex Salmond's SNP administration was elected in May the last rites were read, and the final process of sundering got under way. All that remains is for the Scots, in a referendum, to vote to stick the coffin in the grave, with the Union flag still on it, and pile on the earth.

The dissolution of the Union could potentially have disastrous effects. What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8? What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales? Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords? Would we each be more dependent on the EU? Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted?

Personally, I can't see any benefits to be had from the break up of the Union. United we stand, divided we fall!

[Æmeric]

What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.


Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

[British and Proud]

What will happen to our veto at the UN Security Council and our membership of the G8?

I would assume England as the successor state to Britain would keep the UN seat, though I think the UN is way overrated & would prefer the US to leave the UN & kick the UN out of New York. Would England still be among the top 8 economic powers without Scotland? It would seem likely it would.

What would happen to Northern Ireland and Wales?
What happens to Northern Ireland will be decided by demographics. As for Wales it has been part of England since 1536 & ruled by England for a few hundred years before that. It might fun to spit at the English but if independence was a real possibility, I think most would turn it down.

Would the government use the opportunity to implement constitutional reforms, for example abolishing the House of Lords?
What government? A Labour government would be less likely without the Scottish vote. 1997 was the first time since 1945 the Labour Party won a majority of English seats. Most Labour governments have been dependent on their Scottish constituents. I think England would have a much more moderate, less socialistic goverment without Scotland.

Would we each be more dependent on the EU?
Why should it? IO was under the impression that the UK paid more into the EU then it got back in benefits/subsidies.

Will this really benefit Scotland now that most of the North Sea Oil reserves have been exhausted? That should be Scotland's concern.


Great Britain is not, nor has it ever been, a union of Scotland & England. It was England with Scotland annexed to it. The institutions of Great Britain were that of England. Scotland sent MPs to the Parliament at Westminster, Scottish peers elect representative peers to the Britiah House of Lords, English peers never had to because the British Parliament was the English Parliament. British monarchs take their regnal number according to how many same-named sovereigns preceded them on the English throne, e.g. Elizabeth II when there was never a regnant Queen Elizabeth in Scotland. I don't think much would change for England if Scotland left, in fact it might be better if the English didn't have to pander to a minority (the Scots) by suppressing their own nationalism in the name of union.

An intelligent reply, thanks! I get the impression you favour the break up of the union, however, or at least are unperturbed by it. Perhaps due to my mixed ancestry I am strongly opposed to it and feel that, if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

[stormlord]

if it would not adversely effect England, then it certainly would the other three nations.

That's the point, I think most English people are tired of being spat at for shouldering the burden of carrying the other home nations. It's bad enough having to subsidise Scotland's pathetic economy (more people employed proportionally by the state than Cuba) but having constant Scottish hostility, and Scottish MP's using their votes to undermine English democracy just adds insult to injury.

I used to be very pro-union but frankly we should just accept that it's over, and it would probably be better for Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland in the long run if they're forced to operate in a world where their socialist government spending has to be supported with their taxes alone, rather than siphoned from English workers.

[Birka]

I imagine someday our children will be having this conversation about whether the old America should separate from the North American Union. The US contributes so much compared to former Mexico and former Canada. Other than a very small elite class in Mexico, the majority of the people are on welfare or part of the Unionist Civilian Security Force, started by the first president of Noramexicana, B. Obama.

[Beorn]

Scotland is stronger because it is part of the United Kingdom

Today will see the first meeting of the UK cabinet in Scotland since 1921, and the first ever to be held in my home city of Glasgow.
I asked the prime minister to bring my cabinet colleagues here to Scotland for one very good reason: to concentrate our focus on the effects of the economic downturn in Scotland and listen to the concerns of Scots from a wide range of our society.
It's important to do so, particularly at this point in Scotland's political history.

We have now had two years of an SNP-led minority government at the Scottish parliament and that time has in part been characterised by a long series of flashpoints and a fractious relationship between Scotland's two governments – the UK Labour government and the SNP Scottish government.
That is due to a binary opposition in our respective beliefs on the future of Scotland.

On the one hand, I believe – as do the majority of Scotland's population – that we continue to be better off as an equal part the United Kingdom, which offers us strength in good times and security in bad times.
Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland are all stronger because we are all part of the United Kingdom.
We are in this economic crisis together and we can only get out of it together.

I have never believed in the case for breaking up Britain and, at times like these, it makes even less sense.
That comes partly from my own patriotism and love of my country, but also from the clear facts.
The models of similar sized economies which the current Scottish government has repeatedly held up as the paragons of an independent future are not referred to much these days.
Whatever happened to that arc of prosperity we used to hear so much about?

I want to see Scotland and the whole of the UK succeed. In my time as secretary of state for Scotland, my main aim has been to work with anyone, anywhere in the interests of Scotland.
In doing so, I have tried to temper the often simplistic and self-interested politics of the past in favour of a more constructive voice. I believe we have come a long way towards that goal, but there is much left to be done.

Many Guardian readers from outside Scotland may only be aware of Scottish politics through the sort of combative stories which reach the media – the high-profile disputes over funding, the claims over North Sea oil, the SNP obsession with separation.
There is far more to Scotland, its politics and its national life than that.
We are also fast approaching the 10th anniversary of devolution, a system which continues to work well for the UK and the devolved administrations.
That decade has seen a huge amount of change across our nation and globally, and the Commission on Scottish Devolution, headed by Sir Kenneth Calman, has been tasked with looking at the settlement in detail.
It will offer its final report later this year, and we await those findings with interest.

There is one somewhat subdued fact which exists in the Scottish political landscape, partly due to devolution itself, to the presence of a Scottish parliament: it is that the UK government has an evolving and hugely relevant part to play in Scottish life. That is the nature of devolution and the reservation of certain powers to Westminster.
Things are set this way for very good reasons. A common welfare system across the UK; international relations on behalf of our sovereign state; the defence of our country and the economic benefits it brings to Scotland; our shared values and culture – these are just a few examples of where our union melds together in our favour and in all of our interests.
That is why the cabinet meeting in Glasgow today is important.
My cabinet colleagues and I both represent and work for Scotland as part of the UK, from the prime minister through welfare, employment, defence, business and industry, the economy, culture and energy among other things.

It is our chance to speak to Scotland and to listen to it further. Our future success depends on this kind of communication coupled with action.
I am greatly looking forward to hearing what Guardian readers have to say on these and other issues.
Do you value the union? What does Scotland – and Scotland's future – mean to you?
Do you share the view that we are stronger together and weaker apart?
You know what I think – now let me know what you think, and I'll be back later to respond.

Jim Murphy is the secretary of state for Scotland

Source

[Beorn]

SCOTLAND should receive an additional £300 million from the UK government as a result of the investment in the London Olympics, a senior parliamentarian said yesterday.

Lord Richard, a former Labour leader of the House of Lords, said the public money being spent regenerating the area around the Olympic park in the East End of London should be considered English expenditure – with knock-on benefits for Scotland.

Unnder the Barnett formula used by the UK Treasury to allocate almost £49 billion of funding each year, Scotland, Wales and Northern Ireland see their resources rise or fall in proportion to additional sums spent in England. But there has been no "Barnett consequential" for the three nations because all expenditure on the London Olympics has been classed as benefiting the UK as a whole.

Unveiling a House of Lords committee report calling for the 30-year-old Barnett formula to be scrapped, Lord Richard

accepted that, while the "spectacle" of the Olympics would benefit Britain as a whole, "the regeneration of the East End is the regeneration of the East End". He added: "I also think that some parts of it (the Olympics expenditure] would be very difficult to justify in UK terms."

This contrasted with the Crossrail high-speed train line being proposed to link Heathrow with central London and Canary Wharf, which was classed as English expenditure and resulted in a £500m "consequential" for Scotland.

The committee said the Barnett formula, named after Joel Barnett, who devised it while Labour chief secretary to the Treasury in the 1970s, should be scrapped because it was not based on need but the population of each country.

It said that Scotland and England had both received more than their fair share under the formula, while Wales and Northern Ireland had lost out.

It had been a "short-term fix" that had remained in use simply because it was easy to administer, and no government was willing to spend time introducing a new system.

However, Lord Richard was unable to provide a figure for the amount of money Scotland had received that was not justified in terms of need.
The report called for the establishment of a UK Funding Commission, akin to a system used in Australia, to ensure the allocation of funds between nations was done impartially and to remove any threat that the Treasury could manipulate payouts for political reasons.

The commission would also carry out a detailed analysis of need for each nation, based on social statistics.

Lord Richard acknowledged that the Barnett formula was likely to be scrapped if the proposals of the Calman Commission, to allow the Scottish Parliament to raise half the level of income tax, were adopted.

The Treasury said it would respond to the report at a later date.

Source

[Beorn]

IMMIGRANTS who want to become British citizens will stand a better chance if they opt to live in Scotland, under radical reforms to be unveiled by the Home Office this summer.
A new "points-based" test for citizenship will credit applicants if they have set up home in parts of the country in need of increased population.

Scotland has been singled out by the Home Office as a place where points could be earned, because its own population is likely to fall over the long term.

The move, contained in a draft consultation to be released in the next few weeks, means prospective British citizens already settled in the UK may flock north of the Border to ensure they have enough points to be successful.

The new points-based system will also reward applicants who can show they have attributes required by the country, but will penalise them for failing to disregard British values.

Writing in Scotland on Sunday today, Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy confirms that "having lived and worked in Scotland is proposed as one way to earn points".

He adds: "Our need for a growing population is ranked along with the need to recruit to shortage occupations."

The new system of "earned citizenship" is borrowed from Australia, where immigrants must gain points over a number of years before being granted full citizen status.

Under the new Borders, Citizenship and Immigration Bill, applicants will undertake a probationary period before being granted citizenship, meaning it could take up to eight years to complete the process.

Currently, foreigners can apply for British citizenship purely on the grounds that they are settled in the country. Last year, around a quarter of a million people passed the citizenship test which applicants must take.

Ministers say the new rules will allow them to have more control over the number of people gaining citizenship, but will also allow them to be more flexible about the threshold, depending on the needs of the country.

The Home Office draft paper declares: "Attributes for which points could be awarded might include earning potential, special artistic, scientific or literary merit, qualifications, shortage occupation, English (above existing requirements); and having lived and worked in a part of the UK in need of increased population, eg Scotland."

Source

It's a step in the right direction, but I can't help but think it's merely the government sneaking around the fact that England is now full. Time to fill up Scotland.

[Loki]

Time to fill up Scotland.

Indeed! We should grant the feverishly Labour-voting masses in Scotland their wishes. No need to deny them their dues.