Dearie me
Oh dearie, dearie, me.
There was the kernel, the substance of an arguably good strategy in Wendy Alexander's initiative. It has, to say the least, gone somewhat agley.
Firstly, to thrive, the Scottish Labour Party needs to demonstrate a degree of autonomy. It needs, on occasion, to stand out against Westminster, including its party colleagues.
That is because Alex Salmond's single biggest pitch is that he stands for Scotland, on every occasion, on every issue, without qualification.
That has a powerful appeal for voters in . . . guess where. Successive Scottish Labour and Tory leaders have sometimes struggled to combat that.
They have donned kilts, they have quoted Burns. But they have also glanced nervously over their shoulders to see what London was thinking and altered their behaviour accordingly.
Jack McConnell knows that, for the good of his soul, he should have picked a few open fights with London.
Corageous defiance
He should, for example, have protested long, loudly and in public when attendance allowance was withdrawn by Whitehall in response to the introduction, by Holyrood, of free personal care for the elderly.
He calculated there would be other fights, other issues. He calculated that, in itself, the introduction of free care represented a courageous act of defiance.
Wendy Alexander came to office as leader of Labour in the Scottish Parliament determined to up the ante on autonomy. She wanted that to include Scottish party HQ in Glasgow.
Grand plans have since been somewhat diluted.
But Ms Alexander remained - and remains - keen to assert her political independence. Snag is she chose the issue of Scotland's independence as the battleground.
It is not, in itself, a problem that the issue of the constitution is reserved to Westminster. Arguably, a serious fight will only occur over a reserved or mixed issue - because it is now accepted in practice that Holyrood has control of fully devolved matters.
Patronising tosh
It is not, in itself, a problem that Ms Alexander sought to pursue a path that might be uncomfortable for MPs, including the PM.
Those who say, privately to the newspapers, that Ms Alexander lacks Westminster know-how are spouting patronising tosh. Are we back to seeing Holyrood as "a wee pretendy Parliament"?
The problem was the precise topic - and the timing. The future of the United Kingdom is, I would argue, a matter of passing interest for the prime minister of that United Kingdom.
Yes, Ms Alexander may have become frustrated by what she saw as indecision on the part of Gordon Brown when, demonstrably, he had been considering the topic, partly at her pressing.
But she was wrong, tactically and politically, to act without explicit sanction from the PM.
She should have acknowledged he was in trouble for other reasons, he was certain to face challenges on this at a UK level and that, further, he remains vulnerable on the subject of testing popular opinion because of his refusal to sanction a plebiscite on the EU Lisbon treaty.
It is at least arguable that, given proper planning, the challenge of holding an early referendum might have put the SNP on the back foot as Ms Alexander wished.
Under-harried
What's that, Mr Salmond? You want a referendum, just not now? Why? Scared you'll lose?
There are answers to these questions - not least pages eight and 15 of the SNP manifesto. But they are, potentially, good questions nonetheless.
Ms Alexander is adamant that, as in 1996 when Tony Blair announced a pre-legislative referendum on devolution, her strategy will ultimately be proved right.
Maybe - except that was a referendum announced by a UK Labour leader, not sprung upon one.
Wendy Alexander must hope - does hope - that once the fuss dies down the focus will return to harrying Mr Salmond. To repeat, right now he looks under-harried.
Finally, where are we? The campaign for an early referendum is over before it began. Alex Salmond says no. So do the Tories and LibDems.
Ms Alexander now accepts in practice her focus shifts to the Calman Commission review of devolution.
And 2010? A Scottish Government sanctioned referendum? Labour now say they will have to study the terms although, to be fair, Ms Alexander never offered a blank cheque, whatever comments were made by others.
If she remains leader by then, however, it seems to me it would be very difficult for the party group in Holyrood to turn down the chance of testing popular views on independence.
If he remains prime minister by then, would Gordon Brown be any more persuaded?
PS: All the best to Rangers on Wednesday. Here's hoping they bring back the UEFA Cup for themselves and for Scotland.
PPS: Bet they're wishing they could take Mike McCurry with them as referee, after his supporting role at Ibrox on Saturday.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't football copy the rugby practice of using TV monitoring - by an unnamed official - to assist the ref when he's unsure or unwilling to take a decision?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~29~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian you go on about wendys timing
wendy said you pick the time that is right on the politics show. That is exactly what the snp have done.
They have picked a time that is right for a referendum.
They have started a conversation a conversation that is too finish in 2010 when the people of scotland not the politicians will get the final unequivecal say.
Wendy alexander did not pick a time that was right for the people of scotland she picked a time that was right for her to score political points.
The scottish electorate are not fools they can see right through this.
I have to say i think the callman commision is now redundant. What is the point of more powers when we the scottihs public will be getting a vote on all of them in 2010.
Complain about this comment
I find it hard to believe that Labour are against the option on Independence.
In my own opinion each Political Party should be quite about a referendum untill 2010 and then test public opinion then.
If the Scottish Public would like to continue in the Union, that the Unionist Parties are keen to state over and over then there should be no problem waiting till 2010 and there should be no problem of having Independence as an option at the same time.
It does give the impression that the Unionist Parties are afraid of their own words.
"The Scottish Public want to continue in the Union..."
If they were that confident that test it on the public - simple as.
If the SNP can stand tall and say we believe that the Scottish Public would like Indepenence and are willing to test that opinion in 2010 then why can the Union Parties not?
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
After watching wee Wendy on the bbc today along with David Mcletchie, I am amazed that I am now considering voting Tory for the first in my life, something I have never done and thought I would never do! I would rather vote for someone as electable as the monster raving loony party than the labour numpty disreputable party!
Wee Wendy said the SNP were telling lies, this from the same Wee Wendy that claimed the PM agreed that there should be a referendum, but, apperently the PM does not agree. then came the play on words that would baffle the most ardent scrabble player. Oh and by the way remember she broke the law but didnae dae anythin wrang?
If the SNP are running scared of a referendum and want to hold off til 2010 as in their manifesto, then what does that make our Gordon when he chickened out of an election late last year? Perhaps we could all get the chance sooner rather than later to give our views on gordon's scrapping of the ten pence tax band, the massive taxation on fuel, rising house repossesions, or, is Gordon running scared?
Wee Wendy may claim she is representing the views of Scotland, however, it is patently obvious that she is just playing politics with the referendum and the SNP, and making a mess of it.
Perhaps Labour would get elected if there were an smidgin of integrity about them. I remember being told that in the Central belt Labour could put up a monkey and it would get elected, well I think it would be an insult to the intelect of a monkey to compare one to the present lot of labour MSP's
Complain about this comment
Wendy's position has changed every day this week so it's hard to predict what it will be in 2010. And her position only matters if she's still leader of her party in Holyrood.
But today she said quite clearly that Labour would not vote against a referendum bill. They might want to debate the wording of the question but they won't vote against the principle of a referendum. Why not? Because "Labour aren't scared of giving the people their say." That is, apart from the PM, Wendy's brother and the rest of the UK Cabinet!
Which means that the Scottish Parliament will approve a referendum bill in 2010, unless of course Gordon Brown forces Wendy into another U-turn and orders Labour MSPs to vote against it.
But what I still don't understand is why Wendy is so keen on only offering a choice between independence and the status quo. Surely, as all the polls show, that is the SNP's best (and only) chance of winning.
How long will it be before Wendy calls for a three-way referendum with 'more powers' being defined by the Calman Commission. That would be the logical solution and would all but guarantee that independence would be defeated, at least this time round.
Complain about this comment
Dear Brian, time you hacks started looking after the voters a bit more, after all most of us can't get near a politician to ask the 'arkward questions' so we rely on you. Rather than trying to stir the political soup for a good story, try asking questions from the public on the Politics Show. Next time you interview Wendy ask her why she was prepared to ask the Scottish electorate to make an informed decison on a subject when the electorate clearly do not have all the evidence to make that decision, never mind her political strategies what about us.
Complain about this comment
I cannot believe that none of the media including yourself Brian have held Labour to account over their repeated nonsense claim that they have called the SNP’s bluff, and that they are timing the referendum for their benefit, when in actual fact this referendum is not a bluff and never was a bluff. It has always been the case that it will happen in 2010.
Talk about hypocrisy about the timing of the referendum. Labour only wanted it now because they know they will lose the next UK election. If anyone is yellow and running scared it is Labour.
I am amazed anyone can try to defend them or their “tactics”. They are nothing more than children playing playground politics and running away with the ball because it didn’t go their way.
Complain about this comment
A_Scottish_Voice:
Very true.
Labour are treating the public like fools.
With their recent lies and u-turns, do they really think that the Scottish Public or even the whole of the UK do not notice it all?
Complain about this comment
Where are messers Browne and Cairns?
Complain about this comment
"But Ms Alexander remained - and remains - keen to assert her political independence".
Ah, but she can't. She doesn't have any.
Complain about this comment
Brian one other thing
You are saying that wendy seeks autonomy for the scottish labour group.
So wendy wants autonomy from westminster for her scottish labour group but she does not feel that this situation mirrors that of scotland in that the scottish people seek autonomy from westminster?
Wendy would rather shackle the people to westminster but not the labour group?
This brian is where her story falls apart.
There is no autonomy for scottish labour they are london labour if they do not stand up for the scottish peoples wishes.
If wendy seeks an indepedent labour party in scotland then by default she also seeks an independent scotland.
Complain about this comment
Heavens ,where did all the comments go?
Having watched the politics show , may I offer a muted pat on the back to Glen Campbell.
Complain about this comment
brian
when will government ministers stop coming on tv trying to justify wendy alexander.all they seem to be doing is digging a deeper hole for themeselves every time they speak.
Complain about this comment
What I dont understand is the amount of leeway the media gives New labour ,when John Major and Conservatives were on there last legs the Media in Scotland didnt give them an inch .
What is the connection with Labour and the Scottish Media (apart from the obvious Kirst Wark) that you are being soft on them?
They have lied and lied and lied to us ,in Westminster and Holyrood and they expect us the UK public to support them.
If Wendy and the Labour Party in Scotland want to recover they will need to become a fereral/separate party , support the Westminster party when they feel its right but be free to do there own thing.
Gordon Brown is a busted flush Wendy and The Scottish branch have to think about there own future not Gordons and not Wesminsters.
Complain about this comment
13 new poster are you? just noticed that have you about the media.
Welcome to the club of other people who have noticed it as long ago as last may and before.
Complain about this comment
Brian
As a dedicated nationalist I am having a great laugh at what the media would call spin from Wendy Alexander, but what most of us would call downright lies.
