The post of Scottish Secretary will be scrapped after more than 300 years.

The role, which was established in 1703, will be replaced by a Secretary of State for the Nations.

www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.va...y_to_be_scrapped.php

Robin T Cox wrote:
The post of Scottish Secretary will be scrapped after more than 300 years.

The role, which was established in 1703, will be replaced by a Secretary of State for the Nations.

www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.va...y_to_be_scrapped.phpWhy bother with this proposal at all, when the Scottish Secretary has all but vanished, and is practically invisible to most of us.
It's a joke!

When nobody talks to the Scottish Secretary except Scottish Labour MPs at question time, Westminster could save a great deal by getting rid.

Each of these offices cost a great deal to run.

Scotland could use that money instead of civil servants who no longer have any work to do.

I have this vision of civil servants sitting in an office waiting beside a quiet phone, waiting for Alex Salmond to phone or fax or E.Mail.

The Scottish secretary has ever been Westminster's man in Scotland, not Scotland's man in Westminster. I would argue that a devolved parliament has made his role redundant, and the very fact the present incumbent was given the role of Defence Secretary in addition says much about the importance (or lack thereof) the present Westminster Government puts on the post.

I don't think it'll be any loss, we might notice an absence of Nay-saying but that's about it IMO.

O but wait a minute the Secretary of state for Scotland does have some important uses. i.e. during by-elections the last one in Glasgow East was a great photo opportunity for him to pose in a Shipyard declaring how wonderful it is that the UK is going to build two super dooper Aircraft carriers and of course some of this work will be carried out in Glasgow. God knows the shipyards need this.
However "In an Independent Scotland" how much will we have to pay back for something that we will probably never use?

I think we can be fairly sure we won't get any shipping contracts from the rest of the UK after independence.

Ah don't you just love the Glasgow Herald. It manages to tell us the office of Secretary of State for Scotland was established in 1703, 4 years before the Union in 1707. Perhaps the office comes with its own time machine.

The office was actually established in 1707, then abolished in 1746. It was re-established in 1885 in response to growing calls in Scotland for Home Rule.

I can see the merger of the offices of Secretary of State for NI, Wales and Scotland, and calling it Secretary of State for the Nations causing complaints amongst English nationalists. It implies England isn't a nation.

In any case, it's pretty irrelevant really. In the next decade either the UK will cease to exist, or there will be fundamental constitutional reform.

InfrequentAllele wrote:
Ah don't you just love the Glasgow Herald. It manages to tell us the office of Secretary of State for Scotland was established in 1703, 4 years before the Union in 1707. Perhaps the office comes with its own time machine.

The office was actually established in 1707, then abolished in 1746. It was re-established in 1885 in response to growing calls in Scotland for Home Rule.

I can see the merger of the offices of Secretary of State for NI, Wales and Scotland, and calling it Secretary of State for the Nations causing complaints amongst English nationalists. It implies England isn't a nation.

In any case, it's pretty irrelevant really. In the next decade either the UK will cease to exist, or there will be fundamental constitutional reform.

All the time it actually presumes arrogantly, that England just doesn't require to declare its nationhood, its above all that. A bit like England holding on God save the Queen as anthem in sporting occasions.

All the time it actually presumes arrogantly, that England just doesn't require to declare its nationhood, its above all that. A bit like England holding on God save the Queen as anthem in sporting occasions.

I came across that attitude time and time again when I lived in London. In England there seems to be a widespread belief that the English don't have a national identity when in fact they're probably amongst the most distinctive nations in Europe. It's like fish who don't see the ocean they swim in. It's an attitude particularly common amongst people on the political left in England.

Since devolution, there has been a growing resentment in England that alone out of all the UK nations, they're not properly represented somehow. Of course that's not true, the entire British state represents English interests. But you just need to read the comments on English political blogs and newspapers to see that many are convinced that England is getting a raw deal from the union. And they're quite blind to the irony of them saying Scots have a chip on their shoulder...

I think further tinkering with what passes for a British constitutional settlement is only going to increase English nationalist resentment. It's entirely possible that Scotland will get independence because the English don't want to keep the union.

Something similar happened when Czechoslovakia broke up. The Slovaks initially wanted a lot more self-government, they were half-hearted on the idea of full independence. The Czechs had similar resentments to those we now see in England. After the fall of communism talks between the Czechs and Slovaks broke down because the Czechs weren't sufficiently motivated to keep the union.

IA

It's entirely possible that Scotland will get independence because the English don't want to keep the union.

I entirely agree. The Daily Mail readers are fed stories of greedy subsidised Scots and they say "Good Riddance". Most of the rest say "Good luck to you". A few think that they should get the oil because it was British/English money that financed the industry!

a widespread belief that the English don't have a national identity when in fact they're probably amongst the most distinctive nations in Europe. It's like fish who don't see the ocean they swim in. It's an attitude particularly common amongst people on the political left in England.

Since devolution, there has been a growing resentment in England that alone out of all the UK nations, they're not properly represented somehow. Of course that's not true, the entire British state represents English interests. But you just need to read the comments on English political blogs and newspapers to see that many are convinced that England is getting a raw deal from the union. And they're quite blind to the irony of them saying Scots have a chip on their shoulder...[/quote]

Well there are none so blind that cannot see...
I agree, I lived in the "Home Counties" love that, its almost as comfortable and cosy as "Home Secretary". Any I lived their for many years, I was a Nationalist before I went their, My first ever vote being in the October election of 1974, I guess I was inspired by the 7 SNP MP's in the election of Feb that same year.
Living down South opened my eyes to the fact that even unconciously people take their Nationality for granted. It's there without question. Just like when doing away with the post of secretary of State for Scotland, becomes Secretary of State for the Nations". The "Home Secretary" will always be there because the fringes need to be looked on as Nations as a sop, but you see we don't even have to go there.