Clearly confused
Politicians love to make things "absolutely clear". Their position, however opaque, is always "absolutely clear".
They are never confused. Is that absolutely clear?
Scottish Labour's position on an independence referendum scarcely fits that aim. Originally, it was what Sir Humphrey would call "courageous". Now it is decidedly gelatinous.
Labour MSPs met again at Holyrood to survey the collateral damage. I spoke privately to a fair number of them. They do not sound "absolutely clear" on where they are heading.
Labour group convener Duncan McNeil reiterated support for the principle of a referendum. He added the rider, however, that Labour would not abandon its right to scrutinise the detail of the bill.
As we pursued him down the glass corridor at Holyrood, I asked him whether that included the wording of the referendum. It does indeed.
Now, to be fair, Wendy Alexander has repeatedly said that there could be no blank cheque for the SNP over their bill. But the mood has changed.
Ringing cheers
A week ago, after the Holyrood group, the bold talk was that they wouldn't thwart the right of the Scottish people to determine their future.
Today, the talk is of the caveats, the wording, the timetable, the whys and wherefores. It's a question of tone.
So where are we? Some Labour MSPs were apprehensive about the initiative from the start. But most seemed willing to give it a run - when it felt like a tactic designed to flush out the SNP.
In other words, they liked the gutsy feel of "bring it on". They liked the notion of confronting Alex Salmond.
They liked the wheeze of demanding an early referendum - fully anticipating the first minister would decline. They thought that would "call his bluff".
As that strategy evaporated in the chaos and counter-briefing of the past few days, the mood apparently changed somewhat.
As one Labour MSP told me: "I didn't come into politics to do the SNP's bidding."
To be "absolutely clear", though, Labour MSPs are not saying they will vote down the SNP referendum Bill in 2010.
They are still saying, however, that that timetable is too tight with Holyrood elections due in 2011. They are saying that, ideally, the issue should have been settled by the 2010 UK general election.
On Wednesday in Holyrood, the first minister will set out the aims and objectives of his Scottish Government for the next 12 months. He will stress a referendum on independence will NOT form part of that programme but will follow in 2010.
Don't expect the cheers to ring out from the Labour benches at that point.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~39~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
That seems absolutely clear Brian. Maybe you could have a go winning Guido's prize?
Prize Competition : Explain the Labour Party's Position on a Scottish Referendum
http://www.order-order.com/2008/05/prize-competition-explain-labour-partys.html
Complain about this comment
Good on Wendy for reinvigorating interest in Scottish politics.
Never has it been so much fun to follow!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Oh Dearie, Dearie me!!
Is there any chance in the near future that you might stop sounding like a PR officer for the disintegrating Labour Party of Westminster in Scotland??
This is getting quite tiresome now, Brain!!
Your blog is written from an entirely Labour Party point of view.
We, your readers, need much much better!!
Complain about this comment
The tide is now turning against "Scottish" Labour, this debachle clearly demonstrates that Wendy is a lame duck leader who jumped the gun with the referendum idea with the rest of the Labour MSP's falling in behind her like some sort of "borg" collective.
It is even more ironic that her "Scottish" PM boss quickly distanced himself from her. The lassie has lost her credibility and what core support they had in Scotland is clearly on the decline.
Complain about this comment
The SNP's strategy is pretty clear.
They have shown they are not afraid of standing up to Westminister.
They have promised to stand up for Scotland.
They are spending their time in office showing the potentail Scotland has in itself.
And if the referendum Bill does not pass Parliament then they have the Scottish Elections to ensure the Unionist Parties pay for their mistake.
Would you personally vote for a Politcal Party that is not allowing you to decide your own countries future?
And of course they have got lucky that Labour are in such a mess and The Conservatives are likily to win the next General Elections.
Well...I have to say...Scottish Nationalists have set up and played a very good game.
Complain about this comment
This is obviously a either a ploy to wrong foot the SNP or they are thinking "well if it is going to happen, if the Scottish people are saying yes, then we want the credit".
A bit like the Scottish people wanting a parliament. All we heard from Labour was we want to control it.
I wonder what the reaction will be when the referendum comes back a resounding yes.
Complain about this comment
Yes brian
Nice of you to give us a comment on the new fashion in politics.
MUD IS THE NEW CLEAR.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Any news yet of Labour moving towards support for a referendum with three options including 'more powers' as defined by the Calman Commission?
Unless they return to their previous position of rejecting the SNP's calls for a referendum (which would surely signal the end of the road for Wendy), it seems to be the best option open to them.
Presumably the problem with a three option referendum is that the vote might be split fairly evenly leaving uncertainty over the way forward, hence the FM's idea of a transferable voting system being used.
The alternative, which I guess would suit the Unionists better, would be to ask two questions, as in 1997, along these lines:
1. Do you think the Scottish Parliament should be give more powers? Yes or No.
2. Do you want the Scottish Government to negotiate for Scottish independence from the UK? Yes or no.
Would the SNP accept a referendum on that basis?
Complain about this comment
On the subject of Scottish Labour's attitude to an independence referendum, I confess to being still somewhat confused as to what precisely is not confusing about the policy, if it is a policy, and as to who is confused about what and why.
So I'm confused. I don't think I've ever been so confused. In fact, it's all so confusing that I'm beginning to get confused about the bits that I thought I was beginning to get less confused about, but maybe I was just confused about that.
Are there any journalists out there who are any less confused than the rest of us? Half of them seem to think there's been a double U-turn, and the other half seem to think it's not as confusing as that on account of there having been in their view only a single U-turn up to this point in point of fact.
Oh, I can't keep up with it. To hell with it. It's academic, anyway, as Labour is sinking fast, as I think we shall probably find if this thickening fog of confusion ever clears.
Complain about this comment
Seems like Labour are victims of reverse engineering.
Wendy makes up policy on the hoof. Wendy and other Labour worthies then have to try make up the reasoning to justify the policy. We get a different variant of reasoning for every last one of them interviewed. The rear-guard then try and bring all the contadictions together as one. What a complete guddle! (Entertaining though.)
I know it would never happen, but I wish that just one could openly say "sorry, we made a muck of this".
As for Wendy - I think she can safely forget any aspirations she might hold to gaining the FM job.
Complain about this comment
Lydia-Reid (No. 6):
"I wonder what the reaction will be when the referendum comes back a resounding yes."
"AAAARGH!!" comes to mind immediately, closely followed by "But, but, but you can't do that!".
The more astute and quicker-thinking among their group will be saying "But how will I get elected to Westminster now? I want my free John Lewis kitchen!! Waaaa".
Mainly because Labour are all about Labour politicians on the gravy train. To a degree there's always been that aspect, as their is to a lesser degree in most parties.
The tories tend to be slightly immune to it ('cause most of them are already spectacularly wealthy, so the MP's salary is basically pocket money), and the SNP immune because they haven't really had enough MP's elected for the party elite to get a real taste for cash!
Labour on the other hand has had a century of MP's, stemming all the way back from when they were privileged trade-unionists that suddenly got lots of cash! In fact, it was Labour who were responsible for MP's even having a salary!
When Scotland finally gets her independence (as seems pretty damned likely now), the screams of anguish from all the Scottish MP's in Westminster stuck with their noses in the trough will be audible all way from London to Lewis!
Complain about this comment
The lady said originally she wanted a yes/no referendum, I heard it myself!
So whats all this fichering about the edges??
Complain about this comment
Lydia-Reid (No. 6):
"I wonder what the reaction will be when the referendum comes back a resounding yes."
In England many will breathe a massive sigh of relief.
Alex Salmond is playing a blinder and I wish him every success.