How many questions from Glen Campbell did she fail to answer today? how about most of them. When evading the phone conversation with Gordon Brown on Tuesday night question I thought that her nose was going to start to grow.
I think one thing the media have missed is the foresight of Alex Salmond and the SNP. Just think, the media now think that when the manifesto was produced Alex Salmond knew all the following would happen,
Broon Prime Minister
Broon worst PM ever
Broon would bottle election
Labour would get a kicking at local elections in 2008
Boris mayor of London
And the best one of all, Broon would put off election until 2010 to suit the SNP.
The man must be a genius. No wonder his government is so popular.
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor's piece today reminds me that what we are reading here, for all that it may be readable and on occasion moderately thought-provoking, is, nonetheless, coming from the establishment's major mouthpiece, the BRITISH Broadcasting Corporation. The anglosaxophone, as I remember it being called in the 1970s by SNP activists, exists to serve and preserve the Union. It is an organ of the British state. Let us never be lulled into forgetting that.
I have searched in vain for any media report, from north or south of the border, that is not highly critical of practically every aspect of Ms Alexander's highly dubious controversial doings of this past week. Mr Taylor, however, although he concedes that her cunning plan was botched and has blown up in her face, does not express the matter so forthrightly and claims for her that those who say that Ms Alexander lacks Westminster know-how "are spouting patronising tosh". Ah, now he is more forthright, when attempting to defend this indefensibly ineffectual champion of the Union.
The consensus of opinion that I find to be out there is that Ms Alexander has shown herself to be the ineptly amateur, dishonest, blundering, cheap political trickster that we know her to be. Furthermore, she has demonstrated that she is also a ruthlessly dangerous ineptly amateur, dishonest, blundering, cheap political trickster who is apparently worryingly detached from reality.
This whole pantomime has not been about the leader of Scottish Labour bravely asserting her parliamentary group's autonomy vis-a-vis the UK party. It has been about an arrogantly self-willed rogue politician who has caused in one week by her undisciplined and chaotic blundering about incalculable damage to the electoral prospects of the Labour Party on both sides of the border and to the Union, which, after over 300 years of being resolutely protected by unionist parties against any prospect of coming under assault by means of a referendum on independence, now stands defenceless against the coming constitutional storm which the Scottish Governent's scheduled independence referendum will unleash in 2010.
Mr Brown will almost certainly not be in office then to pick up the pieces. If he means what he told The Sunday Telegraph about doing "whatever is necessary" to protect the Union, he will contrive to get rid of this walking disaster this week. The SNP will no doubt be hoping that he will not prove to be sufficiently decisive to do so.
Complain about this comment
Glen Campbell showed us a woman completely out of her depth ,refusing to answer questions, justifying faux pas as strategic , telling porkies and in general displaying all that is wrong with the Scottish Labour party.She surely cannot continue in office after this display.The ball is now truly in Alec Salmonds court, all he has to do is play keepy uppy until after the next general election and Scotland will endorse his policy.
Complain about this comment
The hypocrisy of Scottish Labour beggars belief, and the scottish media seem unwilling to pursue this as a line of enquiry.
Wendy says the SNP are being disingenous and delaying because they think it will help their cause and improve the chances of a yes vote.
But by demanding to have it now, and definitely not later, surely the labour party are demonstrating their wish to have the outcome go their way, and only their way?
They, and the scottish media, seem to think the electorate are thick. Bring it on - a uk general election that is, and wee Wendy will be replaced within 6m of Labour losing 10 Downing St.
Complain about this comment
What real evidence is there of the independence debate damaging the country ...methinks this is a all hot air..perhaps some of our labour friends could elaborate?
high fuel prices and food prices don't count!
Complain about this comment
Karinm,
ive been a poster for a while ,I had to adjust my poster name after the BBC changed there log on for these boards.But today i watched Glen Campbell do quite a good job ,however even he let Wendy drone on and spout her lies .It seems as though Labour are such a mess that the media just cant believe it and are hoping that Labour will return to there glory days .
Complain about this comment
To be quite honest it has been Labour who has been rambling on about a referendum on Independence.
If it was going to damage the country then why have they brought it up?
Complain about this comment
I see a certain amount of censorship has broken out on this thread.
The BBC defending Ms Alexander, the indefensible defender of the Union, against her critics?
Complain about this comment
I cannot agree with Brian that the Prime Minister only has a passing interest in the constitutional future of Scotland.
For all Labour's talk about the benefits of the Union they seem unable to put forward a mature and coherent case in defence of rule from Westminster. This is precisely why they repeatedly resort to scare-mongering and bland assertions about there being 'no appetite' for independence.
Brown has made clear that he will do anything to safeguard the Union. This is all about safeguarding his own political career and the future UK electoral prospects of his party. If Scotland leaves the UK Labour will find it virtually impossible to win power at Westminster and all Scots MPs would be out of a job including Gordon Brown.
How much more does the PM need to have riding on Scotland's constitutional future to get interested ?
Complain about this comment
Makinghistory:
You've made a reasonable point.
"For all Labour's talk about the benefits of the Union they seem unable to put forward a mature and coherent case in defence of rule from Westminster."
For all the apparent greatness by being apart of the Union we fail to hear about the benifits.
Complain about this comment
Tony Blair Prime Minister in 1996.
Who would have thought it?
Complain about this comment
But, hey. Wendy did get the support for her position from one Michael Forysyth. Remember him?
I tell you this, Wendy, with friends like that, you know you're REALLY in trouble !
Complain about this comment
Langspine (19)...
The way Labour and the other english parties see it, independence is wrong because they'd all be out of a job!
Imagine if all those Labour MP's had to come back to Scotland cause their nice earners in London came to an end! All because of those damned SNP people!!
Won't somebody think about their expenses accounts? Oh the humanity!
Worst bit is most of the Labour bawbags who are now saying the Union is the best thing since sliced bread were actually in favour of independence back in the day before they saw how much MP's get paid.
Gordon himself apparently was in favour of home-rule. Yet today he declared he would never let the Union fall under any circumstances!
Wonder if that "any circumstances" includes the Scottish People deciding to vote in favour of a free Scotland? Would he stand in the way of a Free Scotland then?
If so, there are words for political leaders that dictate to the People what is going to happen even if said People say otherwise.
And they almost always come to a very sticky end.
Complain about this comment
Oh, and to Crissbarrie (18), Wendy wouldn't be replaced within 6 minutes of Labour losing the UK general elections.
My understanding of snap election rules, with the need for 6 months campaign first is the earliest they could now hold a UK general would be December, which has never gone down well; turnout would be dreadfully low as everyone gears up for hogmanay and xmas. May next year is far more likely. And that's the earliest. Labour as they stand in the polls will want to drag it out to the latest possible point.
Even if they did decide to get it over with though, an election is at least 6 months a way, more likely a year.
Wendy won't last 6 weeks.
In fact, I'd say its possible, nay probably she won't last 6 days if the headlines continue as they are.
Rumour on the blogosphere (as dependable as it is, I know) is that as I type this, meetings are being had with our old pal Joke to come back for 6 months whilst they have a full blown leadership contest, and that as soon as he can be persuaded, Wendy will be pushed. Maybe next weekend, more likely midweek.
Depending on how quickly they're moving, and how bad it really is, the rumours could be only a mere echo of how things are going, and we could be waking up tomorrow to a press conference at Labour Party HQ. As I said though, I doubt it. More likely next week. She might even last into June.
Alex Salmond may just decide to give up this whole politics thing and emigrate to Jamaica.
Wouldn't put much money on either though...
Complain about this comment
Well, that was the week that was.
The unconventional leadership techniques of Wendy Alexander have mesmerized the bewildered public.
A double U-turn has apparently been performed on the subject of an independence referendum, and Scottish Labour supporters and activists have no more been able to keep up with the pace of brilliantly executed screw-ups and prestidigitation than have the rest of us.
The upshot of all of this clowning around? God knows, but it looks suspiciously as if Scottish Labour has committed suicide and the Union is doomed.
A week is a long time in politics.
Complain about this comment
Prof John Curtice said yesterday:
"Advocates of the Union should certainly want to hold any referendum in the most advantageous circumstances possible."
That's what we call politics. It's what the SNP is doing and it's what Gordon Brown did last year when he decided against a General Electiion in the face of Labour's plummeting Poll results.
It could also be called COMMON SENSE.
Brian I have advocated for years the use of TV in all sport but particularly football.
United were robbed against Rangers. They weren't the first and they won't be the last. I have no doubt that it is Celtic and Rangers who are blocking moves for the use of cameras.
Having said that, even as a very non Ger I hope they win the UEFA Cup for themselves, for Glasgow and for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Your blogs at the moment always seem to be trying hard to justify Wendys thinking, as if making excuses for her.
You should be covering what's going on in the Scottish Government, rather than the circus sideshow which Wendy has become.
Really at the heart of all this is cronyism throughout the Labour party, and especially at the top. How can Wendy expect to convince anybody she is independent from Westminster when she is a personal friend of Gordon. Quite hilarious really, and impossible for any independent thought at all, especially since these people are totally opposed to self-determination for Scotland.
Labour MSPs/MPs seem to picked on the basis of who they know, and who they are friends with, rather than any form of competence. This is the heart of the matter today, and is the route of all the Labour woes.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Less like harrying, more like hari-kari (or hara-kiri if written correctly).
Complain about this comment
With profound apologies to Fred W Leigh and James Callaghan....
To be sung by The Dowager Duchess and Nicol Who at the next meeting of the Stomp on Independence At All Costs Commission.
We’re in a nice bit of trouble, we confess;
Somebody with us has had a game.
We should by now be proud and happy Brits
But we’ve still got to keep oorsel’s at hame.
A referendum was proposed by Bendy Wendy A
In a very less than gentlewomanaly way;
We Lent her our support
So the Union would remain
But punctually at twelve o'clock to-day…..
Chorus:
There we were, waiting at the Parly,
Waiting at the Parly, waiting at the Parly;
When we found she'd left us in a stew.
It really did upset us all, I say !
All at once, she sent us oot a note
Here's the very note, this is what she wrote:
"Can't get away for a Referendum today,
Paw Broon won't let me!"
Complain about this comment
The Independence debate is good but the union parties say that Scotland is subsidised by England. If this is really true why oh why are they doing every thing to keep us in the Union? The recent Grangemouth strike the UK Treasury was losing £50M a day. Also with the referendum in 2010. I say also bring it on but the Scottish nation have a very good habit of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory. If this referendum happens and Alec loses. You can bet it will be a stick that labour and the rest of the unionist will beat this country with. Think not getting to the world cup but a 100 times worse the hangover will go on for decades
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
Quite true.
On one side we are told that we are nothing more then a theiving group who make little or no money and then claim it all back from England.
And then the same group will turn around and speak about the success of the last 300 years and how the Union was the best thing since sliced bread.
Which is it?
It cannot be both.
Complain about this comment
In Wendy's House of see-saws, there's a crucial and deliberate 'forgetting' of a central point: once the referendum was tabled by the SNP for 2010, Parliamentary rules prohibit Labour (or anyone else) from introducing an earlier, separate Bill. It therefore insensed me to see Wendy accusing the SNP of 'deliberately blocking' Wendy's move. Maybe she should go and read the rules.
Complain about this comment
Brian, why all the hand-wringing and gnashing of teeth over how Wendy is going to get out of her latest self-created "quandry"?
If she can do a total about face on whether she wants a referendum, then what is there to stop her doing another one when the time comes to hold the referendum in 2010?
If you've already shown you don't have an ounce of integrity by playing politics with the very future of the country, what does Wendy have to lose by simply changing her mind yet again - or as many times as she pleases?
Whether or not Wendy is still "leader" in 2010 is irrelevant. Or are we all meant to believe it's somehow "okay" for a different party leader to "distance themselves" from Wendy's new policy stance because "I didn't agree with it at the time"?
The Scottish public is heartily sick of this sort of patronising, self-serving, self-absorbed, "find-the-lady" style of card-trick political posturing.
Whilst an increasingly desperate Press tries to pretend Scottish Labour are still a viable political opposition, we all know the truth is that Scotland left Labour behind at the last election - for good.
Complain about this comment
Here is something for you all to ponder, what ever your political allegiance. Say referendum happens in 2010 SNP loses. You can bet your bottom dollar the nationalist cause will be a spent force and we will be ruled from London for eternity. England and the establishment will be able to do what it likes. There will be no one to say hey wait a minute we are being shafted here. Did Jack do any of that when he was in office? eh .... No. I can see the Whitehall Manderins rubbing their little hands with glee. Ok you say we have a Scottish Parliament, yes but it will be run by people like Wendy that when Number 10 shouts jump she says how high!!!
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
You cannot kill Nationalism.
If we loose in 2010 then we will be back to show Scotland can do better.
;-)
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
I don't support the SNP but I disagree with you.
I see no reason for the SNP to disband if they fail the win the referendum. They have quite large support from pro-Union voters because of their platform of "Fighting for Scotland" even though those voters may vote against them in the referendum (voting for increased powers say).
In fact, you could argue that SNP support could increase significantly following a "no" vote simply because, with the indepedence question out of the way, they are seen as a better alternative to the current opposition parties.
Complain about this comment
I don't think they will disband but I think it will set the cause back years. I think the country should go for it as a personal opinion. As my granny always said you won't know until you try and don't get anywhere without trying. If it doesn't go well we can always renegotiate a new act of union with England, one that doesn't set out rules for taxation of salt!!!! ( I know that's what was important at the time) Or how about a union with the Danes or the USA. Scotland become the 51st State of the US, can't be mutch worse than we have now. The point I am trying to make is we won't know if it will be better or worse until we try.
Complain about this comment
Banntyne 13:
Personally, rather than the USA or Denmark, I'ld rather negotiate Union with Norway and more importantly their $160 BILLION National Oil Fund (That's the cash from North Sea Oil that they HAVEN'T Spent).
There's historical precedence - "The Maid of Norway" ?
And frankly, we're more like the Nogs than the Dread Sassun.
Complain about this comment
The laugh a minute politcs in Scotland !
I really must thank all those who participated in making this last week a feast of fun and frivolity !
I look forward to seeing who is next wheeled out to defend the Labour party in Scotland.
And to tell it like it is'nt!
I am quite willing to wait for a referendum in 2010 , after all Ms Alexander has been going on about waiting 30 years, evn she must agree that after thirty years another couple makes no difference.
Meanwhile, she could perhaps ,tell us all what the benefits of the union have been / will be.
I would be most interested to have them spelled out in words of one syllable.
I would even like to hear that from messrs Goldie and Stevens.
Finally , may I congratulate the BBC on its wondrous attempts to spin this whole comedy routine in favour of the Labour party , despite the availibilty of programmes on youtube and i players.
My particular favourites include Ms Blears (of the cats got the cream visage) on Newsnight with Jeremy, and the stuttering mess of Ian Grey ,add to that Mr Chisolm and dear Wendy.
My how I've laughed !
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
Your talk of a "cause" is where we have to disagree. I'm not interested in "the cause". For me the argument for independence boils down to whether my life will be better after independence.
I am pretty content with my life. OK, I gripe about how much tax/fuel duty I pay and I dispair at the incompetance of our politicians but I'm reasonably happy, my kids are healthy and are getting a good education. In order for me to vote for independence, you'd have to convince me, with hard data, that I'd be better off. I suspect many people are like that.
While I might agree with your granny in general about "you don't know until you try", Independence is not like trying to ride a bike and then falling off and grazing your knee.
If things did not go well, then negotiating to (re)join another union would be done on the back foot from a position of weakness. And, to use the argument for Independence, the only reason I could see, in that case, for a country to form a union with Scotland would be to get their hands on the oil revenues. So you'd be back where you started only probably worse.
Some people on this blog may call the above "scaremongering" because I am not putting forward a positive argument for remaining in the Union. But I'm just trying to look after my family and I won't risk them for an "act of faith".
Complain about this comment
I have a question. In last weeks Times there was an online vote on wether Scotland should be independant. There was an 83% vote for yes. I know that is mostly from English readers, but I think that is very important. Now, what happens when the oil runs out and we are part of a union that does not want us? When we really can't pay our way? No oil money has been, or will be, put aside for then. We will live in a country with no industry and no chance of the massive inward investment needed to get us on our feet. There will be a Conservative government then and I think you will soon see a dramatic change in the Barnett formula. We will probably see that in 2010.
Complain about this comment
Bangingonabout:
Scotland could be safer from International Terrorism.
Britain has participated in many wars and is considered as America's poodle.
Perhaps you children is better off in a country that has no past aggression against the muslim states?
Complain about this comment
Obsessing over what Alexender says or is thinking is political theatre of a mildly amusing type but ultimately irrelevant. I can't help feeling accusations of political parochialism that have dogged the Scots Parliament since 1999 ring true here because who really cares what she thinks when she so obviously doesn't care what the people of Scotland think.
I would like to see political commentators either destroy her or ignore her because that's all she deserves. I can't help agreeing that she is somehow being pandered to and the 'bluff' is unwittingly being portrayed as being something of a win for labour and a black mark against the SNP when even the least interested punter can tell that her u-turn and subsequent pronouncements are nothing short of a disgrace.
Complain about this comment
Contrast two views - of Wendy I am perplexed, of Mike McCurry I am apoplectic. Like you Brian, I think that those decisions on Satuday were ridiculous and I am behind Craig Levein 101% in his comments after the match. Shocking.
As to Wendy (less important, but does appear to be the topic), she continues to act like a complete amateur. What is Simon Pia doing? Is she listening to him at all? Its such a shambles and it maybe, maybe that we now see that seismic shift in Scottish political opinion that Salmond predicted last year. Only, its Labours own fault, not the nats.
Complain about this comment
I've been away for a few days, and what do I find on return? The same sad people repeating the same nonsensical arguments ad nauseum. Brian, it may be time to ditch your blog, because it's polluted by trolls and mobbers (thank you pattymkirkwood!) and is no longer a forum for any spectrum of opinion. Someone trots out a party line and an opponent follows with the opposite as sure as night follows day.
Of course "the other side" is stupid! We know this because even the best, in relative terms, of Holyrood are selection panel rejects for Westminster candidacies. The rest are time-servers from, with respect, tenants' associations, cooncils and trade unions. In short, single-issue rabble-rousers.
These people are running (ruining?) our country? Be afraid, very afraid!
So, folks, what's the point in debating whether Alex is smarter than Wendy? Politically he is, of course. But a leader of our nation? Either of them? Get real!
Does anyone out there relate anything to issues like food and fuel prices, poverty-level pensions, the filth on our streets (you can interpret that any way you like) and the demise of Scotland's once world-leading education system (just read the blogs)? I know, I know, I know! Wrap them all in a kilt and add a sprig of heather.....
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
I'd much prefer Alex Salmond as a Leader of our Nation.
I say lets have an Independent Scotland and check out what Salmond has to offer.
Complain about this comment
bannatyne13 :
I do not agree that a 'no' vote in a referendum would kill off Scottish Nationalism or commit the SNP to defacto acceptance of the Union.
The creation of a Scottish Parliament, the election of an SNP Government and the referendum on independence are all products of a longer-term cultural and political process. The new-found and much-discussed confidence that exists in Scotland will not simply evaporate.
There are only two realistic outcomes. A narrow 'no' vote would be a short-term set-back but provide long-term encouragement to Nationalists and the struggle for independence would go on. A 'yes' vote would provide a mandate for a negotiated independence from which there would be no turning back.
Complain about this comment
Thomasporter, you simply cannot resist the riposte, can you? To follow your logic, let's all drink hemlock and see if we die.
Stop and think now and again.
Complain about this comment
makinghistory: Are you winding us all up? "No" means keep trying. "Yes" means for all time? On a handful of votes. Some people just won't take "no" for an answer. So what's the point of asking the question?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
Have you a problem with one person sharing their opinion with another?
I'd much prefer Alex Salmond as Leader of Scotland, Independent or not.
We have all witnessed the disaster that Labour has been recently and I am sure all who chose to vote for different Parties last elections are glad.
Complain about this comment
Brian, I'm sorry - I'm sure a few hundred thousand others will join me in bafflement at your take here.
You seem to be trying to explain what Labour 'should have done' to enamour themselves to the Scottish public, in times gone by.
Sir - I put it to you that Labour are simply not in a position to actually do what's right for the country - Scotland - when ultimately their responsibility is to Britain, and the decisions that are right to continue the British state - not Scottish futures.
It is simply not good enough to try and convince anyone otherwise, as much of your piece attempts to do. In particular, I find this comment quite ridiculous:
'But Ms Alexander remained - and remains - keen to assert her political independence. Snag is she chose the issue of Scotland's independence as the battleground.'
Ehhh. When?
When has she been keen to assert political independence from Westminster?
When it boils down to it, the Labour Party simply cannot do that. They are unionists.
As I'm sure you'll agree, 'Scottish' questions on defence, environment, energy, crime and countless other areas can be, rightly. specific to the needs of the nation. The answers required are not the same as the 'British' ones.
Your latest blog has all the meanderings of a man attempting to explain away Labour's 'logical intentions', despite the idiotic way they actually handled it. This is very wrong sir.
In the words of the poster chrisbowie at #18, why are you journalists not investigating the sheer hypocrisy of Scottish Labour? They, and everything they say, are so full of holes, it beggars belief that the Scottish media seem unwilling to pursue this as a line of enquiry.
I mean, if Alex Salmond where to make repetitive televised claims that Wendy or Douglas Alexander where 'anti-Scottish' what question would you throw to him?
Yet this is precisely what we see from unionist MPs like Cairns and more recently Douglas Alexander [the Salamander].
Frankly, when the general public can muster very obvious questions to people who are clearly lying for their own political end - yet do not see television journalists seizing upon such no-brainers - one does indeed start to wonder what went on in that pre-election BBC/Scottish Labour party 'meeting'...
...even the power of FOI can't seemingly dislodge the minutes of that meeting.
Complain about this comment
Thomasporter: My problem is not with your opinion. I will defend your right to hold it with my last breath. Nor do I dispute your comment on Labour. But you are not debating - you are a propagandist, unflinching in your belief that you are right and everyone else must be shouted down.
You have informed us repeatedly of your belief in independence. It doesn't advance anything to keep saying the same thing.
Unless you are one of those who thinks repeating something endlessly will make it the truth?
Try to stand apart from it all and look down on it. Ask yourself: Am I advancing Scotland's interests by boring people to death?
Complain about this comment
After seeing Wendy on tv yesterday desperately trying to explain herself out of this mess it really is hard to see how she can survive as leader or h ow Labour can ever hope to return to power in Scotland.It was clear that she was on a totally different planet from the deputy scottish secretary David Cairns.The whole mess does reflect on how hopelessly weak and ineffectual Gordon Brown is too though.I predict his demise by the autumn.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
The only reason I have to repeat myself is that Unionists tend to use/ask the same questions.
How can Scotland cope in the long run?
Scotland would not be better off in the European Union and already has a greater voice in the European Union while apart of Britain?
etc etc
The problem with these type of debates is that it can be twisted by those with a sterotypical opinions of England/Scotland and of course those who repeat the same scare stories to Pro-Independence Individuals.
If you have a problem with the truth you can choose to ignore my posts.
However, I do plan to stick about and ensure questions are answered and lies are proven so people are not mis-led.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn said:
'You have informed us repeatedly of your belief in independence. It doesn't advance anything to keep saying the same thing.
Unless you are one of those who thinks repeating something endlessly will make it the truth?'
Yet that is precisely what you are doing. Most trolls, in objective reality, are embittered unionists with no real logical comment other than unfounded criticism.
You could put the same point to Douglas Alexander and Mr.Cairns I suppose. It seems they are convinced that if they just repeat, once more, that our FM is 'anti-Scottish' people will believe them.
'Try to stand apart from it all and look down on it. Ask yourself: Am I advancing Scotland's interests by boring people to death?'
No, you are definitely not. Thanks for asking.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Am I the only one who thinks there is something ominous about the Broon statement "I will do everything possible to prevent the break up of the union.
Just what did he mean? Will there be tanks on the streets? (do not dismiss this as everyone knows how unstable he is) Will it be economic sanctions? Will we stop getting our pocket money, and maybe sent to bed early?
Perhaps you can ask Paxman or Nick Robinson to ask him the next time they interview him.
The politics show on Sunday was also interesting as McLetchie said that if the SNP gained a majority of MSPs that would be a mandate for independence. Can you ask Bella if she agrees.
P.S. Thank goodness for YouTube, as the EBC appears to have removed the Sunday politics show, even though every other regions programs are still there.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn, I would rather read positive constructive well informed posts than negative abusive ones any day of the week.
Complain about this comment
Now that the dust is beginning to settle in the wake of the Scottish Labour independence-referendum affair, the truth is beginning to emerge.
The truth seems to me to be that there is in point of fact in actuality, if the truth be known, no actual truth actually there, which is why all the journalists and all the king's men who have been sent out to search for it assiduously have been unable to track it down.
It is not that what they have been searching for does not exist so much as that it does not exist in the realm in which we exist, if you see what I mean. You don't? Well, humour me, anyway. Where is it then, this elusive truth?
Look straight into Ms Alexander's eyes, if you dare, and keep going. It's in there. It's all inside her little bushy head and nowhere else. That is why it seems to keep changing with each passing minute. It is reflecting her train of thought, which is in constant breakneck motion, as we know, what with Ms Alexander being an intellectual giant and all.
Where is this train heading for, then? I'm so glad you asked that question, because I would like to know too. In the meantime I shall hazard a guess. I think it just heads for the nearest junction and goes down there, wherever that may happen to lead to.
How long can this reckless careering about along the tracks of this apparently deranged person's feverish imagination continue? Why, until she hits the buffers, of course.
Complain about this comment
GeneralPowers
to continue your eloquent metaphor, do you not think Wee Bendy has already hit the buffers?
The buffers being;
a) the bold GB down south, pretending she isn't as stupid as she looks (even though she is and he knows he is)
b) Big mad annie the oldie Goldie, and her snivelling sidekick Nicol 'Penfold' Stephen, looking at her incredulously at FMQs
How much further down the line do you think she can realistically go?
Oh, I forgot, once Brian starts slagging her off we know she's doomed...
Complain about this comment
Brian,
The funny thing about your article is that there are so many angles to this story that you could have chosen but yet you decided to write what is effectively a defense of the somewhat embattled leader of the Labour Party in Scotland.
We should know why!!
For example, there is no Scottish Labour Party for the 'weebendybringiton' to lead!! She only leads the Labour MSPs at Holyrood, so how exactly does she speak for the Labour voters in Scotland??
Then again, if she is leader, she is only so at the sole bequest of a single other person, in this case the Leader of the British Labour Party!!
So, surely the type of questions that you should be addressing include the ramifications of the next by-election for Pa Broon and 'weebendybringiton'??
Or the potential for a further car crash and just how long such an 'injured survivor' can continue on before the life support machine is switched off??
Or even dare I ask, just what does the ordinary Labour supporter on the street make of this??
Or again, just how long can 40-odd Labour MSPs continue to cartwheel with the 'weebendybringiton' one and not suffer terminal damage themselves.
The next Scotland-only set of polls will be mighty interesting!!
Complain about this comment
If the Labour party in Scotland can't ditch this embarrassing bendy women maybe the SNP can by calling an election as their minority government are finding it increasingly difficult to govern. I am sure he will get the backing of the Conservatives not sure which side of the fence the Lib dems would fall.
Complain about this comment
Under no circumstance will Labour allow Scotland independence, England would never vote for a Labour government it is a fact that Labour have never gained enough votes in England to win a majority, instead it is due to the Scottish MP's who have allowed Labour to win so many elections.
It is also fact that Scottish MP's are over-represented in the cabinet, this is unfair to the English, Welsh and Northern Ireland voters, as you can imagine I am 100% behind Scotland gaining independence, but for reasons different to those espoused by our Sottish cousins.
And may I point out that the whole discussion on oil is a red herring, do you really believe that Scotland is a net loser when it comes to dishing out the tax payers money?.
Complain about this comment
Aha, johnporter - I understand now: Your comments are "the truth" and mine, and others' are lies or "twisted" and stereotypical. How silly of me to argue against "the truth."
Gingerbadger: Well, I can't deny I'm a unionist. But embittered about what? I have never stated a political position because I have no party loyalty. None would have me, probably.
But let me try. I think we have more pressing problems in Scotland (please see #49 final paragraph) than a vote on independence. I believe there is too much ignorance and confusion among the citizenry to go to a vote now. Let's see what the SNP can do over a longer period. (I think that's Salmond's position also). Let's see the consequences of the early policies. Then, let's vote, by all means.
A Scottishvoice: Perhaps you, too, might read #49? Surely a constructive element there? Both you and johnporter seem to regard criticism as abuse. Politics is a knockabout business you know. You give it, you take it. I'm fairly impartial, but if I kick the SNP it's abuse, but savaging Bendy Wendy is good political fun?
Be partisan, chaps, but be fair.
Complain about this comment
Rustigjongens:
I can understand you annoyance of Scots being over represented.
But I will argue that those who are best for the job should be given the job and you should never hire someone based on their Nationality.
Or every company within the United Kingdom will have to have 10% of employees who are Scottish and 85% will have to be English so we are represented equally...
Brigadierjohn:
My name is actually Thomas Porter. If you can not read my own name right then it suggests to me that you do not bother to read our comments.
I simply add what is actually right and if I get a negative reponse then provide a link to back up my evidence.
For example the oil matter. Search Google and you will find all that is needed to show that 90-95% of the Oil is in Scottish Waters.
Heck, even the Westminister files have taken into account with Scotland having 90-95% of the oil supplies we could of been the most wealthy country in Europe. But people insist they know better.
Ah, you are a Unionist. What a suprise.
Instead of showing evidence of the benifits Scotland has in the Union you have decided to go on the offensive against everyone who even suggests an Independent Scotland could work well.
Talk about mature...
Complain about this comment
Brian Para 2 There is no such thing as the Scottish Labour Party, just the labour party in scotland.Once independence is achieved I would hope we would have a Labour party.a conservative party, a liberal party and all the other parties represented and then thay would genuinely be scottiash parties
Complain about this comment
Labour nor Tory nor any party at Westminster can do aything to stop Scotland becoming independent if a proper mandate from the Scottish people is put before them. In fact they wouldn't dare ignore it. If they were stupid and venal enough to try UK it'd be interesting to see what the EU and UN would have to say - and for this reason alone Westmnster would accept the mandate and seek a quickie divorce asap.
Oil isn't a red herring. It's precisely why Westminster has kept Scotland on board these last thirty years and indeed Scotland is very much the loser in terms of revenue generated versus expenditure.
Complain about this comment
Bluelaw:
It would be interesting to watch Westminister deny Scotland our Independence.
If Britain can recognise Kosovo as an Independent State then surely the United Kingdom can recognise Scotland without a problem.
If the United Kingdom was to deny Scotland our Independence perhaps Scotland could be used for other countries political gains by showing a 'Western Democratic Country' denying one countries Freedom.
I do not see that happening but it would be very interesting.
Complain about this comment
Wendy Alexander said that she had spoken to the Prime Minister that evening and that he backed up what she was proposing. If, as you claim, she acted without explicit sanction from the PM then she told an untruth. To be honest, she did hesitate before saying yes. Has anyone, with access to her, asked her about this specific issue?
Complain about this comment
Roderick33:
Labour has lied. We do not need to see more.
Did you see the PM during Question Time?
I am sure the lied several times in that debate with Cameron.
But what are you going to do?
Complain about this comment
Here are some recognised characteristics of people who suffer from an unrealistically high self esteem:
1) Prone to self satisfied boasting.
2) Tendency to be smug and superior.
3) Abuse of relationships, they put their needs first in any situation. If this doesn’t happen, they become angry and bullish.
4) Adopting an air of superiority.
5) Blind to their own faults.
6)Tendency to impulse control problems
There is also now a wealth of evidence linking high self esteem to criminality.
Any link between these characteristics and some well known politicians is of course purely coincidental.
Complain about this comment
Very much so, the UK would have a very hard time justifying rejecting a Scottish 'yes' vote in a referendum. It wouldn't happen as Westminster and the people who run it realise their interests are too interdependent to risk even appearing to bully Scotland post-mandate.
Complain about this comment
So sorry about the name slip, Thomas Porter. If I got that wrong, I must be wrong about the meaning of life as well.
Did I mention oil? A grab of oil would be another Darien Scheme, i.e., we could bankrupt the nation fighting endless legal compensation battles with many claimants. Then, if we won, America would invade and impose regime change on AS. (You do have a sense of humour, don't you?) The Scottish Navy, (well the Renfrew Ferry is just sitting there) could try a blockade, I suppose.
I am not on the offensive against anyone, just asking the odd question, which is apparently too difficult.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
I am sorry but I have missed your question.
Please could you state it clearly for all to see.
And when I brought up oil I was showing an example of where confusion can occur despite overwhelming evidence to show differently.
And about the Scottish Navy..I have never heard of one...Only the British Royal Navy.
;-)
But I am looking forward to your question and I hope I know enough to answer it.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn 53 :
No, I am not winding you all up - I am simply stating the reality of the situation.
A narrow 'no' vote would set back the cause of independence but would not kill it off any more than the referendum of 1979 killed devolution.
On the other hand I can see no realistic circumstance in which an independent Scotland would go crawling back to Westminster to re-negotiate the Union.
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian
I'm a proud 22yr old Scot, born and bred in the Highlands. Scotland's best interests are at my heart.
I'm also... a proud unionist!
As a unionist, I care passionately about Scotland’s future. If a fellow Scot supports the union and feels passionately that it’s in Scotland’s best interests then I hope their voice can be heard loud and clear before any referendum. Let’s be clear, supporters of Independence have no national majority, only a small number of very loud outspoken voices, who lambast anyone who dares to support the idea of a United Kingdom.
I know for a fact I belong to be British as well as a Scot. I know this for a number of financial, political and personal reasons. Firstly my father was born in England, I have family all across the British Isles, plus I have a welsh surname. Yet I'm Scottish and not only that, but proud to be part of the United Kingdom.
The truth is I would have probably voted SNP IF it wasn’t for Alex Salmond’s addenda for Independence. I’m not for one minute labelling the SNP party or an SNP supporter as anti English, but I feel ashamed that some fellow “proud” Scots only show nationalist support because of underlying anti English sentiment (which by the way, we all know unfortunately exists).
I also have no respect for people who have narrow minded idealistic views that everything will be hunky dory if we broke away from the United Kingdom. It isn’t fair to gamble with our children’s future prosperity. Yes, oil reserves are in Scottish waters. Fact. We all know this. Yet don't people realise it’s too late. The money raised from these oil reserves should’ve been ring fenced over 40 years ago or at least when discoveries were still being made! Even if we received powers to hoard oil reserves tomorrow, it would still be too late to collect enough revenue to support current spending after the oil runs dry. Oil reserves in the North Sea are going to run dry in my lifetime, so where will this leave an Independent Scotland? ALONE and financially unsupported by the Union and inevitably left to fall into deep recession.
Let us fight together, as part of a Union for Scotland’s current and future prosperity. let’s stop playing with fire and end generations of uncertainty.
Complain about this comment
With all due respect to what is and will be a serious matter to be debated at length, and those who are doing so now, when has politics ever been such fun?
Let's face it, we knew from the beginning that her medacious bendiness was telling a porkie about having Broon's support.
We knew it was a complete insult to our intelligence to try turning the manifesto promise on a referendum against the SNP.
I'm honestly not sure about the depth of ignorance or level of incompetence about the practicality of moving the referendum date forward.
But isn't it deliciously ghoulish watching politicians self destruct? Politicians who seem to think we will see no irony in an argument that goes 'Scottish Labour must demonstrate its independence from London but for goodness sake don't let the riff raff espouse such a notion'.
Please, nobody deal the killer blow: let it run for a while yet. In an admittedly sick kind of way it is absolutely fascinating.
Complain about this comment
Keithfromkeith:
You still failed to enlighten me with your quest to show that the Union still benfits Scotland.
You forget to mention it was the Union Parties who lied to Scotland about what we were actually making once the oil was discovered.
How can we trust the Union when they lied to Scotland about something so important?
And you also speak in a way that suggest oil is the only reason an Independent Scotland can prosper.
Scotland generates £80 billion per year (Not including oil revenue) and this is plenty of money for a population of 5 million.
And you did not mention the European Union.
The EU will ensure that Scotland benifits from the market that The EU offers.
And if times went bad their cash will come in handy to.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
I don’t think oil is the future of a unionist or Independent Scotland. Our banking sector, tourism, construction, service industries and increasingly renewable energy will form the bedrock of our economy.
I used oil revenue in my argument because Alex Salmond continues to use oil revenue as his main argument when discussing the economic benefits of an independent Scotland. Are you admitting oil isn't the future for Scotland economy... because that isn't the view of the leader of the SNP, Is Alex wrong? Or did he "misspeak" or is he ill-informed? Hrm...
So... Scotland hasn't already benefited from Oil revenues? Aberdeen has gained tremendously from Oil revenue... where would the "Oil Capital of Europe" be now? The oil industry continues to employ thousands of Scottish people, I should know because my own father has worked in the industry for over 20 years!
I respect people’s enthusiasm for Independence but England Wales and N Ireland are our allies, our cousins! Over the 300 years Scotland has undeniably benefited over the years. Where would Scotland be now if it wasn’t for the union treaty? Imagine if there was never a union...? Glasgow wouldn’t even be recognisable! We owe allot to our union and I believe we will in future.
I'm aware of the EU, but do we really want to risk resorting to the EU for handouts if/when Independence goes sour? That's a step backwards rather than forwards. A high price to pay for Independence. I don't want to see Scotland moving in the wrong direction and become a new financial burden to the EU like so many growing eastern European economies.
We all know the week labour has been a national joke north and south of the border, but remember the SNP have already broken important promises set out in their manifesto... which is what Scotland should be debating. SNP doesn’t mean an end of political scandal. I’ve never been convinced of the benefits of Independence and as far as I'm concerned we are unquestionably stronger as part of the UK.
Convince me Mr Salmond, Bring it on!!! :P
Complain about this comment
keithfromkeith,
Why is it a gamble to leave the union but not a gamble to stay?
Complain about this comment
I agree with #66 and #70
This should back up their comments and I quote...
In his position as Speaker in 1713, William Bromley responded to questions from a Scottish MP with the infamous reply that "they had catcht hold of Scotland, they wou'd keep her fast". Lockhart Papers Page 427
The Lord Treasurer Robert Harley, 1st Earl of Oxford and Earl Mortimer (Circa 1712) when debating increasing taxes on linen stated "Have we not bought the Scots, and a right to tax them?" Lockhart Papers Page 327
Complain about this comment
I must say sorry for being an infrequent reader.
Dubbieside, I do not know if you are an eejit. It depends upon whether you regard anyone like me who considers both sides of reality as being one.
It depends upon whether you are completely blind to shipbuilding in Scotland (the vast majority of ordering during the British empire where Scotland boomed through access to markets other parts of the world were precluded from).
It depends if you think that Scotland would have been part of the industrial revolution to the same degree as part of the UK.
It depends upon whether history started for you in 1960.
It depends upon whether you use the word 'free' in place of 'independent'.
It depends upon whether you go up in a blue lowe when realistiv points are made from someone like Mark, or whether you address those while getting to the heart of his apparent concerns.
I can understand Mark reasonably well. He seems to recognise that the reasons for union have been supplanted by equivalents of similar quality (or better) - Economic access to markets and stability (EU, WTO), military security (NATO), negotiation/world voice (UN) and a plethora of other international agreements on trade, law and property rights.
Not that I am saying it's perfect, but nothing ever is. Now let's look at it from 'the rest'...
Scotland goes off to do its own thing. What can get better for us - hmmmm. What can get better from the rest....oh-oh....
I am, I hoped to be clear, inclined towards ticking the 'yes' box. I however also read the Quebec documentation from Canada and compared it with the last vote the Scots were kindly permitted to have.
And the Catalonian
And compared it with the reserved and devolved powers in the german federal system.
And chewed a few books on the history of the Scottish vs British economies.
Come on folks. Do some homework so that you don't have to be sucked in by commentators from the 'Scottsh' Sun, the 'Scottish' Mail or whatever. The amount of noise that will be created will be huge; PLEASE read real sources of information PLEASE listen to academics (of the non political variety) PLEASE dont refer to 15 and 45 as 'Scottish Uprisings' (the poor sods were even more misinformed than we are and there were huge numbers of Scots on BOTH sides! My home town was damaged by both armies as they passed...)
As for Wendy; as someone already pointed out - there is a clear problem with the Scottish Labour Party. They want to be independent, but are not. Ah. They have lots of people in power in Westminster who would probably like to stay there, as it is a bigger stage. They may or may not be the most competent Labour politicians who are Scots. It is irrelevant.
Considering Mark's comments on the Sudetendeutsch (which were curious); reading Mein Kampf would help more. Hitler pointed out that the best police against any occurence are those who lie closest to its border as they perceive they have most to lose from any change to the status quo. Those closest to the other side are the ones who may wish to move that border most.
On residence. It's interesting. I sort of reluctantly understand that I will be denied a vote on independence if/when it happens (though I will try everything I can to change that). Will the SNP MPs get a vote (resident in London, assuming they - very correctly like anyone else - claim an allowance for that)?
As for the football at the weekend. The weather was just too good, so I cycled out to a local Biergarten for a Doppelbock and a Brez'n and am blissfully unaware of what happened. I'm a long suffering Aberdeen supporter who enjoyed the match in Munich despite the score.
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
Interesting history lesson, but can I ask what possible relevence the speeches of people who died the best part of 300 years ago (when the Labour party didn't even exist) has to the current attitude of the Labour Government.
Back then it was still considered OK to burn women at the stake and hang, draw and quarter people for treason.
I'd like to think we've moved on since that time.
If you're going to dredge up quotes from nearly 300 years ago to back up the call for Independence now all you are doing is reinforcing the accusations of "grude and grievance" that are leveled at Pro-independence supporters.
Complain about this comment
The current debarkle is in some ways the same arguement as the Devolution Question was in the First - Place, and it shows when we are told that for Wendy Alexander to do a Wendy-Bendy she first has to seek the approval of Gordon Brown who is the Leader of the United Kingdom "New" Labour Party.
This kind of makes a complete nonsense of having Self - Govening M.S.P's elected to a Scottish Parliament when in effect anything effecting Freedon Of Expression to do what is right for the Scottish People even under our Devolution Process has to First receive a Seal Of Approval from either the Prime Minister, or the Westminister Parliament, for really just what is the point of having any Elected Prliament at Hollyrood if it cannot be trusted to deliver in any independent way, and on any independent Issue's.
Complain about this comment
To post 66
Beerenjonges misschien...
(For the non dutch, of which there may be a few, Rustig means calm and Jongens means lads, whereas beerenjongens are raisings soaked in alcohol until they are considerably swollen. Very tasty on pancakes. The Dutch mitiary engagement on the Protestant side in the 1700s was always considerable and finds echoes in NI and Scotland. There remain 'Scottish' seats on boards of trade in most Hanseatic trading harbour cities, including Rotterdam and some Scandinavian and Baltic countries.)
Do I believe Scotland loses out on revenue?
I dont know. I have the wit to be able to realise assets, capabilities and resources, compare them with other countries and realise that Scotland would do OK (Utopia,no; Hell, no). I neither believe the 'rich' side nor the 'pauper' side of the 'boogie man will get you' squabble.
If you wish to imply that you know that Scotland wins under the present set up then you must have access to more data than everyone else is being dribbled (and even that is twisted every which way).
I also agree with whoever said that were Scotland to be independent then the (very competent so far, but rather underconfronted) SNP would probably have to change its name and that a division into three parties would probably result sooner or later. Labour may be rehabilitated after a while, Liberal becoming a possible choice for more than geography teachers (now THAT might draw some flak!) and Tory digging in as a non-Thatcherite aspiringmiddleclassandup alternative.
Some able bods may move back up from London when their local english consitituents duly eject them. If they are REALLY good they will of course duly elect them (which will be interesting without an english/englandwalesandnorthernisland/remnantpart/rest passport)
As long as the BNP, UKIP stay south of the border its fine with me.
I have a distinct lack of fear of the politics and economics of a change to independence, but I can understand the other side of the fence really well.
Complain about this comment
to LondonHarris
Quotes from 300 years ago are recent. They show how those who taught the next generations saw the issue and how that drops down through the years to unrealised reasons behind prejudices on both sides.
Just as the benefits of Union should not be overlooked, neither should the bad aspects (of which such comments and attitudes are but the tip of the iceberg - they are but insults - and pale into insignificance in comparison to military actions and attitudes to loss of troops dependent upon recruit source through the following 250 years, or perhaps longer - our proud military tradition of charging into the teeth of enemies is at times our undoing).
Do you contend that these comments do not have current echoes in the popular (I prefer the term gutter) press owned by the same corporations that neatly put out a 'scottish' version?
Do you contend that an (undeserved) inferiority complex bred from hearing such comments does not exist?
Do you think that we should not learn from history?
That would be as daft in one direction as the other.
Complain about this comment
The comment I am making #86 is that it said by many currently and in the past that the union is a mutal partnership between two countries. These quotes do not sound like this was an equal partnership. Ok the larger of the countries will dominate the smaller, then instead of union why not call it the Act of Takeover 1707. If this was a business then Scotland PLC was taken over by England PLC to form new company Britain PLC, there fore no meger, no union only take over
Complain about this comment
"We all know the week labour has been a national joke north and south of the border, but remember the SNP have already broken important promises set out in their manifesto... which is what Scotland should be debating."
Och, stop your havering, Keith. The SNP administration is a MINORITY GOVERNMENT. Minority governments do not have the power to implement their manifestos at will - if the opposition gang up against the government, there is nothing they can do. It's absolutely ridiculous to complain about a *minority* government not implementing everything in their manifesto.
As for your other point, oil revenues as they stand (though the price of oil is likely to keep rising for some time yet) would probably not be enough to support Scotland economically AND contribute to a future fund for when the oil dries up, IF Scotland maintained its current UK-based spending commitments. But of course, an independent Scotland wouldn't be doing any such thing.
For a start, we'd save BILLIONS by not replacing Trident and by not participating in illegal foreign wars, which the Treasury spends billions of pounds *over and above the normal defence budget* on conducting. (The costs of Afghanistan and Iraq come direct from the Treasury as an extra expense, not from the defence budget, and a large chunk of that money belongs to Scottish taxpayers.) We also wouldn't throw away billions on enriching London even further in 2012.
We'd also be able to exploit our uniquely rich potential for renewable energy, which would very likely become a new and significant net revenue earner.
But most importantly of all, we'd have the country run by some people who are actually competent, which you can't put a value on. Many independence supporters aren't in favour of it for its own sake, but simply because it would save Scotland being dragged down along with the rest of the UK at the hands of the useless, corrupt idiots currently in charge of it.
Complain about this comment
I agree will #91 the reason I want Scotland to become independent is that I want the country to stand on its on two feet. Away from the petty squables between the two governments. And also to learn from its own mistakes and be accountable for its own actions/mistakes, rather then saying sorry can't do that because England won't give us the power or the money. I am not an english hater, my boss is english and the boss before him also have family living in Birmingham. What I want is that the two nations to be seperate but have mutual respect and assistance for one another. You cannot and I wouldn't want to erase over 300 years of union. I am sure that if Scotland did become independent that the same assistance would come from Scotland and vice versa to help for example the people affected by the Hull floods or the other disasters that have happened to outr two countries
Complain about this comment
Gardinera:
It was me, Bangingonabout, not LondonHarris that made the comment.
I'm not saying that the comments don't have current echoes or that we can't learn from history.
What I'm saying is that making reference to them as arguments to back up current opinions (rather than historical background to explain where we are), merely serves to reinforce predudices on both sides.
Maybe I have an overinflated opinion of these blogs, but I'd like to think that people, like us, who are trying to debate matters in a rational manner can rise above these predudices and what the tabloid press is trying to force feed us and debate matters in the current context.
Bannatyne13:
Maybe you are right, Scotland was weak at the time, so "Act of Takeover" could be a better description.
But that was then. We're trying to debate whether moving towards Independence is a good idea NOW. We can only argue the case based on the position we are in now. Not where we might have been had things been different 10, 20, 300 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Rev_S_Campbell
A couple of points...
1) Yes the SNP are the minority government so I would not expect them to be able to implement any contentious policies at will.
But I don't recall the opposition blocking the policy to recruit 1000 police. The SNP just didn't do it.
2) While people might debate the legality of the Iraq war, I don't think anyone is saying that Afganistan is illegal.
I'm not sure what the position would be regarding membership of NATO post independence. But if Scotland were to join it, then NATO would ask us to contribute to the effort. So you can't offset all expenditure on overseas actions.
Complain about this comment
To Banginonabout/Harris
Oops, sorry, true.
The problem is that the current context is relatively simple but deliberately obfuscated. The situation is somewhat clearer (to me) when viewed more from a total perspective of WHY some take the expreme points of view.
The reality of national financing will only become truly clear at the point at which the 'books' are opened, which will never happen under the current situation. Accordingly common sense has to take its place and there opinions rightly differ - but we should be very wary of WHY we have the gut reactions we have, and that includes the history of the matter.
As for these blogs. Yup...I think I see where the SNP were going with the national conversation idea.
Unfortunately given the average educational level across the UK a conversation is usually interspersed with 'innit' 'no wot I mean' and every third word is 'like'. Recently I listened to a radio debate between kids from the UK, India, Africa and South America. I had no difficulties understanding the points of view and diction of the non-UK kids. They (as well as the presenter and I) were at a loss to understand the garbled nonsense coming from british kids (all parts). When it was linguistically comprehensible it was invariably logic a la Eastenders. Little Britain; don't the poor sods realise the joke is on them? At least Fry and Laurie were laughing at themselves...
By the time there is a vote, these kids will be the ones reading the gutter press comics, or at least looking at the pictures. They have (and it is correct to be thus) the same vote as anyone else and make up a huge part of the electorate.
If the SNP is smart they'll give away a Lottery scratch card, a phone top-up card or a peaked cap of the latest trend per Yes vote. That would have rather more impact than this blog. Sorry for my cynicism; correct me only if you really think I don't have a point.
Although the 'vote' for union was rigged, any future one will be almost as daft.
I hope it goes one way, you may hope it goes another. Unless we own trash newspapers, radio stations and tv soaps we will have little influence. Lord I'm depressing myself....
Complain about this comment
Keithfromkeith:
Oil revenue is not going to last forever though is it?
We need control now and ensure Scotland is capable of surviving without oil.
I'd rather accept hand outs from Brussels then England.
And if there was no Union Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the world.
That is a fact.
But you still fail to provide hard evidence to back up the Union just stories and words.
What manifesto promises have the SNP broke?
Bangingonabout:
You are wrong about the police by the way. The SNP have managed to recruit 253 new Police Officers and they have three more years to go to recruit the rest.
And about NATO when we join we would contribute to missions but smaller army would be also ensure the price is small and the SNP has only said peace keeping missions not frontline war zone so the price again would be tiny in comparison to what we pay now.
Complain about this comment
Gardinera:
After you with the anti-depressants !!
Complain about this comment
"But I don't recall the opposition blocking the policy to recruit 1000 police. The SNP just didn't do it."
Perhaps not, but the opposition did force the spending of a huge chunk of the government's money - £600m - on Edinburgh's vanity tram white elephant, money which is then not available for a whole raft of other things. That £600m would have paid for a lot of the SNP's manifesto on its own, including a lot more than 1000 new police.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter #77: Sorry about the delay. I don't have a team of writers sitting at computers 24/7 posting pre-prepared hand-knitted rebuttals from their drafts file.
My question, already posted, but ignored was on the lines of: will anyone in the SNP camp speak to us about important issues affecting the "here and now" for most Scots. I mean fuel and food prices, poverty-level pensions, our failing education system, the screwing-up of our once-admired legal system by KMcA, terrible roads, local government corruption, etc. I could ask also about the cost of separating the likes of the armed services, the tax system, the DVLA, etc., etc. You get my drift.
Now, I know perfectly well that the SNP has policies on a range of issues, but what I am asking for is clarity. For example, could the SNP take a full page in the national press outlining the costs and methods of dealing with the above, issue by issue, line by line. Like the Blue Book (I think that's what it is called) placed in the Westminster MPs' library after a Budget speech. And the tax implications? If you say "oil money" in your answer I think I may cut my wrists.
Seriously, all of the above MUST be answered before anyone can contemplate marking a ballot paper for or against independence, whatever their instincts.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
Fuel and food prices is a Global matter.
But if Britain did not add so much tax and duty on to fuel perhaps we could get it cheaper.
Pensions will not be around much longer to be honest. My generation is told to save up your own retirement fund (By the UK Government)
Failing education system? In what way?
Our legal system is actually been tampered with by the European Union and British Government so I do think that even the SNP does not have a full say in it.
Negociations would have to be held on the military. I'd of thought the Scots would be asked if they will continue in the British Forces or join the Scottish Force.
But it would be cheap. Barracks and what not are already in Scotland so we would use them.
Tax system? I am not an Economist but the SNP want to create a Tax-Haven for Businesses in Scotland so that could suggest less tax for the Individual.
Have you read the SNP's ideas for Independence? It is quite interesting their idea on how Independence would work and what exactly would happen.
Complain about this comment
#99 brigadierjohn
Somewhat like Gordon and Wendy this last week, you really must be taking the mickey. How on earth can any individual or group quantitfy the costs and benefits of dealing with administration issues arising from independence at this stage?
Get a grip man and jump back on the first spaceship to planet earth.
When there is a negotiated settlement and we know how things will pan out then of course it is reasonable to expect the government to set out their expenditure plans. But hopefully the people of Scotland will be focused on the larger, more important issues, such as spending on tckling social issues and also improving the quality of life for all those residing in Scotland. Your obsession with the cost of Admin arrangements is quite ridiculous.
In any event, if you are going to persist with your argument on dealing with government Admin then perhaps you should find examples of where there is no established service in existence within Scotland.
The DVLA and tax office all have a significant presence in Scotland at the moment, funnily enough, to deal with Scottish business.
As for the armed forces (which is more than the army) perhaps you can enlighten the government as to what Scotlad's commitment to other European states, NATO and the other British Isles country is? Again, your question seems to be advocating crystal ball budgeting!
It is interesting that underlying your argument is a suggestion that everything is going to cost more just because Scotland is independent. It is as though the post independence SMP/Labour/Tory government is going to be bound by the Westminster government's policy and spending commitments. Quite laughable but Fatty Foulkes will no doubt be pleased that his nonsensical ranting has got through to someone!
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn
For the first part - yes, some ideas about how these things could be disentangled would be fine. As for the rest from the first list however (roads, pension level, education etc), why would the SNP have to do that more than anyone else?
Saying it 'has to be answered' I think is incorrect and back to the 'all things must be perfect and even then cross no' pessimistic school of driving where queues form because a couple of cars will NEVER overtake. 'Late arrival is better than dead on time' (why not just 'Best to overtake when safe, obey law, make reasonable progress, arrive on time' - lack of dramatic impact?)
It would be preferable to have answers however, as I have noted before to little rebuttal - it is simply not going to be possible to gain an idea of income vs expenditure where one side has greater control of the books than the other. One side will guess one way and point to attempts at evidence, the other will point at evidence specifically created for the circumstance. Sometimes there will be a bullseye (1970s positions on something springs to mind) sometimes there will be wild claims or claims of wild claims (who shot Kennedy, why anyone watches talent shows or 'strictly' anything etc).
Some coherent list of institutions and how they would be disentangled presumably would not be too much to ask - though I suspect it exists (didnt check thoroughly).
So, I would go with my instinct and best (reasonably well analysed and critiqued) instinct. As my granda used to say - even if the sounder isnt showing fish, if the wee hairs on the back of your neck tell you to 'shot awa' (cast your net), then do it. - its surprising how often you get fish. If you don't - you'll never know. The same advice for if and when to duck and if and when to run for harbour.
He fished well all his life, survived two world wars and died of old age.
No.... open goal...cant resist ... temptation too strong....
Oil money. White grapes or red?
Oh btw I just type fast, so tend to ramble...
Complain about this comment
ThomasPorter: So you don't know, eh? Global issue? Not my problem! Pensions? Er, they're going anyway! Failing education system? Do you know how many illiterates are leaving our schools? Scotland used to have near-100% literacy and numeracy. And do you read these blogs?
Law? I'm talking about Scots Law. It's being bent for populist reasons.
Military? Do you think the UK would just leave us the buildings and hardware. We'd have to buy them.
Tax haven? You mean like Switzerland, Cayman Islands, Jersey, IoM? Full of ordinary folk with no wealth, aren't they?
Dear, dear Thomas. You have let me down. You said you'd be clever enough to answer my questions. And you are not.
Kilts and heather and haggis. Head homeward Thomas, and think again!
Complain about this comment
You worry me with your blether of Scottish 'independence'. There is no logic to fragmenting the Union when the United Kingdom is falling into the ever tighter embrace of Europe. What will happen to our place on the Security Council for example? Northern Ireland has a population of about 1.5 million, Wales 3 million and Scotland 5 million. That makes Scotland about the size of Yorkshire. In contrast to you pushing some narrowly perceived nationalism, multicultural England has a population of about 50 million. An English voice has hardly been heard to stir yet. In creating division do you never see a time when you might need to defend the southern border you are so keen to consolidate? Do you not think the entire population of the United Kingdom might want a referendum on the whole matter of devolution (and the European question) and that the Westminster government might have misread the whole situation?
Complain about this comment
To the Brigadier
I looked this one out of the filing cabinet just for you.
I’m all for discussing important issues such as pensions and energy prices (fuel) but these are reserved to Westminster. I’d like to discuss firearms also but as it was so explicitly highlighted by the Home Secretary’s refusal to attend a firearms summit in Scotland last week, it’s reserved to Westminster. Let’s discuss fiscal policy, foreign policy, defence policy, drugs, gambling, social security………oops sorry all reserved to Westminster.
As for the failing education system, could you please provide evidence of the actual failings, also be more specific about how KMcA is ‘screwing’ up the legal system by providing examples and be more precise about local government corruption, rather than provide generalisations, you get my drift BJ ;-)
I too would like to know about the cost of separating, maybe the SNP Government should open discussions with Westminster regarding this so we get a true and agreed cost and not ‘guestimations’ by either side.
Now do you think for one minute those discussions will be allowed to happen? Maybe we need a referendum to get the ball rolling, let’s ask Wendy.
Complain about this comment
Peoplepowerparty: After you initial rudeness, your response has all the hallmarks of a pre-prepared fudge. Or in common language, don't ask me, mate! So you want it cut and dried BEFORE you spell out your plans? Aye, right!
Gardinera: I seem to recall Tony Blair's promises went awry when he "opened the Tory books." I'm not looking for perfect answers to everything, just a wee clue as to how it might be. And I don't think a wise fisherman predicts his future on what he might catch, if he's lucky.
Red grapes, please - well-fermented and matured in a nice vat before bottling.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
Please tell me why Scotland pays one of the highest levels of tax/duty on petrol despite being the Oil Capital of Europe?
Pensions (Westminister controls this) But with a growing elderly population we shall not have pensions forever.
How many illiterates are leaving School? I would like to see a link that can back up your claim.
These blogs are not full of 'Perfect English' but you can understand the them and that is all that matters.
Scottish Law? Are you suggesting Britain and The EU do not have a say on Scottish Law? There not suppose to but they do. We have to follow European Law something we never agreed on.
Britain would not have a say on the Barracks.
Scotland is apart of Britain which would would mean that the Barracks are already partly Scotlands.
And Scots do pay their taxes and so do Scottish Businesses so why would we not be allowed to take our Barracks and Military buildings?
Half of what you have said though either will be involved in the negociations when Scotland becomes Independent or they are your own opinion.
If you would like answers then provide us with the information to work with but you should not make claims off the top of your head.
Complain about this comment
Inmykip: I'm not really a brigadier. As for reserved matters, they won't be b****y reserved in an independent Scotland, will they? That's what I'm asking - what will you do then?
If you don't know the education system is failing, you must be under 50 years old, and therefore part of the problem.
SNP "team" in general: superfast response there. Well done everyone. Lance-corporal stripes in the post. Shame about the content though.
Complain about this comment
Thread hijack!!;)
Complain about this comment
#106 brigadierjohn
Pointing out your arguments and questions are daft and ill thought out is not rude. Neither is drawing a comparison to those in public life who are also 'spinning' similar yarns.
It is interesting that you seem to expect the SNP to fix in 12 months the 50 odd years of neglect from the Tories and Labour.
I am not a member of the SNP and my vote is up for grabs by any party that can do better for Scotland. But, like many ordinary people, I am sick to the back teeth of people who can do nothing other than talk Scotland down.
I am happy to proceed on the basis that Scotland is able to steer its way through the 21st Century and look after those that choose to live here. The UK is a busted flush and, in my opinion, those who continue to defend it are defending the decades of neglect that we have suffered.
The social problems that Scotland face today are the creation of the union! Only the SNP is proposing ways in which to deal with these. They are a minority government and have the shackles of Goldie, Stephens and Alexander around their neck. Despite this, they are making inroads into changing the way in which Scotland sees itself. Just imagine what a government in an independent state could do.
I am off now but hopefully you will take some time out to reflect on your postings and see that they are ill thought out and partisan. You are guilty of spouting the scaremongering spin of eejits like Brian Wilson, Douglas Alexander and Dr Johgn Reid. Good afternoon!
Complain about this comment
I know there has been debate about the level of support for Independence in Scotand.
I have just seen a poll by timesonline that has support for Independence at over 84%. To me that seems to suggest that the level of support seems to be increasing.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter: Are you a wee bit over-excited? You are usually careful to use "I" and "me" but I see you slipped into "us" (#107). How many are "us." Free advice: When a raw nerve is touched, let it settle before taking precipitate action. Pain can make you careless. Unlike you, I am not sitting here with piles of government figures and party research documents. So I cannot quote the exact statistical source of information I have seen in several reliable journals. I will say this for you, you are as adept as AS at dodging the issues.
Peoplepowerparty: I will never, ever, talk Scotland down. I will not yield an inch to anyone on patriotism. Nor will I yield an inch to the facile, simplistic "solutions" of the SNP. Or to the sad Labourites you named.
Like you, I'm off now. But consider this: Our plight is not the fault of the union. It is the fault of people, everywhere in the UK. Our personal standards have slipped, we blame the consequences on inadequate politicians that we elected ourselves, and we think Scottish grass will be greener than UK grass. It's the counsel of despair.
Ascottishvoice: What was the question, how was it phrased? Do you think timesonline might have an agenda? What could it be? Do you prefer independence to a nuclear attack?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn:
I was actually taught in school that when providing evidence to support my view to always provide something to show it to be true.
That is something I do not see from you.
And about the military.
You said we would have to buy the Barracks back.
Since Scotland is apart of Britain and has contributed to these Barracks and other Military Equipment then Scotland should legally be entitled to part of the Military Buildings South of the Border and any equipment South of the Border. Course, unless the Scottish Government would like something different I would in my own opinion just take what is in Scotland for ourselves.
You seem to aviod the idea of providing the members of public who are participating within this Blog the information which shows you are right.
How can we answer to your questions when we do not actually know if their true?
Complain about this comment
#112.
The question is -
How do you think Scotland should be governed?
There are five options, the one with 84% is -
It should become an Independent country.
As for your other questions, no ,pass, yes.
I hope this is of help to you.
Complain about this comment
#104 "What will happen to our place on the Security Council for example?"
Who gives a damn? Waving our tadgers around pretending there's still an Empire is what's got the UK in a large part of the mess it's in now. Once we've sorted out our own country, maybe THEN we'll have any business sticking our noses into anyone else's.
Complain about this comment
Does BrigadierJohn think that fisherman predict their future on what they KNOW they're going to catch? Now that would be clever...
Yet it is what you appeared to be asking for and have confirmed.
But when you have a boat buiilt (seldom happens at the mo) you have to have an idea of what similar boats get and just a wee bit of faith in yourself as a skipper and your crew that you may even do better.
Also, remember that although the catch may be considerable it just needs to be a bad price day at the fishmarket and you make a loss...so some wit about timing and current situations in all markets would be wise.
Actually there are plenty very normal (earning) people in Switzerland (anywhere where you have to line up your wheely bins in a specific, nonlogical order needs to have the type of normal qualified). Go live there a while, open your horizons. Like stink poor people in the Bahamas and farmers in the Channel - it aint all MiamiVice speedboats and Bergerac.
The comments from some are becoming a wee bit - 'I will not yield', 'division', 'defend' and somehow thinking a seat on the UN security council is something to do with the EU (or even something you would want... they do so much dont they; veto from China or Russia in one direction, veto from US and UK - yap!yap! - in the other, Italy eyeing up the secretaries, France wondering what's for lunch and if Greenpeace have a new boat yet).
Try as I might I realise I am also now well and truly off track but will blast on for a little anyway. In for a penny...
As for illiterate kids leaving school; I now go totally off piste.
My 13 year old studying for an international bacc knows more than my 17 yar old nephew does on Physics, geography, jeez - history! and studies multiple - useful -languages; almost all subjects in fact. The education system may be questionable in Scotland but according to my nephews and nieces the biggest problem is that most kids are downright PROUD to be thick. They revel in it. They attack those who are not. It was bad when I was there but visiting a school recently I can only say I either have rosy memory filters or it has become worse.
After all; think of the popular heroes and heroines held up as examples by the press. Find an intelligent one. Even if you can you have to admit its harder than thinking of the counter examples!
Anyone pushing Chinese as a highschool language needs to be taken out and shot. Spanish not far behind (and I speak it). Usefulness....?!!
I dont CARE if Americans use it to speak to their maids nowadays! Yes, there are lots of chinese but any one of them that you will ever be allowed to talk to for the next 60 years will speak OK English or German!
Even Russian makes more sense.
Complain about this comment
#103 To buy back military barracks and buildings. So the Scottish Exchequer would have to buy back Edinburgh castle then as that is a working barracks???? From what I gather would happen is that when independence takes place commissioners from Scotland would talk to the UK Govt to divide the assets and liabilities just like a divorce or a disolution of a business partnership. What I think would happen is if independence is announced the UK govt would probably start to move any movable equipment etc ( if its not nailed down) from scottish territory eg submarines, aircraft carriers, harrier jump jets. To put it simply they would pack up and move on.
Complain about this comment
Bannatyne13:
Everything British, Scotland would have a share of since we contributed in tax, maybe not equal amounts because we do not generate the same amount in tax as England but we have a share.
It would not be a matter of "Quick, get that lot over the border before Scotland is officially Independent."
Both of the Governments shall have to sit down and discuss assets and other matters.
But I do not really think anyone has any idea how it would be split.
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
The first thing I said in my last comment was "I don’t think oil is the future of a unionist or Independent Scotland." When did I say Scotland's future depended on oil? I stated the opposite! Fact.
Excuse me?! I believe Thomas Porter said "if there was no Union Scotland would be one of the richest countries in the world." We're already part of the 4th biggest economy in the world. Your a fantasist like so many believers in the SNP.
Rather than shouting down at people from your high perch you aim should be answering peoples real worries about Independence. Sadly your opinions on Scotland's future are very simplistic and narrow minded.
The union isn't the root of Scotland's problems. We're not at war with England, we're not fighting against social oppression. Yes we have problems in Scotland but they're not caused by the union and Independence isn't the answer.
Complain about this comment
Keithfromkeith:
The United Kingdom has limited Scotlands wealth when it has come to oil.
Instead of sharing oil with 5 million citizens we have had to share our oil with up to 60-70 million citizens.
If Independence occured years ago Scotland could of been alot better of then we are now.
Perhaps I should sit on my high perch and wait for one reasonable argument from you about how Scotland benifits from the Union.
The Union has failed Scotland. Our Industries have been wiped out thanks to the Union or lack of Union defence.
Where was Britain when our Ship Building fell into decline?
Where was Britain when our Fishing Industries were being wiped out because of EU Law?
If Britain is so great, how come there are Nationalists in power in Scotland?
Why are English Nationalists being ever more popular?
Perhaps the Scots Nationalists and English Nationalists should form a larger party and run in the UK - General Elections together.
Complain about this comment
keithfromkeith said
Yes we have problems in Scotland but they're not caused by the union and Independence isn't the answer.
Well the union certainly hasnt solved the problems in scotland. So IT certainly isnt the answer.
Complain about this comment
Succinctly put Karin!
Complain about this comment
To: gardinera.
While some people feel the need's to affix their today's way of living to any event's of past History, sometimes going back 300 Year's etc, is fine if you believe in yester-year's reason over today's aspiration's
This view however that we have some kind of collective duty somehow to have to take into account all these past Historial debate's to advance and make it our mainstay to deliver our future is far removed from the Real World, for doe's anyone really believe that Time, and Idea's doe's not march on, and that all opinion's, and view's today are not only made up from event's in History, but also from original thinking.
It matter not what you believe, but the fact that you believe it. Historically speaking, or otherwise.
Complain about this comment
Post 88,
Thank you for your response!, it is always interesting to read thoughtful comments such as yours.
I agree that I have not backed my figures up with any statisitical data, therefore, I take back my comments about oil.
If Scotland was to vote in favour of Independence but by a small majority do you think that a compromise such as a confederation would be the way forward?.
What does concerns me is that the spectre of xenophobia by people on both sides of the border would likely increase, the best example of this is in Belgium, the Flemish (Dutch speaking) and the Wallonians (French speaking) are in a perputual state of distrust indeed for the majority of the last year it has been impossible for both sides to reach agreement on electing a leader, the main problem is the Flemish feel that they contribute more than their Wallonian neighbours and that a distinct bias in favour of the Wallonians pervades Belgium politics.
So for Scotland and England/Wales.Northern Ireland I believe we are starting to see direct parellels.
Tot straks !!
Complain about this comment
Rustigjongens:
If Scotland was to vote in favour of Independence but by a small majority do you think that a compromise such as a confederation would be the way forward?.
Could you please go inti slightly more detail about what you have said above, please?
I do not fully understand.
Complain about this comment
BangingonAbout # 94 -
Do you not remember the opposition parties forcing through half a billion pounds spending on Edinbugh Trams, half a billion pounds that had been ear-marked for extra police (the Government are on target for recruiting those extra 1000, btw), helping students, first-time buyers, etc.
And why did they force it through? Was it for the good of Scotland, or even for Edinburgh? Perhaps as a secondary consideration but the oppositions main aim was to show that the could still call the shots despite being in opposition.
Some people really have short memories. Perhaps that's why Labour have done so well in Scotland over the years.
Complain about this comment
Referring to Post 125.
If a Scottish Government won a vote for Independence,
Then how about just letting this then Government alone to Run Scotland between Parliamentary Election's unhindered, and without any need's to dance to tune's of any higher Authority.
Complain about this comment
'Those who say, privately to the newspapers, that Ms Alexander lacks Westminster know-how are spouting patronising tosh'
Wendy alexander doesn't even have Holyrood know-how brian so what aer you talking about. Since she has taken over she has been ignorant of procedures and rules, starting with the donations scandals all the way up to saying she would bring forward her own bill on a referendum.
P.S is everyone still going on about this Mike McCurry thing? He has held his hands up and said he made a mistake which is more than most refs do and i agree that the rugby rule should be brought in considering the bad desisions that have been made over this season and previous ones. I do feel bad for dundee united though.
Complain about this comment
"""Anyone pushing Chinese as a highschool language needs to be taken out and shot. Spanish not far behind (and I speak it). Usefulness....?!!"""
-----------------------------------------
It's still a very good education excercise to learn about other languages. Are you saying since other nationalities that scoptland deals with speak good english anyway that leanring them should be a lesser priority?
Complain about this comment
As far as independence goes. If many other countries that have been springing up ove the past 20 years are anything to go by.
Why can't Scotland?
Why can't Scotland have a new relationship with it's neighbours?
The way some folk have been commenting it's almost like it's a unique event amongst the world. The same issues of governance come up time and time again. Yet again these should be resolved to each involved parties satisfaction.
Complain about this comment
Brian:
PS: All the best to Rangers on Wednesday. Here's hoping they bring back the UEFA Cup for themselves and for Scotland.
[I wish them all good luck....]
PPS: Bet they're wishing they could take Mike McCurry with them as referee, after his supporting role at Ibrox on Saturday.
Here's an idea. Why doesn't football copy the rugby practice of using TV monitoring - by an unnamed official - to assist the ref when he's unsure or unwilling to take a decision?
[That sounds like a good idea and that it will work]....
~Dennis Junior~
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS