BBC BLOGS - Blether with Brian
« Previous | Main | Next »

Paper trail

Brian Taylor | 11:05 UK time, Wednesday, 30 September 2009

Sitting here in Brighton at the Labour conference, a copy of The Sun on the rough hewn table that passes for my desk.

The page one footy trail speaks of Arsenal's victory and Liverpool's defeat. Rangers humiliation is a few pars on the inside back page. A clue to the edition in question.

Also on the front is a banner declaration of intent: the rejection of Labour after 12 years and the adoption of David Cameron's Conservative Party.

It is accompanied by several pages of explanation - plus a handy pull-out-and-keep poster listing Labour's failures.

Of course, such a momentous switch needs a slogan. The paper duly supplies it with: "We're feeling blue."

Not, however, in Scotland. The Scottish Sun has also rejected Labour - but cannot bring itself to endorse the Tories.

For why? Presumably because of the calculation that the Tories are not in a particularly healthy state in Scotland.

Political stance

As a marketing tool, they are flawed, at least by comparison with the brand in England. In short, the Scots Tories don't sell.

The Scottish edition of the paper, which I have perused online, does the sums.

It says: "Fifty years ago more than half of Scotland voted Tory. Today they command the support and respect of only one in six of the population."

The Scottish Sun has wrestled with its political stance before. As I recall, it flirted relatively briefly with support for independence, presumably as a counterpoint to the Labour-loyal Daily Record.

Now it appears caught between the overall abandonment of Labour and the lack of an obvious alternative.

Not the Conservatives: today's Scottish edition of the paper says that suspicion of the Tories "runs way deeper" than the newly-stated distrust of Labour.

Not, it would seem, the SNP: that same Scottish edition declares continuing support for the Union.

The Liberal Democrats, then? Behave yourself.

Instead, the Scottish paper is left urging Mr Cameron to declare what he will do for "our nation", starting presumably next week at the Tory conference.

Does all of this matter? As Gordon Brown pointed out this morning, newspapers don't vote, people do.

However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction.

In short, having declared for the Tories in the southern edition, The Sun will want to end up on the winning side. They don't do losers.

In Scotland, presumably, the paper will tailor its coverage to match its nuanced position. Unless and until it reaches a clear verdict.

Comments

or register to comment.

  • 1. At 11:30am on 30 Sep 2009, simon7-0 wrote:

    Today's Scottish Sun is all over the place. It bashes Brown and Labour, but doesn't back the Tories or the SNP. They have tied themselves in knots and it is because they know that Scottish readers would not tolerate the Sun backing the Tories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 2. At 11:31am on 30 Sep 2009, Sgt_Furry wrote:

    Brian, I suggest you re-read what you have just written and think about it very very carefully. Do you do irony?

    As for the Murdoch rag, expect them to come out and throw their weight behind Smeato. They were made for each other.

    Complain about this comment

  • 3. At 11:34am on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    Interesting blog, Brian. Does this mean the the Scottish Sun is going to attack all the parties in Scotland. I can't see how that is going to increase their circulation. I suspect that they may obliquely support the SNP but still stating that they are still a supporter of the Union. That is until the Scottish Sun assumes that the SNP will have a runaway election success and then the Scottish Sun will be all over them.
    Interesting statement you made in your blog:

    However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction.

    Now, if you substituted the word 'newspapers' for a certain national media outlet then I see that you are entering dangerous grounds with your masters. Whatever can you mean, Brian?

    Complain about this comment

  • 4. At 11:38am on 30 Sep 2009, dwmacleod wrote:

    So the Sun is digging itself into a hole in Scotland, interesting. They cannot credibly support the Tories up here, given the massive distaste (and in many areas, hatred) for everything Conservative. They've disowned the Labour party. Given how much the paper has ridiculed the Lib Dems, I don't see them leaning that way either.

    Might we see a nuanced position of voting for the SNP in order to emphasise Scottish interests, but making clear that they will not support indpendence in a referendum? Or, in what would be an astonishing break with tradition, unbiased poltical reporting in a tabloid?

    Complain about this comment

  • 5. At 11:55am on 30 Sep 2009, spinspamspun wrote:

    Let the Sun support the Tories ! Who cares ?
    Wouldn't eat a fish supper from that rag.

    It says that it supports the "sense of direction
    and vision that Cameron is offering" !!!!!!!!!!!

    At least here in Scotland a quality newspaper
    won't be supporting the lonely tory
    Davie (take my photo) Mundell.

    That quality paper ?
    THE SCOTTISH SUN.

    Complain about this comment

  • 6. At 12:03pm on 30 Sep 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:

    @3 gedguy2 well said.

    "dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction."


    If Wiki ever decide to include that fine new Scottish word "GlenCampbelly" Brian's own definition has to feature surely!

    Complain about this comment

  • 7. At 12:06pm on 30 Sep 2009, Donald_McNairn wrote:

    The Sun will back whom ever Murdoch wants, the Scottish people will back the SNP.

    We live in a country where the Government, despite being elected and popular with the people, is not supported by a single paper or gets a fair hearing from "so called" national TV BBC Scotland.

    That said, the momentum is with the SNP, papers like winners, so it will be intersting to see the Sun's politicval column in 6 months time.

    D McN

    Complain about this comment

  • 8. At 12:15pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 6 GrassyKnollington

    Lol, indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 9. At 12:29pm on 30 Sep 2009, kenstor wrote:

    think of who reads, sorry, looks at. the sun. anything other than football, scandal and noods is ignored. so why would the rag make any difference in an election. on voting day in 1997, there were 2 people sitting in my local pub reading the sun. when asked who they were voting for in the election, the reply was, "what election?" nuf said.

    Complain about this comment

  • 10. At 12:30pm on 30 Sep 2009, Freenonbrit wrote:

    #3

    Absolutely right, gedguy. Given the decline of newspaper sales, and the public's knowledge of their various political stances, their influence is far less than TV and radio news and current affairs reports which get into every home, and are supposed to be impartial. However, even broadcasters' attempts to lead public opinion don't always work - BBC Scotland certainly shot itself in the foot with its assumption that the release of al-Megrahi had attracted universal public condemnation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 11. At 12:36pm on 30 Sep 2009, redrobb wrote:

    Do they still do that un-politically correct page 3 thingy? Personally have never bought this piece of rubbish which is not even fit in case of emergency aka running out of loo paper. I hope that all sensible Scots realise that none of the major parties are fit to govern any part of the UK in general.

    Complain about this comment

  • 12. At 12:42pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 6 GrassyKnollington

    Do you mean this wiktionary?

    Complain about this comment

  • 13. At 12:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    7. Donald_McNairn
    "We live in a country where the Government, despite being elected and popular with the people, is not supported by a single paper or gets a fair hearing from "so called" national TV BBC Scotland.
    "

    This is certainly true. Although The Herald should, perhaps, get some credit for its occasional bouts of impartiality. In the past I would also have been coming to the defence of the BBC. But the behaviour of some of its employees over the al-Megrahi release has changed my stance completely.

    Complain about this comment

  • 14. At 1:00pm on 30 Sep 2009, Brian Hill wrote:

    A Labour bashing, neutral to the SNP Sun would still be a major asset to the SNP.

    This will be a terrible blow to the psyche of the average Labour foot soldier and will keep tens of thousands of Labour voters at home whilst others drift even nearer towards voting SNP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 15. At 1:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, minuend wrote:

    Quote, Brian Taylor "However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction."

    Not just newspapers Brian, BBC Scotland, through it's various news programmes, has been the mouthpiece for the Labour party for as long as I can remember.

    Complain about this comment

  • 16. At 1:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, frankly_francophone wrote:

    As John Law of Lauriston, the Scot who was effectively the first minister of France in 1719, was leaving his residence in the Place Vendome one day, taking care to avoid as far as possible the tedious crowds of aristocratic and bourgeois would-be investors in his various over-subscribed financial schemes that had transformed the economy of the country, an elderly lady succeeded in accosting him.

    Stunned at her success in confronting the most influential man in the kingdom, apart from the Regent himself, she struggled to find the right words to express her desire to be granted a concession. Unfortunately, what the first minister heard himself being asked was that the old lady be granted a conception, to which Law replied, inevitably, "I am afraid you have left it a bit late, my dear", as indeed she had.

    Whatever it was that the Scottish first minister of England was trying to say to the Great British public yesterday on the subject of what he imagined that a heavily-indebted state could do by way of providing improved and extended public services in the hope of being granted the concession of a further term in office, I think we can take it that he realizes that it is too late for Labour. Behind the Lib Dems in UK opinion polls and abandoned by The Sun in England, he must know that he is done for. Whereas Law's bubble had yet to burst, the Brown bubble has exploded, I venture to suggest, leaving him and his party with no credibility.

    Henceforward, therefore, The Sun in England will grant him no concessions, it seems, and will presumably set about assassinating what remains of his vaunted Scottish presbyterian character from now until election day. This will, no doubt, translate into an unsophisticated anti-Scottish rant, of a type with which we are familiar, throughout the length and breadth of England. It is, therefore, unsurprising that that newspaper will be adopting a different approach so far as its Scottish readership is concerned, its inconsistency losing it, one may conjecture, whatever credibility it may have had itself in Scotland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 17. At 1:15pm on 30 Sep 2009, northhighlander wrote:

    Good Post Brian

    The Scottish Sun highlights a problem many Scots face. Labour has deserted its core vote, the SNP offer Independence, but many remain to be convinced, leaving little choice.

    The even worse news for labour is that if a referendum is held and the Union is endorsed that is the question put to bed for some considerable time. The SNP will then be standing as a government for a devolved Scotland. With the Independence question removed for a period I think they would do very well indeed, especially against a Cameron / Osbourne Tory government in Westminster and Iain Gray for Labour.

    Interesting Times ahead.



    Complain about this comment

  • 18. At 1:33pm on 30 Sep 2009, LondonSteve wrote:

    14. Brian Hill

    Could not agree more. The times they are a changing

    Complain about this comment

  • 19. At 1:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    I live in a house where the Sun don't shine, however, if some people are influenced on voting intentions by some opionated journalist instead of gut feeling and personal circumstances then IMO they don't deserve the vote at all.

    Complain about this comment

  • 20. At 1:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    Will Murdoch be offered a knighthood or peerage to bring him back into the fold?

    Complain about this comment

  • 21. At 1:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, bluelaw wrote:

    The Scottish Sun just wants to back a winner and that's never going to be the Tories. And they are most likely under strict orders not to support the SNP.

    Btw, just got done reading the last couple of blogs. Just to say:

    British troops were sent into the streets of Glasgow in 1919. Not that I expect any repeat of that.

    In any independence negotiation the UK could not make Scotland take on UK debts AND then seek to deny Scottish territorial rights to oil revenues. That would be a nonsense. I expect a quickie divorce as the UK seeks to shore up inevitable challenges post-independence to its seat on the UN security Council and @the EU. Ok shall remain on topic from now on!

    Complain about this comment

  • 22. At 1:54pm on 30 Sep 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction.

    No, no Brian - in Scotland we also have the BBC who show dedication and persistance in aiming their news coverage in one direction. Remember your own 'Chisholm' moment in the midst of the Megrahi release debate?

    What about US State Department spokesman Ian Kelly's heavily edited answer to Glenn Campbell's very leading 'forgive' question?, the firt part of Kelly's answer did not fit with the BBC's agenda so it was carefully removed from subsequent broadcasts.

    We also have the spectacle of Labour's leader at Holyrood pretty much undermined again by Gordon Brown vis-a-vis Brown's desire for a referendum to be held at the time when Gary and Murphy insist that no such referendums should be held. We won't be holding our breath waiting for any BBC Scotland journalist seriously questioning Gray or Murphy on this [No, Gary Roberstsons very feeble attempt, brushed aside contemptuously by Brown this morning doesn't count]

    It's a bit rich criticising The Sun for having a 'Scottish Version' of the news when the BBC in Scotland manage to manipulate and filter UK news regularly, adding their own unique Scottish 'twist'.

    The Daily Record remain committed to a Labour party in turmoil and in disarray - such dedication is amazing and bizarre.

    You say that backing the Tories in Scotland is a bad marketing tool, and you are correct, but just how good a marketing tool is it to consistently attack and refuse to back the most effective Government Scotland has ever seen and a party that continually puts Scottish interests first.

    Pretty much every journalist in Scotland should look at themselves first before criticising The Sun for at least acknowledging that England will determine the next UK Government and that their news coverage in Scotland is aimed more at restricting the advance of independence than informing the Scottish public.

    Complain about this comment

  • 23. At 2:01pm on 30 Sep 2009, akava77 wrote:

    A cynical marketing ploy by the most cynical newspaper on the market. The Scottish editors know it would be commercial suicide to back the Tories in Scotland, but never wanting to be seen backing a loser, Rupert Murdoch has ordered the paper to stop supporting Labour, so what could they do?
    The Sun has performed so many U-turns turns over the year, they would shame a lot of our politicians. A few years ago they, some readers will even remember they supported the SNP and independence briefly, only for them to turn round several years later and surpass even the Daily Record in its nat-bashing stance.
    I think just like in 2007, the Scottish electorate will take little heed of what this trashy sensationalist rag says and vote on the real issues.
    Anybody out there who has been daft enough to believe in all the negative scare stories and nonsense printed in the Sun over the years has deserved exactly what they have got, in most cases hopelessly incompetent Labour backbenchers, or greedy MPs who have only been in politics to line their own pockets.

    Complain about this comment

  • 24. At 2:04pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    17. northhighlander
    "The SNP will then be standing as a government for a devolved Scotland."

    It is a concern for some of us that the SNP might settle rather too well into this role.

    Complain about this comment

  • 25. At 2:07pm on 30 Sep 2009, McPhail wrote:

    Isn't this just brilliant. These so called Scottish versions of newspapers just stick Scottish edition on the front and move the football coverage around. They mirror (no newspaper pun intended) the Unionist political parties slavishly following the London dictated party line.

    Just as often it can blow up in your face. Do you think the editor consulted his scottish minion before making this announcement? You can just imagine the panic down on Clydeside. 'Dump Labour? Yeah we can do that. Hang on, endorse the Tories? No way. We'd have more credibility backing the Monstor Raving Loonies. They haven't a snowballs. Our readers hate them. SNP? Canna do that, we hate them, we're Unionists (don't know why). Well it will have to be the Lib Dems. We could some nice pictures of Tavish sailing up the Clyde in a fiery Viking longboat and then we could......................'

    Complain about this comment

  • 26. At 2:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, hamish42 wrote:

    The Scottish Sun could try to equalise the balance of political reporting and perhaps raise its circulation in Scotland at the same time, by backing the SNP.

    The score would then be - the Scottish Sun (SNP) All other Scottish Media outlets (anti-SNP).

    Complain about this comment

  • 27. At 2:14pm on 30 Sep 2009, kaybraes wrote:

    Though I have never bought the Sun, this looks like good judgement withdrawing support from the worst government this nation has been afflicted with since the disastrous dogma of Attlee's government. As for who the Scottish Sun supports, does anybody really care as long as it is not these numpties that masquerade as the Scottish Labour party. What they do and what they have done is as far removed from the principles of the early Labour party as they could be. Hopefully the Sun will support whoever has the welfare of Scotland and it's people at heart.

    Complain about this comment

  • 28. At 2:37pm on 30 Sep 2009, Fit Like wrote:

    "However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction."

    Hmmm, so a bit like the reporting on BBC Scotland then?

    Complain about this comment

  • 29. At 2:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, Fit Like wrote:

    #21 bluelaw

    "The Scottish Sun just wants to back a winner and that's never going to be the Tories. And they are most likely under strict orders not to support the SNP.

    As I mentioned in my #219 on the previous thread, there was the Sun's cynical attempt to split the Labour vote in '93 when, in England, they supported the Tories, whilst in Scotland, they claimed to be supporting independence/SNP.

    Complain about this comment

  • 30. At 2:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:

    20. U14153624
    "Will Murdoch be offered a knighthood or peerage to bring him back into the fold? "
    Maybe he already has ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 31. At 3:00pm on 30 Sep 2009, minceandmealie wrote:

    Once upon a time it was the last minister and the last copy of the Sunday Post....more recently it has been the last Labour councillor and the last copy of the Daily Record. Of course, all four of these Scottish phenomena still exist, but their power to influence society has waned greatly. They still make noises, but fewer and fewer people listen.

    The Sun is apparently following the Press and Journal in dropping a woefully out of touch partisan line in favour of (I presume) a generally sceptical one. To the extent that politics matters to readers of the Sun, this is a reasonable business strategy in a country in which no political party has a majority.

    Media organs which preach an ideological position that offends many of their readers (or viewers, or listeners...) are not doing themselves any favours in the long run.

    Complain about this comment

  • 32. At 3:01pm on 30 Sep 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    #24 Electric Hermit. Afternoon, If you take your post along with #17 North Highlander you may see the future few years. yes there are a good few problems with it, but, Full fiscal autonomy -not the calman pretendy version ,but true Full fiscal autonomy, would be a useful tool to prove to all the doubters and the waverers what exactly can be achieved on the road to Independence. the big problem of course is westminster CAN'T AFFORD it no matter which tory is in power whether it be Brown or Cameron

    Sid

    Complain about this comment

  • 33. At 3:07pm on 30 Sep 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:

    The fact that the Sun is unable to come out in open support for the Conservatives, even after 12 years in the electoral wildnerness, shows just how far removed from mainstream Scottish opinion the Conservatives have become. If they cannot recover tabloid support now, they never will. The Conservative Unionist game's a bogey.

    It's instructive to compare the Scottish and English editorials side by side. Much of the same phrasing occurs in both. It's obvious that the English editorial was written first, then sent to the Scottish Sun and reworked for a Scottish readership. If you wanted an illustration of how the Scottish media agenda is directed by interests outside Scotland it doesn't come much clearer than this.

    The Scottish Sun's editorial reads like a piece by a journalist caught between the demands of upper management and the realities of the local market. It's full of caveats and ifs and buts and carefully dances around to avoid offending the contradictory sensibilities of their readers and their bosses. After acknowledging that the Conservatives are unlikely to gain a Scottish mandate, the Sun can only say that Scotland "needs to make the best" of a Westminster Conservative government. Essentially, the Sun says Scotland should put up and shut up.

    The Scottish Sun editorial team is attempting a subtle balancing act which the paper will not be able to maintain for long, given its style and its intended readership. The Sun style is loud and strident, nuanced and balanced doesn't sit well with them. Their new "well they're all a bit rubbish really" position can only reinforce the widespread belief in Scotland that the Westminster game is a lost game with rigged rules, and we need a new game with new rules - independence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 34. At 3:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, dcspanner wrote:

    Scotland ignored Murdoch instructions to do this...

    http://farm1.static.flickr.com/168/483070357_c2611486b8_o.jpg

    The Scottish Sun print edition asks us scots to "let's see what Cameron can do" and its website takes you directly to the Vote Cameron bilge, so enough of those saying the Scottish Sun "stops short".

    Complain about this comment

  • 35. At 3:26pm on 30 Sep 2009, Astonished wrote:

    Grassyknollington and gedguy2 : I think glencampbelly is taking off. Magic !

    I would spell the word without capitals as in : "The Sun has decided to stop supporting labour and will become all glencampbelly about the tories".

    I believe Mr Mandelson is delighted about the Sun's decision, as for me I couldn't care less as I never differentiate between the red/blue unionists.


    Finally I believe the irony of this pontificating column is completely lost on Brian. Brian I'll give you a clue : Pot; kettle; black.

    Complain about this comment

  • 36. At 3:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    33. InfrequentAllele
    "Their new "well they're all a bit rubbish really" position can only reinforce the widespread belief in Scotland that the Westminster game is a lost game with rigged rules, and we need a new game with new rules - independence. "

    That, I think, neatly sums up the most significant factor in Scottish politics at the moment. The fact that people desperately want something different, combined with the fact that the SNP has proved itself to be at the very least a viable alternative.

    This viable alternative is what is lacking south of the border. Which may go some way to explaining why so many commentators have such evident difficulty understanding just how different the Scottish political scene has become in the past couple of years. And how much more it has diverged from the situation in England.

    It certainly also explains why otherwise decent people may turn to political obscenities such as the BNP in a desperate quest for something - anything - that will break the mould.

    But that is another topic entirely. Isn't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 37. At 3:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, davidstuarthill wrote:

    The most important issue in Brown's speech was the Economy as we all know. In this respect his main thrust was the government's innovation fund.
    But where I have to say that the £1 billion innovation fund will do nothing for the economy and Britains' future. The reason, both Blair and Brown were advised in 1997/98 by many of the world's leading scientists, engineers and technologists but where they completely ignored their world leading advice. Another reason is that the government's innovation unit has people who do not understand the dynamics of innovation, have not the knowledge or skills to pick winning new technologies and cannot see the woods for the trees. We know as we dealt with them for two years and where career senior civil servants have not a clue about innovation. Indeed, the £1 billion fund will go the same way as the £15 billion spent by the regional development agencies over the past 7-years and where they have created nothing according to independent analysis. This study determined that they should be scrapped as it was a complete waste of money. The reason again, they have not the right people running the show who are competent in creating new industrial bases. So folks, don't put all your faith in this innovation fund as it will totally fail the British people as all others have done over the past 12 years. The 'old boy' network is still working well and where even a Linguist can still run such a fund as in the case of the NESTA if people investigate - the pre-runner that heralded so much in 1998 but created nothing of any real substance.

    Dr David Hill
    World Innovation Foundation

    Complain about this comment

  • 38. At 3:52pm on 30 Sep 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    As noted elsewhere in this thread the headline should be POT CALLING KETTLE BLACK - Did you write the last bit of this thread with your tongue firmly in your cheek or do you just not get it.
    A very large percentage of people in Scotland really don't give a monkey's what the Sun or the power hungry Australian who owns it actually thinks.
    we have moved on and we are not prepared to be told any longer that we are to small ,to thick ,can't do anything for ourselves or we are just a nation of sponger's or anything else that we have been told over the years
    What Mr Brown said yesterday was quite frankly irrelevant ,he only mentioned Scotland once and as usual that was just to put us down.

    We now know what we could achieve if given half a chance and the likes of Mr Brown don't like it!!
    Sid
    PS Time to come home the sea air is getting to you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 39. At 3:55pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    I see that glenncampbelly has been removed from Wiki. I have sent them an e-mail asking why. If I get a reply then I will keep you posted.

    Complain about this comment

  • 40. At 3:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:

    36. Electric Hermit
    "This viable alternative is what is lacking south of the border. Which may go some way to explaining why so many commentators have such evident difficulty understanding just how different the Scottish political scene has become in the past couple of years. And how much more it has diverged from the situation in England."

    The unfortunate part for us is that even up here where we have that crucial difference, instead of relishing and reveling in the possibilities of much more fluid and dynamic politics in Scotland for them, our commentators seem largely intent on suppressing it all in favour of framing things according to a largely UK agenda.

    Complain about this comment

  • 41. At 3:57pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Suggested headline for the sun as description of Brown. (1 word)

    "Corrupt reactive enslaver to intelligent notions"

    Scottish ministers warned of ‘grim’ budget outlook

    "And he said: "Although 2010-11 appears to have been a tight budget, much more stringent budgets can be expected, at least until 2013-14.""

    FT

    The UK is a basket case with the banks only admitting 40% of there losses so far.

    The ship is unsalvageable as it plummets downwards into the icy depths, only lifeboat is called independence heading towards dry land.

    Complain about this comment

  • 42. At 3:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, Tom wrote:

    Is it honestly possible for a paper to on one hand, support the Conservatives but on the other, refuse to openly back the Conservatives plainly due to geographic location?

    Does this happen in other parts of the world? I believe the Scottish Sun simply do not want to upset her readers and remain Conservative supporters.

    Dean, where are you? Even papers do not like the idea of admitting to supporter the Conservatives. It should say something, ;-)

    I would have thought the Scottish Sun could support the Scottish National Party, but remain in favour of the Union. It should be simple to praise some parts of the SNP while being critical of their independence plans, while also attacking Labour and to an extent supporting the Conservatives. I bet there readers won't mind too much.

    Complain about this comment

  • 43. At 4:05pm on 30 Sep 2009, enneffess wrote:

    The Scottish Sun has been on the "hard sell" in Glasgow city centre for several weeks now with street sellers actively pushing the paper. Conveniently, many of them are located right beside cash machines and rail/tube stations; certainly outside Central Station and St Enoch's Square.

    The difference between the Scottish and English editions however will not be noticed by the majority of those who buy it. The paper is good for one thing however - cheap holidays!

    Complain about this comment

  • 44. At 4:22pm on 30 Sep 2009, Wee-Scamp wrote:

    #37 David Hill

    I couldn't agree more but this new innovation fund is a gimmick primarily because it would break the State Aid rules.

    Complain about this comment

  • 45. At 4:23pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    Yet another SNP policy being adopted by westminster (abolition of hospital parking charges).

    I wonder if the media will run the story day after day condemning the policy like they did up here.

    We havn't had the howling and screeching about the other SNP policies adopted by westminster so far.

    Complain about this comment

  • 46. At 4:28pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    39. gedguy2

    Still there for me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 47. At 4:33pm on 30 Sep 2009, garbhein wrote:

    Complain about this comment

  • 48. At 4:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    I notice the the mods have removed someone elses username as well - what is it about usernames they find so objectionable?

    Anyway, the big issue has once again been missed by 'Chisholm' Taylor and that is; why is it that The Sun cannot support any party in Scotland. It has nothing to do with marketing as The Sun could very well support the party most Labour supporters who are changing their vote are moving to - the SNP, this would at least ensure their market share remains, perhps even rises.

    The reason they do not support the SNP is clear to any of us not reliant on the BBC for our salaries, Scotland's interests come second to the maintenance of the Union, therefore the Scottish Sun will occupy an area of nebulous nothing snarling occassionally at the SNP whilst distilling for Scottish eyes the attacks on Labour by it's English parent.

    For Brian and others in the Scottish media to actively point out that the current constitution has left Scots with a Hobson's choice of Old Tory or New Tory is simply out of the question. So we are left with a kind of political vaccuum perfectly exemplified by The Sun's stance. A vaccuum that will be filled by statements from Iain Gray and Jim Murphy rather than a mature and informed debate on Scotland's future.

    Journalists in Scotland are currently closing their eyes when glaring constitutional problems stare them in the face, it is as though they are forbidden to begin the debate.

    The Sun has come out of the closet and admitted to it's political bigamy, unfortunately the closet door has been left open and we can see the rest of the 'Scottish' media standing aghast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 49. At 4:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    40. mrbfaethedee
    "The unfortunate part for us is that even up here where we have that crucial difference, instead of relishing and reveling in the possibilities of much more fluid and dynamic politics in Scotland for them, our commentators seem largely intent on suppressing it all in favour of framing things according to a largely UK agenda."

    Fear of change, perhaps? An inability to cope with a new political environment? Especially one which calls for a fairly radical rethinking of old assumptions.

    A retired senior police officer of my acquaintance once observed that people tend to have misconceptions about the police. The simple fact of the matter is, he explained, that the police are "as big a bunch of lazy, incompetent b******s as the rest of us".

    At the risk of offending Brian Taylor and his colleagues, I suspect the same might be said of them. Perhaps we expect too much of political journalists. After all, like the rest of us "lazy, incompetent b******s" they just want to get the job done and get off down the pub. Massively re-evaluating those old assumptions is bound to eat into their drinking time.

    Am I right, Brian?

    Eh?

    Oh!

    He's gone!

    Complain about this comment

  • 50. At 5:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    The Evening standard has a really good article and link to Skynews. Definitely worth a watch. Gordon Brown loses it in TV meltdown.
    Is this the man you want to lead the UK when he avoids all the questions.

    Complain about this comment

  • 51. At 5:10pm on 30 Sep 2009, hamish42 wrote:

    #37

    My experience with innovation issues in the civil service was that submissions were passed from civil servants to qualified engineers and scientists within the research establishments for assessment and comment. With their expertise, they would quite easily have been able to see what was a viable idea or not. Some of the 'innovations', like a so called 'perpetual motion machine' were absolute nonsense. It is not true to say that inexperienced civil servants were making decisions about the integrity of a scientific innovation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 52. At 5:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, Angus_Blogg wrote:

    Snowthistle #204 & #210 (last thread - 'Time is Running Out').

    Your post on the dearth of reporting of the major gas drilling operation currently being sucessfully undertaken off the West of Shetland will have been missed by many, as it appeared just as this new thread was started.

    Can I suggest you re-post here, since good news for Scotland, which strengthens the economic argument for independence, is never likely to be reported in the Scottish Sun (or any of the other Unionist Media in the run up to the election/independence referendum).

    ....Also, re my question to you - #216 on the last thread - can you shed any light on the current oil exploration in the Atlantic, off Shetland. This also appears to have been conveniently dropped by our wonderful 'Scottish Media'

    Complain about this comment

  • 53. At 5:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, ruarithered wrote:

    Hello all!

    As a sometime reader here and first time commentater could anyone please elaborate on why the blogger himself never seems to respond to the comments put to him?

    There has been some excellent points made thus far. The gall of this newspaper to call itself Scottish when it serves a foreign master(and I don't mean the Aussie) is beyond belief.

    On a lighter note, something I stole from elsewhere;

    The Right Honourable James Hacker MP: Don’t tell me about the press. I know exactly who reads the papers: The Daily Mirror is read by people who think they run the country; The Guardian is read by people who think they ought to run the country; The Times is read by the people who actually do run the country; The Daily Mail is read by the wives of the people who run the country; The Financial Times is read by people who own the country; The Morning Star is read by people who think the country ought to be run by another country; and The Daily Telegraph is read by people who think it already is.

    Sir Humphrey Appleby: Prime Minister, what about the people who read The Sun?
    Bernard Woolley: Sun readers don’t care who runs the country, as long as she’s got big tits.

    Complain about this comment

  • 54. At 5:14pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 37 davidstuarthill

    Just as a matter of interest, what happened to the £15 billion?

    Complain about this comment

  • 55. At 5:17pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 21 bluelaw

    Can you provide a link to the British troops on the streets of Glasgow in 1919?

    Complain about this comment

  • 56. At 5:21pm on 30 Sep 2009, themightyshed wrote:

    This is in danger of turning into an interesting and much-needed discussion about the bias in Scottish media (printed and broadcast).

    All I wanted to say was to echo the general view that BBC Scotland seems to be a Labour Party mouthpiece (and I am someone who voted for 3 different parties at the last Scottish/council elections, i.e. I consider myself to be reasonably objective).

    A couple of pieces of evidence:
    - Megrahi decision... the only international reaction the BBC ever mentions in relation to the Megrahi decision is 'America's condemnation'. To me, far more remarkable was the support of a 91 yr old 'Father of the World', Nelson Mandela, a man who has explicitly gone into political retirement and must have felt extraordinarily strongly about this to get on his soapbox in support of the Scottish Govt. Yet this appeared to be given about 2 lines on a BBC Website deep in a Sunday feature.

    - The so-called 'interview' by David Porter of Gordon Brown when the UK government 'saved the banks'. This was in fact the antithesis of an interview, it was an unchallenged, unedited party political broadcast by Mr Brown.

    Two examples of 'dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a certain direction'. As I say, I'm not making this point on behalf of any particular party, but rather in the hope of challenging the BBC to be a bit fairer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 57. At 5:23pm on 30 Sep 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:

    #48 U14094468

    Online Ed Here:

    "Scotland's interests come second to the maintenance of the Union,"

    -----------------------------

    The thing that many of us find confusing in the extreme is the fact that, whilst your statement above is almost certainly true, (not just for Scotland but every region of the UK), it is also true of the attitude of the EU towards the UK (or in the event of Scottish independence towards Scotland) and every other member state. Indeed that very principle is enshrined within the Lisbon Treaty: The needs of the Union come first, even if those needs conflict with the interests of, and disadvantage, individual member states. Despite this, most if not all Scottish independence-seekers actively support EU membership of the for the UK, and should it ever come about, an independent Scotland, yet they decry the existence of the "British" Union when it behaves in exactly the same way. There may be logic in that position, but it passes me by.

    Complain about this comment

  • 58. At 5:24pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 53 ruarithered

    Rofl

    Complain about this comment

  • 59. At 5:30pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 57 MalcolmW2

    You forgot to add that as an independent country, Scotland would have a say in the Union, which it doesn't have now. Scotland would also be able to lobby similar sized countries to further the cause and needs of the smaller countries. Mony a mickle maks a muckle.

    Complain about this comment

  • 60. At 5:42pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    57. MalcolmW2
    "most if not all Scottish independence-seekers actively support EU membership of the for the UK, and should it ever come about, an independent Scotland, yet they decry the existence of the "British" Union when it behaves in exactly the same way. There may be logic in that position, but it passes me by. "

    Of course it does! The reason being that you see everything through the distorting lens of irrational hatred of the EU. The nonsense about the Lisbon Treaty is evidence enough of that.

    Resign yourself to the fact that not all of us are so afflicted. And even those among us who harbour misgivings about the EU are nonetheless able to distinguish between the EU and the UK.

    Was there ever a blog or forum that the ranting Europhobes did not try to hijack? For my own part, I will do nothing further to encourage you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 61. At 5:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    55. gedguy2

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_George_Square



    Complain about this comment

  • 62. At 5:59pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    #48
    'I notice the the mods have removed someone elses username as well'

    It's the times we live in.

    no respect for the nobility ;)

    Complain about this comment

  • 63. At 6:04pm on 30 Sep 2009, redcliffe62 wrote:

    the scottish sun website has huge coverage from its parent paper and is pro tory. a bit on the rangers loss but essentilaly the same stories.
    they are supporting the tories, they are just pretending that is not the case in scotland as that will lose half their circulation. to be seen brown nosing a tory view would make people rush for the beano, sorry record.
    if they were not following the english version then the links to the english view would not be so prevalent in the "scottish sun".

    Complain about this comment

  • 64. At 6:07pm on 30 Sep 2009, pattymkirkwood wrote:

    #55 Red Clydeside section of this:

    http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/

    would be a good place to start.

    Complain about this comment

  • 65. At 6:09pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 61 romeplebian

    Thanks for the link.

    Complain about this comment

  • 66. At 6:18pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #204. At 10:10am on 30 Sep 2009, snowthistle wrote:

    The beeb don't seem to be keeping us up to date on the gas find west of Shetland, so I will.
    The Glenlivet side track has been "successfully drilled and has confirmed the lateral extent of the high quality gas bearing reservoir. Based on the preliminary logging data, the results exceed the prognosed net gas column and reservoir quality.
    The partnership has decided to drill a second side track appraisal well."


    Indeed! and important information it is. Where did was your information published? I'd love a link or a citation if possible.

    Complain about this comment

  • 67. At 6:20pm on 30 Sep 2009, SuperJulianR wrote:

    The Conservatives could at least make it easier for the Scottish Sun to support them by setting up a distinct and separate Scottish Conservative Party, affliated to but to some degree autonomous from the English/Welsh party.

    They have little to lose (one seat, maximum?) but potentially a great deal to gain if the new party forged a Scottish identity and thus gained more support north of the border. A friendly party to join in a coalition with them would make sense. The German CSU is exclusively and distinctively Bavarian, but works with Angela Merkel's CDU in government and it works well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 68. At 6:30pm on 30 Sep 2009, jammykev wrote:

    Mon Mr Gray what you goin to say now? lol Labour copying the SNP on there policies now. Just knew they did`t have any of there own and the cheek to try slate the SNP for them.hee hee

    Complain about this comment

  • 69. At 6:47pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #63. Exactly. The ONLINE Scottish Sun IS supporting the Tories.

    The "dead tree" version is just trying to hide that fact from Scotland. Do they think no one in Scotland has a newspaper??!

    The Scottish Sun IS supporting the Tories in spite of saying otherwise in their editorial. Oops. I almost said what I consider that. The moderators get a wee bit upset with me when I use the naughty "L" word.

    Or is that only about when someone is all glenncambelly about the news? And not when a newspaper is fudging on its political stance?

    Complain about this comment

  • 70. At 6:47pm on 30 Sep 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    66. JRMacClure

    http://www.pr-inside.com/glenlivet-discovery-successful-side-r1504362.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 71. At 6:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @64

    Nice link. Reminds me of a visit to one of those earnest "red wedge" type bookshops in Aberdeen in the mid eighties. Asking if they had books about or with articles on John MacLean was met by vacant stares from worthy youths in their Greek sailors caps. The vanguard of the proletariat indeed. Judging by his speech yestreen I imagine the current crop of thrusting young "socialist" are equally well versed in the history of the labour movement.

    Complain about this comment

  • 72. At 6:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    67. SuperJulianR
    "The Conservatives could at least make it easier for the Scottish Sun to support them by setting up a distinct and separate Scottish Conservative Party"

    The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party once did have a distinct identity and enjoyed massive support at the polls. If memory serves, it is the only party ever to have won an outright majority of the popular vote in Scotland. That was in the general election of 1950, as I recall, which was won by the British Labour Party.

    The distinctive identity of the Scottish party is just one more thing that was destroyed while the vile Thatcher squatted over the land.

    Complain about this comment

  • 73. At 6:55pm on 30 Sep 2009, myretoun wrote:

    Could someone correct me if I'm wrong but did Glenn Campbell, reporting on the 6:30 BBC Scottish News on the Copenhagen climate conference, say that the Scottish Government wanted to take part in order to 'crow' about their legislation?

    Complain about this comment

  • 74. At 6:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, Sgt_Furry wrote:

    55. gedguy2

    Some links re troops in Glasgow 1919.

    http://urbanglasgow.co.uk/archive/-bloody-friday-glasgow-s-general-strike-of-1919.__o_t__t_792.html
    http://www.scottishsocialistparty.org/new_stories/issues/scotlands-hidden-history.html
    http://sites.scran.ac.uk/redclyde/redclyde/docs/rcgrocwc.htm

    Complain about this comment

  • 75. At 7:05pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @73

    !!!! Is this on iPlayer? Even Glenn Campbell is being glenncampbelly now.

    It's really catching on you know (I may start producing some merchandise). Why just yesterday while I was driving home the Radio Scotland news informed me that the release of the "Lockerbie Bomber" had caused outrage across the world... I believe he too was being glenncampbelly. They must have training courses on this at Pacific Quay.

    Complain about this comment

  • 76. At 7:07pm on 30 Sep 2009, Astonished wrote:

    myretoun :

    More than likely although he only does it to try and be more glencampbelly than Brian Taylor.




    P.S. Is glencampbelly one 'n' or two ? I think two 'n's looks odd (no pun intended).

    Complain about this comment

  • 77. At 7:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:

    55. gedguy2

    Some excellent links have already been posted, here's another -

    http://gdl.cdlr.strath.ac.uk/redclyde/redclyeve14.htm

    My grandmother, who is 99 this year, remembers seeing the tanks in George Square. She was 9 years old at the time. Her father was active in the trades union movement and the Scottish Home Rule movement, he took her to see the tanks and soldiers in the Square so that she'd always remember the lengths that the government would go to in order to subdue ordinary working class people.

    She remembers how dirty and smelly the tanks were, and being shoved out of the way by an English soldier with a rifle who swore at her. She was shocked at his bad language. She found the entire experience terrifying. She told me she had no doubt at all that those soldiers would have shot her if they'd been ordered to.

    There was a Scottish battalion garrisoned nearby in Maryhill Barracks, but the government of the day did not call out Scottish troops as they believed that Scottish soldiers would not fire on their own people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 78. At 7:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, Blind_Captain wrote:

    #73

    Yes, he did indeed use the world "crow."

    Nice guy, isn't he?

    Complain about this comment

  • 79. At 7:09pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    Just Googled for the Fiddler's Rally and got the labour party conference.

    Complain about this comment

  • 80. At 7:17pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    75. BlooToon
    "I believe he too was being glenncampbelly. They must have training courses on this at Pacific Quay."

    Love it! The course would surely be called - "Achieving Glencambliness". Suggestions for subtitles, anyone?

    Complain about this comment

  • 81. At 7:24pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Sunset

    "If he goes down to defeat next May, he will now do so with some dignity. But there is no evidence that either he or his Conservative opponent has the first idea how to exploit the power of the internet."

    Complain about this comment

  • 82. At 7:25pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    79. U14153624
    "Just Googled for the Fiddler's Rally and got the labour party conference. "

    You made coffee come out my nose. It was hot. I may sue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 83. At 7:26pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    78. Blind_Captain
    "Yes, he did indeed use the world "crow.""

    Nice to have him admit that the Scottish government has something to "crow" about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 84. At 7:26pm on 30 Sep 2009, Sgt_Furry wrote:

    72. Electric Hermit
    "The Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party once did have a distinct identity and enjoyed massive support at the polls. If memory serves, it is the only party ever to have won an outright majority of the popular vote in Scotland. That was in the general election of 1950, as I recall, which was won by the British Labour Party.

    The distinctive identity of the Scottish party is just one more thing that was destroyed while the vile Thatcher squatted over the land.
    "

    While we can blame The Handbag for many things, the decay of the Tory vote was already well in evidence before she appeared. The 1950s vote for the Conservative and Unionists was due more to the pernicious influence of the Orange Order. Whether the Tories draw their inspiration from the home grown aristocracy and bigots or from the foreign mediocrity of Finchley, they have no place in my vision of Scotland.

    Where _is_ the apologist, btw? Dean hasn't been seen for days. I do hope giggles didn't get the munchies and eat him.

    Complain about this comment

  • 85. At 7:27pm on 30 Sep 2009, SuperJulianR wrote:

    72 Electric Hermit

    That rather goes to prove the point, as well as how times have changed since 1950!

    The Tories could really steal a march on Labour, by being lead in Scotland. Beats me how in the days of a devolved Parliament (leave aside the possibility of independence) any party can really be run from a capital city 400 miles away in England, and still stay in touch with sentiments and issues that are relevant to Scotland.

    The world moved on in 1999, but only the SNP moved on with it. No wonder they have ended up as the largest party and forming the Government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 86. At 7:30pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @73 and 78

    You would think that would merit some form of retraining at the very least. Problem is it appears from previous attempts by others that complaining only makes the BBC editorial team bristle with righteous indignation.

    Complain about this comment

  • 87. At 7:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, Donald_McNairn wrote:

    57 -

    The EU is voluntary, there are states queing up to join it.

    The UK is not voluntary, there are no states queing up to join it.

    Scotland independent, best of friends with England and part of a braoader, economic, military and political union, what more could you want?

    D Mcn

    Complain about this comment

  • 88. At 7:40pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @ 80
    LOL can just see the role playing workshop sessions.
    Hmm... "Achieving Glencampbelliness" Now there's a title for the next BBC Scotland comedy. It would of course star Ford Kiernan.

    Or a straight to DVD film "Being Glencampbelly" starring Gordon Brewer and Jackie Bird?

    Complain about this comment

  • 89. At 7:44pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    84. Sgt_Furry
    "While we can blame The Handbag for many things, the decay of the Tory vote was already well in evidence before she appeared."

    I agree. But I was referring to the decline of the Scottish party as a distinct entity. Something that I tend to associate with the Thatcher era.

    Complain about this comment

  • 90. At 7:47pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    I'm afraid giggles went away in a snit after I got disgusted last night and reported a number of his comments as spam, having them removed. (He called me a muppet and I assure you I didn't report that comment. It did make me chuckle.)

    Perhaps Dean will come out of hiding during the Tory conference--next week right?

    Complain about this comment

  • 91. At 7:49pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #70. At 6:47pm on 30 Sep 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    66. JRMacClure

    http://www.pr-inside.com/glenlivet-discovery-successful-side-r1504362.htm

    Thanks, rome. I will do my humble bestest to spread that around a bit because you can be sure the Scottish media won't want it mentioned. Mustn't have the Scots realize that they are in fact NOT poor--or wouldn't be if the UK government wasn't sucking up all their money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 92. At 7:54pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #83. Do you have the feeling that the poor wee lad doesn't realize the implication of that? glenncampbelly indeed.

    Complain about this comment

  • 93. At 7:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    85. SuperJulianR
    "The Tories could really steal a march on Labour, by being lead in Scotland."

    One of the great disappointments has been the behaviour of Annabel Goldie. Once a highly respected figure in Scottish politics who had it within her power to revitalise her party. Instead, she has opted to throw in her lot with the likes of Iain Gray and George Foulkes.

    Don't get me wrong! I have little time for Tory policies. But I do recognise that we need an effective political opposition in the country and in the parliament. Hubris disqualifies the British Labour Party. In failing to take on the role that the BLP in Scotland abrogated, Goldie has seriously let down her party and the Scottish people.

    Complain about this comment

  • 94. At 8:07pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #73 Consider this. I legitimately can not say that Mr. Campbell was lying. TAKE NOTE MODS. Mr. Campbell was NOT lying.

    The Scottish government does indeed have something to crow about. Mr. Campbell, this time, told the truth although permit me to doubt that he realized it. *ahem*

    Complain about this comment

  • 95. At 8:11pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    EU transmission charges move welcomed

    "SNP Member of the European Parliament Alyn Smith has today (Wednesday) welcomed news that the European Commission (EC) has sent a letter to the UK government about the UK transmission charges methodology being discriminatory against the development of renewables in the North of Scotland."

    Complain about this comment

  • 96. At 8:12pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Please note and let's discuss a couple of issues here:

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/scotland/6248082/Gordon-Brown-hints-at-U-turn-over-Scottish-independence-referendum.html

    He says yes maybe sometime you could have a referendum because this is the "wrong time" to have one. Not the wrong time to have one that the South is interested in, mind you. ONLY the wrong time to have one regarding the minor and insignificant matter of the Scottish constitutional status.

    Comments?

    Complain about this comment

  • 97. At 8:16pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @ 90

    Yeah I am also a muppet! At least that was one area of positive cooperation between the US & UK.

    I'd have to mark me down as Beaker.

    Complain about this comment

  • 98. At 8:19pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    And an interesting article only somewhat skewed in the Scotsman:

    http://news.scotsman.com/politics/PM39s-promise-of-a-ballot.5688893.jp

    Complain about this comment

  • 99. At 8:22pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    94. JRMacClure

    He must of gone off his script as newswriter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 100. At 8:29pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    IMF: UK faces credit rationing or higher interest rates unless Bank prints more mone

    So we can buy more imports to keep the money flowing (abroad) seems like nonsense to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 101. At 8:35pm on 30 Sep 2009, snowthistle wrote:

    cynicalHighlander #95,
    That is good news, lets hope the government act on it soon as the present situation is ludicrous.

    Complain about this comment

  • 102. At 8:35pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Union leader shreds the Sun as Labour attacks tabloid's defection

    Seems Labour party members have learnt how to tear things up in the last 12 years, drama queens.

    Complain about this comment

  • 103. At 8:44pm on 30 Sep 2009, giggletheloneranger wrote:

    Bloo and JR

    link it right!


    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ynjIoymWHvU

    Complain about this comment

  • 104. At 8:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    102

    Is he sitting (yes sitting) on a lavatory pan?

    Complain about this comment

  • 105. At 8:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #97. Since Miss Piggy was (as well as I can recall) the only female muppet, I can go with that. =)

    Complain about this comment

  • 106. At 8:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:

    93. Electric Hermit
    "
    One of the great disappointments has been the behaviour of Annabel Goldie.
    "

    Agree with your whole post Electric.
    It's doubly saddening because for a while I thought that the Conservatives and the SNP were going to drag Labour and the LibDems into the realisation that there are options in the way politcs can be done. A vain hope it turned out to be though, the tories are back in the gutter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 107. At 8:48pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    #100
    Brown and Darling make Mugabe look like a Nobel prize winner for economics.

    Complain about this comment

  • 108. At 8:50pm on 30 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:

    95. cynicalHighlander
    "EU transmission charges move welcomed"

    Let's hope the EU's letter has the desired effect.
    I find it staggering that amongst the fear-mongering and bluster from the government, that red tape and 'discrepancies' like this are getting in the way of action.

    Complain about this comment

  • 109. At 8:52pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @103

    LOL

    Welcome back giggles!

    Complain about this comment

  • 110. At 8:54pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    102. cynicalHighlander
    "Seems Labour party members have learnt how to tear things up in the last 12 years, drama queens."

    Oops! This looks like being THE moment of the conference. Gordon will not be pleased.

    Complain about this comment

  • 111. At 8:57pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @102

    Where is Mandelson while all this is going on? It may play well to the conference hall but the display of aggressive petted lip behaviour and the baying mob only unfetline the lack of positive messages and lack of discipline that now defines the NuLiebour project.

    Complain about this comment

  • 112. At 8:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    posted this in the last topic in error

    Ive just seen an advert for a new film that is due out
    it is called "glencampbelly glenross"

    on imdb it lists the plot line as being ;

    Times are tough in a Scottish Media office; the reporters (Brin Shaylor), Glen camp belly , and Kevin Hikenzie are given a strong incentive by Gorgon Brown to succeed in a pork pie telling contest.

    The prizes? First prize is a night with Mandy, second prize is a set of back stabbing knives, third prize is the sack!

    There is no room for losers in this dramatically masculine world; only "liars" will get the good story leads.

    There is a lot of pressure for the bankers to succeed, so a robbery is committed which has unforeseen consequences for all the characters.

    out soon in a cinema near you

    Complain about this comment

  • 113. At 8:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #97. Oh, I forgot about the nameless blonde. I'll be the blonde.

    Here. This is a better choice, giggles: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jt8Q7Fsa_Vs&feature=related

    Yes, welcome back.

    On topic: 102. IMO it just makes them look childish and pitiful. Really, that's sad. Have a little dignity.

    Complain about this comment

  • 114. At 8:59pm on 30 Sep 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    I am affraid being glenn campbelly is too much of a mouthful we could shorten it as in
    "has anyone read (name a journo)'s article in the (name a paper) today it is definetly GC."
    just a thought.
    Sid.
    PS. #73 & #78 Well seeing you don't get reporting scotland on the I player

    Complain about this comment

  • 115. At 9:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @ my own 111

    Should say underline... Joys of using an iPod to contribute. No idea what unfetline could possibly mean (perhaps it is related to glencampbelliness?)

    Complain about this comment

  • 116. At 9:18pm on 30 Sep 2009, karin wrote:

    Brian


    you seemed to have mentioned every scottish papers political stance and that they have declared for either labour or the tories. You surely cant be saying that they are ALL biased against the SNP. I mean that just WOULDNT be democratic would it? Are you saying brian that even though over a third of the electorate voted for the SNP their views are not reflected in the press? Well blow me over who woulda thunk it. Obviously brian you being a political journalist will be able to tell us where voters who voted for the snp can see their political views reflected in the press?

    wont you brian?
    brian....
    brian.....
    BRIAN........

    Complain about this comment

  • 117. At 9:24pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #115. I think "unfetline" is the behavior when crazed politicians rend newspapers to pieces for the delectation of glenncambelly 'news" broadcasters.

    #116. As usual... Brian has left the building. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 118. At 9:25pm on 30 Sep 2009, hamish42 wrote:

    Give Glenn credit where its due. He lead the way in tearing things up on camera.

    Complain about this comment

  • 119. At 9:43pm on 30 Sep 2009, romeplebian wrote:

    http://www.bbc.co.uk/bbctrust/index.shtml

    Complain about this comment

  • 120. At 9:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    Thinking back on earlier posts about tanks rolling into George Square.
    In any country that would have been a major historical moment in which every school child would have been made aware.

    How many posters on here were taught about that incident in school?

    Complain about this comment

  • 121. At 10:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    Toe-curling, cringing banality. Is this what the Labour party has come to?

    That has been a truly dreadful conference for Labour and that will soon become evident to all. First we had Lord Mandy, consorter on yachts with Riviera multi-millionaires, virtually assuming the leadership. Was that the real Labour Party actually applauding him to the rafters? And then a cameo from Jim Murphy beaten only to the bottom of the barrel by a speech (is that the right word?) from Ian Gray that plumbed the depths of crassness and banality and was genuinely objectionable in content.
    And finally from Gordon Brown a rambling collection of unaffordable promises, reheats of several manifesto committments not delivered over the past twelve years and meaningless aspirational hahoo almost obscuring two really damning suggestions - that the people of Scotland will not be allowed independence even if they vote for it and, nicked from the BNP manifesto, a proposal than unmarried teenage mothers should be forced into supervised accommodation. READ THAT AGAIN.
    “Gulags for slags” is how this has been seized upon by other blogsters.
    I am genuinely gobsmacked.
    ” New Labour ” - a secret child of Maggie Thatcher - has finally killed the Labour party.

    Complain about this comment

  • 122. At 10:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, RandomScot wrote:

    #105 Female muppets

    There was Janice, the guitarist with the theatre band.

    And Camilla, but she was a chicken

    Complain about this comment

  • 123. At 10:10pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Gordon doesn't “cut it” with locals

    Complain about this comment

  • 124. At 10:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    He's A Medical Marvel!

    Don't kill yourselves!

    Complain about this comment

  • 125. At 10:13pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #120. Let's face it. It isn't just tanks rolling into George Square. Maybe I'm not a good example, but I know a number of Americans who know more about Scotland's history than a lot of Scots.

    How many Scots are taught their own history or should I say how few? How many times have you heard someone say that Scots knowing the truth about Scottish history would make them "anti-English"?

    It is, but I think history is important, shameful that Scots are to some extent denied knowledge of their own history. I can't even tell you how many times I've ended up explaining Scottish history to SCOTS! There is something wrong with this picture. (Eep! You've gotten me started again.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 126. At 10:16pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #122. At 10:08pm on 30 Sep 2009, RandomScot wrote:

    #105 Female muppets

    There was Janice, the guitarist with the theatre band.

    Janice... I didn't realize she had a name. :-)

    Haha! I had forgotten about Camilla. I think I'll assume I'm Janice. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 127. At 10:19pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 97 BlooToon

    I want to be Animal...arghhh!

    Complain about this comment

  • 128. At 10:22pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 120 U14153624

    Good point. I never heard of it until now.

    Complain about this comment

  • 129. At 10:23pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    120. U14153624
    "Thinking back on earlier posts about tanks rolling into George Square.
    In any country that would have been a major historical moment in which every school child would have been made aware.

    How many posters on here were taught about that incident in school?
    "

    Precisely none, I'll wager. Which brings to mind the point at which I became a nationalist. I was, believe it or not, eight years old. A rather precocious eight-year old, I should explain, who had been reading since the age of three. I attended a village school in a disused farm building and one of my most vivid memories is of a huge (to an eight-year old's eyes) political map of the British Isles which hung on the wall behind the teacher's desk. Until it reached the border.

    Beyond that line there was nothing. A vast, white blankness broken only by a couple of railway lines and a handful of major cities designated by name only with less flourish than some insignificant town further down the map.

    That image made a huge impression on me, although I don't think I fully realised it at the time. What I do remember is being angry that nobody else even questioned this relegation of our country to the status of a non-place. Not the teacher. Not any of the adults. They genuinely seemed to feel that this was totally acceptable.

    Complain about this comment

  • 130. At 10:25pm on 30 Sep 2009, gordon mccaskill wrote:

    42. Thomas Porter

    Congratulations, through a simple process of elimination you've actually figured out how Scotland is actually run. You might go far in the world.

    Consider this, three quarters of the Scottish population live in an area fifty-five miles wide by eighteen miles broad. It should not take a genius to figure out that everyone who is anyone knows everyone else who's anyone. Now, extrapolate the fact that Labour has run Scotland for around 50 years, but their core support is actually lots and lots of people with no money and no influence. How do Labour actually function? Answer: by getting the vote from one section of the population, but being very, very cooperative with the other section of the population - the ones with money and influence.

    Now, consider what happened in May 2007, Labour loses. So now the party with lots and lots of support are the SNP. However, that support has only marginal amounts of money and influence. The SNP has to do what Labour did for fifty years - that is play kiss in the ring with the people who've really been running the country for fifty years - people like me. The problem is, that whilst Alex Salmond has figured that out, a whole lot of other memebers of his party haven't. Alex, therefore, has a problem. How do I keep my own party in line whilst satisfying the oligarchs who actually run the country?

    Complain about this comment

  • 131. At 10:27pm on 30 Sep 2009, LondonSteve wrote:

    This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain

  • 132. At 10:28pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    #129

    Sorry! Part of my post got "disappeared". The bit that described all the detail on the England part of the map.

    Complain about this comment

  • 133. At 10:32pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 130 MagisterIlluminatus

    You won't be running the country for too long, I imagine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 134. At 10:36pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    I received a reply back from Wiki concerning glenncampbelly:

    It is a "protologism" - we don't accept those.
    If other people start to use it (in print or permanently archived blogs etc) then it would become a neologism - we welcome those.

    Maybe someone can explain to me what this means. It sounds like a foreign language to me.

    Complain about this comment

  • 135. At 10:40pm on 30 Sep 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    Still no e-mail from the Beeb about my post which was referred on the last blog. This is the second time that they have forgotten to send it to me. The one previous to that was a reply to JR explaining the difference between MI5 and MI6.

    Complain about this comment

  • 136. At 10:42pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Gordon Brown in angry exchanges with broadcasters

    "At the end of his conversation with the BBC's Sian Williams, in which he protested a number of times about the nature of the questions, he walked out while the presenter was still speaking to the studio, stepping between her and the camera and blanking out the screen."

    Sarah needs to get him to resign for the good of his health let alone anything else.

    Complain about this comment

  • 137. At 10:44pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    130. MagisterIlluminatus
    "...the people who've really been running the country for fifty years - people like me."

    That explains a lot.

    Complain about this comment

  • 138. At 10:45pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    130. MagisterIlluminatus

    Spoken like a true corporate capitalist those days are gone, the times are a changing like the climate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 139. At 10:47pm on 30 Sep 2009, Slaintmha wrote:

    I don't see what the fuss is about - the Sun is looking to its advertising revenues in a declining market in England. In Scotland it does not have that big a market and they are pro Union businesses in the main, so why antagonise them?

    That just leaves 'The Sun' in Scotland hoisted on 'The Diggers' own petard of wanting to back the UK winning side that is not going to win in Scotland.

    Like that Meerkat on the adverts says: 'EEts simple, chk, chk!'

    Complain about this comment

  • 140. At 10:51pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    134. gedguy2

    A protologism is a newly coined term that is so new that it is not actually in use other than by the individual who coined it or a small group around that individual.

    A neologism is a recently coined word which has gained some currency in the wider language community.

    Anyone can come up with a protologism. Only the process of linguistic evolution can turn that into a neologism.

    Complain about this comment

  • 141. At 10:53pm on 30 Sep 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Simple solution. Several of us have blogs. Use it. Once it is archived, it is a neologism. ;-)

    I'm willing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 142. At 10:53pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @134

    Glenncampbelly

    Send them a link to this blog. I am presuming that BBC blogs are permanently archived (I may be wrong does anyone know?). It has now been used across several of Brian's blogs. Maybe we could get it on a few other BBC blogs (heck I'll happily use on the 606 footie forums) and a smattering of others and catalogue the use.

    Time to provide some rigour to the glenncampbelly question.

    Perhaps an e-petition on the Number 10 site (anyone who is really glenncampbelly wouldn't use the pretendy wee option).

    Complain about this comment

  • 143. At 10:55pm on 30 Sep 2009, gordon mccaskill wrote:

    138. cynical etc.

    Actually the climate isn't changing but it is a very good way of adopting the moral high ground for necessary tax increases.

    Complain about this comment

  • 144. At 11:02pm on 30 Sep 2009, A_Scottish_Voice wrote:

    Gordon Brown is now so desperate that he is now offering the people a referendum on Scottish Independence.

    How about a Ferrari and a boat, no no, make it a Ferrari-boat.

    Complain about this comment

  • 145. At 11:03pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    143. MagisterIlluminatus
    "Actually the climate isn't changing"

    Silly! The climate is always changing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 146. At 11:06pm on 30 Sep 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    Come and join in the party Scottish Sun! We Tories have a list you know...and the editor of the Sun in Scotland doesn't want to be on it eh?

    But seriously....and away from my particularly nasty sense of fun tonight may I say that this is a weatherbell moment for us- it marks the final death of New Labour. What is left of the 'Labour' party now?

    1. Careerism
    2. Hypocracy
    3. Lies
    4. Corruption
    5. Immorality
    6. Value-free

    No thanks, my vote is for a stronger Scotland, my vote is for Cameron & Goldie!!

    Complain about this comment

  • 147. At 11:11pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    143. MagisterIlluminatus

    Oh! news to me and billions of others on this planet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 148. At 11:12pm on 30 Sep 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:

    130. MagisterIlluminatus
    Good grief!
    Forget muppets, it's Walter Mitty time.
    So your in something like a global elite cabal who secretly run the world - except just a wee scottishy version.
    lol, lol, lol.
    Your delusions of grandeur lack confidence, go the whole hog - run the world instead.

    Complain about this comment

  • 149. At 11:14pm on 30 Sep 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    42. At 3:58pm on 30 Sep 2009, Thomas_Porter

    "Dean where are you?"

    Here I am!

    Firstly: the Scottish Sun would help us much more if they publically back the SNP- and split the Labour vote in key constits' like Edin SW, Edin S- where the SNP are too far behind to win, but could take enough off Labour to let us sneak in.

    Secondly: Labour are finished, and Scottish politics is in a state of total flux- don't mistake Cameron as not being a genuine Unionist (he is unfortunately totally ideologically Unionist), so I would bet my nana he will offer Scotland financial devolution, perhaps even fiscal autonomy (and if he did he'd kill nationalism stone dead).

    Thirdly- I apologise for my sick joke in my intro to post 146, "We've got a list" wasnt all that appropriate.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 150. At 11:14pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    @143

    And your evidence is...?

    I'm happy to concede that, on both sides of the debate, many fail to address the climate change issue with due consideration. Various "environmental initiatives" have had detrimental effects after being forced into being (legal or social "necessity") by those seeking to salve their own consciences and sensibilities.

    However the trend data shows climate change, measurement shows alteration in the gaseous make up of the atmosphere. The question is what will this change mean for the future of humans living on the planet, what environmental changes will it bring, how successfully can we adapt.

    Are you asserting that there is no climate change or that climate change is not caused by the influence of human activity?

    Complain about this comment

  • 151. At 11:17pm on 30 Sep 2009, gordon mccaskill wrote:

    133. gedguy2

    I can sing 'The Red Flag', 'The Flower of Scotland', and 'Rule Britannia' with equal enthusiasm. People like me simply trim our sails and wait for the prevailing wind. We always come out on top.

    Complain about this comment

  • 152. At 11:20pm on 30 Sep 2009, BlooToon wrote:

    heh Glenn's just been all glenncampbelly again on Newsnight Scotland (crowing).

    Bigger story being that Javk McConnell was allowed to pop along to the Johanesburg talks in 2002.

    Someone should have told Murphy before he insisted that there had been no change in policy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 153. At 11:28pm on 30 Sep 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    151. MagisterIlluminatus

    There's a hurricane coming, furling might be more appropriate.

    Complain about this comment

  • 154. At 11:32pm on 30 Sep 2009, X_Sticks wrote:

    #120 U14153624 wrote

    Thinking back on earlier posts about tanks rolling into George Square.
    In any country that would have been a major historical moment in which every school child would have been made aware.

    How many posters on here were taught about that incident in school?
    -------------------------------------------------------------------
    Scottish history has never been taught under the Union. They don't want us to foster any thoughts that we might be capable of running our own country.
    A few on here have asked where Gordung will get the money to fund all the "new" vote gathering bribes. Oil. Simples!
    Snowthistle and Angus_Blogg were asking why there was so little coverage about the Faroe Petroleum "Glenlivet" dicovery. That's simple too. They wouldn't want us to think that the oil industry was worth anything; would they?
    If only they could move (or steal) the oil, renewable energy sources and water that Scotland is blessed with (and no, I don't believe in god either). Then they wouldn't need us - or want us.
    IN fact following the rise of the SNP and their nuisance independence policy in the 50s the Westminster Mob have systematically destroyed our heavy industry, manufacturing industry and financial industry. I don't think this was just by chance, regardless which party. It has been a strategic plan perpetrated by the whole Unionist cabal. They intend to make it impossible for the Scots to gain independence. I abhor the whole lot of them. I want Scottish independence. I will even vote SNP to achieve this. Margaret Thatcher got rid of our unions; it's time we got rid of theirs.

    Complain about this comment

  • 155. At 11:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, snowthistle wrote:

    Thought Gordon Brewer was pretty good tonight. He certainly tied Mr Gray in knots about the referendum.

    On a different tack, does anyone remember big "D" peanuts? They used to hang on cards at the back of bars in pubs (not trendy bars) and the logo was a peanut in a stetson hat. I think Mr Gray would be wise to steer clear of cowboy hats.

    Complain about this comment

  • 156. At 11:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:

    #151 Magisterilluminatus

    How much more self-important can you get? Shouldn't you be out running something Mr oligarch? Also, for all your and other 'oligarchs' out there, your power and influence hasn't stopped the momentum thus far, care to explain why that is exactly? Surely you could use the media to that end, no wait, that's been done already?

    Next trick please.

    #149 deanthetory

    "so I would bet my nana he will offer Scotland financial devolution, perhaps even fiscal autonomy (and if he did he'd kill nationalism stone dead)."

    I sincerely doubt that if given full fiscal autonomy (including all associated revenues) that it would kill the independence movement 'stone dead' as you put it.

    Firstly, the unionists couldn't afford to do so without showing themselves up when every Scot realises we had the means to run our own affairs all along. Secondly, for that very reason it could just as easily once and for all assuage the doubters and secure independence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 157. At 11:41pm on 30 Sep 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    154. At 11:32pm on 30 Sep 2009, X_Sticks

    Still talking about Thatcher? 30 years out of date.

    Complain about this comment

  • 158. At 11:42pm on 30 Sep 2009, gordon mccaskill wrote:

    150 bloo tune

    The second intergovernmental panel on climate change (IPCC) asserted that anthropogenic global warming (AGW) or global warming caused by human beings had been irrefutably established and was confirmed by 2,500 scientists worldwide.

    Since that time more than half the scientists cited in the 2nd IPCC report have withdrawn their names from the conclusions. The reason is that their concliusions had been grossly misrepresented and that the 2nd IPCC report would have a detrimental effect on their professional reputations.

    The direct effect of this has been that we no longer hear of 'global warming', but instead they now talk about 'climate change'. Moreover, the 'climate change' computer models (which only extend back for 150 years) and consequently in relation to the Earth's climate over 4 billion years barely qualify as a snapshot. The entire AGW scenario is now under the 4th IPCC report highly qualified. It has been suggested that rather more Co2 is emitted into the atmosphere due to cattle and sheep flatulence than from exhaust fumes. Though no one has, as yet, suggested mass slaughter of the national herd or the national flock.

    Complain about this comment

  • 159. At 11:43pm on 30 Sep 2009, giggletheloneranger wrote:

    The tory class can kiss my ar@se' we'll keep the red flag flying here.

    Just bin the sun newspaper, rip it up!.


    what's around the corner! Hmmmm? Murdoch buys England and Trump buys Scotland and decide to call it Ausank, where anything goes but morals or principles.

    Complain about this comment

  • 160. At 11:43pm on 30 Sep 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Glenn Campbell 'The Ninestone Cowboy' - a week in the USA.

    Click Here

    Complain about this comment

  • 161. At 11:46pm on 30 Sep 2009, Robabody wrote:

    Anent the Glenn Campbell issue: as CJ might have put it, "I didn't get where I am today by being anti UK Government" Glenn has a entry in Wikipedia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glenn_Campbell_(broadcaster. Perhaps members can add glencambelly to the entry??

    Complain about this comment

  • 162. At 11:48pm on 30 Sep 2009, giggletheloneranger wrote:

    #155
    " On a different tack, does anyone remember big "D" peanuts? They used to hang on cards at the back of bars in pubs (not trendy bars) and the logo was a peanut in a stetson hat. I think Mr Gray would be wise to steer clear of cowboy hats."

    And what type of bars did you Frequent,Yeaha, more beans snowman.

    Complain about this comment

  • 163. At 11:48pm on 30 Sep 2009, gordon mccaskill wrote:

    156. ScotsinNotts

    The new media is the internet. What exactly do you think I'm doing now?

    Complain about this comment

  • 164. At 11:48pm on 30 Sep 2009, Florence wrote:

    73 MYRETOUN: You are absolutely correct and it was repeated on Newsnight Scotland.

    Complain about this comment

  • 165. At 11:50pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    149. deanthetory
    "so I would bet my nana he will offer Scotland financial devolution, perhaps even fiscal autonomy (and if he did he'd kill nationalism stone dead)."

    Kiss your Nana goodbye, sonny!

    There is no way Cameron or any other Tory is going to offer fiscal autonomy. And even if he did, it would no more "kill nationalism stone dead" than devolution has.

    Here's a bit of free advice. Wishful thinking is not a sound basis for political analysis.

    Complain about this comment

  • 166. At 11:54pm on 30 Sep 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Credit where it is due, Brewer grilled Gray over his referendum stance, I can even forgive him not brnging up the vote referendum.

    Someone somewhere has clearly said "enough" over Jim Murphy's annoying habit of telling falsehoods. Well done someone at Newsnight for actually broadcasting the story.

    However, it would have been much better to have confronted Murphy with the evidence live on air. I wonder of anyone will nail him in subsequent interviews?

    Complain about this comment

  • 167. At 11:55pm on 30 Sep 2009, enneffess wrote:

    156. At 11:34pm on 30 Sep 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:


    Re fiscal autonomy, I think the next Westminster government WILL allow Scotland this.

    It could upset the nationalist campaign, but only if the Scottish Government screw up. Obviously if the economics are controlled properly then it will be of benefit and show that independence is possible without all the economic questions that are raised.

    Complain about this comment

  • 168. At 11:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    157. deanthetory
    "Still talking about Thatcher? 30 years out of date."

    Not forgotten. Not forgiven.

    Complain about this comment

  • 169. At 11:59pm on 30 Sep 2009, Robabody wrote:

    # 154 Scots History

    It was taught in my school but only up to the wars of independence with selected disasters thereafter leading to the union. Followed by ww1 and 2 (nothing mentioned about anything much else). During school and following it, the family verbal histories plugged some gaps. As a result I grew up thinking that the English (people) were the problem only to work out later that it was the "uncle Toms" that represented us that were the big problem. Nothing changes, hence a new term has been born in Scotland: no longer "uncle toms" but glenncambellys

    Complain about this comment

  • 170. At 00:03am on 01 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 151 MagisterIlluminatus

    Very good. Personally. I'm happy being me and just getting on with my life. If you want to play at being one of the big boys then good for you.

    Complain about this comment

  • 171. At 00:05am on 01 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    Concerning the use of the word glenncampbelly, I'd be happy to amass any information regarding it so that I can apply to have it reinststed. ;-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 172. At 00:08am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    158. MagisterIlluminatus
    "It has been suggested that rather more Co2 is emitted into the atmosphere due to cattle and sheep flatulence..."

    Which is an anthropogenic effect. It is only human demand for cheap meat and the industrial farming methods that drives which leads to such huge numbers of animals in the first place. It also drives rain-forest clearance, reducing CO2 absorption will creating an environment in which termite populations expand massively. These termite populations excrete as much, if not more methane than the cattle.

    If you have been following this, you may have noted that there is a cumulative effect here. And it is all man-made. The world is a far more complex machine than you imagine.

    Complain about this comment

  • 173. At 00:10am on 01 Oct 2009, giggletheloneranger wrote:

    What happens next?Hmmmm young Dave and young Osborne sell Scotland to Trump, while Murdoch moves into No 10.

    Complain about this comment

  • 174. At 00:22am on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    Cameron must offer Scotland radicalism to destroy SNP menace

    So we're a menace, real grown up talk that to speak to the enemy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 175. At 00:33am on 01 Oct 2009, enneffess wrote:

    168. At 11:56pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:
    157. deanthetory
    "Still talking about Thatcher? 30 years out of date."

    Not forgotten. Not forgiven.



    Problem with bringing up old politicians is that most people do not worry too much about politics until they are personally affected. There is a whole new generation of voters out there to whom Thatcher is simply an ex-prime minister. Better to focus on Cameron and Co.

    Thatcher did a lot of damage, but she also repaired a lot of the damage caused by the previous Labour government. She didn't give a toss about Scotland, but then Scotland never provides the Tories with any political capital.

    I got made redundant under the last Tory government, so I have no reason to love them.



    Complain about this comment

  • 176. At 00:35am on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    60. At 5:42pm on 30 Sep 2009, Electric Hermit

    Gods I find myself in partial agreement with you! (Shock, horror):

    "The reason being that you see everything through the distorting lens of irrational hatred of the EU."

    Well said. The EU is the single most important Union today- it is the natural response to transnational problems. The nation-state is increasingly obsolete in the globalised age- we require coordinated supranational efforts. The EU must be defended from europhobic nutters.

    "Europe is united now, and united it shall remain"!

    Complain about this comment

  • 177. At 00:39am on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    173. At 00:10am on 01 Oct 2009, giggletheloneranger

    "What happens next?Hmmmm young Dave and young Osborne sell Scotland to Trump, while Murdoch moves into No 10"

    Don't you get bored ever Derek?

    Complain about this comment

  • 178. At 00:46am on 01 Oct 2009, Florence wrote:

    166 U140etc: Doubt it. They didn't when he was economical with the truth re knowing about Salmond's visit to China.

    Complain about this comment

  • 179. At 00:49am on 01 Oct 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:

    #163 MagisterIlluminatus

    "The new media is the internet. What exactly do you think I'm doing now?"

    I don't know, playing with your toys?

    No, seriously, are you telling me that all your power and influence, especially that in the media, boils down to your having internet access to blog on here.

    I was implying directing newspaper agends, both print and web based. Good to see blogging on the beeb is as influential as it gets.

    And Salmond should be carefully courting people like yourself because.....

    Complain about this comment

  • 180. At 00:50am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #169. Ah well, here we need to establish clarity of terminology.

    Is it that Glen Campbell a gordonbrownian.

    Or is it that Gordon Brown is a glencambellian.

    For myself, I think I would prefer glencambellian for news reporters who are biased.

    Gordonbrownian seems better for "Uncle Toms" because, as shown in that speech, he just does Uncle Tom so darn well.

    Complain about this comment

  • 181. At 01:11am on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    174. At 00:22am on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
    Cameron must offer Scotland radicalism to destroy SNP menace

    So we're a menace, real grown up talk that to speak to the enemy.

    ---

    Sorry but the SNP are the 'enemy' so to speak, especially on Unionist matters. Its not all that controvercial at all frankly.

    Get off your pedestool- you lot have thrown a lot worse comments around these blogs at my lot. Cant have your cake and eat it!

    Complain about this comment

  • 182. At 01:28am on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    The Sun has abandoned Labour.
    Its Scottish front page screams this out in huge letters
    What is Ceefax Scotlands's headline?
    "Scottish Sun will not support the Tories"
    I kid you not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 183. At 01:29am on 01 Oct 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    The Hootsmans take on labour snubbing the Scottish people on the climate change conference.

    'But Mr Salmond was accused of living in "fantasy land" by a former international development minister.
    Lord George Foulkes, now a Labour MSP, said Scotland could never have the same impact as the United Kingdom'

    Very low brow even by the Baron's standards.
    Very glenncampbellian.

    Complain about this comment

  • 184. At 01:37am on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    Fiscal autonomy actually confers all that is crucial in independence. Everything else is of minor importance and would represent no more than a voluntary sharing of some procedures and some historically pleasant memories

    Complain about this comment

  • 185. At 01:38am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Deanthetory personally (although I'm a bit of a leftist but US conservatives are a whole different world than Tories--so it doesn't really relate) I have no bone to pick with the Tories. But do you REALLY expect a party to win that refers to the SNP and its many members as a "menace" and independence as a "wart". This is really close to hate speech frankly.

    Do they think that Scots don't read?

    Complain about this comment

  • 186. At 01:43am on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    glencambly (orglencamblie) slips rather more easily off the tongue.

    Complain about this comment

  • 187. At 01:50am on 01 Oct 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 188. At 01:51am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    I'm not sure that if you really want to win friends, that you refer to everyone who has voted for the SNP as a menace. As a policy, they might want to rethink that. And I'm not sure that referring to independence as a "wart" is a winning strategy either.

    Are they really convincing Scots that the Tories care with that kind of slanging of a pretty substantial slice of the population?

    Complain about this comment

  • 189. At 02:04am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #184. At 01:37am on 01 Oct 2009, sneckedagain wrote:

    Fiscal autonomy actually confers all that is crucial in independence. Everything else is of minor importance and would represent no more than a voluntary sharing of some procedures and some historically pleasant memories

    I'd agree with you there, snecked, if it weren't for the rather odd habit of every PM you manage to get following the US into all these military adventures. I'd say that might be a concern. How do you have true fiscal autonomy with money being sucked into that? Not to mention, just the fact that a lot of Scots get killed in these things.

    In principle, true fiscal autonomy would be so close to independence it would either satisfy Scots or make them eventually decide that they wanted to go the whole way.

    But as long as there is Scottish money going into huge foreign adventures to prove how big the US has as a "dangly bit" you have a problem.

    Complain about this comment

  • 190. At 02:12am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Sorry, but my point in 188. wasn't clear. What an individual might say in a slanging match on a blog is one thing.

    What one says as a representative of a party is quite another. If that is the true attitude of the Tories--that the SNP and all its members are a menace and warts, they have a serious problem in making friends in Scotland.

    They just in effect called an awful lot of Scots traitors.

    Complain about this comment

  • 191. At 02:16am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    176. deanthetory
    "The nation-state is increasingly obsolete in the globalised age"

    While you are correct in recognising the importance of the EU, you are quite wrong with regard to the nation state. It is the most stable large-scale unit of socio-political organisation there has ever been. And there is no indication whatever that this is about to change.

    What must change is the way things work at the supra-national level. And the EU is a model for how this should be done. Not a perfect model, by any means. But better than anything else on offer. Which basically amounts to a choice between hyper-power hegemony and neo-imperialism. Not much of a choice.

    The important thing to bear in mind is that the EU is an entirely new form of international union. Nothing like this has ever existed before. We are making it up as we go along. When this is recognised the EU begins to look like a remarkable success story.

    But it is a work in progress. And it is essential that people of goodwill engage with the process of shaping the EU as it continues to evolve. It is possible to imagine a time when this process of evolution might lead to something akin to a "super-state". But this will only happen if and when the people of Europe are ready to accept it. That is not going to be any time soon.

    The nation-state is with us for the foreseeable future.

    Complain about this comment

  • 192. At 02:20am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    181. deanthetory
    "Get off your pedestool..."

    The unwitting humour of children. Cute, ain't it?

    Complain about this comment

  • 193. At 02:23am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    183. U14153624
    "Lord George Foulkes, now a Labour MSP, said Scotland could never have the same impact as the United Kingdom"

    That would certainly be true if Lord George Foulkes was a member of the government of an independent Scotland. A very large part of the appeal of independence is that he will not.

    Complain about this comment

  • 194. At 02:28am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    183. U14153624
    "The Hootsmans take..."

    Otherwise known as a British Labour Party (North Britain Branch) press release. Only Annabel Goldie's reputation has plummeted further than this rag's since the Scottish people kicked British Labour out of office.

    Complain about this comment

  • 195. At 02:37am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #191. At 02:16am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    In fact, not only is the nation-state not obsolete, quite the opposite is true. More and more formerly absorbed nation-states have broken free, increasing the number of nation-states. While larger organizations made up of nation-states exist and will no doubt become more powerful, they so far seem to be based on that most stable of entities.

    Complain about this comment

  • 196. At 03:46am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    195. JRMacClure
    "In fact, not only is the nation-state not obsolete, quite the opposite is true. More and more formerly absorbed nation-states have broken free, increasing the number of nation-states."

    Just so. The concerns about nations and their cultures being destroyed by "absorption" into some larger entity is unfounded and massive overstated. Look to the real world for examples. Look at the former Soviet republics. Did the crushing embrace of the soviet state snuff them out of existence? Absolutely not!

    Indeed, look no further than Scotland. Has 300 years of union with a large, powerful and belligerently imperialistic nation to the south eradicate the sense of Scottish national identity? Far from it!

    I have to say that I was not always of this opinion. When the referendum on EU membership was held in 1975 I was persuaded, mainly by Tony Benn, that the then European Economic Community was a threat to the nation-state. almost a quarter of a century later, and more than half a century since the founding of the EU, there is not the smallest indication of any movement towards the creation of a European "super-state".

    I suspect the more rabid Europhobes will insist that "THEY" are simply lulling us into a false sense of security. But I have to go with the evidence and conclude that I was wrong. I'm prepared to admit it, even if Tony Benn isn't.

    Besides, realistically speaking there is no alternative to being part of the EU. Not for the UK, and certainly not for an independent Scotland. The Europhobes would have us believe that we could quit the club and yet continue to enjoy the benefits of membership. Complete nonsense, of course. Norway, for example, is not an EU member but in order to trade with the rest of Europe it has to comply with regulations it has no say in formulating and pay huge annual contributions to the EU budget while having no voice in the halls of power.

    There is no economic life for the UK or Scotland outwith the EU. I envisage an independent Scotland as a fully committed and highly influential part of the EU. A constructive relationship in contrast to the obstructive attitude that characterises so much of the UK's dealings with its European partners.

    The SNP has the wisdom to see the necessity and inevitability of EU membership. And, unlike Tory and BLP politicians, they are not afraid to nail their colours to the mast.

    Complain about this comment

  • 197. At 03:57am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    they are not afraid to nail their colours to the mast....

    One of the things I find admirable in the SNP. I'm not in the least generally an admirer of political parties. Most, I tolerate at best.

    Complain about this comment

  • 198. At 04:07am on 01 Oct 2009, hamish42 wrote:

    I see the EU as an organization that will protect us from our own government. Examples: Human rights law, the EU threat to split up Lloyds into smaller groupings which would increase competition, lower prices and make the companies less vulnerable to crashes, the recent enquiry initiated by the EU as to why transmission charges are higher in Scotland for connecting power generating equipment to the national grid.

    Complain about this comment

  • 199. At 04:53am on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    198. hamish42
    "Examples: Human rights law"

    We might also mention consumer protection. Another are where the EU has been of enormous benefit while national governments such as the UK were paralysed with fear of upsetting their big business clients.

    Complain about this comment

  • 200. At 06:47am on 01 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 158 MagisterIlluminatus

    It has been suggested that rather more Co2 is emitted into the atmosphere due to cattle and sheep flatulence than from exhaust fumes.

    Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought it was methane given off by cows burping.

    Complain about this comment

  • 201. At 07:14am on 01 Oct 2009, Caledonian54 wrote:

    Anent those tanks in George Square and the passage from Mr Brown's speech which stirred the memories:

    "Britain - the four home nations - each is unique, each with its own great contribution and we will never allow separatists or narrow nationalists in Scotland or in Wales to sever the common bonds that bring our country together as one."

    Bit of a gift from the Gods really, now we can truthfully (and cheerfully) reply to accusations of being anti-English by pointing out that that we're not; we're just anti-Fascist... :-)

    Complain about this comment

  • 202. At 07:29am on 01 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:

    # 199 Electric Hermit

    You can also add to that the Health & Safety Act and subsequent amendments.

    Complain about this comment

  • 203. At 07:48am on 01 Oct 2009, deducted3points wrote:

    #116

    There's a reason it's called a free press, they can pretty much report what they like (as long as they don't break any laws) and can be as biased or unbiased as they like. That's hardly Brian's fault!

    However, it is interesting that none have come out in support of the SNP. Mind you that's probably something to do with the fact that the SNP are still a single issue party who promise the Earth but actually deliver nothing.

    Complain about this comment

  • 204. At 08:30am on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    DeanTheTory:

    #181.

    "Sorry but the SNP are the 'enemy' so to speak, especially on Unionist matters. Its not all that controvercial at all frankly.

    Get off your pedestool- you lot have thrown a lot worse comments around these blogs at my lot. Cant have your cake and eat it!"

    I find it highly inappropiate that you would consider the SNP as the enemy, and why? For simply having a different idea? Isn't that democracy for you? It's inappropiate because people could be encouraged to take matters into their own hands once they feel strongly against the enemy. Look at the BNP, they want to create an enemy out of those who are different to their 'white Britain'.

    So please, please wise up a little and remember that despite our difference in opinions and ideas we're still Scots at the end of the day. People of the same nation who have been working together for centuries.

    Enemy? That's the last word that comes to mind when I describe the Scots.

    Complain about this comment

  • 205. At 08:41am on 01 Oct 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    Gordon Brown's interview yesterday with Adam Boulton, wow, he really is an aggressive bully - watch the last ten seconds, he's lost it!!

    Click Here

    Complain about this comment

  • 206. At 08:51am on 01 Oct 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.

  • 207. At 08:57am on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #203 deducted3points
    "There's a reason it's called a free press, they can pretty much report what they like ... and can be as biased or unbiased as they like. That's hardly Brian's fault!"
    That's substantially true of the dead tree press. It does not, however, condone the glencampbelliness of BBC Scotland or STV.

    "However, it is interesting that none have come out in support of the SNP. Mind you that's probably something to do with the fact that the SNP are still a single issue party who promise the Earth but actually deliver nothing."
    In which case it's all the more astonishing that the press have been so unsuccessful in their anti-SNP campaign that SNP support continues to rise while their own circulations continue to fall. Do you believe they will all continue their existing "union good, home rule bad" line right into receivership?

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 208. At 09:01am on 01 Oct 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    203. At 07:48am on 01 Oct 2009, deducted3points wrote:

    There's a reason it's called a free press, they can pretty much report what they like (as long as they don't break any laws) and can be as biased or unbiased as they like. That's hardly Brian's fault!


    I think that most people know that the press are biased against the SNP, however unlike yourself many Unionists would have it that they are not. A representative of The Scotsman was on radio Scotland yesterday denying that the paper was anti SNP.

    No BBC journalist in Scotland will say openly that the press (media?) are biased against the SNP.

    On the 'glencampbelly' thing - too much of a mouthfull I'm afraid, perhaps shortening it to 'glembel' might help.

    'glembel' - A political commentator who insists he/she is being objective when their actual behaviour suggests otherwise; To treat one politicians from one party with kid gloves; To fail to pursue obvious weaknesses in answers from politicians from one party; To refuse to scrutinise evenly;

    Complain about this comment

  • 209. At 09:02am on 01 Oct 2009, Harry Stottle wrote:

    #206 U14094468

    Hello U14094468 this is U14153624.
    I see that you've been blessed by a new moniker by the moderators as well.
    I like your name but may I call you U140 for short and you can call me U141.

    Yours sincerely, U14153624.

    Complain about this comment

  • 210. At 09:06am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #203. Huh. A "single issue party" yet they supposedly promise the earth. Isn't that a bit of an oxymoron? In that case, they must have a lot more issues than one. You pretty much contradicted your own main point there and saved arguing it. =)

    I know that some people feel that they've delivered on a number of issues--those thousand police, for example. But I'll let someone else if they care to argue that one or whether you can expect a minority party to be able to get everything they want or stop everything they oppose like the Edinburgh tram.

    Complain about this comment

  • 211. At 09:27am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #207 Do you believe they will all continue their existing "union good, home rule bad" line right into receivership?

    I'd pretty much bet the farm on it although apparently The Sun isn't so eager for financial suicide that they'll actually openly support the Tories in Scotland. I hear Murdoch flogs editors who lose too much money. ;-)

    (Moderators, that's a joke. I'm not literally accusing him of committing a crime except the crime of poor journalism. Ahem. He can join BBC in whatever penal institution that leads to.)

    Complain about this comment

  • 212. At 09:40am on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    U14094468

    It's a bit like the Invasion of the Namesnatchers.

    Complain about this comment

  • 213. At 09:40am on 01 Oct 2009, enneffess wrote:

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/north_east/8283140.stm


    Looks like the Trump issue could hit a brick wall, one way or the other.

    On principle, I hope the council votes against any compulsory purchase orders. If they vote for the purchases then I can see this getting very messy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 214. At 09:52am on 01 Oct 2009, Colkitto wrote:

    Politics can get very personal especially if you are the leader of a party. Just look at the personal attacks on Alex Salmond for instance.
    Brown is no more than a bean counter, he is not a "leader". Leaders are able to deal with all aspects of the job.
    That's what is wrong with Brown he can't do that. Take him out of his comfort zone of talking numbers and statistics and he is completely lost.
    Modern day politicians need charisma and personality or they can so easily be persecuted by the media. Reading pre-written speeches from an auto-cue at a party conference won't get you votes.
    Brown is facing utter humiliation at the next election, he knows this and I believe it's telling on his health.
    Instead of his loving wife introducing her "hero" at the Labour party conference, she should be the one to tell him to find another job outside mainstream politics for the good of his health and her family.

    Complain about this comment

  • 215. At 10:19am on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Neil_Small147:

    I disagree. The Trump project must go ahead, no matter the cost. It's far too valuable to simply refuse. Although I can understand the homeowners disappointment, I simply won't allow the protesters to halt the potential investment in Aberdeen. It's sometimes better to ignore your own personal opinion and adopt positions that will help society. The four individuals certainly do not out weigh the rest of the north east on this matter.

    Complain about this comment

  • 216. At 10:38am on 01 Oct 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:

    #60 Electric Hermit:

    "Of course it does! The reason being that you see everything through the distorting lens of irrational hatred of the EU. The nonsense about the Lisbon Treaty is evidence enough of that."

    ------------

    A rather intemperate post in reply to mine, which was neither pro nor anti membership of the EU. I was simply highlighting what I see as a dichotomy in the views of many posters here on a political union putting its interests above those of Scotland. That is in the nature of political unions! I simply wonder why an existing union with England, Wales and Northern Ireland is seen as bad when it does this, but one with wider Europe which does the same (and enshrines it in a legally binding treaty)is good? I did not express an opinion either way, and frankly, the speed and venom with which you replied (to an assumed postion that I had not stated) is an all too typical reaction on this blog, and one of the major stumbling blocks that the SNP will face in a referendum on independence. Undecided voters are turned off by the blatant antagonism and will probably vote "no" in response. Current union supporters like me (freely admitted and an honourable political position, even if opposed to your own) are people that you have to convince. Argument rather than abuse is surely the way to go?

    PS: I have read the Lisbon Treaty - have you? If so, can you explain which part of my reference to it was "nonsense"?

    Complain about this comment

  • 217. At 10:46am on 01 Oct 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:

    snecked/online Ed, I think you're right that glencampbelly is a bit unwieldy. Glencambly or even Glembel are good too.

    Gedguy 2, hard luck with the ologisms on Wiki, at least it was there for a few precious minutes!

    I watched Newsnight Scotland last night and agree with others that the nine stone cowboy (very good info on Newsnet O.Ed) in an otherwise reasonable piece, was sadly unable to help himself using the word "crow".

    Giggity was positively squirming under an exasperated Brewer's questioning. Also good to see Skeletor at his patronising best patiently explaining that the SNP had been treated no differently to previous Holyrood administrations when we'd just seen evidence that Jack McConnnell had fought hard to get to the Johannesburg conference and succeeeded.

    Eck has now written to Global to plead again for a chance to be represented at Copenhagen. If Global's not still storming down corridors tearing microphones off his jacket and ripping up copies of the Sun, he'll have to respond.

    That inevitable rejection letter and it's careful wording, will be interesting and by happy chance will provide further valuable evidence for the BBC's famous "fomenting grudge and greivance with Westminster files".

    Complain about this comment

  • 218. At 10:48am on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    149 DeanTT
    "don't mistake Cameron as not being a genuine Unionist (he is unfortunately totally ideologically Unionist), so I would bet my nana he will offer Scotland financial devolution, perhaps even fiscal autonomy (and if he did he'd kill nationalism stone dead)."

    Except a whole great big steaming pile of us want nothing to do with the unions foreign and defence policies either.

    I don't belive either that he is ideological. He wants the union maybe but not for scots sakes I would bet.

    Complain about this comment

  • 219. At 10:52am on 01 Oct 2009, Online Ed wrote:

    Online Ed Here

    As far as I am aware the decision on compulsory purchase rests with the council. However, there is no doubt that should they go down that route then the media will try to conflate it with the Scottish Government.

    The BBC have the Trump story at number two, behind the secterian marches story. The media usually have a Trumper ready to run when things get bad for Labour, that they've also added the old diversion of sectarianism is an indication that things have not gone well for Labour after their conference.

    The referendum blunders, Brown's debate dithering, his interview rage and the revelation that Jim Murphy effectively lied on The Politics Show over climate change conference delegations cannot be allowed to dominate the news in Scotland - hence the choice of these two lead 'political' stories.

    Complain about this comment

  • 220. At 10:52am on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    130. At 10:25pm on 30 Sep 2009, MagisterIlluminatus

    Is it you own fear and weakness that you try to contend with or are you actively trying to spread it just?

    Be positive if its the afore mentioned.

    Complain about this comment

  • 221. At 10:57am on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    215. Thomas_Porter
    "Neil_Small147:

    I disagree. The Trump project must go ahead, no matter the cost. It's far too valuable to simply refuse. Although I can understand the homeowners disappointment, I simply won't allow the protesters to halt the potential investment in Aberdeen. It's sometimes better to ignore your own personal opinion and adopt positions that will help society. The four individuals certainly do not out weigh the rest of the north east on this matter.
    "

    Money more important than people is that what you honestly think. Trump needs to be sent packing with his tail between his legs this is purely property speculation pushed by local property developers and their connections within the local administration. Scotlands not for sale.

    Complain about this comment

  • 222. At 11:05am on 01 Oct 2009, Blind_Captain wrote:

    #205

    Ha ha!

    Now if a face ever told a story, then this is it.
    The mask well and truely slipped there.

    On another note; I was having a discussion with a friend about politics, perceived newspaper bias, the union etc; when he made a thought provoking comment. He said "for some people the Union is very important." I left it that, but then thought about this afterwards.

    Why is it important? Are there any unionists left on this blog who can help me out with answers, please? Is it nostalgia, is it economic, is it Trident and a seat on the Security Council? Is it fear of the unknown?

    Complain about this comment

  • 223. At 11:08am on 01 Oct 2009, Fforged_Yolks wrote:

    209. U14153624
    "#206 U14094468

    Hello U14094468 this is U14153624.
    I see that you've been blessed by a new moniker by the moderators as well.
    I like your name but may I call you U140 for short and you can call me U141.

    Yours sincerely, U14153624.
    "

    I for one welcome our new Ubermeisters and want to join them soon. I have great experience in sooking up to alien overlords and will do their bidding no matter what. Sometimes I even go out of the way to reinforce the stereotypes of my own dear native land.
    JR MacLure, Would you like to dance, madam?

    Complain about this comment

  • 224. At 11:30am on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    #189

    Fiscal autonomy to be complete would include the right to choose not to contribute to any project with financial implications - such as idiotic imperial adventures.

    So those talking of "fiscal autonomy" without that as a central condition are not talking of real fiscal autonomy

    Complain about this comment

  • 225. At 11:50am on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    #191

    I must agree. deanthetory never fails to disappoint. Since 1945 the number of independent nation states represented at the United Nations has grown from 54 to 199.
    As a front line protector on a whole range of important issues (human rights being number one) the nation state is the first line of defence and this is becoming more and more important.
    The biggest problem the world faces is the aggregation of huge powers in the super states like US, Russia and China.
    If we were progressive and sensible these would be broken up and we then could have a United Nations that actually was able to act in all our interests. It is becoming increasingly obvious that the so-called Security Council dominated by the big bully boys rarely represents the views of most of the other states.
    The EU gives us glimpses of how well voluntary associations of nation states which maintain their independence with voluntarily shared sovereignty can be to all our benefit.

    Complain about this comment

  • 226. At 11:51am on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #218 Phil_Anthropponent
    "Except a whole great big steaming pile of us want nothing to do with the unions foreign and defence policies either."

    Absolutely, but that's the sting in the tail of full fiscal autonomy.

    Westmidden would have to ask the home nations for the funds to maintain their post-imperial dreams rather than be doling out pocket money as they see fit. They would soon find those dreams turning to nightmares.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 227. At 12:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, enneffess wrote:

    215. At 10:19am on 01 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter wrote:
    Neil_Small147:

    I disagree. The Trump project must go ahead, no matter the cost. It's far too valuable to simply refuse. Although I can understand the homeowners disappointment, I simply won't allow the protesters to halt the potential investment in Aberdeen. It's sometimes better to ignore your own personal opinion and adopt positions that will help society. The four individuals certainly do not out weigh the rest of the north east on this matter.


    What if it was your home? I reckon if the council does vote then the owners will take this to the next level, probably using human rights legislation. I'm in favour of the development, but not at the cost of four individuals lives. I know if my home was threatened I'd be up in arms.

    Be interesting to find out what the locals are saying.

    #219 online ed is correct, in that if the compulsory orders do go ahead the media will lay the blame firmly at Alex Salmond's door, since he intervened when the Lib Dem councillor originally rejected the proposal.

    Trump is only interested in money.

    Complain about this comment

  • 228. At 12:47pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    Guido has an amusing and fairly accurate take on Duff Gordon's "Fightback" week so far.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 229. At 1:02pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    203. deducted3points
    "Mind you that's probably something to do with the fact that the SNP are still a single issue party who promise the Earth but actually deliver nothing."

    Spot the bitter little unionist. It's never them that's wrong. It's the voters.

    Complain about this comment

  • 230. At 1:12pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    While the Herald goes with Brown loses patience with ‘hostile media’ coverage and the Scotsman with Labour rips into media over 'bias and propaganda', perhaps Duff Gordon should ask the FM for some personal tuition on the subject in exchange for a seat in Denmark?

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 231. At 1:18pm on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    225. At 11:50am on 01 Oct 2009, sneckedagain

    "I must agree. deanthetory never fails to disappoint."

    I'm stung

    "The EU gives us glimpses of how well voluntary associations of nation states which maintain their independence with voluntarily shared sovereignty can be to all our benefit."

    Your talking of intergovernmentalism. The EU is perhaps more about supranationalism (which I have no problem with).

    Supranationalism is vital, there must be cohesion, harmonisation and unity of; for example; Europe-wide business cycles- this is the only way to make a single market workable.

    For example; if there is to be one Eurozone interest rate- it is essential that political as well as economic integration takes place- where power is pulled away from the nation-state towards the EU institutions. This way economic cycles can be formally harmonised. This makes the eurozone workable, because you can't have a situation where Germany demands higher interest rates and Greece lower or vice-versa.

    Intergovernmentalism is all good and well, but actual political and economic integration towards a supranational EU state of some form is vital to make the single market work. To solve problems such as 'pockets of poverty' etc.
    So I'd contend that the EU is about supranationalism, and thus about abolishing the nation-state concept. (Again something I have no problem with, most obviously because currently we don't live in a nation-state anyway!)

    Complain about this comment

  • 232. At 1:20pm on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    222. At 11:05am on 01 Oct 2009, Blind_Captain

    "Are there any unionists left on this blog who can help me out with answers, please?"

    They've got bored and run off most probably. Tired of the cybernat love-in going on here all the damn time!

    Complain about this comment

  • 233. At 1:20pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    CynicalHighlander:

    #221.

    "Money more important than people is that what you honestly think. Trump needs to be sent packing with his tail between his legs this is purely property speculation pushed by local property developers and their connections within the local administration. Scotlands not for sale."

    The development could carry on and create thousands of different employment opportunites, or can disappear, but what will take it's place in order to employ the locals? The development is a fantastic opportunity for a deprived north east which has too much focus in the oil industry.


    Neil_Small147:

    #227.

    "What if it was your home? I reckon if the council does vote then the owners will take this to the next level, probably using human rights legislation. I'm in favour of the development, but not at the cost of four individuals lives. I know if my home was threatened I'd be up in arms."

    I've mentioned already that I understand the upset by the home owners. However I also have to take into account the career opportunites this may create and those four homes certaintly do not outweigh the potential that this development can create. Especially as it can bring alot more into the local economy.

    "Be interesting to find out what the locals are saying."

    I am a local. I used to attend Balmedie school too.

    "Trump is only interested in money."

    Yes... isn't that the general idea of investing and creating a business?

    Complain about this comment

  • 234. At 1:23pm on 01 Oct 2009, contumacious1 wrote:

    Interesting that they don't (yet) back the SNP. Nowadays, newspapers normally follow public opinion, rather than lead it. Maybe the proprietors are concerned that they'll lose their status with the good and the great in London if they are seen to be backing the breakup of the UK. I think they will not shift ground until they work out where the greater advantage lies for them - sales in Scotland vs "influence" in the UK.

    Complain about this comment

  • 235. At 1:26pm on 01 Oct 2009, contumacious1 wrote:

    Re Trump. My instinct is against CPOs for this purpose. However, if the development goes ahead and is built around these properties, they will lose their views and peace & quiet- so maybe wise to sell now??

    Complain about this comment

  • 236. At 1:38pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    PS to my #230

    I should have added that despite their reintroduction of commenting on the Herald, they're blocked from the article I link to. Wonder why?

    At least the Scotsman still allows comments, which include many fewer NuLab apologists than usual. Could they all be in the deep South ripping up newspapers?

    It should also now be official that glencampelly is now a neologism, with karin Mac contributing "didnt you find that paper ripping all a bit "glencambelly"" here.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 237. At 1:45pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    216. MalcolmW2
    "A rather intemperate post in reply to mine..."

    It's the way you see things. Nothing to do with what I wrote.

    There is only a "dichotomy" if you imagine the EU and the UK to be identical or equivalent in terms of their nature as unions. They are not.

    I detect an old unionist tactic in there. Insisting that their position only be disputed on their terms. I'm not impressed. If you have a political position that is reasoned as well as "honourable" then you should be prepared to defend it come what may.

    The best form of defence is attack, they say. So instead of the tedious whining about the "evil" EU and "nasty" nationalists, why not try selling the union to which you owe such undying and unquestioning loyalty. If it's as wonderful as you appear to imagine, it shouldn't be too difficult for you to convey this sense of wonder in a few sentences.

    A word of advice, however. Don't fall into the error of attacking the nationalist position when you are supposed to be promoting your own. And you can skip the appeals to history and tradition as well. Most of us are looking to the future and have little patience with jingoistic tales of a mythical past.

    As to the contents and implications of the Lisbon Treaty (I still prefer to call it a constitution) you'll have to excuse me if I decline your invitation to get into that discussion. Not because I am unprepared, but because I have done it all before. I have dealt with the ranting Europhobes and their daft stories about how the constitution demands that we all sing the European anthem and salute the European flag. And what I know from this experience is that Europhobes are like Weebles. You knock their silly anti-European propaganda to the ground with a heavy blow of facts, and as soon as your back is turned they've bounced up again and are busy spouting exactly the same nonsense as if nothing had happened.

    Debating with Europhobes is like debating with the religiously deluded. Faith positions are simply not amenable to reasoned argument. By its very nature a faith position becomes stronger the more empirical evidence is stacked against it. The holder of the faith position gains affirmation from the opportunity to reject reality in favour of belief. The more evident truth they can deny, the more pride they take in the strength of their faith.

    Baiting these sad creatures can, of course, be good sport. But no-one should ever imagine that it might be a productive exercise. Right now, I'm getting all the sport I need taunting ideological unionists and swatting inane conspiracy theories. So, thanks, but no thanks.

    Complain about this comment

  • 238. At 1:47pm on 01 Oct 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:

    203. deducted3points

    However, it is interesting that none have come out in support of the SNP. Mind you that's probably something to do with the fact that the SNP are still a single issue party who promise the Earth but actually deliver nothing.

    It's probably got rather more to do with the fact that most Scottish newspapers are owned and controlled by non-Scottish companies, or by traditionally Unionist Scottish companies which conduct most of their business in England.

    But please don't allow facts to get in the way of your political point-scoring.

    Complain about this comment

  • 239. At 1:53pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    224. sneckedagain
    "Fiscal autonomy to be complete would include the right to choose not to contribute to any project with financial implications - such as idiotic imperial adventures."

    And fiscal autonomy allied to such rights is independence by another name. So why bother with the euphemism? Instead of the independence that comes with fiscal autonomy, why not just go for the fiscal autonomy that comes with independence?

    Seemples! Tchk! Tchk!

    Complain about this comment

  • 240. At 1:53pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    DeanTheTory:

    #232.

    "They've got bored and run off most probably. Tired of the cybernat love-in going on here all the damn time!"

    The main problem for unionists is too admitt that problems exist our current constituational settlement. If a unionist can accept the failings and mend the broken system, then you might do better fighting your corner.

    The way we distribute funds is one of the main areas. If you listen to voices from England, what do they complain about? The impression is that Scotland receives too much, so this tension must be tackled in order to improve the ole English-Scottish relations.

    Then of course we tackle representation. Scottish MP's should not be allowed to vote on English matters, but for some areas which discuss spending within England, it will have effect in Scotland unless Scotland controls her own finances. You can't ban Scottish MP's voting on English matters unless we distribute funds differently.

    It's issues I see that can not be avioded and which will bring further tensions within the United Kingdom. You can't have England go one way and Scotland go another, especially as England will act in Englands interests at the British Parliament...

    Complain about this comment

  • 241. At 2:03pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    225. sneckedagain
    "The EU gives us glimpses of how well voluntary associations of nation states which maintain their independence with voluntarily shared sovereignty can be to all our benefit. "

    Totally agree. although I would once again caution that we need to be fully and constantly engaged with the EU as it develops in order to shape it as the kind of union you describe.

    I would also take issue - just a little bit - with your point about "shared sovereignty". What we are actually talking about is pooled sovereignty. A small difference, you may argue, but an important one, I think. Because pooled sovereignty is the very essence of democracy. That is what we do when we come together in a democratic polity. We agree to take a large part of our individual sovereignty and place it into a common fund administered by elected representatives.

    Keeping this concept always to the forefront in our dealings with the EU will help to ensure that it becomes more democratic as it develops.

    Complain about this comment

  • 242. At 2:05pm on 01 Oct 2009, Caledonian54 wrote:

    If "it is people that decide elections" not newspapers - according to Mr Brown, why is his party so "angry" that delegates cheer while its ripped up and Harriet Harman goes into overdrive about refusing to be "bullied"?

    I've never really thought of the Sun as supportive of a political party in a conventional sense; what it does tend to do is get very rude about the foibles of individual politicians, perhaps what Ms Harman and her book-burning colleagues are really afraid of is not the "endorsement" of the Tories but a rise in the number of less than complimentary stories about herself and other members of the Government.

    Complain about this comment

  • 243. At 2:10pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    231. deanthetory
    "So I'd contend that the EU is about supranationalism, and thus about abolishing the nation-state concept. (Again something I have no problem with"

    Interesting! For all the ranting Europhobes talk up the threat of the EU becoming a "super-state", you are only the second person I have ever encountered who actually favours such a project. The other one was an old-school, dyed-in-the-wool, unreconstructed Marxist.

    Complain about this comment

  • 244. At 2:11pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    233 TP
    "Mr Trump's son, Donald Trump Jnr, earlier said the owners had been offered a 15% premium on market value.

    He said they had also been given the chance to buy new homes at cost price, and the lifetime use of facilities at the new resort.

    Mr Trump has said he hopes to create the "world's greatest" golf resort at Menie."

    How many times are the BBC going to plug this, they keep saying "earlier by Trump Jnr" as if it were this morning. And as if "15%" extra was some kind of compensation for a lifetimes ambition!

    He keeps going on about the "worlds greatest golf course". Don't you know he has apparently already built it, along with the universes' greatest golf course and I'm sure he even has plans to build the best golf course in the solar system. Have a look at the info provided through the TUT website. Just have a wee dig about them and see how he treated people during them too.

    You seem to dismiss quite easily the fact that people are to be sacraficed so that business can make money. Well fair enough, but don't you think he could make plenty without ridiculing, slandering and clearing, in front of the world, common people just trying to live in peace.

    Complain about this comment

  • 245. At 2:12pm on 01 Oct 2009, sid the sceptic wrote:

    #230 brownedov - Afternoon, you have got to ask is Mr Brown having a laugh or is this Mr Brown accepting what is going on in Scotland because it is all going labours way and spitting the dummy when he gets some of his own medicine in England?
    or has he indeed LOST IT. "Hostile media - now there's an interesting concept"
    at least the Derby area should see employment increase in the pottery's as more and more plates,saucers and cups get flung about!
    Sid

    Complain about this comment

  • 246. At 2:12pm on 01 Oct 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:

    236. In order to count as a neologism a newly coined word needs to be used outside of the group of people who first created it - and hence have wider currency in the language. Otherwise it's a protologism, which is effectively a linguistic private joke confined to a small group of people. To be accepted by Wiki and descriptive dictionaries the new word needs to be used on other blogs and websites apart from this one, and preferably in the print media too.

    Complain about this comment

  • 247. At 2:15pm on 01 Oct 2009, Dean MacKinnon-Thomson wrote:

    240. At 1:53pm on 01 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter

    "The main problem for unionists is too admitt that problems exist our current constituational settlement. If a unionist can accept the failings and mend the broken system, then you might do better fighting your corner."

    But I do acknowledge the current settlements' failings. I have spoken out on these blogs many times for a need to fiscal autonomy for Scotland. I wouldn't say this or push for this if I thought the Union constitutional settlement is all fine and dandy.


    Annabel Goldie also understands this, which is why she is actively seeking further devolutionary powers to Holyrood. Ultimately the Unionist party understands your very point, its Labour and Fiberal UnDemocrats who fail in this regard.

    Complain about this comment

  • 248. At 2:17pm on 01 Oct 2009, commandlinegamer wrote:

    157, 168

    Thatcher out-of-date? Hardly;we've had 30 years of Thatcher government. I was kind of hoping Thatcherism would die out before she did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 249. At 2:24pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    240 TP

    Sorry not picking on you (as if you'd care;)
    "You can't ban Scottish MP's voting on English matters unless we distribute funds differently"

    Or untill English MPs stop voting on matters that effect scotland like sending our troops to war, trident, fishing, immigration etc etc etc etc etc etc etc .........

    Complain about this comment

  • 250. At 2:40pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Phil_Anthropponent:

    #244.

    You seem to dismiss quite easily the fact that people are to be sacraficed so that business can make money. Well fair enough, but don't you think he could make plenty without ridiculing, slandering and clearing, in front of the world, common people just trying to live in peace.

    Yes, I can sacrifice four individuals and their homes in order for many more people to benefit. Business is money, business is investment and since I am from Aberdeen I am deeply troubled by the thought that one day the oil will run out. I am prepared to 'sacrifice' many more in order to ensure my city remains strong. I am also prepared to dicuss other potential areas for investment, of course there are no other offers on the table...

    25 percent of business relies upon the oil coming out from underground... I can't back the individuals in this case as it certainly not in the interests of Aberdeen.

    Complain about this comment

  • 251. At 2:50pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    DeanTheTory:

    #247.

    "But I do acknowledge the current settlements' failings."

    You do, but I do not believe that the rest of unionists understand or the problems. It's why Calman exists, to strengthen Scotlands place apart of the union, it's not created to benefit Scotland or to even handle the problems that devolution has created. David Cameron is another non-believer of problems within our current constituational system. England do not want Scottish MP's voting on their domestic matters, so why is Cameron refusing to block Scots MP's that right?

    "Annabel Goldie also understands this, which is why she is actively seeking further devolutionary powers to Holyrood. Ultimately the Unionist party understands your very point, its Labour and Fiberal UnDemocrats who fail in this regard."

    I disagree, as you and I both understand that Conservatives do not support devolution (not willingly, Scottish Tories more willing of course), isn't Annabel also under pressure to fight against certain Calman proposals?

    I have yet to see unionist groups to tackle the failings within the current system. I am not complaining, who benefits each time the system fails?

    Complain about this comment

  • 252. At 2:50pm on 01 Oct 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:

    Electric Hermit # 216:

    Thank you for the reply. Given that you have not even attempted to offer an answer to my question, but continue to assert that I hold positions that I haven't expressed, I can only assume that you have no answer! Ranting is no substitute for political argument, and given that, despite the impression created by this blog, the majority of Scots still have to be persuaded on the question of full independence, I think I can sleep easily in my bed tonight.

    The argument for independence is yours to make, not mine to refute. You may wish to consider that it is also possible for someone to be a British unionist and a supporter of EU membership. They are not mutually exclusive. Responses like yours are in my view the reason why those who do not hold nationalist views are rarer here than hens teeth. It is not because they do not exist in Scotland but because it is so hard to find real debate here, just political diatribe. Should the threatened referendum on Scottish independence ever take place, I predict that many posters on here are in for a very rude awakening.

    Complain about this comment

  • 253. At 2:50pm on 01 Oct 2009, Fit Like wrote:

    #250 Thomas_Porter

    "Business is money, business is investment and since I am from Aberdeen I am deeply troubled by the thought that one day the oil will run out. I am prepared to 'sacrifice' many more in order to ensure my city remains strong. "

    While you're at it, you could maybe campaign to get him to pour some money into our Football taem so that it can return to its rightful place in Europe...

    Complain about this comment

  • 254. At 2:51pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    250. Thomas_Porter
    "I am prepared to 'sacrifice' many more in order to ensure my city remains strong."

    You have it all A for E. The economy is supposed to serve the people, not the other way about.

    Complain about this comment

  • 255. At 2:56pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #245 sidthesceptic
    "at least the Derby area should see employment increase in the pottery's as more and more plates,saucers and cups get flung about!"

    You're quite right to look on the bright side of life.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 256. At 2:56pm on 01 Oct 2009, rog_rocks wrote:

    "However, newspapers can undoubtedly lead opinion - not through their op ed articles but through dedicated, persistent news coverage aimed in a particular direction."

    I am sure that you, Brian and your co-operation never ever ever display this type of behavior, do you?

    Aye right, the BBC is about as impartial as the Klu Klux Klan!

    Complain about this comment

  • 257. At 3:02pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    #246 InfrequentAllele
    "To be accepted by Wiki and descriptive dictionaries the new word needs to be used on other blogs and websites apart from this one, and preferably in the print media too."

    Yes. That's why I thought the comment on the Scotsman's website which I linked to in my #236 was an important step toward getting the word accepted.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 258. At 3:27pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Electric Hermit:

    #254.

    "You have it all A for E. The economy is supposed to serve the people, not the other way about."

    I disagree. I am here to serve my country. That's our purpose, so I should always support decisions that is in the best interests of the majority.

    Complain about this comment

  • 259. At 3:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    250. At 2:40pm on 01 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter

    Thomas? Wow! That's scarily selfish almost to the point of facism.
    I don't know what to say apart from. Toonzer!

    Did you not wish to pick up on any other points I highlighted?

    Also you display the common belief in Aberdeen that the oil is yours. I wish upon you the time when you willingly lay your life down for the sake of your "great city".

    "This just in: - Trump and his euntorage drop in past pittodrie bar for a few pints. They intend to go to ma camerons via the chipper for a fish supper before using some of the citys famous taxis to escort them back through the security gates at the "Universes' greatest golf course". They say that they intend to do this on a regular basis and promise to recommend the great, great citys best indian resaraunts (and chip shoaps) to all guests within the complex, instead of dinning at the estates indequate facilities."

    Oh. Just a small point. Its in Aberdeenshire! The biggest impact its going to have in Aberdeen is gridlock around to and from the airport. And as the wealthy travel to work for companys who profit from aberdeens oil (that's if any of them are poor enough that they need to), on an already unfit infrastructure.

    Yet so willingly you condemn people in another part of the region in the faint misserable hope that you might get a couple quid out of it.

    Yeah, great, just brilliant!

    Sorry, forgive me. I am no-one, I am not here, I did not say this.

    Complain about this comment

  • 260. At 3:48pm on 01 Oct 2009, Dave McEwan Hill wrote:

    I can think of very few developments that are environmentally less damaging than a golf course and some assciated housing and I'm continually surprised that our press gives hours of time to a few obsessed zealots who appear to be entirely sanguine about nuclear bases and nuclear dumps in Scptland but get their undergarments in a twist about minimal dislocation of some sanddunes and some birds.
    It can't be anythging to do with the SNP being in Government, can it?

    I am told that Nichol Steven has rendered himself virtually inelectable by his silly interventions on this issue as 95% of the poulation of the North East of Scotland welcome the £1 billion investment into their
    economy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 261. At 4:00pm on 01 Oct 2009, Barbazenzero wrote:

    You can watch and hear for yourselves an authentic NuLab view ["It means the Sun's got the frights"] on YouTube. Look for the short smirk at the end, clearly copied from Duff Gordon.

    Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!

    Complain about this comment

  • 262. At 4:03pm on 01 Oct 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:

    #174 cynicalHighlander

    "Cameron must offer Scotland radicalism to destroy SNP menace

    So we're a menace, real grown up talk that to speak to the enemy."

    How disappointed do you reckon Dean will be when he finally realises that the Tories aren't the crusading party for de-centralised home rule within the union that he thinks they are?

    Complain about this comment

  • 263. At 4:06pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Phil_Anthropponent:

    #259.

    "Thomas? Wow! That's scarily selfish almost to the point of facism.
    I don't know what to say apart from. Toonzer!"

    Selfish? I am looking out for the interests of the local economy in the north east which will create employment and put money in our pockets, and thats selfish? I suggest the home owners are selfish, I bet they never took one for the team in their entire life.

    "Also you display the common belief in Aberdeen that the oil is yours. I wish upon you the time when you willingly lay your life down for the sake of your "great city"."

    The oil is not simply the peoples of Aberdeen. However the north east of Scotland heavily relies upon the oil industry, therefore should we not suggest alternatives as the oil will run out eventually? I am prepared to look into other ideas.

    "Oh. Just a small point. Its in Aberdeenshire! The biggest impact its going to have in Aberdeen is gridlock around to and from the airport. And as the wealthy travel to work for companys who profit from aberdeens oil (that's if any of them are poor enough that they need to), on an already unfit infrastructure."

    Yes. I do understand the project is in Aberdeenshire. I didn't suggest otherwise, I didn't even mention the City of Aberdeen as I simply stated Aberdeen. It's still business which creates employment and profit, so what's the problem? You can downplay the whole issue but I am open to other suggestions, but you do not seem willing to suggest other opportunites we have?

    "Yet so willingly you condemn people in another part of the region in the faint misserable hope that you might get a couple quid out of it."

    No. The family home is still in Aberdeenshire, so I have a right to condemn others still? A couple of quid? Billion pounds and roughly 50 million to 100 million into the local economy annually, is a couple of quid?

    Like usual the anti-Trump brigade have no positive reason to go against the development.

    Complain about this comment

  • 264. At 4:11pm on 01 Oct 2009, ScotInNotts wrote:

    #216 MalcolmW2

    "Current union supporters like me (freely admitted and an honourable political position, even if opposed to your own) are people that you have to convince."

    I'd rather think we'd have to convince the undecided voters rather than any entrenched supporters of teh current union. From the polling data that strategy would seem sufficient to obtain an outright majority in favour of independence.

    Complain about this comment

  • 265. At 4:30pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    252. MalcolmW2
    "Should the threatened referendum on Scottish independence ever take place..."

    For all your claims of reasonableness you just can't help showing your true nature with little slips like this. The referendum is promised, not threatened. Only someone as insecure in their political position as you evidently are would find the prospect of the people's verdict threatening.

    Still not one word to say on the benefits of the union, I see. The case for independence is made. If you missed it then it can only be because you didn't want to see it. In a political debate it is for both sides to lay out their wares. No unionist has ever been able to make a reasoned argument for the union. If those who do not hold nationalist views are rarer here than hens teeth it is because they have nothing to offer.

    Complain about this comment

  • 266. At 4:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    #252. At 2:50pm on 01 Oct 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:

    Should the threatened referendum on Scottish independence ever take place...

    THREATENED referendum? You mean that same referendum that a substantial majority of Scots (nationalist and non-nationalist) say they want? That THREATENED one?

    Funny, the nationalists seem eager for it and the ones how scream and yell that the nationalists are evil find it THREATENING. One wonders why.



    Complain about this comment

  • 267. At 4:35pm on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    172. Electric Hermit
    "158. MagisterIlluminatus
    "It has been suggested that rather more Co2 is emitted into the atmosphere due to cattle and sheep flatulence..."

    If you have been following this, you may have noted that there is a cumulative effect here. And it is all man-made. The world is a far more complex machine than you imagine.
    "

    He doesn't understand feedback unless it registers in his till.

    Complain about this comment

  • 268. At 4:47pm on 01 Oct 2009, JTomlin wrote:

    Haha! The Scottish Herald actually pretends to buy: Lord Mandelson branded the paper’s executives a “bunch of chumps”, saying he did not think its readers wanted “a Tory fanzine”.

    Is there anyone else in the world who actually thinks that what the man said (and what everyone not in the Labour pay heard) was "chumps"? They actually have the nerve to quote it as though there is no question about the quote. *snickers*

    Nothing like making yourself look like an idiot to protect a politician. Honestly.

    Yeah. He said chumps. Sure he did.

    Complain about this comment

  • 269. At 4:58pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    263. At 4:06pm on 01 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter

    Aye, ok. Whatever you say. You're right am rang

    Complain about this comment

  • 270. At 5:08pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    258 TP
    "I am here to serve my country. That's our purpose, so I should always support decisions that is in the best interests of the majority."

    Blindingly and unquestionably I hope.

    I know someone else who preached like this. He lost the 2nd world war.

    That's some special purpose you've got. Honestly though, is that the scope of your outlook on life?

    By the way, don't look on me as anti-trump. I'm not.
    I'm anti barbarianism! I am for the people not the counrty. I am for justice and am prepaired to pay for it. My purpose is to serve humanity and strive to be a better person and am prepaired to pay for it.

    Very scottish of you I must say old boy. That's is what has made Aberdeen the "great city" it is today.

    Complain about this comment

  • 271. At 5:13pm on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    233. Thomas_Porter
    "CynicalHighlander:

    #221.

    The development could carry on and create thousands of different employment opportunites, or can disappear, but what will take it's place in order to employ the locals? The development is a fantastic opportunity for a deprived north east which has too much focus in the oil industry.
    "

    Don't just read his rhetoric as gospel. What long term jobs are proposed? Low paid service jobs, manufacturing or just commuters.

    Who pays for all the extra infrastructre to create a community i.e. Schooling, community hall, waste management or is everything to be dealt with elsewhere. Who objected vehemently against the proposed offshore wind farm because it would detract his view? He's got some Aberdeenshire councilors following him around like well healed puppy dogs

    Check up on his past and ongoing litigation around his developments around the World he doesn't do what he says on the tin but he does have a well paid group of lawyers at his constant disposal.

    Complain about this comment

  • 272. At 5:25pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    263 TP

    Sorry Thomas, its is still sinking, what you have actually said.

    "No. The family home is still in Aberdeenshire, so I have a right to condemn others still? A couple of quid? Billion pounds and roughly 50 million to 100 million into the local economy annually, is a couple of quid?"

    You have actually claimed the right to condemn innocent familys. God you are god.

    50-100 million? Not in 50-100 million years. But its not the point, he doesn't need to cast people out to contribute whatever it is he may contribute.

    Nothing positive to say against it?

    Sorry, but I am not getting into the whole development. I think it could be a very good thing in principal and am not looking for anything positive or neg to say about it. But I think it is very positive if a society has reached a stage where it doesn't treat individuals like animals of no consequence.

    The folk should be left alone. Jee whiz man can you not see that?

    Complain about this comment

  • 273. At 5:29pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Phil_Anthropponent:

    #270.

    "Blindingly and unquestionably I hope."

    Certainly.

    "I know someone else who preached like this. He lost the 2nd world war."

    Is this the height of the discussion I should expect from you? To be accused of Nazism! I didn't know Adolf Hitler preached for a golf course for Aberdeen while they were in power...

    "That's some special purpose you've got. Honestly though, is that the scope of your outlook on life?"

    Yes. I believe in a strong country, apart of the European Union (therefore helping to make it strong) and eventually a government of the world.

    "By the way, don't look on me as anti-trump. I'm not.
    I'm anti barbarianism! I am for the people not the counrty. I am for justice and am prepaired to pay for it. My purpose is to serve humanity and strive to be a better person and am prepaired to pay for it."

    Here is where you and I differ. The people should be led, I am prepared to make tough decisions but you are not, why? To avoid the minority being criminalised? Isn't it that type of attitude which allows radical terrorists to remain within the United Kingdom, as it's against their human rights to remove them by force? Is that your type of Justice?

    "Very scottish of you I must say old boy. That's is what has made Aberdeen the "great city" it is today."

    Aberdeen has her high points as well as her low points. If you know of a perfect city, please point me in their direction. I am Scottish... but must we think alike to be from the same nation? It's a democracy where ideas are shared and fought over.

    Complain about this comment

  • 274. At 5:29pm on 01 Oct 2009, Fforged_Yolks wrote:

    252. MalcolmW2
    "Should the threatened referendum on Scottish independence ever take place, I predict that many posters on here are in for a very rude awakening. "

    Remind me not to ask you for a hand with my fixed-odds coupon this weekend.

    Complain about this comment

  • 275. At 5:40pm on 01 Oct 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:

    Electric Hermit #265 (at 4.30pm)

    "For all your claims of reasonableness you just can't help showing your true nature with little slips like this. The referendum is promised, not threatened."

    ------------------

    I used the word "threatened" because it was "promised" by a political party, just as the referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty was "promised" by one. I don't trust any politician to keep his / her word on such things. That is because of long years of experience, not any bias for or against any particular party. I am sure you will disagree, but I don't trust the SNP any more than Labour, Tory or Liberal parties to keep their word should it suit them not to. I am party neutral. My stance on the union (British not European in this context) is because I need to be convinced that change rather than the status quo is better. So far I am not.

    Interesting that JRMaclure # 266 (at 4.35pm) should pick up exactly the same point, and write in such similar terms, as you within 5 minutes of your post (and before it was published). Not psychically related are you?



    JRMacClure #266 (at 4.35pm)

    Complain about this comment

  • 276. At 5:49pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    272. At 5:25pm on 01 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:
    263 TP

    "You have actually claimed the right to condemn innocent familys. God you are god."

    You've taken what I said out of context. I replied to you, as you said I was condemning others in a different region while I had to mention I am from Aberdeenshire, so I have a right to condemn? It was a question to you since you appeared to have a problem with my comments since you thought I was from the City of Aberdeen rather than Aberdeenshire.

    "50-100 million? Not in 50-100 million years. But its not the point, he doesn't need to cast people out to contribute whatever it is he may contribute."

    I remain open minded. I am repeating numbers, but what evidence that suggests otherwise do you have?

    "The folk should be left alone. Jee whiz man can you not see that?"

    I happen to hold a different view. Is that okay with you? Your not going to imply I am Adolf Hitler again, as I find it offensive and disrespectful to the millions of victims since it's a very different issue altogether.

    Complain about this comment

  • 277. At 5:59pm on 01 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    MalcolmW2:

    "My stance on the union (British not European in this context) is because I need to be convinced that change rather than the status quo is better. So far I am not."

    Your pleased with the status quo? It's fine for Scottish MP's to vote on English domestic matters? The barnett formula is a fine method for redistributing funds?

    Even unionists admitt that certain parts of the system must be changed and even polling data shows Scots believe that the Scottish Parliament deserves more power and that England has been left behind during devolution and needs to be treated fairly.

    Complain about this comment

  • 278. At 6:09pm on 01 Oct 2009, Electric Hermit wrote:

    275. MalcolmW2
    "I don't trust any politician to keep his / her word on such things."

    Blind prejudice. Saves the trouble of analytical thinking and making reasoned judgements, I suppose. Personally, I've never found that to be too much trouble.

    "My stance on the union (British not European in this context) is because I need to be convinced that change rather than the status quo is better."

    Rightly so. Difficult to see, however, why this should render you incapable of making your own case. Ho hum!

    "Interesting that JRMaclure # 266 (at 4.35pm) should pick up exactly the same point, and write in such similar terms, as you within 5 minutes of your post (and before it was published). Not psychically related are you? "

    Are you "psychically related" to all the other inane conspiracy theorists?

    Complain about this comment

  • 279. At 6:19pm on 01 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:

    The Menie estate is a strange place to build a new Trumpton

    "5) The local paper ran an internet poll on Trumpton. A pal in Perth had a look and was intrigued to find that it showed 58% against and only 42% in favour. So he duly signed. Next day, the poll had been withdrawn."

    Some democracy.

    Complain about this comment

  • 280. At 8:21pm on 01 Oct 2009, davidstuarthill wrote:

    #44
    No you are wrong as the NESTA used totally Lotto money. I believe that this is the cope out for the EU and how Brown and his super-men get round this. Would like to know more and if you can elaborate on why you say that it is another fictitious load on spiel by Labour (ps. I am not a Labour voter), it would be welcomed?

    #51
    At what level were you involved in innovation matters and what is your technical background. I ask this as the people concerned and advising the government were addressing the 'big' long-term picture for the UK's economy. They consisted of many Nobel Laureates (all the natural sciences and even an economist). The problem was that the engineers and scientists et al that the government's innovation unit used for advice were completely out of their depth. Unfortunately government say that they are looking at the 'big' picture but where in reality they do not know what the 'big' picture is for their own country.

    #54
    The money was squandered on many 'small' and economically insignificant investments that could never provide anything meaningful in a nutshell. The government do not understand that to get this country on its feet and out of the very deep hole again economically, you need a 'big' catalyst. Otherwise nothing changes as every country in the world is just doing the same thing - the little things in life. Unfortunately in our case there were no long-term growth investments and most of the £15 billion has not provided the needed new industries that the UK desperately needs. The sorry fact is that with this mega-quango like all other government quangos, the people involved and running them live on a totally different planet where their vast salaries are guaranteed with very big fat pensions at the end of it - no reason to use innovative thought like all senior government positions as they are paid no matter if they provide a benefit for Britain or not. Risk is a no-no, as why take risks when you don't have to do and indeed risk your cushy number.
    That is the reason why the £15 billion went down the tube and at a rate of nearly £2 billion a year - not bad really for a government inspired idea as it could have been much worse, for as we know from the financial meltdown and where Britain has lost on average 40% of its wealth, £15 billion is nothing in the eyes of this government (and I am not a conservative or a Liberal either when I state this).

    D !








    Complain about this comment

  • 281. At 10:47am on 02 Oct 2009, Phil_Anthropponent wrote:

    276 Morning Thomas

    "I happen to hold a different view. Is that okay with you? Your not going to imply I am Adolf Hitler again, as I find it offensive and disrespectful to the millions of victims since it's a very different issue altogether."

    Not really but I will live with it.

    Sorry, I wasn't aware that this was a very different issue from WW2 (yeah thanks for that), and didn't for a moment think in my mind you were on a par with Adolf Hitler.

    My apologies to all the millions of victims of his terrible deeds, if like Thomas, you thought that I was comparing Hitlers clearing of innocent people to make way for the master race, to the trump affair.

    Complain about this comment

  • 282. At 11:27am on 02 Oct 2009, Tom wrote:

    Phil_Anthropponent:

    It's take a bigger person to rise up and admitt their wrong, instead of weaseling out of the issue. You made it clear that you believed my opinion was fascist-like and also implied I sounded similar from a man who preached in this manner and who eventually lost world war two. I am sure others can read also, so why, do you believe that four individuals being evicted is the same as 6 million individuals being dragged from their homes and either shot, gassed etc?

    As I said. You made it very clear about what your were hinting at. I am still disturbed by the thought that four homes are actually the same as millions of innocent lives... (according to you anyhoo)

    Complain about this comment

  • 283. At 4:45pm on 04 Oct 2009, JohnConstable wrote:

    You native Scots simply do not exist.

    Well, at least not down here in England, particularly with the London based professional political set or the media, who if anything, rarely seem to get outside of the M25 London orbital road.

    I think it would shock native Scots to come down here to England and see just how little media attention is given over to Scotland.

    It literally is already a foreign country.

    Please do us English and yourselves a huge favour in November 2010 and then we can both move forward politically.

    The Sun newspaper has seen the political writing on the wall but cannot quite work out how to play it in Scotland as presumably the owners (Murdochs) still believe in the Union although as world citizens, their personal affiliations must be quite limited.

    Complain about this comment

View these comments in RSS

BBC iD

Sign in

BBC navigation

BBC © 2014 The BBC is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.

This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.