Complain about this comment
Once independence (or at least the negotiations inevitably leading towards it) begins it will be very interesting indeed to see how many Scottish MPs are suddenly parachuted into either Scottish Parliament constituencies and regional lists. The likes of Brown and Darling will show their true colour by not considering a seat in our parliament to be worth their "great intellects" so I don't see that being a problem.
Obviously it would be excellent to have the likes of Charles Kennedy and Ming Campbell in the Scots Parliament. Also it could be argued that the SNP MPs are only there as a means to and end and should be welcomed back. But what of the dozens of Labour MPs who, due to perceived party seniority, will be given preference in over those Labour MSPs who have dedicated themselves to their constituencies? I see major infighting in the Labour party to come.
But the one thing that seems assured it a higher calibre of politician in the Scottish parliament in the future as the haemorrhaging of talent to London is stopped. Basically everyone wins apart from the Scottish Labour MPs or the Labour MSPs who are kicked out to make room for them.
Complain about this comment
No wonder most of the English want shot of us! One minute we're the poor underdogs, whingeing endlessly, the next we're the new master race, taking on the world (who will fall at our feet in awe).
Some SNP folk see the independence process, if it ever comes to it, as a kind of amicable divorce with fair shares. Does this include the oil, "ours" by a geographical accident. If we say no, as far as the 90% in Scottish waters is concerned, might there be retaliation? Like Benefits records being mysteriously "lost." The scope for malice is endless.
I agree with most of the SNP sentiments about Labour and their position on a vote. But cheap shots at a soft target are just so much propaganda, irrelevant to the bigger issues.
I see hard times ahead for Scotland and her people - exactly the same hard times as will face the rest of the UK and the developed world. There will be no "reserved issues" then, in the new fledgling independent state. Surely the most blinkered Scot Nat can see that in adversity unity is strength, and strength should not be squandered on the trappings of sovereignty when people are struggling?
The Brigadoon image of a Scotland flowing with milk and honey (or oil) while England toils underpins every emotional appeal to nationalist causes. Sadly our under-educated voters might believe it.
Complain about this comment
To begin with I thought Wendy Alexander did not think before she said "bring it on" (the referendum).
After some thought, however, I wonder if she has not actually committed a political masterstroke.
If the Scottish people vote against independence, she will be Labour's hero, saving the Union and relegating the SNP to the backbenches for 10 years; if they vote for it, then she will be seen to have been in tune with Scotland, independent of the London/English Labour party and willing to stand up to them, thus strong enough to lead Labour in a newly independent Scotland.
A win-win situation for her...
Complain about this comment
I think it comes down to the fact that the lady IS for turning, and turning and turni...
I disagree with some of the bloggers at the top of this thread, Brians blog is not that of a Labour party apologist. A few of his previous blogs have appeared that way and I've mentioned it, but this one seems fairly straight forward reporting.
Crack on Brian.
And please, could you all check your spelling, punctuation and grammmar!
Complain about this comment
I still don't fully grasp why Alex Salmond doesn't bring a bill next week that legislates for a referendum *in Autumn 2010*. Labour would find it close to impossible to vote it down, and that would be the matter sorted with the SNP getting exactly what they've always wanted, when they want it, and before Wendy gets booted out and Labour have an excuse to change policy.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR:
Psst, Labour supports the Union.
If Wendy successfully called for an early Referendum and Scotland did vote for Independence then she would loose Party support.
Jack McConell was defeated by Scottish Nationalist Party and had to resign.
If Wendy was defeated then I guess she would have to resign.
Complain about this comment
The way Wendy's "life long friend" Gordon is getting along in Westminster,I don't hold out much hope of either of them surviving beyond next week's by election. Even giving back half of what he nicked at the budget will probably not save his bacon,(no pun intended) and if the backstabbers get him, then the knifes will be at poor Wendy's tail very soon afterwards.
Complain about this comment
A few points to make here -
freedjmac where on earth do you get that one from?
"As that strategy evaporated in the chaos and counter-briefing of the past few days, the mood apparently changed somewhat."
Chaos and counterbriefing yeah thats exactly the view the party wants to promote
Granfatherflump may have just hit the final solutuion on the head, that would be an option that would even surely suit all parties and would allow for a clear result either way. at least some people are attempting to contribute somthing positive to the discussion.
Mathcampbell - as a trade unionist i am actually offended by ur comments, the early Labour Party stood up for those traditionaly left out by society, by introducing a wage (a modest one at that) allowed those who did not have the means to support themselves through private income could afford to run for parliament. as a point if you bothered to look at the highest claimants for allowances then you would know that on average SNP MP's claim more than anyone else.
The SNP never wanted a referendum, because despite the support the party has the cause of independence does not have the same, they knew that before they would never of gained support in the parliament for the referendum so what they did was put the vote as close to the next major elections as possible so that they can spend the election campaign telling people that the other parties dont listen to them. this was a strategy for two election victories not one and it was well thought out, however it has been shown to be what it was, just another aspiration, like class sizes, student debts, grants for first time house buyers, matching the school building programme brick for brick.
Complain about this comment
"matching the school building programme brick for brick"
Oh dear. Someone's party crib sheet is showing. What, no mention of "vulnerable two-year-olds" or "hard-working families"?
(Incidentally, grants for first time buyers was an absolutely terrible idea, and I've glad they've had the good sense and courage to change their minds about it.)
Complain about this comment
Brian - you aren't seriously saying the numpties have only just realised what fools they look over their ridiculous early referendum stunt?? If so, then Wendy has got to be a shoe-in for "Emperor's New Clothes Award 2008"!
I know it's like water off a duck's back when politicians are dismissed as a "laughing stock" - but every now and then even well-worn political insults are actually true.
Wendy Alexander has scored the biggest own goal in the last 300 years of Scottish politics.
To stretch the footballing analogy a little
further - there comes a point in every good thrashing where the stronger team is so far ahead of the weaker team it is no longer funny.
Wendy Alexander has reached that point. The only word for it is a rout.
Embarrassing. It's time someone had a quiet word in her ear. It might as well be you.
Complain about this comment
"brigadierjohn"
When it comes to so called "fair shares" if you look at countrys like Czechoslovakia now the Czech republic and the Slovak republic or Norway and Sweden when they went there own way.You will see that the devision of goods was worked out and it will be worked out between Scotland and Westminster and the UN the EU and the whole world will be watching.
As for "that in adversity unity is strength" in the UK whether you like it or not we are all citizens of the EU,Scots law falls in line with EU law therefore whether Scotland and England are joined politically or not we in Scotland are joined politically to the EU.
Complain about this comment
What is the position going to be
tomorrow?
the weekend?
next week?
next month?
the public are getting dizzy.
Complain about this comment
Whatever you think of Labour, and I detest them, you cannot accuse them of confusion of policy: The are against separation from the UK. In any circumstances. Full stop. How they express that policy is another matter.
But really, it's not up to Labour. They, like me - but for different reasons - favour the status quo. It is up to those who want change to argue the case, call the ballot,and take the consequences, good or bad.
Unionists don't have to prove or justify anything. They simply have to say things would be worse if certain changes were made. Those making the case for change have to disprove that. It's a bit like court - you don't have to prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt.
Then there's the council analogy. Consider the union to be Standing Orders. Most institutions require a two-thirds majority to overturn them. Failure to vote, or abstention, is a vote for the status quo.
I would stick with a straight majority, however. Because we are not governed by referenda, governments can ignore them. Anything less than 2-1 would be considered "advisory" and would spark "talks about talks" as the diplomats say. But I think it might be more than 2-1 against. If everyone in the major parties is honest and open about
prospects, that is.
Now then, which three SNP apparatchiks will be first to attack? And how quickly?
Complain about this comment
Brian
at last a woman in politics who is for turning
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
How can you sit there and type that the Unionists do not have to justify anything and that all the Unionists have to do is point out the bad issues?
The Union has to convince the public why the Union should stay.
It is unfair to say that the Union is perfect untill proven otherwise.
Is that not how debates are done?
Both sides point out the benifits and the bad points then we chose one we like?
But really I think you are only saying that the Unionists do not need to defend the Union because there are really no good points you can possibly come up with.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I'd still love an answer to my question (no.8).
On Rev_S_Campbell's question (no.18) - why don't the SNP bring forward a bill now that legislates for a referendum in 2010? It's a good question and you put forward a good argument.
Three possible reasons:
1. It may be an issue of time. There may be insufficient time in this Parliamentary session to allow the inclusion of another bill at this late stage. (This may or may not be true but it would be a useful excuse if the SNP choose to hold their ground)
2. Doing so would give Labour the chance to keep making the same point in Parliament over a prolonged period - why not 2009? After all the hooha of the past week dies down, this question could begin to resonate with the public and cause the SNP some serious embarrassment.
3. The SNP are currently perceived as a strong and competent Government. Wendy and the Labour Party look weak and incompetent. So the SNP don't need to do anything that could be seen as making a concession to Labour and which Wendy might be able to spin as her forcing the Government's hand.
But I'm beginning to wonder if the SNP would have a better chance of winning an independence referendum in 2009 than in 2010. Presumably Salmond's calculation before the election was that Scotland would vote for independence rather than allow another decade of Tory rule. But with Labour's popularity nose-diving both north and south of the border and support for the Tories beginning to rise even up here, maybe a referendum sooner rather than later would be better for the SNP?
I agree with RodmurrayHFC's comments (no.17) and loved the deliberate mistake in your final sentence:
"And please, could you all check your spelling, punctuation and grammmar!"
At least I assume it was deliberate?!
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn,why do you assume that the ordinary person has not the right to voice their opinion?do you simply believe that the unilateral unionist action against a sovereign state like Iraq is justified under the flag of democracy.
Complain about this comment
In the time it took me to write that, Wendy's changed her policy again! What a joke.
Maybe I should keep my posts briefer in future. In fact I think we should all take a break from blogging until the Labour Party has decided on a policy and held it consistently for at least 24 hours.
Complain about this comment
You know, Wendy A's stock must be high with Mr B and chums. Here's why.
Mr B says he'll always be prudent, then forgets and runs up a huge government sector deficit. Mr B announces he wants reduce poverty, then increases tax yield from the poorest by rescinding the 10p rate without immediate compensation. Mr B then says he does want to compensate people properly, does so by making sure their kids will carry the burden for years to come through higher borrowing.
Wendy's just joined the same club as Gordon, that's all... it's evidently called the 'Own Goal Club' by the way.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter: I was away all afternoon, doing what normal people do - trailing round shops and garden centres on my wife's stern instructions. You, or your doppelganger, or team, or whatever you call yourselves have been online all day. You may call it dedicated, I call it obsessive or fanatical. Counter-productive, may I suggest?
In court, for example, the accused - that seems to be me - need not offer any defence. The prosecution - that's you, Thomas - have to prove the case. If they don't, no answer to the charges is required. You sir, have thrown disparagements all around the courtroom, but proved nothing. The case for nationalism is dismissed!
derekbarker: Anyone's opinion is fine by me. I don't have to agree, though, do I? As for Iraq, I never mentioned it. Never defended the Labour Government or it's policy on Iraq. What point are you trying to make? Governments are transient, removeable, open to criticism. The constitution, by contrast, may evolve - but remains the constitution.
And the union remains the union, however stupid or incompetent the government of the day may be. Blame the government, not the union. Or are you saying a Scottish government would be immune to stupidity?
Complain about this comment
I find it hard to accept the labour party as a serious political force any more from Wee Wendy who can't make her mind up about referendum's or even Gordon and Tony who equally can't make their minds up about referendums ie. european constitution?
Perhaps there is the case of the bulldog John Reid on the closure of hospitals monklands for example would wee Wendy shut monklands while john Reid objected? Jack the lad tried and Andy Kerr tried, was John right or Andy and Jack right?
Of course you could ask was our bold Gordon fae the kingdom o Fife right to scrap the ten pence tax band, oh or Captain Darling from Edinburgh really caring for the less well paid when he now tries to fix Gordons uncaring tory policies, the rich getting richer and the poor poorer.
What of our great and good trade unions bankrolling labour just why do they accept PFI and ppp? the Trade union movement need to serve their members rather than the sacred cow the labour party
Mad cow desease, put it down please for everyones sake!
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn #26
"Unionists don't have to prove or justify anything. They simply have to say things would be worse if certain changes were made. Those making the case for change have to disprove that. It's a bit like court - you don't have to prove your innocence, the prosecution must prove guilt."
As one who is still undecided regards Yes or No to independence - I do not think the court of public opinion will be such a push over for the pro-union campaign. If the pro-independence campaign paints a positive and realistic picture of what might be, and the pro-union camp simply sit on their hands carping that we shouldn't go there 'cos it will be bad and make things worse without justifying that stance, then I think a Yes vote would win.
Why? As opposed to the situation about 25 years ago, I do not think folk are afraid of independence as an option any more. I think that the electorate in Scotland have grown up a bit since then. The union is a viable option, and independence is a viable alternative. Scotland is not an economic basket case in either scenario. A pro-union campaign of "we think independence is worse" as suggested would be regarded as negative, and will put folk off and turn them to a positive alternative if that is on offer.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
The British Government (Labour and Conservatives) are accused of mis-leading the Scottish Public from the 1970's about the discovery of oil.
Since then the British Government (Labour and Conservatives) has mis-spoke about how much wealth Scotland has created through the Oil Fields in Scottish Waters.
Until 2005 through the Freedom of Information Act this information has been made public with one Government stating that Scotland alone could of been one of the richest and most wealthy Nation on Earth.
The United Kingdom is up for investigation about what else they may be hiding from the Scottish Public.
And now it is up to you to defend yourself, John and your Union.
Shall you now put arguements forward to protect the Union?
Or shall we keep quite now and allow the public to decide if they want to trust these liars with their future?
Complain about this comment
What seems to remain of the Scottish Labour independence-referendum ploy is nothing more than a common-or-garden con-trick that went wrong. Now that they have no further use for it they are dropping it but clearly do not care to admit this because it is unseemly and inexpedient to confess to policy somersaults that might lead people to suspect that Labour MSPs are without integrity and not to be trusted. As if one would.
Wriggle, wriggle. Wriggle, wriggle. Clever tricks from Nicolo Machiavelli's bedtime book of trickery and swickery need clever people to carry them out. This explains the egg on the cherubic countenance of the Scottish Labour leader.
Game, set and match to Mr Salmond again, as Ms Goldie has pointed out, the legitimacy of an independence referendum staged by the Scottish Government having been conceded by Scottish Labour. As the terms of the proposed SNP referendum bill are already known, Labour, as a result of calling, however insincerely, for an independence referendum to be held, will have no legitimate excuse for opposing the bill in 2010. The electorate will deal with them accordingly if they do so.
Congratulations to Ms Alexander for completing the transformation of Scottish Labour from a serious political force into a hilarious political farce.
Complain about this comment
What on earth are they playing at? What do they think this looks like to the world outside Holyrood? No wonder Brown is unhappy with them, it appears they have confirmed everyone's thinking that they are preparing for him to lose the next general election!
As always with Labour ... it only appears this is the case for now. Who knows what Wendy will dream up for tomorrow's re-launch? Who knows when senior figures will finally twig she is making the problem worse? When will Wendy stop talking to the electorate, and the world in general, as if they were a particularly slow 5-year old?
Complain about this comment
I was just wondering if the whole thing is merely an exercise to distract everyone from the fact that Labour did so badly in the local elections in England and also in the London Mayor election.
I dont know whether they are talking about this in England as much as here but who knows. Although Wendy Alexander doesnt seem a very likely candidate to choose to do this !
Complain about this comment
GrandfatherFlump
"And please, could you all check your spelling, punctuation and grammmar!"
I can agree up to a point especially with some of the over the the pond spelling but some of us have difficulty in punctuation and grammar due to the way our brains are wired! re dyslexia not an easy disability to live with or do you maybe you only wish those that write proper english are allowed to participate. (rant over)
brigadierjohn
The problem with unionists is just that! (conquerors) Scots have a different culture and outlook on life from other nations thats what creates diversity in the world, would your views change if our skin colour was different. Oil is dismissed as an argument, but it is what put the UK back into solvency it certainly wasn't our manufacturing prowess. Oil is a finite resource and it is running out at an ever increasing rate that is one of the reasons of its price increase. This resource should be put back into improving this countries infrastructure not fighting illegal wars to promote individual westminister politicians kudos. The sooner this country gets its sovereinginty back then England and Wales will rethink how they move on.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn,I make the case,the union of represenatives for the UK,"YES" Scotland and England voted for action in Iraq:while the huge numbers of public who protested were simply ignored and so by reason i ask the question? "WHY" cant we the people decide on the big issues,through the use of referenda?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Carter (@19):
Labour may be for the Union now, but if a referendum is held, and if Scots support independence (anything over 50% in favour will do whatever artificial threshold politicians might try to impose), then the Union will be finished and independence inevitable.
In those circumstances, it is unthinkable that a major political party in Scotland could do anything other than live with the new reality. If Labour wishes to have a future in Scotland after a successful pro-independence referendum, they will have to support independence, whatever they may say now.
The views of the Labour Party south of the border will be completely irrelevant then. And the politicians most likely to survive in any party will be those who have been at least been open to the idea of giving the people a say...
Complain about this comment
Looking back over the last 7 threads (7 - maybe this record is getting a bit cracked), I think there are two broad agreements....
1) A referendum on Independence is the START of a process. Negotiations will need to take place to work out the details.
2) Until such negotiations take place, it is unlikely that there will be sufficient information in the public domain for people to make an informed view on whether they think Independence would be a good or bad thing.
However, under the current proposals in the publication "Choosing Scotlands Future", by the time we have enough information to make an informed choice, it'll be too late.
The publication puts forward the idea that two referendums could be held (which it subsequently argues against). One to authorise negotiations, the second to vote on whether we want to proceed based on the negotiated outcome. This, to me, seems fairer and may even work to the SNPs advantage (regular readers will know I don't support the SNP) since people may be more comfortable voting for "Independence" if they know they could back out later if they don't like what comes out of the negotiations.
What I don't like the idea of, in the case of a single referendum, is that, in the case of the negotiated outcome being "marginal", the Government could push ahead regardless (and probably would since Independence is the main plank for the SNP). For me that is a reason in a single referendum case, for voting for the "devil you know" rather than the "devil you don't".
So perhaps we should be pushing our politicians for two referendums.
One side effect is that if the Scottish people are allowed to vote on the outcome of the negotiations, then I see no reason why the rest of the UK can't vote on the outcome and potentially send the UK Government back to the table if they don't like the outcome. This shouldn't stop the move to Independence but it could delay it significantly.
Anyway, I've stuck my neck out so chop away!!
Complain about this comment
Oh Dear, yet again we see the fallout from Wendy's words of wisdom; why does this woman never learn from readily available strategies such as the Rule of Holes: when you reach the bottom stop digging.
Complain about this comment
I still worry at what might seem to the outside world to be Scotland's xenophobia in pursuing 'Independence'. So much collective harm stands to be done to the interests of the Union of which nationalists seem to have no care for personal and wider consequences. How viable is Scotland - a country with of a mere 5 million people? Oil is not everything. It was a short-term gain, but it is not in infinite supply and the world is having to learn to live with the prospect of being without it. There is no sense in looking back beyond 1707 through rose-tinted glasses.
Complain about this comment
What I find disturbing about this whole Labour fiasco is not the fact that they change their policy on an almost daily basis with no regard for the credibility of the labour party, but this new style of gutter tactical politics they have adopted, whereby they make up policy based on tactics, and if it does not go in their favour they change it again, and if is it still not to their advantage change it again taking them back to where they started.
They are taking to public for fools, which they certainly are not. Labour will be shown the door at the next opportunity
Complain about this comment
Err... has anybody noticed the remarkable silence from Des Browne, who I understand has a part-time job concerning Scotland and its constitutional affairs?
Perhaps he's heard that old proverb about it being better to stay silent and be thought a fool than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout (#43)
Good point, well made.
Complain about this comment
Brian; at least you are attempting to allow a national conversation.
We hear the Dave is now saying Gordon has lost Scotland, something he could never have thought possible! His answer to bring us rowdy Scots to heal? Dig up the Ghost of Margaret Thatcher. Yep that'll do it and we will all soon be good Scots, tugging forelocks to our Tory masters.
I just wish someone could make clear what Labour's Scottish section actually stands for apart from corruption, illegality and an inability to bring forward bills that don't breach umpteen regulations home and abroad.
Complain about this comment
I can't believe it when people question the viability of an independent Scotland. How viable is Finland? How viable is Austria? How viable is Denmark? How viable is Norway? How viable is Iceland? How viable is The Republic of Ireland? All these countries have smaller or similar population sizes to Scotland. All of them have thrived as Independents. Why do so many Scots lack what must be a basic confidence to believe that they are up to the task of governing their own country. Just what are they afraid of? Alex Salmond once spoke of the psychological liberation of Independence. I think this is as important and possibly more important than any practical considerations I really do. Who wants to lead a life of fear of any kind. Why isn't every Scot chomping at the bit to gain independence and freedom? I'm sorry to be so emotive but it's almost tragic.
Complain about this comment
Brian
As for holding the referendum "before the UK General election in 2010". Who says it will be in 2010? With Brown the Ditherer in charge it could be any time up till then! Remember last autumn? The future of Scotland is too important to leave the timing to this man's whim. the SNP, in their manifesto, have laid out a timetable which the parliament and public can hold them to. Labour are way too late to this argument and are clearly playing politics with this important issue. They, I'm sure, will be held to account by the people of Scotland. And not before time. They should remember that they are there to serve not con and bully.
Roll on 2010
Complain about this comment
I think Alex Salmond has played a canny game. He must have predicted a possible Conservative Government by 2010, and when better to offer the Scottish people a choice of voting for independence or being ruled by a party that despises the Scottish people, even their own. A party that decimated the industrial, economic and social lanscape of much of Scotland without any remorse. A party that saw Scotland as a dead political loss worthy only of being a test bed for it's now discredited policies. A party that retains no social conscience to this day. I'm sure the pro independence movement will be reminding people of that every day between now and the referendum.
Labour can't counter argue those points because it made the same ones, or be seen to be protecting the Tories or the Union rather than protecting Scotland from the Tories. So then the pro independence side will point out that we will have Labour campaigning with the Tories against Scotland even if they think the Tories might win in London!
Very tricky indeed. No wonder Labour are in such a state over this issue. Of course, as the referendum gets closer the pressure will be all the greater and the disharmony louder, and think of the clammer when the general election approaches and labour faces a resounding defeat?
If you think Labour is a mess now, think again. Fasten your seatbelts, it's gonna be a bumpy ride....
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
While not making any comment on the viability of an independent Scotland, your emotive arguments are what makes it so difficult to debate with you.
Being a pragmatic person, for me the practical considerations are all important. My nationality, while providing an anchor to my culture, etc. is not a driving force in my live.
Why do you think I live in fear? (I don't).
Why do you think I am repressed (I don't think I am) and in need of liberation?
How will being independent alter my basic "freedoms" (freedom of speech, freedom to vote, freedom to travel, etc.).
Let me ask you one hypothetical question.
If it could be proved that an Independent Scotland would be worse off outside the Union (still viable but just worse off), would you still vote for independence?
Complain about this comment
Nationality isn't important. We are all Jock Tamson's bairns in the final analysis I agree. But to borrow another well worn phrase, land is more important to us than to simply stop our feet from getting wet.
I am not saying people live their lives in a frightened way but oppression of a kind takes many forms. It's the srip srip effect IMO. And there is an insidious feeling amongst some Scots that we aren't good enough to be independent. Thankfully this is changing and changing rapidly too but some of the scaremongerers depress me no end I have to say.
I don't accept that Independence could ever be worse off. By definition Scotland could never be worse off by being independent.
Of course what you mean is if it made Scotland substantially poorer would I be in favour of independence. Well, for one thing I'm a democrat and I abide by the majority so it wouldn't be my decision. It's not a hypothesis that is likely to happen ie. Scotland would become poorer (quite the opposite actually), but in some ways there are principles involved here which outweigh the importance of money. The best I can offer you is that I would never have sold Scotland out for a bag of gold I assure you.
Complain about this comment
One more thing: I think to deny the emotional relationship people have with their country is disengenuous and dishonest.
Complain about this comment
Incandescere:
You are correct, oil is not everything however, your assertion that because of our small population, an independent Scotland would not be viable is, at the very least, spurious. The General Registrar Office for Scotland put the population at 5.12m as at 30/06/2006. The list below shows other European countries that are in (broadly) the same population range bracket:
Denmark 5.41m
Finland 5.22m
Ireland 4.02m
Lithuania 3.49m
Norway 4m
Slovakia 5.38m
Switzerland 7m
OK, so the inclusion of Switzerland is maybe stretching it a bit (although broadly countered by the inclusion of Lithuania at the other extreme).
So, tell me based on their populations alone, are all of the above countries equally as non-viable as Scotland?
I think you need to better quantify your argument a bit.
Complain about this comment
It's after noon, and Thomas Porter must still be in bed after his long shift yesterday. Slumber on, Thomas - a rude awakening is at hand! (That's just a silly joke, Thomas, don't get all righteous with me).
Reading through the blogs, there does seem to be a general misunderstanding. The UK is, and an independent Scotland would be, a representative democracy. We vote for a candidate who supports a party, who form a government which takes decisions on our behalf. We don't always agree, but that's the democratic deal.
At the moment, we have the UK and its government, for better or worse. Those who wish change must start at the beginning, back a candidate, etc., etc. Referenda, by comparison, can never be more than advisory - although it would be a foolish government that didn't heed warnings.
Derekbarker: the last sentence answers your question.
Democracy has nothing to do with who shouts loudest, who abuses opponents, who has the best soundbites. It is about secret ballots and silent majorities. It's the people who are not blogging the parties should worry about. I'm not a Tory, but if I was I would see an unexpected opportunity in the mud-slinging at Holyrood and elsewhere. They are going to win the UK, I think, and may - if cute enough and able to stick to a few sensisble broad ideas - massively improve their disastrous position here.
I don't think any rational person could give unconditional support to either SNP or Labour at the moment.
And that's under the status quo. A vote for independence, before the likely consequences are fully laid out, by both sides, would be madness.
But we should all rejoice that we are free to state our prejudices. And remember that's what they are, not everlasting truths.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
I'm not denying the emotional relationship people have with their country so please don't imply it or imply that I am in some way disengenuous or dishonest because of it.
I'm saying 2 things.
For me, it isn't an overriding emotion.
For me, it makes the debate more difficult since I can't argue with YOUR definition that Scotland can never be worse off under Independence simply because it's YOUR definition not a shared definition. I could be equally emotive and say that "by definition Scotland is better in the Union" - I'm not by the way.
And no I didn't just mean financially worse off, I meant a balance of other things (less influence, less respect).
Remember, before I get jumped on for belittling Scotland, it was a HYPOTECTICAL question to try and measure how important Independence was to you relative to more practical aspects. You say you would abide by the democratic decision - I'm sure you would and so would I - but I asked how you would vote in that case.
If the question was turned around, I would probably vote for Independence if it could be proved to me that Scotland would be better off, and I wouldn't if it could be proved to me that Scotland wouldn't be better off.
I don't think that is selling Scotland out. I think it's doing the best for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Fit like: The countries you list are all fine countries with fine people. But do they have any influence on Russia or China or the US? Through the union, we do have some influence, although I wouldn't want to overstate it. If you think that influence is irrelevant and we can leave it all to the big guns (quite literally) then I fear for all those small, independent countries.
Complain about this comment
Sigh - all that heat light and energy and only one loan comment mentioning the Calman Commission, or the possibility of a three question referendum.
The really heinious thing about whirling Wendy's ( you need to stop and start again to u turn) various utterances is that she stands accused of virtually killing the Calman Commission at birth - which at least might scotch the line that it was ever in anyway "Wendy's Commission"
Why don't we all pause for breath, wait for the deliberations of Calman and then have a referendum - something like
1. Are you in favour of the future of Scotland developing along the lines laid out in the Calman Report? ( Yes /N0)
2. Do you want independence for Scotland (Yes/No)?
Whilst its fun as a spectator sport to see Wendy handing Alex ammunition, and then getting gubbed by it, the future of Scotland is bigger than a Labour / SNP fight. We all have a say and that should be reflected in the media coverage as well.
Complain about this comment
We were discussing feeling oppressed. In that context by definition not having an 'oppressor' governing your affairs is by definition better.
Less respect? Less influence? Scotland as part of the Union has no influence either domestically or Internationally. Scotland couldn't even get its own internet address domain (.uk and not .sc) so little influence does Scotland have.
I wouldn't demand people vote to become poorer or if they felt it wasn't in their national interests. But Scots , and I say with great respect to my fellows, have been far too apathetic and indifferent to their national interests and any assertion of them has far too easily been scared or shouted down or people have been conned into thinking the Union is the option of a sensible pragmatist when we are all too quickly coming to see Union has ultimately been disastrous for Scotland and Scottish interests.
Complain about this comment
@59
If you honestly think we have the same influence as Russia, China and the US then you are living in walter mitty land.
Yes we have the UN security council seat but really we just do America's bidding at the table. Give me 5 examples of when we were the only one of the 5 who used there veto and changed policy (you can't).
The days of the empire are over. We are just a collection of average sized nations in Europe with probably less power than France or Germany (certianly on a global financial basis). All our influence does now is give backing to illegal wars and give hollow calls telling countries not to develop nukes as we continue to develop our own.
People will continue to argue that our influence on the world is a reason for keeping the union.
My response would be, what influence for good have we done recently that couldn't have been done by the European Union or by Scotland and Englan as independent countries?
Complain about this comment
Danes would never sacrifice their sovereignty to Germany so as to supposedly have greater infleuence on Germany or on the world as part of Germany. They need only look to Scotland to see that such influence would be illusory anyway.
Complain about this comment
How can I down in Kent vote for Scottish independence?
I would have no problem if I no longer had to subsidise the Scots from the excessive taxation of the English nor,
if all the Scots who live in England and whinge constantly about how awful it is returned to "bonnie Scotland" and,
whilst at it, took all the bungling Scottish politicians, currently at Westminster making a complete dog's breakfast of running the country, back with them.
ps I shall still be rooting for Rangers
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn:
Wasn't saying anything of the sort. Fully agree that influence is important although I'm not actually sure how much influence Scotland as part of the UK (or indeed the UK as a whole) has in a lot of matters. That's another debate alltogether though.
All I was saying was that a nation's viability can not be determined by population figures alone as Incandescere seemed to be implying.
Complain about this comment
Scotland subsidises England. People who dispute this are in denial.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
I'd vote for Independence even if Scotland was going to be worse off.
Reasons?
I'd blame the Union for not building Scotland up to be managable alone.
I also would vote for Independence even if it was going to make Scotland worse off because it shall give the younger generation something to work for.
We live in a Nanny State and it sickens until I look to the East and see the real people who know the meaning of work and who has true ambition in life to get out of poverty.
Brigadierjohn:
The Union has influence with Russia?
Russia has influence with Britain actually because half of Europe depend of Russia for energy and Britain will eventually to.
China? Did you know that if you add all the NATO countries armies then China still has the largest military of them all?
China is the new World Power and Britain is nothing compared to what China is capable of.
USA? Just who led the war into Iraq and which country followed behind on a leash? USA agian has influence with Britain not the otherway around.
But Scotland is not Independent and who knows what allies we shall have in future when we are. Many in USA are immigrants from Scotland so maybe we shall have the influence of USA on our side?
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
There was a time when Scotland did subsidise England.
But with the success of London I doubt that is the case now.
Both countries can stand on their own two feet seperate now.
Why should the Union continue to exist?
Complain about this comment
Dear Fit_Like
I was only asking! (whether Scotland could be independently viable)
You make a good point (in Item 56), but in any interim between independence and playing catch-up with some of the countries you list, for as long as it takes, might not Scotland (and the Union for that matter) become worse off than now?
Alan Duncan in Radio 4's "Question Time" on 9 May 2008 (in response to the question, "Who is the greatest liability for Labour - Wendy Alexander or Gordon Brown?)" put it this way:-
"Look, it's very easy to say to hell with the Scots and let's just be English and let England govern England, and from a Conservative point of view that would be in our interests; we'd find it much easier to be in government. But please, please, please never forget that the union, the United Kingdom of Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland is a precious international asset - one plus one plus one plus one equal far more than four. We'd lose our seat on the Security Council, we'd have splits within our own island, we'd have all sorts of difficulty I think and disarray. Stick with the union, go through this difficult patch, make it work and let's not be rash because in the years ahead future generations would sorely regret it."
The way I see it, Scotland's heart mustn't rule it's head.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
I appreciate your honesty about voting for Independence even if Scotland were worse off. I won't bother arguing with you about independence in future since it is obvious I couldn't convince you not to vote for it.
Before I stop though I have a couple of comments on your reasons.
1) Why should the Union have built Scotland (or England, Wales or Northern Ireland for that matter) up to be manageable alone. It's purpose is to manage the Union as a whole.
2) I'm sure many of the harder working elements of the "younger generation" would be grateful to you to give them a chance for something to work for (NOT). But why should they suffer because a bunch of welfare dependent chavs can't be bothered to get off their backsides.
Complain about this comment
Incandescere:
Can you please tell us what kind of difficulty and disarray Scotland and England would have if we went our seperate ways?
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Scotland should be in the state of self-managment if Britain developed Scotland far enough.
I am sure they would. I am also sure that many tax-payers would agree with me that the Nanny State has to end and that it has had a negative effect on society and now you have a generation of 'I can't be bothered' types.
You should work or face being in such a tight spot that well you would'nt survive.
Survival of the fittest.
In some cases you can get more money by claiming benifits then by working and then you get a free council house and rent paid for you by siging a few papers.
Should we give the younger generation that option of survival?
Or am I breaking some sort of Human Rights? A right to choose not to work and live off the State?
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter:
Actually I agree with you about the Nanny state and the effect it is having on our youth.
But that is actually a Government policy issue and not really a direct effect of being in the Union.
What would the SNP's policies be with regard to cutting benefits to encourage people to work etc. Would an Independent Scotland really be any different in these areas than now.
"Survival of the fittest" is a bit hard in today's civilised world. You'd be happy to be put down if you became ill and couldn't work would you?
Complain about this comment
Scotland still sends a surplus each year to Westminster. That's called a subsidy.
The Tories know, just as Labour do, that losing Scotland is losing a hugely important asset to them in so many ways. That's why they'll do anything to keep Scotland on board. If the Tories thought differently they'd crank up the rhetoric and policy threats and if Labour thought differently would have given up the unionist ghost long ago.
Complain about this comment
The Union's 'purpose' was never to manage the Union as a whole. It was to serve England's and more specifically the English ruling classes interests. And very little has changed these last three hundred years.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
My point was if an Independent Scotland was worse off that are my reasons why I see it as a benifit.
If an Independent Scotland works the same way I will put up with it.
And yes I would choose to end my life if I had an uncurable disease or stuck in my bed for the rest of my life.
Unless I had the money to see the world and hire someone to take care of me while I saw the world.
Complain about this comment
In response to Thomas_Porter (Item 71):-
Sorry, no! A qualification for having a vote for independence really ought to be knowledge and wisdom. You need a great deal of foresight and I don't find too much of it in the debate - which has a way to go yet I imagine. Before you cast your vote you need to think about the issues and work out whether it couldn't get worse for you. If 5.12 million Scots are thinking of breaking something, 50 million people south of the border might just have something to say about it when they wake up to what has been going on, don't you think?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
As I?ve said before, I?m one of the undecided?s that both camps have to try and convince. The that it is the pro-independence camp that have to prove their case and not the pro-union one doesn?t really cut it. If the pro-independence camp give me good, solid reasons for why I should support them and the pro-union camp stick to their current position then, at the moment anyway, it would influence the way I vote. Both sides have to argue their case. The collective Unionist cant of ?It can?t be done. We?d never manage to do it. Scotland couldn?t afford it? isn?t a winning argument; certainly without some cold, reasoned facts to back those particular assertions up. The same holds for the pro-independence camp, except in reverse.
What we need is a proper debate on the matter with as much information as possible being made available. I?m realistic enough however to admit that a lot of said information will be purely speculative as, until it happens, we can?t know for sure but, allowing for that inherent uncertainty, the attempt must be made.
Incandescere:
Don?t worry, I realised that you were just adding your logs to this particular fire. I appreciate that, should the Union dissolve, there will be difficulties (for both Scotland and the remainder of the UK). Just because there will be difficulties doesn?t mean it shouldn?t be done if the end result justifies it however. We have a long history of having ingenuity so, should it come to pass, I suspect any problems that do get thrown up would not be insurmountable.
As for Duncan Reid?s comments; this island already has splits and divisions, we wouldn?t be having this debate if that wasn?t the case. Might it not be the case that independence would allow us to ?heal? some of those perceived injustices (ie who is subsidising who, the West Lothian Question etc) and actually allow Scotland and the remainder of the UK to work together to build a stronger partnership on those areas of mutual interest than we currently do. Would it not, maybe, relieve some of conflicts that are based on prejudice and misinformation?
Ok, that?s probably being overly idealistic but if independence does become a reality, should we not strive to achieve such goals?
?Scotland?s heart mustn?t rule its head? ? absolutely, couldn?t agree more.
Complain about this comment
Cause for additional confusion?
In event we have a referendum, and the vote is a "Yes" for negotiating an independence settlement with the rest of the UK - Would the Scottish Labour MSPs and MPs (and the Scots Liberals and Tories for that matter) make common cause with the Scottish Government to help get the best deal for Scotland?
Perhaps one that Brian and his colleagues may wish to ask of the political worthies and hangers-on that they mingle with?
Complain about this comment
Incandescere:
Shall the Union stop Scottish Independence?
Have they the legal right to stop when a majority vote for Independence?
Scotland can be successful just like the many other states our size.
Unless there is something wrong with Scotland.
But you fail to tell me the difficulties Scotland and England would face if we go our seperate ways?
Fit_Like:
I am guessing you are Pro-Independence for the time being?
For reading this Blog alone you can see far more Nationalists showing facts and figrues then the Unionists scare stories on how can Independent Scotland can not afford anything.
Complain about this comment
alfarcher
If you want to vote for Scottish independence, all you have to do is move up here ..... we let most folk in.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout/incandescere (by the way, is that Italian for becoming incandescent):
The three of us seem to be trying to get the same points over to the blinkered and unbending Thomas Porter. At least I think we agree that he's a lost cause as far as susceptibility to reasoned argument goes. Is there any point in winding him up? I fear he may reinvent himself by another name if we refuse to pander to his self-importance.
I dared to suggest there was some benefit in a channel of communication with the superpowers, however narrow and ineffective it may be, and got a pompous lecture on global politics.
My take on it is this: When the Chinese dragon roars - and it will, mightily, within 20 years - we will be a subservient little nation doing their cheap labour. It won't matter a toss whether it is the UK or Scotland, so independence is an irrelevance.
India will be the following superpower, and ditto our position.
The big political question today is: Do we use what unity we have to stave off the inevitable for as long as possible, or do we cave in now and learn Chinese?
But will the Thomas Porters of this world wake up and consider it? No! They'd rather be kings o' their ain kailyards, scoring cheap, but triumphant, wee points, oblivious to the looming shadows.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
Im all ears when it comes to hearing the arguments on how the Union has benifited Scotland over the years.
You fail to put forward any reasonable arguments.
And you were the one who stated that in the Union we have some influence over these countries...(China, Russia, USA)
I simply pointed out how flawed your statement was.
Our Unity is within Europe and NATO and that is how we shall take on the world.
Just give me one arguement for the Union please.
I have asked countless times already.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn #82
I would have thought that the unity found in Europe or Nato would be the likely counter to your vision of doom at the hands of the Chinese.
In truth, I am mystified as to why China or India should be perceived as a threat at all. I think it is a good thing that these countries are getting stronger economically, and hopefully in 20 years time will be lifting the vast majority of their peoples out of what we would consider to be abject poverty.
Complain about this comment
Fitlike: Some very good, fair points there, fully accepted. But I never said Scotland "can't do it" or anything like that. My position is that I'm a proud Scot and British. I like it that way. I don't really see the need to change it.
Permit me one wee example: Scotland is independent. A Black Watch soldier of our ceremonial/peace-keeping/national defence unit, is on guard at Edinburgh Castle, getting his picture taken.
In Afghanistan, or wherever, BBC News tells us the Royal Greenjackets are under heavy fire and taking losses.
What does the Black Watch man say? Stuff the English? It's not my fight?
Any Scottish soldier of my acquaintance would say: "We should be there! We trained with these guys. They are our brothers."
Scottish or British? If you're self-confident enough, free of cringe, it's easy to be both.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
I do agree with you there John.
I would be willing to travel to Iraq and fight alongside the British soldiers after Scottish Independence. We started together and so we shall finish it together.
From personal experience your taking it a bit far that the Scottish Soldiers think of their English counter parts as brothers.
But can an Independent Scotland not support the United Kingdom through wars?
Can you provide me with one reason why the Union is great, one reason that I can not counter argue with you for and have to admitt that you are right?
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter: The union gave a totally bankrupt Scotland (post Darien) a gateway to the world, previously only available to English traders who had closed us out with their navy. The resultant wealth, from tobacco, sugar, sadly slaves, etc., let us build shipbuilding and engineering bases that led the world, and outlets to sell the products. It let Scots be part of empire building, finding new lives and reaching high office, bringing doctors, administrators, teachers etc., to primitive people. And the Enlightenment, where we opened eyes to a new world.
Scotsmen on the make, with the muscle of the British Army and Navy behind them, were the most admired businessmen anywhere. Some of it was reprehensible of course, but our very Britishness was the key and our proud Scottishness drove our success.
I don't think the English quite appreciate our contribution nowadays, but who can blame them when some among us treat them like disposable kleenex.
Grow up and recognise what made you. If you claim to be a true Scot, you cannot be long off the Irish ferry. Go read about it. Maybe you're a Pict?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
Ah yes, Scottish success over the years.
An Independent Scotlan can continue to bring the world new technology and medicine.
But today Mr John, why should the Union continue to exist?
The European Union and NATO provide us as a Super Power of our own.
The United Kingdom is out-dated is it not?
You are very out-dated on your information anyway.
And...
You are right. There is a high chance I am originally from Ireland. My family clan came from the Highlands and originally many from Ireland settled in the Highlands.
But if you want to go further about my family history we fought on many occasions against England and for Scottish Independence.
But I bet you are not suprised since I am obviosly a hardcore Nationalist.
May I ask which Scottish Clan you are from?
Complain about this comment
Thomasporter: Last one before the big match: You asked me to list benefits of the union. I did so. Now you want me to predict future benefits? Consistent?
A small benefit: if you need a visa, be prepared to be British or stay home.
It was improper of me to involve your family. Sorry. My name is not particularly Scottish, but is apparently a sept of the Clan Thomson - that's if you believe all the rubbish about clans and tartans invented by an Edinburgh tailor in Victorian times. I have some Orcadian blood, but it's mainly Ayrshire and Renfrewshire. I would have been in the Hanovarian army at Culloden! (Not the English, as some of your SNP people pretend).
I'm impressed that your forebears fought in the wars of independence (you don't mean the Hamilton by-election, do you).
I've just thought of another reason for the union to continue - the SNP!
Complain about this comment
One last time, Thomas_Porter!
It will all take years to sort out in European courtrooms no doubt. However you deserved a more considered opinion from me in Item 77. The English (whoever they are) are increasingly exercised on account of not having equivalent say on English and Union matters as Scots have on Scottish and Union matters. If the English want to maintain the Union doesn't democracy come into play there?
Also I notice that the law of unintended consequences gets invoked increasingly and so I don?t share the optimism you express in Item 78.
Perhaps I think of a time when Westminster will be under a metre of water and parliament has been moved to some more equitable location on higher ground ? say to Barnsley or some such place that is reasonably neutral in English and Scottish politics; perhaps to a time of world population growth from 6 billion to 9 billion, or perhaps to a time of food insecurity.
At a time such as any of those I don?t see that it will be helpful to have a border between England and Scotland and it concerns me that with odds of about 10 to 1 (50 million to 5.12 million) there might be a bit of rout.
In the ever ongoing attempts (and political promises) to build heaven on Earth I don?t see that there will be much scope for any national boundary.
You?ll have the last word, but I do encourage you to explore the wider prospects before you cast your vote. I don?t think it necessarily follows that adjacent countries will somehow cooperate with each more because a firmer line is drawn between them. That cooperation needs to exist regardless. I just wonder how the immigration and repatriation will be managed.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
I asked for an arguement that I could not counter argue with.
And then you started speaking about benifits that happened centuries ago.
Todays benifits please.
A visa? What would need a visa for? There would be single border control for Scotland and England and there would be no internal borders.
Nothing would change.
Don't worry I am not offended that you involved my family. I would consider it a personal test to see how far I go with my own history.
I quiz the 'Scots' abroad about Scottish Clans and their own Clan and most of them know more then I.
And for further information your main clan is MacThomas as far as I know. Thomson was a sub clan related to MacThomas.
Just like I am related to Robertson Clan through Reid which comes from my mother side of the family.
You just thought of another reason for the defence of the Union...The SNP?
I am one of the examples that show you can not kill Nationalism.
;-)
Complain about this comment
What are the chances of an independent Scotland advancing technology and medicine when it will be dominated by history-worshipping nationalists?
It'll be pennies for science and pounds for tradition.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
The Scottish Government currently controls Education and our Universities are some of the best in the world.
I am sure it took alot more then pennies and pouns to afford that type of standard.
Complain about this comment
The same universities that got a raw deal from the SNP?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
My comments weren?t directed at you personally.
As I?ve said, I?m in the undecided camp. If I display pro-independence leanings it is only because, in my opinion, that camp have, so far, been better at putting across their arguments. If I am pro anything it would be pro-more reasoned rather than emotive debate which, while it has been somewhat lacking on both camps, the Unionist side have been particularly bad at contributing to.
My big worry is that the pro-union camp continue with their largely negative campaigning. Let us remember that the during the devolution referendum, the ?No? campaign ran a highly negative campaign. Instead of putting forward intelligent reasons for why we should have continued with the then status quo (perhaps because there weren?t any), they focussed on how bad it would be. The result, well that is now history. Granted, the ?Yes? campaign would probably still have won but maybe if the ?No? campaign had been a bit more positive in their defence of how things were, the result might have been a little bit closer.
Similarly, at last year?s Scottish election, the labour party ran a campaign that was highly negative (is that an oxy-moron?) of the SNP, instead of focussing on their successes (again, maybe there weren?t any ? sorry, being cruel now). The SNP were extremely positive in their campaigning (for the record, I voted lib-dem ? would have voted Green but they didn?t have any candidates, not even on the list, in my area) and, in the end, I?m certain that it was this that contributed to their eventual win.
What is clear is that the electorate don?t like negative campaigns. My big fear is that if the pro-union camp insist on continuing in the negative fashion they have, there may well be a backlash and the independence motion could be carried by default. Granted, the stakes are higher now but if the result is close enough, this could still be a deciding factor.
Anyway, on a subject that is of far higher national importance, although it does pain me to say it, I do hope that my team?s 25 year tenure as ?The last Scottish Club to win a European Trophy? will finally come to an end tonight. My only regret is, did it HAVE to be Rangers?
Seriously though, good luck tonight.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Scotland prides herself on her education system.
Other countries, even England envy our education system.
You receive high standard treatment and it is free.
Complain about this comment
Fit_Like:
I have a question for you.
If the Unionist groups continue to run a negative campaign against Scottish Independence shall you vote for Scotland to stay apart of the United Kingdom out of pitty (Expecting there to be an overwhelming support for Independence)?
Or shall you go with the attitude 'I told you so' and vote for Scottish Indepenence because the Union ran a negative campaign and so it would be their own fault?
:-)
Complain about this comment
"Scotland prides herself on her education system."
Foolish, complacent, weak people are often proud. If the SNP truly cared about the universities, they'd have provided the funding the universities were after. Those universities are our future.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Just because the SNP did not provide the Universities with the money they are after does not mean that qaulity will fall.
There are other priorities.
And to be fair University is not everything.
Alot of companies and businesses would rather train a person up themselves.
Apprenticeships into engineering for example.
Those who actually went to Uni earn less then those who decided to take on an Apprenticeship at 16.
Complain about this comment
Thomas_Porter
I assume your toungue was firmly in your cheek when you wrote that.
But, actually the answer is neither. I will make my decision as to which way to vote depending on which side convinces me they have the stronger argument and that their desired outcome is the best overall for Scotland generally and, of course, since I am only human and driven by a modicum of self interest, me personally.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
And which of the other services that the Scottish Government are responsible for finacing would you see have their funding cut so that the Universities could have been given all the money they wanted?
Complain about this comment
Dearie me, indeed.
One wonders how many more bizarre u-turns, s-bends, flip-flops and loop-the-loops we will see from 'Scottish' Labour in their desperation to 'expose' long-standing and clearly-defined SNP policy!!
In a performance that has seen Wendy and her hangers-on adopt more positions than the Karma Sutra, all that has been exposed is the woeful disunity, dearth of principle and sheer hypocrisy of the Labour party, along with Wendy?s legendary capacity for self-delusion and blundering ineptitude as a 'leader'.
While both Wendy and Gordon contrived to publicly and wilfully misrepresent the SNP's - as well as each other's - stance in support of their own cheap and manipulative claims - with justly disastrous results - and after the farce of their press officers endlessly spinning, and failing, to justify the patently absurd - it defies belief that some within this third-rate circus have sought to award credit to this farcically-labelled 'strategy'.
One question for Wendy and her poodles:
Do they actually believe in the sovereignty of the Scottish people - i.e. the inalienable right to choose our own constitutional destiny by democratic means, regardless of existing constitutional arrangements?
Or did they assume that that inherent right could be assailed by a cheap and pathetic stunt against the only party standing for that right in principle??
If these clowns and sychophants - typified as ever by the Poodle?s Poodle, Lord Foulkes - are still kidding anyone that their hair-brained 'Wendyrendum' ploy achieved anything but further self-humiliation for what still masquerades as a 'professional' political party - they must take the entire electorate for bigger idiots than themselves!
10 out of 10 for duplicity.
Complain about this comment
Fit_Like asks:
"And which of the other services that the Scottish Government are responsible for finacing would you see have their funding cut so that the Universities could have been given all the money they wanted?"
I'd have gone for something cheaper than the £2.4 billion replacement Forth Road Bridge. Metre for metre, it must be one of the most expensive bridges ever...
I'd have possibly kept the tolls in place for the old one as well.
I would also have not wasted money on the nationalist conversation and a gaelic language football digitical channel.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim:
Some points you have to consider.
How much Universities did not receive.
And how much the channel and National Conversation cost.
Anyone can be able to tell that the channel and conversation are VERY cheap compared to what the Universities did not get.
And considering a bridge is far more important for businesses and for the public then you should not complain about money being used to replace it.
I do not here any ideas from you for a cheaper bridge so should you really complain if you can not do better?
Complain about this comment
It's quite clear that the new Forth Bridge offers extraordinarily bad value for money. A comparison with other recently finished suspension bridges shows a staggering difference in cost.
The beautiful Millau viaduct in France cost 272 million pounds in 2004. It's also the tallest bridge in the world.
The Oresund link between Sweden and Denmark cost about 1.2 billion pounds in 2000 - and at almost 8km it's one of the longest bridges ever made (and four times the length of the new Forth Bridge).
If we had effective politicians, civil servants and journalists in Scotland, we could get a bridge that was value for money. Better yet, build a tunnel that won't need as much maintainence and won't get closed in high winds.
With this, and the trams and the Parliament (which weren't the fault of the SNP), we're building up a dreadful legacy of wasteful construction projects.
Complain about this comment
Hope you all have read the Sunday Times article on how Scotland would benefit from oil.
Add to that the Sunday herald articles on PPI and how we've all been diddled , AGAIN!
Add to that the efforts being made to stop Holyrood organising the next election.
Boy, am I fed up with all this!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS