Tavish Scott takes to the leadership stage
It was a jolly occasion: unsullied, mostly, by rough, nasty things like winning external popular support.
That was for later. For now, loyal Scottish Liberal Democrats had one thing in mind: to applaud their new leader, Tavish Scott. There was notably vigorous applause from those who had campaigned for rivals. There was even a token baby or two on hand, mewing gently.
True, there was a curious remark from the second-placed Ross Finnie to the effect that the leadership contest had shone a light upon some party issues which were more commonly consigned to the cupboard.
One can only presume that he was referring to relatively mild disputes about the correct strategy for the LibDems to follow, post Salmond.
But he said it with a roguish grin - and followed it with a vigorous pledge to work for the newly elected leader.
As for Tavish Scott, it was a good, gutsy opening performance. He kept his acceptance speech mercifully short: thanking those who merited thanks and delivering a brisk political message.
That, need one say, was aimed at the First Minister. According to Mr Scott, Mr Salmond is destined to follow Gordon Brown in losing popular support.
Here's the key quote re Alex Salmond: "What looks confident, sure-footed and wily today will be seen as arrogant, misguided and politically dishonest tomorrow."
In short, he was telling party activists: fight hard on issues of popular concern, target the incumbent SNP - and bide your time.
What might one surmise about the issue of the constitution? Mr Scott wasn't for saying, preferring to deal with those popular issues: the economy, housing, rising prices.
However, pressed by me and others, he said his objective would be to secure greater powers for Scotland - firmly within the UK.
That could point to support for a multi-option referendum: perhaps setting independence against whatever emerges from the Calman Commission.
But, again, Mr Scott wasn't for saying, stressing that this was an issue for another day - and not an issue which motivated the mass of the population, in contradistinction to the obsession of political activists and journalists.
In all, then, a taut, confident beginning. But with questions ahead. What, precisely, will be the role of the Liberal Democrats? All-out, gutsy opposition? Cross-party co-operation? Bit of both?
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~24~RS~)
CommentsSign in
You need to sign in to contribute to this page. If you're new to BBC Blogs, creating your membership is quick and easy.
"What, precisely, will be the role of the Liberal Democrats? All-out, gutsy opposition? Cross-party co-operation? Bit of both?"
Good questions Brian. And that's the Lib-Dem problem - none of us know what they are actually for. Presumably Anaxim or another LD will enlighten us.
Complain about this comment
"What, precisely, will be the role of the Liberal Democrats?"
Exactly what do we need them for ,the Lib Dems and the Labour party are one and the same they have no new ideas no new policys it seems to have slipped Tavish Scotts mind that the Lib Dems were in power just over a year ago yes it was in coalition with Labour but the Lib Dems have to carry part of the blame for the mess that was left before the SNP took power.
Complain about this comment
I don't have any justification behind it, but, I found this comment of his quite annoying:
'SNP leader Alex Salmond and Labour Prime Minister Gordon Brown shared many similarities, Mr Scott said.
"Same tactics, same flaws, same admiration of Margaret Thatcher," he told Lib Dem party members.'
[From the main BBC News article]
Just seemed a bit pointless and unnecessary. Perhaps others think that it was a worthwhile comment?
Complain about this comment
With Rumbles having come 3rd, it certainly looks as though it will be no-business as usual. A pity, since LibDem support in Scotland seems to have slumped from their 22.63% in 2005 to barely half that in the latest polls.
So long as they side with the "strict" NuLab & Tory unionists instead of pushing their federalist agenda they have little to offer beyond unionism "with a human face", when they could be negotiating a multi-choice referendum for 2010 right now.
Complain about this comment
Be sombre, please, because we've just read the suicide note of the Lib Dems in Scotland, RIP.
It is indeed telling that Scott's immediate focus wasn't on anything positive or constructive, not on learning to work with a minority government on achieving their many common goals, but on bitterly attacking Alex Salmond - the exact same negative approach that is so spectacularly destroying Labour and saw the Lib Dems lose their deposit in Glasgow.
The Scottish people are being sick of told how rubbish and weak and stupid and feeble and poor they are, and are responding to the SNP's positivity. Meanwhile, the Lib Dems are falling off a cliff and Tavish was the "more of the same" candidate - he offered them a parachute full of anvils, and they've accepted. Bagsy not the one mopping up the jagged rocks at the bottom of the cliff this time next year.
Complain about this comment
The Liberal Democrats are better off working with the Nationalists, rather then going against them. If the Liberal Democrats worked with the Nationalists instead then perhaps some of the glory would be shared with the Lib Dems. Maybe then the Lib Dems would not be as irrelvent as they appear today.
Complain about this comment
It's funny how the Liberal Democrats sound so much like the Labour Party. Protect the Union, put down Scotland, lack of ambition they want the Scottish Parliament to deal with bread and butter issues like crime (yawn), education (yawn) and health (zzzz) but they want no more resposibilities other than that and will fight to keep the right for the Parliament to be dull! Oh and they always have to check with London on what they are allowed to say and do. New Liberal Democrats New Labour.
Complain about this comment
oldnat hits the nail on the head. What do the LibDems stand for? Hopefully Tavish Scott will articulate their vision (assuming they have one!) better than his predecessors. The last thing the country needs is for them to flit from issue to issue, appearing to make it up as they go along, or "opposing" for the sake of hearing their own voices.
I remember being in New Zealand in 2002 watching their general election. The only assured performer was Winston Peters of NZ First. Notwithstanding that I disagreed with virtually every word he spoke, I knew what he stood for. He had three pretty objectionable policies that he hammered out every time he was seen, and held up a three-fingered salute (much like Dubya's) to remind everyone of them. A simple gimmick, but one which couldn't help but lodge in your mind. Similarly he had a catchphrase: "Can we fix it? Yes we can!" (I'm not sure if Bob the Builder ever sued). The result was a near doubling of their vote.
So LibDems, as you gird your loins and roll up your cardigan sleeves, work out what you believe in, and communicate your message effectively!
Complain about this comment
#5 Rev_S_Campbell
I fear you're right and that the SDP wing of the LibDems is achieving final victory over the Liberals at the expense of the demise of the party itself.
Very wittily put, however.
Complain about this comment
#6 Thomas_Porter
Spot on, but little chance of that I fear.
#7 Vakov2000
Agreed, but the crazy thing is that federalism is still the official policy of their federal party. I truly cannot understand what can have motivated them to choose the most unionist of the three as it shows complete disregard of what's happened to their fortunes in the year they have been in the wilderness and contempt for the mood of the electorate.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn: Referendum and independence? "Not an issue that motivates the mass of the population."
Let's hope Mr Scott is equally perceptive when addressing the issues that do.
We need someone talking about fuel, about mortgage availability, about food costs, about student debt, etc.
It won't revive the Liberals by much, if anything, but it will give the impression that he cares about real people and real issues.
Complain about this comment
Crime(yawn) What an odd description.
8,000 inmates plus (DO THEY GET A VOTE?)
Education(yawn) ????????????
Health (Zzzzzzz)???????????
Old or New SNP...........
Complain about this comment
I wonder if anyone even noticed there was a leadership contest?
Complain about this comment
This leadership selection will change nothing.
Already the new Liberal leader is displaying delusional tendencies comparing himself with Chris Hoy and further stating "Thank you for this, the gold medal in the Lib Dem Olympics."
Does he not realise that Liberals will only ever be at best Bronze Medallists.
Complain about this comment
The current stance of the Liberals doesn't seem to represent Federalism but old fashioned unionism. As for for crime, education and health being dull there are many aspects of our life that are more important being economics, taxation and social security, contribution towards the EU, Foreign affairs amongst many others and the unionists tell us we should only be responsible for the first 3 and no more. Sorry theses have far more impact on our lifes and are far more interesting. Although obviously unionists only feel the are competant in those areas and incompetent if they were to expand there remit any further.
Complain about this comment
I voted for Finnie; Tavish is the best media performer, but his core message is weak. These days, you might think that a media performer would be better, but it's obvious that the Lib Dems can't compete with Salmond's army of spin doctors and shameless populism. In that case, the message is more important that the messenger.
The Lib Dems stand for liberty (and probably too many other things beside). Civil liberties have always been one of the party's main themes, and they're mostly concentrated at Westminster. The SNP's American-style drinking laws will give the Lib Dems a lift, but it's meagre pickings.
Complain about this comment
#11 brigadierjohn:
The problem is that all of these are issues that an independent nation can deal with effectively, whereas a devolved satrapy cannot.
Scotland exports very large amounts of energy, in the forms both of hydrocarbon and of electricity. The UK is a net importer. Independent, we realistically can do something about energy costs. Devolved, we can't.
Scotland's house prices are by and large less speculative than England's. Different policies are needed to manage those housing markets. Independent, we can do something about housing costs. Devolved, we can't. And so on.
If the unionists move the agenda onto 'bread and butter issues', then they're playing straight into nationalist hands.
Complain about this comment
#14 Peter_Fife &
#15 Vakov2000
Please note that these are NOT Liberals but Scottish LibDems. Contrary to popular belief, not all Liberals merged with the SDP and the party continues today, with a federalist agenda. The LibDems also have federalist policies but have hardly been pushing them of late.
Complain about this comment
While we bicker amongst ourselves, and restate our oft aired views, it's worth while going back to the text of Brian's post now and again - if only to admire the subtlety of language and the sharp perception of the critical issues.
Perhaps the key comment Brian made was "But, again, Mr Scott wasn't for saying".
Complain about this comment
The Libs blew it when they declined to go into coalition with the SNP. Big mistake. They could have a basked in the glory with Salmond. Instead, everybody, even the bloggers on here, have lost interest in them. They are retreating into the wilderness and will only be able to rely on their strongholds. Those strongholds will slowly fall to the SNP.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
Liberals to "bide your time". They don't have time Brian.
Right now they are free falling to oblivion. They need to do something quck'ish or take a pounding at both Westminster and Holyrood elections.
But what does Tavish have to offer ???
Complain about this comment
#14 Peter_Fife
Over-likening himself to Chris Hoy was annoying. This guy has obviously got himself on the wrong side of me already. [Minor rant on #3 too]
#8 forfar-loon
That sounds like quite an effective ploy!
I think what the Lib Dems need to do is to really communicate their views clearly and effectively. If they want to rid themselves of the Lib-Lab pact tag that they've gained, Scott needs to be a bit of an enthusiastic and exciting leader that absolutely has the passion and ability to move them forwards.
Much the same there can apply to Scottish Labour, really. A new leader that can really thrust forward their views in an appealing, easy-to-understand, clear and concise way.
Oh how Scottish politics would benefit from that! Would be nice to see the Tories get more of a showing too... they have some good ideals and some cracking policies, but Scotland doesn't appear up to voting for them.
#17 Simon_Brooke
It's quite tricky to really say clearly that fuel price and food cost rises would be tackled if we were independent. It's not at all clear how things could be divided up between Scotland and the rest of the UK upon a break-up.
If it was divided so that oil revenues and such allowed Scotland's finances to be in extremely good order, you're correct in suggesting that a lot of these problems could be more easily tackled.
If it was divided up in some other way, which is entirely possible should independence come, there mightn't be the monetary supplies to counter rising food and fuel prices.
I don't know much about the housing market, so I'll avoid commenting on that.
Complain about this comment
Lib Dems have missed an opportunity here, Mike Rumbles would have stirred the pot, Tavish will just be more of the same nothingness.
We really need good politicians in leadership positions this won't change anything.
I do agree though with Tavish's comments on president eck, his veneer is slowly but surely wearing away. The pile of broken promises grows and soon he will have to start implementing the serious stuff.
How will tavish campaign on LIT?
Complain about this comment
Well the Lib Dems chose Tavish, and with a bigger majority than most expected!
He now needs to rally his troops both in and out with Holyrood if they are to prove a real challenge to Salmond and his cronies.
As to Labour, they need to find their selves a new leader and some new direction - they seem to be lost on the circuit!
Complain about this comment
J Arthur McNumpty pretty well says it all about Tavish Scott and the Lib Dems.
Complain about this comment
#24 Kiltie
I'm sure the troops would be ready to charge - but in which direction? and to gain what objective? Its normally a benefit for the troops to know what they're fighting for, or even what they're fighting against.To restate my question in post #1 (which no one has answered) What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?
Complain about this comment
#25 oldnat
That blog would make you worry about the Lib Dems chances, but consider the initial point that gets you fired up thinking Scott is entirely anti-SNP: "Scott reportedly threatened a walkout if his party spoke to the SNP"
Is this a known fact to those in-the-know? Or is this merely thrown in to rile us up a bit for reading the text that follows? Right enough his initial speech wasn't great, but the blog doesn't appear particularly conclusive on Scott's anti-SNP views.
In essence, if that initial statement has certain untruths about it, the rest of the post is mostly irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
Maybe tactical voting (glenrothes)
Is that on your mind?
Complain about this comment
Brownedov, #18
Liberals, LibDems or Scottish LibDems, no great difference, just a different fence to sit on in a different part of the country.
Do you really believe that resisting a merger with the SDP sets you apart?
Your mission, should you accept it, is to produce policies which you will never be called to enact, the public subterfuge of dreamers.
Complain about this comment
Tavish Anti-Scot?
Complain about this comment
An expected choice but not the most intelligent by any means. Holyrood needs a light touch not Rambo playing hardball.
Scott has no new ideas, a bit of tinkering around the edges but nothing new.
The best man for the job, the man who understands the situation better than most and who could provide the best approach for the Liberals, for Holyrood and for Scotland, comes last.
On the other hand of course Scott could such a brilliant job of humiliating Salmond and his cabinet they resign en masse before Christmas and pledge allegiance to the new Liberal administration..............and everyone lived happily ever after. The End.
Complain about this comment
#27 drew
I didn't get "fired up" by Scott's comments on Newsnight(?). However, they did suggest that his political views were negative rather than positive. I repeat my request for info -
"What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?"
Complain about this comment
Tavish's Shetland constituency has amongst the highest quality of life in the UK (and presumably the world). I assume at least some of his staunch support for the UK comes from his constituents.
Complain about this comment
"What looks confident, sure-footed and wily today will be seen as arrogant, misguided and politically dishonest tomorrow."
Pure wishful thinking. Typical Lib Dem.
Complain about this comment
#26 oldnat ref#1
To answer your last paragraph in one word "themselves".
Nothing else worth adding at this point in time.
Complain about this comment
The Herald report on Scott's election is interesting for the other parties' responses. Who warmly welcomes his success? Labour!
Complain about this comment
#33 Anaxim
In view of your grief, I'll not comment.
Complain about this comment
Dinwoodie in the Herald says
Now either Brian missed a major aspect of Scott's speech, or Dinwoodie is making something up.Brian?
Complain about this comment
Can anyone remember that wily old fox Dennis Canavan. I do miss his endeavours.
Irrelevant, yes, just thought I would mention it.......
Complain about this comment
#32 oldnat
Sorry if my post was confusing. I was trying to point out that the McNumpty story appeared to be flawed by basing it all on something which lacked evidence. Also, when I had said 'that gets you fired up' I had meant whoever was reading the story, not specifically yourself.
Anyhoo. I don't know what to make of Scott. What I hope is that he is able to outline what the Lib Dems are for.
Their purpose? I'd hope their purpose is to be an influential opposition party that can offer a viable alternative. It seems remarkably clear that in order to do that they are going to have to work with the SNP on policies where there are similarities.
Complain about this comment
The Lib Dems are the James Dean of politics in Scotland. Politicians with out a cause!
Ross Finnie has a bit of personality, affable fellow; Rumbles, not an affable fellow, nuff said, but Tavish is a strange one, who is he? The good folks of Orkney and Shetland know little of him either.
That sums up the Lib Dems nicely, bit of an enigma, no policies, but they don't care!
Let's just hope he lasts longer than Wendy, he ought to, providing he has not taking any dodgey donations?
Complain about this comment
#40 Drew
Nae problem.
I keep repeating my simple questions
What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?"
in the hope that some Lib-Dem (there are supposed to be 4,000 of them) can give me an answer.
Complain about this comment
re:23 "more of the same nothingness". Seems to sum up the arrival of a new LibDem leader !
I see there is a new Deputy Governor of the Bank of England, a Mr Bean. He could form a new partnership with Broon, forming the Broon Bean economic duet. One of them, I understand, is a neo-Thatcherite who gives billions to bankers. He also hails from "North Britain" (his own words) and has Mrs T. round for tea!
Complain about this comment
I see the Grauniad has a different take on Scott's canonization and the referendum. They use the word "could" to spin an entirely different story. Personally, I'll stick with Brian's version of the meeting.
Complain about this comment
Don't blame me. I gave my first preference to Mike Rumbles.
Complain about this comment
Here's a thought. With the Conservatives set to win the next Westminster Election, is it not time that Scotland should now go Independent? Alex Salmond should bring forward his Referendum. 2010 will be far too late. An Independent Scotland would have the Lib Dems, Labour and Conservatives scratching their heads, wondering what policies they can adopt to form an effective Opposition.
Complain about this comment
#29 Peter_Fife
I do believe that the merger with the SDP lost the alliance a powerful weapon in the ability to show that parties could work together and the coalitions could be made to work, as the LibDems were able to prove in the SP a decade later.
Two decades on, the LibDems seem to have forgotten that. Coalition is not and should not be about getting into bed with a comfortable partner but about striking a deal which allows as many of your policies as possible a realistic chance of implementation. The LibDems forgot this in 2007 and seem to be spurning it now.
Complain about this comment
#45 Clyping
Good for you - better luck next time.
Complain about this comment
"# 14. At 7:47pm on 26 Aug 2008, Peter_Fife wrote:
This leadership selection will change nothing.
Already the new Liberal leader is displaying delusional tendencies comparing himself with Chris Hoy and further stating "Thank you for this, the gold medal in the Lib Dem Olympics."
Does he not realise that Liberals will only ever be at best Bronze Medallists."
Sorry Peter but I don't think you get any medal for being fourth?
Rushing like Lemmings to oblivion.
Complain about this comment
The election of Tavish Scott a bit vacuous enigmatic negative and uninspiring seems in keeping with the election of the Lib Dems London Leader Clegg. They do seem to be a party that is content to drift aimlessly.
Complain about this comment
#36 & #44 oldnat
Certainly if the Grauniad are right that will be the LibDems best hope of avoiding the "parachute full of anvils" so delicately put in the Rev_S_Campbell's #5.
Somehow the Herald link in your #36 rings truer.
Complain about this comment
"Same tactics, same flaws, same admiration of Margaret Thatcher"
We know this not to be true. He's trying to capitalise on last weeks comment by Alex Salmond that was taken out of context.
I've read the interview and I've heard what Alex Salmond has had to say on the matter since then, there has been no evidence of any admiration for Thatcher, quite the opposite in fact.
So Tavish is starting off by telling needless lies in his opening speach? Is this supposed to warm the electorate to him or is he just starting as he means to go on?
Complain about this comment
Oh noes ye naysayers! Today is independence by creep wednesday.
The daily record reports that Chris Hoy would be delighted to compete as part of a Scottish Olympic team, rubbishing reports that he thought the idea was 'ridiculous'
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/08/27/exclusive-scotland-can-stand-alone-at-olympics-with-enough-investment-says-chris-hoy-86908-20713364/
The scotsman reports that Tavish Scott is open minded to the idea of an independence referendum!
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/New-Lib-Dem-leader-will.4428787.jp
Jings! Crivens! Help ma bob! Red alert at the Kremlin on the Clyde!
Complain about this comment
#29 Peter_Fife
PS to my #47
Not believing that any of the "main" party lines does NOT mean sitting on the fence.
In the few democratic elections available in Scotland, that can be avoided by expressing 2nd, 3rd or whatever preferences.
In the quasi-democratic elections for Holyrood and Westmidden based on the 1872 plurality system, I would follow the advice of my #226 on the previous thread, and support whichever of the LibDems or SNP seems more likely to win unless I see it as a "straight fight" between NuLab and the Tories, when I would support the Tories as the lesser evil re centralisation, authoritarianism and honesty.
Complain about this comment
I can categorically reveal that despite what the posters here think (and the Scotsman), there is not the remotest prospect whatsoever that Tavish will endorse a neverending referendum on independence and he has all but ruled out a multi-option referendum.
He has merely said that he will listen to what the nats bring forward. However, despite what some might take from that, he will not support it. Guaranteed.
As for what the party stand for and what they do, the focus is and should now be on policy development and the offer of a different future to the nationalist fairyland future. The Lib Dems now have 2 targets to aim at Labour and SNP govts.
Tavish is bright and able and well capable of doing it. The best of luck to him.
Complain about this comment
#53 BrianSH
Thanks for the links to both articles. I certainly hope that the The Scotsman's New Lib Dem leader will consider backing vote on independence and the Grauniad's similar story linked to in oldnat's #44 are true and specifically that "Scottish Liberal Democrats might take a decision on the issue at their next conference next spring". If they do that could be the beginning of a comeback.
Whatever they do, they should avoid the craziness of their Glasgow East campaign in the forthcoming Glenrothes contest. Their siding with the unionist parties in Glasgow East undoubtedly cost them votes.
Scott needs to recognise that "you have to be in it to win it" and that a kicking for NuLab by the SNP was the best to be hoped for there and is almost certainly the best they can hope for in Glenrothes. He should be mending fences with the SNP not building them higher.
The Record's Scotland can stand alone at Olympics.. with enough investment, says Chris Hoy is a prime example of how the unionist media will take remarks out of context. Maybe The Record itself is finally waking up to reality and shuffling gingerly away from its traditional stance. As you say, Red alert at the Kremlin on the Clyde!
Complain about this comment
#55 swimdmj
Surely the $64,000 question is whether he will fight it at conference and what he does in the meantime?
If not, how can he hope to bring the LibDem federal policy to fruition?
Complain about this comment
For someone dismissed almost universally here as an irrelevance, a lightweight, a no-hoper, a cipher, pick your own put-down, Tavish Scott seems to be exercising the minds of quite a few Nats.
Is it just a visceral need to abuse any opponent, however harmless, is it whistling in the dark, is it spite because the Lib-Dems didn't sign-up to Alex's Barmy Army. I think we should be told.
#17 Simon_Brooke: Sorry to be so long - this blog is not my life's work!
Simon, it is simply not good enough, when any difficult question is raised, to parrot the fantasy that Independence will solve everything. It's almost as bad as saying "it's a reserved issue so we can't discuss it."
People are already tired of this "pie in the sky when you die" style of politics. They see through it. Abusing opponents is never a substiture for policies.
Please enter the real world and discuss the here-and-now. Surely we can't just begin to consider difficult questions and reserved issues until Independence is delivered?
Complain about this comment
#58 brigadierjohn
Some interesting points, as usual, but can you explain how the LibDems can forward their federalist agenda by lining up with the two large avowed unionist parties?
If there's no referendum the Scottish people cannot be asked the question the LibDems avowedly want to ask them.
I'm off out for now but will look back in later.
Complain about this comment
#53.
I feel sorry for Chris Hoy.
He goes off to Beijing, puts on a truely remarkable performance and then comes back here to find overweight politicians and the media using him to score
political points off each other by twisting everything he says to make their points. He going to starting wondering why he bothered soon.
He originally said that (paraphrasing) talk of a Scottish Olympic team at this stage is ridiculous and Scotland would have to invest heavily in
sport in order to do it.
Then he said (again paraphrasing) that with enough investment Scotland could standalone.
These two statements are consistent with each other and are not mutually exclusive. So nothing is being "rubbished".
Salmond's talk NOW is ridiculous - let him put a few years worth of investment in first. How about a 50m swimming pool in Aberdeen for a start - it's
been asked for long enough.
It's a sad facit of the British character (yes, that includes Scottish people) that we always seem to have to take a knock at success or try and use it
to our own advantage. What's wrong with celebrating these people (whereever they come from) and holding them up as role models for our youth rather then
cynically trying to manipulate them.
Complain about this comment
So Tavish won. No great surprise seeing the LibDems go for the, apparently, safe option, that's what they usually do.
A couple of interesting excerpt from the BBC profile of the man
-"he masterminded Nicol Stephen's successful campaign"
-"Mr Scott took key roles in the Scottish Liberal Democrats' 2007 election campaign "
So he was behind the lacklustre Nicol and the even more lacklustre LibDem 2007 campaign. Given this record, I don't think his victory is going to worry anybody, least of all Salmond.
They should have went with Rumbles, that would at least have been entertaining.
Complain about this comment
PS Sorry about #60. Bit of a formatting disaster !!
Complain about this comment
#59 Brownedov: I would not presume to tell anyone how to forward their agenda. But perhaps, depending on future trends, the Lib-Dems may say to Labour and Tories: Look guys, the SNP controls the Scottish Government, and may secure independence on nothing more than fluff and promises. Are you happy with that? If not, let's offer a serious, working federal arrangement, backed by all of us, to test our belief that the Scots don't want to break the Union, but would relish greater and meaningful self-government within it.
Now George Galloway, in a minority of one, he admits, believes the SNP wave of support may have broken on the rocks of reality. I'm not so sure, but it will break, with much recrimination and gnashing of teeth, eventually.
So, if the Lib-Dems promote the message of more and better devolution, particularly to the Big Two, there is hope for federalism.
I might be persuaded to offer support.
Complain about this comment
Tavish Scott talks about how important the bread and butter issues are to the ordinary person on the street. Have to point out the glaringly obvious, unless Scotland becomes Independent you DO NOT HAVE CONTROL over such things. At present the Lib Dems are nothing, irrelevent and just another Unionist party who will have to contact London to have any major policies sanctioned
Complain about this comment
#63.
John, the more power that the Scottish Government receives the greater the victory that Nationalists make. Do you not see that the more 'Independent' Scotland is, the more reasons why we should continue to run all our affairs? Our opinions and priorities will be different and then you will at some point claim that the Union should continue, only in name, nothing more. At the end of the day the Union will become the dead weight that holds back Scotland and England from our true calling.
Nationalists will continue to campaign for Independence. Westminister can only control so much power before it becomes irrelevent and against the will of the Scottish people (once opinion and priorites divide more). How long do you think it shall last before the Scottish Government makes the last call for more power?
Complain about this comment
#64 falkirkblues
I would have to assume you posted at a time when post #63 was still in moderation.
Scotland could indeed have control over many of the bread and butter issues that you deem impossible without independence. Like #63 points out, if there was to be more and better devolution, meaningful self-government within the Union is perfectly plausible. These bread and butter issues could be controlled, whilst still being part of the Union.
It could be an interesting situation if the three unionist parties clubbed together to offer a strong and clear message about the alternative to independence. The LibDems would do theirselves some good by being part of that.
It's funny though, because on the other side of things, the LibDems would do themselves good by discussing their common policies with the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#64 Falkirkblues: Of course you have control over such things as bread and butter issues! Your MP, of whatever party, should be fighting at Westminster - the proper place for it right now - to improve the lot of his constituents.
Every single member of the public, political posturing aside, wants these issues tackled as No.1 priority.
It is absolutely infuriating to hear political chancers claiming they have no control because we're not independent.
Go and kick your MP up the backside, metaphorically of course. Otherwise abandon democracy and hold up a bread and butter shop. (Joke)
Apologies to Wilde, but you would need a heart of stone not to laugh at the naive fancies of some SNP supporters.
Complain about this comment
#65 Thomas_Porter
There are many common issues between Scotland the rest of the UK that are best dealt with in Westminster. Defence, social security, much of the economic policy and foreign policy for example.
Obviously there'll be plenty of people that object to me saying these are all common issues where people of Scotland and the rest of the UK share similar viewpoints, but I haven't had enough evidence to convince me otherwise.
The way I see it is that we need devolved powers for those things that are clearly different. Over time this includes Justice and Education and such.
Complain about this comment
#47 Brownedov,
The SDP/Liberal Alliance was an electoral alliance of the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party which operated from 1981 to 1988, when in 1988 the bulk of the two parties, possibly excluding yourself, merged to form the Social and Liberal Democrats, later referred to as simply the Liberal Democrats.
Between 1981 and 1983 both parties agreed to stand down in each other's favour; in other words not being true to the electorate, not permitting voters to record their true feelings; these acts were wholly based round the self interest of the parties, the party's candidates and party leaders; hence any claim from a Liberal pertinent to their concerns towards the electorate are merely hollow words from hollow 'men' as far as I am concerned.
The Liberals were merely a cross to be borne by Labour, especially West Coast Jack to achieve the numbers to Govern; do you really believe that the Liberals were in the Scottish Government on merit or the express wish of the Scottish people.
Complain about this comment
#65 Thomas: We all know you're a battler. You stick to your guns. To carry forward the military analogy, the Unionists are not talking defeat here, more a tactical withdrawal, hypothetically, to the fall-back position of Federalism.
We don't want to kill all the Tartan Taliban. We want to win over their supporters and render them powerless.
You Thomas, will never surrender. But there will be enough waverers to leave you isolated.
Now, Tactics Book Chapter Two: Counter Attack - Lesson One, secure your own position. It will be a loooooong campaign.
Hearts and minds, Thomas. That's the battlefield.
Ach, but you know all that. You'll advance with guns blazing.
Complain about this comment
Reply to 66
If tavish Scott came out with a clear Federal plan i think the Lib Dems could gain support for it, however it appears he is personally not interested or most likely London has applied pressure, which rightly or wrongly most scots think.
Reply to 67
My local MP is Eric Joyce the worst specimen of a New Labour Yes man you will find in Scotland and who has driven me to vote for the SNP in eternity
Complain about this comment
#63 brigadierjohn
Thanks for that. I can see your ideas as a possible strategy, but a very long-term one. If the Federal LibDems are backing off their goals then maybe that's what the Scottish LibDems have been testing. We may find out more after Bournemouth. If the Glasgow East campaign was anything to go by - losing their deposit, 70% of their vote share and falling behind the Tories - it doesn't seem to be working too well just yet.
More urgent is the 2010 situation. If a referendum is blocked by an alliance of federalists and unionists, it can only add ammunition to the SNP case in the 2011 SP elections. An SNP in 2011 with an overall majority at Holyrood would be much less likely to opt for a multi-choice referendum.
In that event or if the unionists stake everything by allowing a straight Yes / No vote on independence in 2010, the federal option may never be put to the Scottish people, or at least delayed for another decade if the unionists win.
Complain about this comment
#71 falkirkblues: Sorry about your MP. You could write to your nearest SNP MP, and ask him - if he's not too busy being disruptive and unco-operative - what he's doing about the issues that confront real people. It's his job, you know.
Complain about this comment
# So, please enlighten me - what IS our 'true calling'??
Complain about this comment
Lib Dem+SNP= Aberdeen- say no more!
Complain about this comment
#68.
You really belive that Defence, social security, much of the economic policy and foreign policy are best served with Westminister?
I see. Scotland (and of course elsewhere within Britain) suffers poverty and we are suppose to spend money on Trident, Iraq/Afganistan war and other operations? Priorities are quite clearly different from the Scottish Government and the London Government (I support these wars personally, but not at any cost).
I could also make a clear point about your other thoughts that are best left with Westminister but you get my point.
#70.
John, I am sure that you are looking for the expression, 'The battle might be over but the war has just begun'. The Union are completely unable to defend the Status Quo. It's one failure that has never been corrected until the Nationalists came along. What the Unionists are baisically saying, 'We are changing to Federilism out of fear of loosing Scotland, not to improve the lives of the Scottish public'.
If the Unionists were confident they could quite easily defend the Status Quo then offer something better once the 'Independence Movement' has been defeated. We are witnessing a complete change of strategy because the Status Quo is undefenable.
I thank the Nationalists for provoking London into creating something better for Scotland, I am sure we all will thank the Nationalists for their biggest acheivment.
By the way John, speaking of supporters which party are increasing membership? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#75.
Aberdeen should be thankful that the SNP+Lib Dems are here. If we were left in the hands of the other parties we would be further into debt by now.
Complain about this comment
69 Peter_Fife
Your recollection is faulty, at least in part. The SDP/Liberal Alliance was indeed an electoral alliance of the Social Democratic Party and the Liberal Party which operated from 1981 to 1988.
However, in 1988 the bulk of the two memberships voted to form a new party, the LibDems. The two "rump" parties remained. I have little current interest in the SDP, but seem to recall Owen led it for a while and have no idea whether it still exists. The Liberal Party has existed since 1877 and will continue to do so.
Between 1981 and 1988 both parties supported electoral reform (the Liberals and LibDems still do) and so for any contest governed by the quasi-democratic 1872 plurality voting system (all of them, in those days!) they put forward a single candidate to avoid "splitting" the vote of those committed to electoral and constitutional reform. They did, however, pledge, that both parties would fight every seat at every election once electoral reform was achieved even if both were in a coalition government.
To say that these are "hollow words from hollow 'men'" and showed no concern for the electorate is totally untrue.
"do you really believe that the [LibDems] were in the Scottish Government on merit or the express wish of the Scottish people."
As a matter of fact they were in coalition with Labour because Labour did not have a majority of either seats or votes in the SP either in 1999 or 2003, having no more than about a third of the votes except in the 1999 plurality seats where they were nearer 40%.
As more than 60% of Scottish voters have never wanted Labour to govern Scotland, it's perhaps just as well that a coalition partner was needed to help smooth some of their rougher edges. Clearly, as the largest party, Labour could have negotiated with the Tories or the SNP as potential coalition partners. They could also have tried a minority government as the SNP seem to be having some success doing.
If you really believe Labour would have governed better alone from 1999 to 2007, why do you think so many people South of Hadrian's Wall think Scotland got a better deal than they did under "pure" NuLab government?
Complain about this comment
Anaxim wrote about the SNPs "shameless populism"
Maybe its just me, but I thought that people and parties were elected to carry out the policies that the people want. You might like to use that juvenile taunt, I prefer calling it the peoples priorities.
If the opinion pools are any guide, and they usually are, it would appear that more people take the positive view, than Anaxims negativity.
As an example Anaxim can you tell me what is shameless populism about reducing and finally getting rid of the Lab/Tories sick tax, the prescription charge. Did some Labour leader warn people not to get sick? how prophetic he was he must have known Broon would increase it year on year.
Notice the Lab/Fib Dems were happy for 8 years to charge Broons sick tax.
Complain about this comment
I see Nicola Sturgeon is jumping on the (already crowded) Olympics bandwagon now.
"The Scottish Governments overriding priority is to see an increase in sporting participation....."
Overriding what?
The independence referendum?
The NHS?
Education?
Why can't she just say "one of our priorities..."
Complain about this comment
#75
I think it's clear that the SNP's priorities vary considerably from that of the British Government's. I'm not convinced if you surveyed all of the Scottish people you'd find huge variations in opinion on those issues.
The war has proved an incredibly expensive move indeed and there's little we can do about that any more. Trident only accounts for a few percent of the defence budget, so it's not really an important consideration financially. It would be nice if ridding the country of poverty was as simple as throwing money at something, but it's not.
Have we drifted from the topic of the Lib Dem appointment suitably? So. Tavish Scott. Splendid chap, eh what.
Complain about this comment
Re 76 Thomas _ Porter
Thomas it might be okay on a blog like this to proclaim the debate over independance is over. It is not over by a long way.
" The union is completely unable to defend the status quo"
It is the job of those offering change to come up with a good reason for change. The union has its faults but change would need to bring real discernable benefits to me before I would consider a yes vote. i am not fundamentally opposed, I need convinvced. I think I am in the majority.
The arguments need to be about more than emotion, they need to be on hard facts. That is a real and proper debate, not rubbishing alternative opinions.
Complain about this comment
#76 Thomas: You've misunderstood. Brownedov asked me for a hypothesis on how the Lib-Dems might profitably engage with the Big Two. I offered a scenario that might arise if....... that HUGE word.
It wasn't my view or my preference - just an idea about a possibility.
I'm fine with defending the status quo, warts and all. And I don't think anyone in London is talking about Federalism.
You see, Thomas, you have spotted a troop movement on the horizon and jumped to the conclusion that an attack is imminent.
In fact, it's just a feint to tempt you out of position.
You think you have won the battle. But it's only in your mind. Let's wait for the live ammunition to be delivered.
Complain about this comment
Brian
"It was a jolly occasion: unsullied, mostly, by rough, nasty things like winning external popular support"
Of course it had to be Brian, as the Limp Dems have no policies for winning external support.
We know what the L/Ds are against, but apart from being Labours lap dog in Scotland do they know just what they are for.
73 Brigadierjohn
That must be the worst suggestion ever on this blog. Why contact someone elses SNP MP and distract them from standing up for Scotland, when after the next general election he will have an SNP MP of his own.
Complain about this comment
Tavish Scott is a worthy succesor to Nicol Stephen - another personality-free non-entity, a drone.
With the eyes of the [Scottish] political media upon him, and having doubtless prepared his victory speech for weeks (I'll be generous, and not suggest that it was written whilst Nicol was still in post), does he put forward a vision for what the Scottish LibDems might be in the near and far future?
No.
He whinges, he whines, and he all but cries for his mammy; it's all that nasty man Salmond's fault, apparently.
At a time when the parties on the up in Scotland - SNP (Salmond), Tories (Goldie) - have hugely entertaining, engaging and charismatic leaders, the Scottish LibDems have chosen the least positive option before them.
Complain about this comment
#81.
Did Scottish Labour not have a fuss about greater independence from London Labour? Simply because Scottish views/opinions were different from London? I also remember watching the BBC when people from England and Scotland were asked, 'How comfortable are you with nuclear waste being dumped in your area?' You can bet that their opinions were very different.
"Trident only accounts for a few percent of the defence budget."
Let me change this for you. Trident only accounts for a few percent of the defence budget, to you. However Trident is one pointless weapon considering you look to stop the enemy retaliating if you decide to attack. Plus, those few percent points can make a difference if you work on the frontline. Better vehicles, better weapons etc etc
Complain about this comment
What were the LibDems looking for in their so-called 'leader'?
Someone who would LEAD them in his chosen direction - "I know what to do; follow me..." - or someone who will be content to be poster boy for prevailing part opinion?
Whatever else you might say about the two, Tony Blair was a true LEADER, in a way that Gordon Brown can never hope to be. Like most cults, though, New Labour has more than a sense of suicidal desperation (to show control of one's own existence, if not of events).
If Tavish Scott told his party to jump, would a Chinese butterfly's wings spontaneously combust?
Thought not.
Complain about this comment
#83.
Who's that coming over the horizon? Well, its David Cameron reinforcing the Nats quest for change.
I am quite comfortable waiting to hear Camerons theory for change. Strategically Cameron would hope to secure the Nats approval. Any loss could loose Scotland or even allow Labour to recreate themselves and then the Tories will have to hold their positons. (SNP will never invade England unlike Labour)
The Status Quo is over. After 2010, if the referendum fails then we have the Tories taking charge instead with more chance of success. Britain will certainly be working differently after 2010.
Complain about this comment
#84 dubbieside: Sorry, I was under the impression that MPs stood up for constituents. Forfarblue was unhappy with a Labour MP and I directed him to a sympathetic ear. There is a long and honourable tradition of MPs acting for neighbouring constituents in these circumstances. Not to mention List MSPs in much the same position, although elected by nobody.
Do you have anything constructive to offer, or is gratuitous abuse your normal currency. Very SNP, mind you.
Complain about this comment
76. I can't see how the nationalists have won the argument. All they have said is "We can do it better, honest!".
The fundamental point of the case is the economics. The nationalists may let their hearts speak for their minds but the overwhelming majority of us are very much the opposite.
The SNP are clearly basing their entire economic argument on Scotland becoming an 'oil-rich state with a bountiful oil fund and bountiful reserves lasting decades to come'.
However, while oil is a major part of our economy (it accounts for about 25% of both our GDP and our tax revenues this year), it is clearly highly volatile in price (cue the recent 25% drop in a few weeks) plus production has been decreasing steadily from 2.9m barrels per day in 1999 to just 1.2m now. Buzzard has finally started producing but at just 190,000 barrels per day, that will make little impact.
I also remember you confidently predicting that prices would continue to rise to above $200 a barrel.
How is oil a solid foundation on which to build a prosperous economy?
Complain about this comment
86. That "few per cent" protected us from being nuked or even blackmailed by the Warsaw Pact.
However, being just 16 years old, you will obviously not understand the global situation during the pre-1990 Cold War.
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn.
Your reply is not worthy of comment.
Complain about this comment
#55 swimdmj
I take this to mean that you also have not the faintest idea of "What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?"Anaxim says that the Lib-Dems are for liberty and believe strongly in civil liberties. I agree with him, in that was the core of the old Liberal Party belief (I am less convinced that the SDP part of the party was as committed).
However, there are many people in the other parties who strongly believe in civil liberty.
You suggest that the Lib-Dems are opposed to Scottish Independence. However, so are the Conservatives and Labour. What makes the Lib-Dems different from them? I'm not asking difficult questions, and members of every other party would be able to give a straightforward answer. Let me repeat -
What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?
Complain about this comment
Oh noes the reluctant one is back!
Woe and behold he would actually move back to the country he so loves and extolls the virtues of?
Complain about this comment
#88 Thomas: I should know better, shouldn't I? I had forgotten that every time I blew your pillbox to pieces you came back firing from a new position. You can't be pinned down.
I really hope you become a General in the Army. Nobody will ever guess where you're moving next.
In fact Alex Salmond would be a good General. He can dodge anything that's flying his way. I believe opponents are working on an anti-smirk missile.
Anyway, there's incoming mortar fire from she-who-must-be-obeyed. Last Post for me today.
Complain about this comment
#90.
I never stated that the Nationalists have won the arguement. You wrote that. What I made clear was that the Status Quo will no longer be the case and we would not be having this conversation unless the Nats won the Scottish Elections.
If you wish to defend the Union then where are the alternative employment being created within Scotland? You clearly demonstrated that oil is in decline and prices are never the same for to long. I'd expect something to be created for Scotland to prepare us for the outcome when the oil finally runs out (after the hundreds of billions worth of oil has been drilled out) but the Union offers my generation nothing. Oh wait, a Tory report did tell us to move down south but apart from that we have nothing.
#91.
You honestly belive that Trident has kept us safe? If you were in the military then you would understand what you would target to prepare an invasion (power stations, missle silo etc etc). Trident would not last the hour. Even with missles the size of Russia would prove to much and the chances of reaching all parts of Russia (without being found) are very slim. I am sixteen. I am not living in the past. I am the next generation, the future. You won't be around for ever and I am the person who will be taking your place in the world.
Feel free to take another shot over my age.
Complain about this comment
Some of you might want to read the article " Scott plays down Referendum" now elsewhereon this site. But just in case you don't here's an extract.
Mr Scott said: "I want a stronger Scotland, a stronger Scottish Parliament within the UK."
He said he wanted to ensure that when the Calman Commission on Scottish devolution completed its work, and when the Lib Dems completed their own internal study of devolution, the outcome would be "a strong blueprint for a stronger parliament".
Mr Scott added: "Quite how that will then be judged will be up to the people of Scotland - but I do think it's important to concentrate on issues that are important to them, and not to politicians who love guffing on about the constitution."
........
"I think we need to not get obsessed by this - I think politicians and the media are too obsessed by endless talk about referendums and the constitution.
"When Calman produces its report, when our own internal work is concluded on a blueprint for a stronger Scotland and a stronger Scottish Parliament within the United Kingdom, then we will look at all these options - but not until then."
In case any of you are wondering the first part is an explanation of federalism, the quote re politicians, themedia ( we should add bloggers!) and the constitution, is why what real people are actually talkiong about/ worried about is more important than all this chaff.
A lot of you guys attack Lib Dems for having worked with Labour, others attack us for not working with the SNP! Might as well continue to make our own minds up then...
Just for you oldnat
"the Scottish Liberal Democrats exist to build and safeguard a fair, free and open society in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity"
Its the preamble to the constitution and is on the membership card. A bit like clause 4 used to be back when Labour were still socialists.......
I'm sure that's given you all plenty to witter on about.
Complain about this comment
96. Which is why our missiles are on subs which sit on the seabed in top secret locations with a couple of attack subs in escort.
You seem to consider yourself an expert on military strategy....but you have been in the military for how long?
(By the way, I'm ex-Army, 15 years service. Even did a secondment on an SSN.)
Complain about this comment
#90
A very convincing, balanced and true account.
How can a minority government proclaim, the argument won. They (the arch nats) have to convince and rely on consensus.
Wow! turn your back for a minute and the nats proclaim a stable economy an Independent army,navy and airforce.........
TOSH!
Complain about this comment
What are the Lib-Dems for? What is their purpose for being?
Difficult questions: what is any party for and what is their purpose for being?
The straight answer would appear to be either the acquisition of power directly or by proxy. All political parties comprise individuals who have competing priorities, but who remain within these parties because their core ideology closely matches the individual's core beliefs. Political parties owe their longevity to the suspension of internecine struggle because members mostly agree with each other on certain principle subjects. Although, the aforesaid struggle is likely to break out following catastrophic electoral defeat after a long period in power (Scottish Labour being the current good example. British Labour to follow).
Tavish Scott is not stupid, and whilst my own preference would have been Ross Finnie, Scott's election indicates that the broad view of the Lib-Dems is that no accomodation can be sought with the SNP. Effectively, a referendum of any description in 2010 is dead in the water. LIT might see the light of day, though I seriously doubt it.
Now let us turn to Scott's comments on Alex Salmond. He correctly asserts that the SNP are currently riding the crest of a wave. Waves, however, don't last forever and it is inevitable that the SNP will sooner or later crash and burn. Anyone who remembers John Swinney's leadership will realise the truth of that assertion.
Moreover, there is already some evidence that the wheels are becoming a little shoogly on the SNP bandwagon. Early release of violent criminals does not a good headline make, nor does backtracking on education policy, sucking up to an American billionaire or writing letters asking for support from Iran, the Burmese generals or Robert Mugabe.
Indeed, Alex's latest wheeze of suggesting Scotland did not mind Thatcher's economic policy, followed by a swift round of radio and television studios to deny it indicates someone who was more than a little rattled. As he should be, the SNP is currently following a tight monetarist agenda with someone extra for the poor, vulnerable and you know the rest which coulkd best be described as Thatcherism with a human face. Alex would rather you didn't know that, but be assured Tavish Scott will be more than happy to explain it.
'Oh what a tangled web we weave when first we practise to deceive.'
Complain about this comment
#98.
There are four Trident Subs. Two remain at the base, being upgraded etc etc One goes out for exercises and the other heads to America and each Sub changes their role every 3/6 months I think.
So much for secret locations, eh?
I guess the military has changed since you were in the forces but that is the system our nuclear fleet works under now.
By the way. During the Cold War America was able to use their satalites to track Russian Subs under water. Do you think modern-Russia are unable to track our Subs using their own satalites now?
Complain about this comment
dubbieside
your comment is revealing
" I thought that people and parties were elected to carry out the policies that the people want"
Maybe it is just you.......
Try this way round - political parties develop policy and present these policies to the electorate. If enough people like the policy, then they vote for the party. The other way round .... Is "shameless populism"
Complain about this comment
#90 - I used to work for an oil company. You can't rely on oil, full stop. Oil prices are outwith our control, so I would be reluctant to see a budget put together with our spending depending very much on a commodity whose price can come crashing down at any time.
Complain about this comment
#103.
It depends the circumstances. Countries all around the world rely on their natural resources for their countries income. Why can't Scotland?
Look at the world now. Population going off the charts, China and India bringing hundreds of millions out of poverty with many more being given chances in life to 'live like the West' etc etc
Oil prices should remain high at least for the next 10 years.
Complain about this comment
101. I think you should do some research into the matter!
Complain about this comment
#105 & passim Reluctant-Expat
Having noticed that all of your posts on this thread and the last are negative ones, I looked at your User Profile and note that although, unlike many, you occasionally provide evidence in support of your posts not one of your 58 posts right back to your #16 on Brian's Making new friends thread has expressed a positive idea.
Are you just having fun going after people or do you really have no ideas of your own? For example, it's obvious that you wouldn't vote for independence in a referendum, but what's your opinion on holding one? Do you agree with Wendy's "bring it on", or would you rather not have one at all? Do you believe in the official LibDem party line of more fiscal autonomy and a second Constitutional Convention? Are you a Tory who'd just like the whole devolution "thingy" to go away?
It really isn't easy to debate with somebody who attempts to demolish all one's own opinions yet reveals none of his or her own. You are quite welcome to dig at the beliefs of me or anybody else but surely your time in receipt of the "Queen's Shilling" taught you that there are "ruiles of engagement" in most aspects of life.
You might also have the courtesy to quote the post originator's moniker in your replies so that we don't all have to check our recent posts to figure out if your latest jibe is at us.
Complain about this comment
#105 Your arrogance is astounding, how about YOU present some research on your theories? I wouldn't even call most of your claims remotely sensible, never mind credible!
Complain about this comment
#97 & #102 msSupertramp
Interesting posts and we clearly share some but not all views. I'd be very interested to read your own response to my #59 and brigadierjohn's #63 response to it.
I'd also very much appreciate knowing if you think I've misrepresented anything in my #78 response to Peter_Fife's #69.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
Thats an oily reply.
Maybe the self proclaimed chairman,doth not like the competition..
lol.....
Complain about this comment
Brownedov,
The cost to the Scottish people which were delivered courtesy of Labour/Liberal alliance in the previous two Scottish Parliaments were West Coast biased and minority supported policies (Liberal), numerically delivered to all Scotland?s people to keep West Coast Jack in Bute House and the Liberals in cloud cuckoo land.
Whilst Labour did not have an electoral majority in 2003, at least they recorded a 38% support, whilst in 2003 Liberals could only manage 13% support, less than the Conservatives and less than the SNP; ergo what justification could there ever be for subjecting the Scottish people to the minority views and policies promoted as they were as reward to the Liberal Party for their Parliamentary support to Labour.
For years we were delivered of the policies of a minority party (Liberals), merely to permit Labour to deliver policies which were clearly biased towards the West Coast as called for by Jack McConnell?s inner circle/family; this was truly a double whammy for the majority of Scots and those not geographically located in the chosen land; West Coast Bias and Liberal Policies.
jacquesmac wrote: ?...Sorry Peter but I don't think you get any medal for being fourth...? correcting my faux pas; Liberals were the fourth most popular party, not even Bronze Medallists!
Complain about this comment
BrianSH
Knowledge is arrogance???????
Brian, stop being so emotional...CATHARSIS..
Complain about this comment
I wonder why one one is a reluctant expat unless the wages weren't high enough, the housing not good enough, poor neighbours or an aversion to windmills, no reluctance here.
This country (UK) was financially bankcrupt back in the 60-70's and Scottish oil came to the rescue then and saved it massive payement on importing the same. Trident is an expensive no brainer.
As has been said by others before re Lib Dems they "talk the talk" but when push comes to shove they abstain while they go and look for a hankie to either blow their nose or wipe their eyes.
Complain about this comment
#110 Peter_Fife
I presume your post is in response to my #78, in which case you should probably look for the answers you seek elsewhere, but I'll have a go anyway.
You are right in principle but your numbers seem a little out, I think it was '99 when Labour got over 38% of the plurality seats' vote and over 33% of the regional vote but in '03 they only got over 34% of the plurality seats' vote and over 29% of the regional vote. However, the crazy electoral system Labour insisted upon means there is scope for argument all around.
But I still don't understand your point. Labour and the LibDems between them had an overall majority of seats in '99 and formed a coalition. They decided to continue it in '03 when again they had an overall majority of seats between them.
Even in a truly democratic electoral system, that sort of thing is bound to happen. In any event, for all I know, both Labour and the LibDems may have had talks with the other major parties about alternative coalitions. If they did, they clearly came to nothing, and an SNP, LibDem & Tory coalition seems a little far-fetched - although the equivalent nearly came about in the 2007 Welsh Assembly and would probably be less awful for Wales than the NuLab / Plaid coalition is proving.
What would you have liked to happen, and do you think the LibDems were right not to go into coalition with the SNP in '07? From your previous posts, you don't seem much to like the SNP, so would you have supported a "non-nat" NuLab, LibDem & Tory coalition instead? If so, why do you think it didn't happen?
Complain about this comment
Whats wrong Derek? Cant live up to your own (supposedly) high unionist standards?
Is asking the unionists to offer proof to their opinions independence by creep?
discuss...
Complain about this comment
#101 Thomas_Porter
Watching from afar as a nationalist semi-involved with Trident (but not a supporter of) I have to say that # 105 is probably closer to the mark than you.
Rather we should make the point that this system (and its replacement) costs a fortune and in return means very little..
Complain about this comment
Coalitions are the antithesis of democracy, and result in a government which no-one voted for, and no-one wanted.
A nasty and distasteful precedent was set with the 'power at any cost [to principles]' approach of Donald Dewar in 1999, and Jim Wallace's readiness to give up on even those policies where there was a consensus among all parties other than Labour.
Post-election, each party should continue to adhere to its stated agenda and try to enact as many of its policies as possible.
A minority administration means that each party can reasonably aspire to getting SOME of its objectives met, and politics becomes a policy matter (issue by issue), rather than the stitch-up between Labour and the LibDems which I suspect was more about financial greed on the part of 'luminaries' within each group at the Scottish Parliament, and which meant that there was a presumption of Labour policy with the only direction of movement being towards LibDem (often away from the consensus position).
Other than as a prop to desperate Labour administrations, have the Liberals/LibDems served any purpose in the past 30 years?
In the interests of the Scottish LibDems and Scottish politics at large, the party needs a strong leader of principle.
The campaign starts here...
Tavish Scott, can you hear me...?
Resign!
Resign!!
Resign!!!
Complain about this comment
#58, brigadierjohn wrote:
No need to apologise - others of us have work to do, too.
Indeed not. Of course not. Which is why I carefully outlined the particular structural reasons why fuel policy would be easier for an independent Scotland than for the UK.
Scotland and the UK are systematically different in many ways (as indeed are England and the UK). Some of these differences would benefit an independent Scotland, some would not, and others are equivocal. However, the specific issues which were quoted are clearly on the plus side of the balance.
In the end whether Scotland would be better off under independence is a matter of judgment. But it isn't a matter of judgment that Scotland is an exporter of energy, and the UK is an importer. It isn't a matter of judgment that the average price of a house in Scotland is 3/5 of the price of a house in England. Those are just facts.
Complain about this comment
#113 Brownedov,
Coalitions should only ever be permitted if only the policies of the majority party are followed; there can be no justification for minority party policies which have been rejected by the electorate being foisted onto the Scottish people as a reward for merely supporting numerically the creation of a Government.
What?s in it for those who are in reality only there to make up the numbers?
Merely the promise of office in some form or another, not the promise that voter rejected policies will be promoted.
The figures I quote are actual election figures to the Scottish Parliament, constituency plus regional; I see no point in giving greater credence than is necessary to a flawed voting system which was in reality created to prevent an electoral majority.
Complain about this comment
#117 Simon
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/spl/hi/in_depth/uk_house_prices/regions/html/regions.stm
Actually Scotland is 75% of the average cost of a house in England, not 60%. Those are just facts ;)
Complain about this comment
#118 Peter_Fife said:
"Coalitions should only ever be permitted if only the policies of the majority party are followed"
Then it's not so much a coalition, it's more a pact - cf. LibLab of late 1970s.
Complain about this comment
#116 The_Forfarian
As we have no indication of your political preferences other than your admiration for Goldie and Salmond, perhaps you'd tell us who you vote for and whether that party shares your view and has abjured entering coalitions forever?
We all know that once in office, politicians tend to be less than perfect, so how would you enforce a coalition ban?
Or are you really a Tory who would prefer the 1872 plurality system to go on forever in the interests of "strong" government?
Complain about this comment
BrianSH,
Brian, the rough and tumble of politics,history and all that jazz.
At the end of the day Brian,your only a finger away from the internet and all its challenging so called evidence.
Opinions are fine Brian, but ours is not to ask the questions, HOW,WHEN WHY???
Look we agree to disagree (yes)
Brian, please, some respect, not repeat not a tory....
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat's #90 is an accurate summary of the difference between nationalists and most other people. Most nats, if pressed, will admit that they'd want independence even if it would hurt the economy.
At one debate I went to, after the panel had discussed the economics of independence at length, a old nationalist stood up and announced that he hadn't understood the 'academic' debate, and then outlined an argument based on pride 'n' passion.
Economics is more than just academic; it affects everything from meals on the table to personal security to individual happiness. Unless one lives as a self-sufficient hermit, economics matters.
Complain about this comment
Good for you Anaxim.
Tell it as it IS.
Complain about this comment
#118 Peter_Fife
As I said in my #113, there is plenty of scope for argument all around, so let's agree to differ on the percentages.
I agree the SP sytem is flawed, but what's your alternative? A return to the "pure" 1872 plurality system? True STV as most of us Liberals and many LibDems believe?
Frankly, as you answer none of the questions I posed you in my #113 it's pointless trying to debate with you, but who do you suggest could "permit" or "disallow" any specific coalition?
Do you really believe Labour should have had 100% of the power in Holyrood for 8 years when more than 60% of the votes were against them?
Complain about this comment
#119 drewthomson
To a statistician, the statement on the reference you quote concerning "simple averages" means nothing at all.
There are many "simple averages", of which mean, median and modal are the 3 best-known.
You could well both be right!
Complain about this comment
#123Anaxim
"Economics is more than just academic; it affects everything from meals on the table to personal security to individual happiness. Unless one lives as a self-sufficient hermit, economics matters."
Maybe you would like to enlarge on where you believe the money that the UK earns comes from. Don't forget that Great Britain attained its past wealth from slavery and exploitation of its commonwealth countries, I wonder how common that wealth was! A country is only worth its natural resources be they mineral, animal or landscape.
Complain about this comment
#123.
Perhaps you could enlighten us Nats about the economic benefits Britain offers Scotland?
Complain about this comment
#123 Anaxim: "Most nats, if pressed, will admit that they'd want independence even if it would hurt the economy."
Perhaps so, but be careful not to fall into the trap that often accompanies discussions of independence. All too often there is an implicit "forevermore" attached to statements like yours above.
Without a time machine (where is Greetings_Earthlings when you need a pimploid?) none of us know what the future holds, either post-independence or with the status quo. Would independence "hurt the economy"? Debatable. Would it hurt the economy forevermore? Seems unlikely.
My high opinion of my fellow Scots leads me to believe we'll do pretty well once we take full control of our affairs. We've also got every advantage you could wish for - well educated workforce, mercantile tradition, natural resources, healthy tourism industry, diaspora to tap into, etc.
Others may disagree, though in light of the above I wonder why. Putting to one side arguments about who should be doing the persuading, maybe one of the sceptics would like to say why they think we'd be worse off...
The nice part is if we do well, or if we screw up, it will be up to us - we won't be able to blame anyone else. In other words we'll become a mature country, standing or falling on our own merits. Much as we all do individually in our lives. I for one wouldn't like to still be a nipper, living with my parents and having the "freedom" to choose how to spend my pocket money!
Complain about this comment
#123 Anaxim
You're fully entitled to take that view though I tend to find them more amenable to discussion than NuLab or Tory "pure" unionists.
But where should the LibDems go from here? Do the brig's thoughts on a grand alliance to improve the union from within appeal? Should they allow the referendum on a Yes / No basis to prevent the SNP having a bump start to the 2011 hustings?
FWIW, I think I've made my own views pretty clear above.
Complain about this comment
#121 Brownedov
I don't think any of the parties merit my unthinking support, and in each election I vote for the candidate whom I consider most likely to best serve the needs of society (at varying levels) at that time - whether by party affiliation, or otherwise.
In 2007, I voted SNP (constituency) and Conservative (regional) - one of which votes was tactical - but I have in the past voted for members of other parties.
Although I know my political history, I'm afraid I'm also someone with a short attention span, and the calamities of the 8-year Lab/LD reign - and the dearth of personality politicians within those parties at Holyrood - leave me more prone to enjoy the contributions of those unconnected, despite what their parties may have done in times past.
I've never known Annabel Goldie to exercise power, although I can well imagine her giving a Paddington-style "long, hard stare" to any civil servant trying to tell her she couldn't do as she willed. In the same vein, I've never witnessed Alex Salmond losing his temper, but I suspect that it would be a sight to see indeed!
Both Goldie and Salmond have helped to make Scottish politics 'fun'; perhaps it shouldn't be, it's too serious a matter, but anything that helps to engage and energise the wider populace has to be a good thing. (And they seem to be enjoying themselves, as well as caring about what they are doing!)
-
Sheer fantasy, but imagine a world where a politician kept his/her word.
Imagine that a candidate's election manifesto constituted an enforceable contract between him/her and each individual constituent, with the result that any voting pattern against that manifesto - such as to please another coalition 'partner' - could be challenged in court, with the ultimate sanction of expulsion of the elected member.
-
One of the values of the SNP minority administration has been to show how much of the work of the executive is not inextricably entwined with that of the legislature.
I have yet to forgive Donald Dewar for the cruel trick played on the Scottish electorate in 1999, when he espoused consensus politics only to abandon any such notion after the election (in favour of the locked-in majority of a coalition), blighting an otherwise admirable political career; had he gone down the minority administration route, how much better might things have been for Scottish Labour and Scotland generally.
-
What chance is Tavish Scott going to have, having to made do with sloppy thirds at First Minister's Questions?
The same as Nicol Stephen.
None.
Complain about this comment
"THE NICE PART IS IF WE DO WELL, OR IF WE SCREW UP,IT WILL BE UP TO US- WE WONT BE ABLE TO BLAME ANYONE ELSE"
Anaxim, I think this is your "old nationalist"
No how, No way, No Independence...
economics please....
Complain about this comment
#126 Brownedov
Agreed. But it was just a wee jab!
P.S. I have a degree in Astrophysics, so basic maths comes fairly naturally.
Complain about this comment
#129 forfar-loon
+1
As for Tavish, if I wasn't a supporter of independence, I might well be a Liberal. Tavish's election pretty much ensures that they won't be getting my vote, post independence.
Oh, and +1 to STV too.
Complain about this comment
Back from the fitba'.
#97 Supertramp
Thanks for the response. I think I understand what the preamble to your constitution means, but it certainly lacks "sellability"!
With regard to Scott on Calman/Federalism etc - Calman is to present his final report at some point in 2009. When will your internal study of devolution be ready? How will the options from those two analyses be decided - by the leadership, or by conference?
The Lib-Dems, BTW deserve high praise from all of us for forcing Labour to accept PR for local government. For any party to have an effective monopoly of power means that it attracts the corrupt, and it becomes corrupted by them.
Complain about this comment
#131 The_Forfarian
Fair enough and thank you.
I agree with a great deal of what you say and especially that Goldie and Salmond have helped to make Scottish politics fun. I can't see anything at all wrong with that and wouldn't do any job unless I found it fun, except from dire economic necessity which happily I've avoided to date.
Certainly Salmond has proven that sensible minority government is possible, but I think you're just a little harsh on the LibDem record in government. For all their faults they did manage to rein in some of the worst excesses of NuLab. It's their policies or lack of them since '07 that bothers me more.
Complain about this comment
#133 drewthomson
OK. As I regard both you and Simon_Brooke as "good guys" in the sense of trying to engage in reasoned debate I was just attempting to obviate unpleasantness.
Complain about this comment
#135 oldnat
I agree totally with your last para and hope that brigadierjohn will leap to the defence of the "good old" status quo for the "mother of parliaments".
Should make interesting reading, but tomorrow I think. Goodnight all.
Complain about this comment
Sorry if this has been mentioned before (I've been away most of today), but I see the Record has a story that Brown is taking personal charge of the Glenrothes election If that is true (or seen to be true) then a Labour loss would seem to be curtains for Brown.
Complain about this comment
#60
"How about a 50m swimming pool in Aberdeen for a start - it's been asked for long enough."
Ach just get the bus to Stonehaven instead.
Complain about this comment
#128 Thomas Porter
What economic benefits does Britain offer Scotland?
A fiendishly complicated question and one for which there is no easy or satisfactory answer. Mainly because the British economy and Scottish economy are so interlinked and have been for a very long period of time, that effectively the British economy is the Scottish economy and vice versa.
However, there are things that one can say with some certainty. For example the Barnett Formula gives each person in Scotland approx. 2,200 pounds per year where the equivalent in the rest of the UK is around 1,700 pounds representing a net benefit of about 500 pounds. Although the raw figures actually don't mean anything as no one receives 2,200 pounds, what they get is an additional 500 pounds spent on public services per person.
Turning to oil wealth, the inbuilt assumption is that Scotland would get all the oil money. This would not happen unless a Scottish Government intended to nationalise every oil company operating in the North Sea sector which no one is thus far proposing. It also assumes that the rest of the UK would accept that all oil installations are operating in Scottish territorial waters. That is simply not going to happen, which means negotiations for a percentage. If it's lucky an independent Scotland might get 25 per cent, more likely 15. The alternative is an oil war which Scotland cannot win as it has no armed forces.
Finally, let's examine the Irish situation. Ireland obtained independence from Britain in 1922. It took a further 25 years to fully disengage the Irish economy from the British economy. Indeed Britain fully maintained all of Ireland's lighthouses until the 1980s. For approximately 40 years following independence Ireland suffered from extreme relative poverty in relation to the UK. It is only since the 1970s that Ireland has had a competitive economy and that is mainly due to her accession to the EU in 1973 and adoption of a highly monetarist economy since.
What one can say is that Scotland is perfectly capable of independence but should be prepared for a period of economic suffering (at least 10 years, likely a bit longer) and that suffering will fall disproportionately on those whom are wholly reliant on the State for their sustenance: old age pensioners, the unemployed, persons in receipt of allowances, asylum seekers and so forth.
Divorce is never easy nor cheap
Complain about this comment
#139 oldnat
The Herald have put up a story suggesting the government deny the report
I think it's interesting though - surely a Labour defeat would almost certainly be curtains for Brown anyway? Perhaps he should go full throttle.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim
Look forward to your continued text. Can I say the the lateral ambivalent et al group, have been well and truly eunuchs.
Complain about this comment
#139 oldnat
Damn you for keeping me up but you've scooped the board and now The Scotsman has Long run in to crucial Glenrothes by-election predicting it will be dragged out until 30 October or 6 November.
So it looks like he's going to tough it out through his conference with the polls getting progressively worse. He may dither but one has to admit he's tenacious.
Complain about this comment
#139 oldnat
By way of balance, The Herald now has Brown 'distanced' from by-election. Decisively indecisive.
Complain about this comment
#144 Brownedov
Read the Scotsman report. why does 9/11 and "bad news day" come to mind?
Complain about this comment
Stephen Glenn - Lib-Dem activist has a lovely piece based on his perception that
and rewrites the famous Martin Luther King speech from the perspective of the minutiae-ist.Complain about this comment
Knives are meanwhile being sharpened in Westmidden if the Indy's Brown given November deadline to save his job is to be believed.
Complain about this comment
More cheery reading for "Duff" Gordon in the Indy from John Rentoul's Brown will be ditched. But when? PDQ, he thinks.
Complain about this comment
Not being partisan(smile) the decision to hold the election (glenrothes) sometime in september (the 6th) seem the better option for all parties. I'm sure all are in favour, of this date.
"meet you on the other side"
Complain about this comment
#146 oldnat
Funny you mention that - 9/11 was one of the dates predicted in some of the early newspaper reports, but you're right re the "bad news day" element of 6 November.
Anyway, must go as working tomorrow. TTFN
Complain about this comment
September, more like October to be correct.
Complain about this comment
October, November re- re - re correction
Complain about this comment
Well, at least we've heard of the man.
And shocking as this may sound to people who have read my posts, I'd rather have Alex Salmond continue in his rather than any Lib Dem politician.
To me, the Lib Dems in Scotland are opportunists who - knowing that they will never in the short term gain power - hitch the wagon to whatever is convenient. We saw this with the last administration, and they caused a few problems, when we already had enough to deal with.
Tavish Scott now needs to show the country that he can deal with President Salmond (sorry, old joke but worryingly accurate). Perhaps he could try him on the latest suggestion about Scotland should have it's own team for the Olympics - then bring in Chris Hoy to respond to that. He could also ask Mr Salmond how he intends to deal with the vanishing green belt being sold to private housing when there is little social housing available. How he will deal with crime - the SNP want to release prisoners. How he intends to deal with sports facilities being sold off, with the few replacements no longer free for use.
There are many targets for Tavish to aim at, but he needs to be effective. Alex Salmond is a superb debater, but he needs his bubble burst and given a taste of reality.
Complain about this comment
To return to the main topic the purpose of the LibDems is to allow all those nice people who feel it their civic duty to vote but have no real idea who they should vote for the opportunity to make a cross which has no potential to cause anything to happen when they find themselves entering a polling station.
Complain about this comment
Re 155
There is another faction to the Libdems, those who think up ridiculous policy in the safe and certain knowledge they will never be called on to implement anything.
Complain about this comment
Exactly
Complain about this comment
#104 - so my ex-employers thought at one point. They told us that. And had to make two-thirds of us redundant less than a year later! Adn even a decade of high prices (which I think you are wrong about, in any case) won't be enough to give us stability. Probably won't even be enough for us to pay for a divorce from the rest of the UK, should you and your like get your wish.
Complain about this comment
158:
You are correct about high prices. If high prices were sustained then salaries would have to go up, which would negate any advantage.
The SNP rely on oil as the primary source of income. Without it they have no chance.
Perhaps the Barrett formula should be changed just to show exactly what would happen.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone see Gordon Brewer's interview with Tavish Scott on Newsnight last night? If not you can watch it via this website.
Why would you bother?
Well partly for the fun of seeing the new LD leader unable to answer the question of whether he will support a multi-option referendum. You would think that someone who is supposed to be so good with the media would have a better answer worked out.
But more amusingly, to watch Mr Scott struggling to cope as his ear-piece falls out. And then even more amusingly to hear Gordon Brewer apologise - as if he'd accidentally pulled out the wire from his end!
Can we have a BBC Scottish politics gaffes and outtakes show - maybe in time for the 10th anniversary of the Parliament?
Complain about this comment
# all Brownedov,
You seem to be unaware of the fact that I have already answered your questions possibly not recognised as such because the answers were implicit rather than explicit.
Let me restate my position, ?...coalitions should only ever be permitted if only the policies of the majority party are followed; there can be no justification for minority party policies which have been rejected by the electorate to be foisted onto the Scottish people as a reward for merely supporting numerically the creation of a Government...?
If coalitions, alliances or pacts have in the past been formed which do not comply with the aforementioned protocol they should never have proceeded; there can never be justification for minority held views which have already been rejected by the electorate to be foisted onto them as reward to a minority party?s support
The current Liberal Party was formed in 1989 under the leadership of Michael Medowcroft by a rump who rejected the merger with the Social Democrats that formed the Liberal Democrats, the very Liberal party to which you supplied a hyperlink.
In the 1983 general election the Liberal/SDP Alliance polled 25.4 per cent to Labour?s 27.6 per cent (with 22 MPs elected).
The combined Alliance leadership of David Steel and SDP leader Dr David Owen appeared increasingly disunited, after the election, David Steel called for a fusion of the two parties, the majority of the SDP merged in 1987, although David Owen ran a minority ?continuing SDP? until 1990.
From March 1988 the great majority of Liberals merged into the new party, the Social and Liberal Democrats (changed to Liberal Democrats in 1989), with Paddy Ashdown as its first leader. In the 1992 election it polled 6 million votes and elected 20 MPs.
I take it from your overuse of ?...the 1872 plurality system...? you are not in favour of first past the post and like most Liberals view the only way back to ?power? as proportional representation; reality check the two main political parties at Westminster will never permit their alternating power system to be changed.
Unlike yourself, I as a Scot who witnessed the ravages on Scotland?s industries, lands and people, of which countless examples are still evident today, could never envisage a situation where I would ever vote Conservative.
You seem confident in your assumption that 60% of the voters in Scotland did not want Labour but you seem to avoid that most obvious of numerically associated calculation that 85% of Scottish voters did not want a Liberal Government or Liberal policies; but we were delivered of them.
Complain about this comment
#138 Brownedov: Not sure what you mean or why you're asking me. Perhaps you were tired at that time? I'm assuming, unwisely no doubt, that you are asking me to defend the constitutional status quo.
At the risk of being repetitious, the status quo needs no defence. It exists. It IS. It is a live parrot. It is for those who wish to change the status quo to make the positive arguments. Succeed, and I will help make your view the new status quo.
I've tried tracing your post back, via oldnat and supertramp, for a clue to your alternative question if I've missed your point. (Supertramp and Status Quo in the same post, eh?. They'd be thrilled!) But no real clue.
I listened to Tavish Scott on Newsnicht, as little Brewer tried to browbeat him into singing from Salmond's hymnsheet. Scott spoke for the nation: Get lost with your silly agenda for independence and start talking about real people, real lives and the real world. Game set and match.
Complain about this comment
#159 You mean the Barnet Formula?? It badly needs revising, but no-one will ever agree on how, so we're stuck with a formula that no-one is happy with.
Complain about this comment
If current prices are still high enough to produce a surplus, we can quite bet the house that every nat will be out screaming how "the UK is stealing our money!", all the while conveniently forgetting that Holyrood's multi-billion deficit has been covered by that same UK for the past 20 years.
The surplus would probably just cover one year's repayment of that money.
The recent 20-25% drop in oil prices, in just a few weeks, wiped the equivalent of £4bn off tax revenues for Holyrood. I bet that will never be mentioned by Salmond and his young horde either.
The thing that grates with me is that Salmond knows full well that he has no economic case, which is why he pulls these little stunts to try to get us all to hate the UK, or the English to hate us (hoping they will throw us out).
But all that has done is drive a wedge between us Scots, dividing us into the 'unionists' and the 'True Scots', while making us the laughing stock of England (not to say New York due to Salmond's interference in their Tartan Week).
Poor Chris Hoy even had to interrupt his much-deserved celebrations to appease the nationalists who were screaming (again) over his comments that he was a "very proud Brit".
I hate what's happening to us.
Complain about this comment
163. My suggestion for a replacement to Barnett....bear with me!:
We have three 'nations' plus an England divided into 12 regions = 15 areas.
Each area pays a fixed % (say 5%) of its respective GVA into a National Development Fund.
That Fund is then redistributed evenly, with each nation/region receiving the same amount per capita.
The areas with above-average GVA will be net-contributors to the Fund. The further above average, the greater the contribution.
The areas will below-average GVA will be net-recipients. The further below average, the greater the received extra funds.
Complain about this comment
#164.
The oil prices has dropped in recent weeks. After many months of constant rises...
If Salmond has no economic case then why are other political parties looking at taxation and greater fiscal etc etc for Scotland? If we never had a case then they would not bother.
How can the Unionists tell the Nats that we can not cope as an Independent Country but then prepare to make their case about taxes etc going to Scotland. It does not sound right, quite unfair to be honest that the Nats must be lying purely because we are Nats but the Unionists are good as gold.
Will you stop your negative attitude. The English on their own accord are beginning to resent Scotland. Mainly because we have our own Parliament which has brought more to Scotland then England. I don't blame them, but I don't blame Salmond. It was Labours idea afterall.
Chris Hoy had his words twisted. He is quite happy to represent Scotland but also belives we need mega investment before we create our own team. He is happy to represent Scotland and Britain but is not against Independence all together. End of. I am in the same boat. I represent the British Army but would jump ship once Scottish Independence happens.
Complain about this comment
166. How do you know Hoy is not against independence? When did he ever say that? Or do you have to spin his words to meet your conclusion?
Why the hell do you and your little mob have to hijack anything and everything to your 'cause'?
Complain about this comment
#165
I like that, there is real potential there.
Complain about this comment
Chris Hoy and the other athletes, wore the great British tracksuit.....enough said..
Complain about this comment
166. The rest of your post makes no sense, by the way.
'More fiscal autonomy' is obviously and clearly not the same as the SNP's 'fiscal independence', is it.
And do yourself a big favour here, don't call anyone who is anti-SNP or anti-independence "negative". It's a childish, irrelevant and pointless.
Not buying into Salmond's nonsense does not mean you are "negative". It means you are a realist capable of independent thought.
Complain about this comment
It always amazes me that unionists continually claim that Scotland benefits from being part of the UK by vast payouts.
You must remember, that since Scottish oil money 'made' 1970's London, that technically we should own fair chunk of it; instead it was syphoned off to enrich the South-east of England.
WE paid off the IMF, not the UK. Live with it and stop being deluded!
Reluctant-expat, the epitome of the Scottish-Cringe.
I support independence because I believe Scotland will rise to the occasion.
Unfortunately you live in the politics of fear, mainly of Westminister. Heaven forbid they take their ball away!
You think Scotland doesn't deserve the chance to prove itself. Shame on you!
Complain about this comment
#167.
On the BBC, Chris Hoy stated that he was open minded about the idea of a multiple choice referendum. If you re-read what I wrote I used the words 'all together' which implies that Chris Hoy is open minded to Independence but not fully decided. He could of dismissed Independence as silly but chose to keep their options over.
I can ask the same question. Why does the Government seem to want to throw 'Britishness' down our throats?
Complain about this comment
#162 Brigadier
Not that I'm disagreeing with you on the meaning of "the status quo", but the interesting thing is how the "status quo" has changed over the years.
Who could now imagine the governance of Scotland before the establishment of a Secretary of State for Scotland in 1885,
the settling of the Scottish Grand Committee in 1907,
the significant transfer to the Secretary of State of the machinery of government between 1926 and 1936,
the creation of a massive "collectivist fiefdom" under successive Secretaries of State (undiluted by Tory Secretaries)
the creation of the Scottish Parliament in 1999.
All of these changes in the governance of Scotland were bitterly opposed by "small c" conservatives as "revolutionary", "pure Marxist ideology", "dangerous" etc, and suggested that Scotland was about to plunge into the abyss!
Now it may be that there are some who argue that Scotland should return to some previous form of our governance but, if so, I don't detect it.
It seems likely that David Cameron will agree to a further extension to the Scottish Parliament's powers, based on whatever the Calman Commission comes up with. That will then be the new status quo.
And then ......
Complain about this comment
165. Correction! England only has 9 regions, doesn't it!
Doesn't it?
Complain about this comment
#165 Expat
The principle that you suggest is perfectly reasonable - though the Continental Shelf needs then to be properly allocated to the appropriate nations/regions instead of being treated as a separate region.
It's worth looking at the Canadian system, whereby oil-rich Alberta pays far more into the Federal coffers, to be re-distibuted to poorer provinces, or the European model of re-distribution from richer to poorer countries.
The English should look seriously at your model, as their poorer regions are the parts of the UK that suffer most. While the South East clearly produces the greatest wealth, it also consumes the greatest resources.
Complain about this comment
I always think that going to people on the street is more definitive than wasting our time in a blog. Mr. Eugenides shows this with a flag counting exercise at Hoys welcome home parade in Edinburgh
http://mreugenides.blogspot.com/
Many Saltires and Lion Ramparts in the most unionist and Britified city in the country. But only 1 Union Jack for team GB.
Complain about this comment
#171
A chance, go and take a chance at the "BOOKIES" dont take a chance with people......
Complain about this comment
171. Have you noticed how Salmond no longer claims the UK is "stealing Scotland's money" since the GERS report came out?
Have you noticed how he no longer claims that "Scotland should keep it's own oil" since the GERS report came out?
Why do you think that is?
Do you think he really believed his own hype that the ?10bn annual subsidies from the UK did not include enough to cover oil revenues?
Or do you think he did know but chose to rant nonetheless as part of another anti-UK publicity stunt - In other words, he lied?
As for the rest of your post: "Next!"
Complain about this comment
#170.
"'More fiscal autonomy' is obviously and clearly not the same as the SNP's 'fiscal independence', is it."
I never stated that they were the same. Could you please point out to where I stated that they were the same?
"And do yourself a big favour here, don't call anyone who is anti-SNP or anti-independence "negative". It's a childish, irrelevant and pointless."
You do yourself no favours, about 95% of your comments are negative. By the way, I was calling your atitude negative. I don't mind the others who are Pro-Union, your attitude is simply terrible though.
Complain about this comment
#174 Expat
The English should have the number of regions that they deem fit.
Complain about this comment
#175.
Oldnat, I highly doubt that the English would approve of dividing their country into regions. I am sure the London Government has had that idea and thrown the idea out the window one or two years ago.
Complain about this comment
#166 I am entitled to my negative attitude, I have worked hard to achieve it. And if you worked where I worked, you would be rather negative too! And not quite the same starry-eyed nationalist either, believe me.
The English don't resent us for our Parliament (God knows, they couldn't resent us for that joke). What they do resent is that our money is spent on things that they don't have. They are also, to an extent, swallowing the SNP spin about how wonderful life is here since they got in. Yeah, right. The English are also fed up with being blamed for all Scotland's ills from mediaeval times onwards.
I heard Chris Hoy's initial 'proud to be British' remarks live on TV. Shame he's now having to qualify them. Reluctant-Expat is right - we're starting to sound like the Germans just prior to WWII, having to prove our loyalty to the 'party' (in this case, independence) in more and more strident terms. Well, I won't do it. I don't believe in it, I don't believe anyone has made a convincing case to me on it, and so I will remain as I am. Negative to the end. But that's my perogative - after all, as I've said before, my preference is for the status quo. It is for others to persuade me and those like me to change our minds.
Oh, and the other parties are looking at more powers for the Scottish Parliament under the current Devolution legislation - not as anything to do with independence. So it can be done without all the upheaval breaking the Union involves.
#165 - please, send that suggestion to HMT. It's more sensible than some of the options that have been bandied about!
Complain about this comment
Thomas
Stop playing at middle of the road. Away and play at toy soldiers.
Have you DOR-d
Complain about this comment
#181 Thomas
You're probably right, since the power base in England is so London-centric.
However, when Expat makes a reasonable point, it would be churlish not to accept it.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat, your contradicting yourself.
Reread your posts 178 and 164. Decide which version of you actually agree with then tell us how it is!
Heaven forbid you actually have an opinion (note not fact!) that isn't slippery enough to drop whenever it doesn't suit the unionist agenda!
Be positive about Scotland, think independence.
Complain about this comment
#173 oldnat: Of course. The status quo evolves, preferably by true majority consent, as a "better" or "different" proposal is advanced. I have never accepted that anything devised by politicians was "the settled will of the Scottish people" although a majority of sorts was obtained. A Scottish Government and a Westminster Government is the status quo. Are we going round in semantic circles?
Anyway the debate is spiralling down (I do wish it were up) into the old, old nationalist and counter-nationalist arguments. Endlessly and tirelessly repeated.
I'll sneak a look later perhaps, but right now I'm inclined to wait for another thread (to be ignored in pursuit of the old, old arguments!).
Complain about this comment
#178 Reluctant-expat
So you are actually pro-scotland just anti-Alex Salmond? You have an obsession with a politician, not the facts.
Unlike you I don't require a politician to tell me something to believe its true!
Come on, this is too easy, you are supposed to be the one with all the knowledge to rubbish other peoples facts with your wonderous opinions.
Surely you should have your own opinions and not be convinced by the diatribe and political jiggery-pokery of the political class?
Complain about this comment
Brigadierjohn (too many posts to individually mention):
What a curious character you are ?. I see numerous posts about unionism, but they always come down to the same tired old rhetoric:- to all Scottish people: you?ll never make it on your own, it?s really scary out there, and anyway, you?ll be out of pocket and will never recover, so stick with GB Plc and we?ll keep you safe.
It?s just a variation on the same old story churned out year after year by NuLab et al. - don?t vote SNP, they don?t know how to govern, they?ve no experience, we?ve got all the know-how, if you vote them in, it?ll all go pear-shaped and you?ll be in trouble ??. Well, a year on and no-one, not even die-hard labour voters are believing that one any more
And so, the message has now turned to the next level: you cannot prove you can make it on your own (as if any country that has declared independence ever could), so shut up and do as we tell you to like good little boys and girls.
The real question I have for you is what proof do you have that the Scots cannot stand on their own.
The old chestnut that you don?t need to make argument for the status quo is fatuous at best, when you really look at it, the stupidity is obvious as it goes along the lines of ?I cannot really defend keeping the Scots under a system that gives them only a minority say in the management of their own country so I?ll just say I don?t need to defend it?. The reality is that is you cannot defend the status quo, then that is an argument for change in its own right.
BTW, love the nom-de-plume, BRIGADIERjohn, is it a subtle way to tell us you?re in charge and we should follow your orders or just pretentious?
Complain about this comment
#182.
I stand corrected. The English are beginning to resent Scotland because our Parliament has brought Scots many things that England does not get. Do you belive that we would receive what we do if the Scots Parliament did not exist?
"Oh, and the other parties are looking at more powers for the Scottish Parliament under the current Devolution legislation - not as anything to do with independence. So it can be done without all the upheaval breaking the Union involves."
I would suggest you look at the long-term relationship between Scotland and England. The English are resenting Scotland for what we have now because of our Parliament. What happens when Scotland is given more powers? What if we are successful, how do the Unionists plan to hold the Union together? It will become totally irrelevent and our priorities will slowly become more different from what Westminister is after.
Complain about this comment
Any Lib-Dem out there help me out?
I've been googling to try to find out the attitude of the Scottish Lib-Dems to the Government concordat with COSLA, ring-fencing etc., without success.
Can anyone direct me to a policy statement etc on this?
Complain about this comment
185. No contradiction if you read carefully.
Salmond has been claiming, since his first day, that Scotland has not been keeping its full share of oil revenues. But his first accounts report proved otherwise.
Has he been so badly wrong all this time - or did he simply lie?
We may well be in surplus this year and the SNP will obviously trumpet this from the rooftops. They will also gloss over the fact that this is our first surplus in 20 years.
Salmond tried to claim a small surplus in last year's accounts, but he only engineered that surplus by not counting billions in expenditure.
187. I thought I was quite clear.
I'm anti-Salmond and anti-SNP as I consider them an ugly and divisive force in Scotland, driving a wedge through our community. He may wrap himself in the Saltire but that doesn't negate the nasty unionist/nationalist in-fighting the SNP are provoking. They also clearly have no economic case and so are relying heavily on emotion (cue the flag-waving) to garner support.
Look at all of us on here (or any Scottish news website) for a snapshot of what we've become. Is this really 'progress'?
Complain about this comment
Expat
Just so I get a clearer idea of where you're coming from -
Do you want the present Scottish Parliament to be abolished?
If not, would you agree that it should have any additional powers, or would you want some given back to Westminster?
Complain about this comment
#189 Thomas_Porter
"What if we are successful, how do the Unionists plan to hold the Union together? It will become totally irrelevent"
If more and better devolution proves successful for the Scottish people, then brilliant. English resentment to any dangerous levels would presumably kick the British Parliament into making it UK-wide, or something along those lines.
At the end of the day, I believe your argument on the Union becoming irrelevant is fruitless because of the number of common issues between the UK and Scotland. These common issues (I've mentioned before - social security, foreign policy etc.) are things that you'd likely disagree with me on, so we'll never agree on this specific point.
--
On the point of Scott's Newsnight interview, you would fully expect him to have an answer for the inevitable independence referendum questions - whether or not it's not the one of the 'real issues' that we want to be thinking about.
It's good to see a politician that is focused on the issues that matter currently, though.
Complain about this comment
189. You are just spinning the SNP line. Again.
English resentment is not based around what "Parliament has brought Scotland" but on what the 'subsidy' has brought us, which is funded by the rest of the UK (although, as you are an nat, you will no doubt deny this subsidy exists despite SG reports to the contrary. I don't like it either but it exists.)
If England had the same public services as Scotland, I doubt there would be a single glance towards us.
There is seemingly very little active support for an English Parliament other than a few polls. How many websites, petitions etc are there calling one? How much support do they have?
Then you can add in the SNP/Salmond's repeated anti-UK and anti-England comments.
Example: I remember watching and groaning at an SNP MSP on Sky News on St Georges Day, claiming how England "has no culture other than morris dancing". Yes, she was (quite deservedly) laughed off the set but that is indicative of SNP attempts to cause division between Scotland and England.
All very pathetic, demeaning and embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
This seems to have drifted way off topic. Saw Tavish Scott on Newsnight last night. Is he incapable of understanding English??? Or just the usual sort of typical modern politician who can't give a straight answer to a straight question because he's become so used to dissembling?? What a great start as leader. If I was Mike Rumbles I wouldn't give up hope of becoming leader on the form of the current one so far.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat, I very much doubt you are correct that the Nats have no economic case. If the Unionist Parties can argue for greater economic financial control and responsibility then the Nats must be right somewhere.
Progress? You would like to discuss progress. You are refusing to allow Scotland to engage on the world stage through the European Union. The current Union that creates Britain has outlived its purpose and we are being stopped engaging in the European Union. The modern Union, that has more economic benefits that Britain could only dream of having.
Complain about this comment
192. I've been umm-ing and ah-ing about this for a while and I've gone back to my uni politics studies and wondered if we should take a leaf out of the US book and go the whole hog. Give the entire UK a good hard shake and separate all levels of govt from each other.
Again, bear with me:
Divide the UK into three tiers; UK, National, Local.
(England having an extra Region/Province tier which will split responsibilities with the Eng National Parliament).
Each tier can provide any service or carry out any role, other than that prohibited by law.
Each tier collects and spends its own taxes. Again any tax they want unless prohibited by law.
All tiers can borrow from anyone, within limits.
The UK's borrowing is already limited by the EU and so should the others. Some US state/city borrowing is based on % of tax revenues (eg. can borrow up to 5% of revenues a year, up to max of 100% of revenues).
And then I'd also have my Fund (see #165) to share the wealth around the whole country.
As for the oil and gas, both are becoming irrelevant as the reserves deplete but for sake of argument, each keeps their own.
Complain about this comment
Back on topic.
Tavish Scott.
Oh dear.
Complain about this comment
#194.
Ah yes the old, 'Scotland can't afford to go it alone, we subsidise you'. Is their any point discussing the future with someone stuck in the past? It's been shown time and time again that Scotland has contributed reasonably well over the decades. You must be a Labour supporter. The only Party to continue to paint a negative picture of Scotland by using lies.
Complain about this comment
#161 Peter_Fife
Again you tell us what you dislike but not what you would do about it. Who would be charged with the "permitting" of coalition government and removing "rogue" coalitions? Should government simply be abandoned if no party has a majority of seats or do you actually support the minority SNP government's approach? Should the largest party simply rule by decree?
Of the other major EU countries, only France does not use PR for Parliamentary elections and even the French use majority voting, in 2 rounds if necessary, as is now used for London's mayoral elections. I suspect that within the next decade or so the European Courts will rule the UK system undemocratic and force change, but in the meantime Brown seems determined to inflict such a catastrophe on his own party that the UK may be on the verge of being a one-party state ruled by the Tories for the foreseeable future.
It is not just for the benefit of Liberals that we and the LibDems want electoral reform. It would benefit the Greens too along with less savoury characters like UKIP and the BNP. I diagree with almost every word they say but they have just as much right to be represented as you or I do and if they were in Parliament their unpleasantness would be more visible for all to see. PR using multi-member STV would also allow voters to make their choice between candidates within the same party to reduce the power of the party "leadership".
Just as you could not envisage voting Tory, I could not envisage voting NuLab because of their contempt for freedom and truth. The old Labour Party was a different animal, if overly prone to central control.
I simply stated the truth that 60% of the voters in Scotland did not vote Labour. Whether they really wanted them to be in power or not is a matter for them. The same is no doubt true of the 85% who did not vote LibDem.
What I do assert is that most voters probably did want government to continue rather than have daily, weekly or monthly elections until somebody got a majority.
Complain about this comment
#197 Expat
In essence that's the Federal model which first brought me into politics as a Liberal in 1960.
Although my personal preference is for any UK level to be Confederal rather than Federal (a "bottom up" rather than a "top down" model). A re-distributive financial mechanism, would be essential. I suspect that many Scots and Welsh would go along with something of this nature.
However, I think the reality of politics in the UK is that an increasing number of Scots, if the only options are the status quo or independence, don't see independence as being a problem.
Hence, if England wanted to continue the UK, they would have to put some form of Federal option on the table - in essence a re-negotiation of the Incorporating Treaty of Union.
Complain about this comment
Central control? what exactly is the Scottish parliament, is it devolving powers to the communities? or is it taking central decision, like spending close to a Bn on a central tram system in the Old Toon.....
Come on Brownedov, stop chirppen, dribble, what % of Eu members endorse their federal position, yes, inclusive of Ireland......
Complain about this comment
#162 brigadierjohn
Your assumption was entirely correct, and perhaps also the suggestion that I was tired at the time. Perhaps I asked the wrong question. Had I been more awake I would have expected the reply you gave.
How about: Do you think the American colonies were justified in their rebellion and / or misguided in creating a written constitution for their futures?
Complain about this comment
As predicted they opted for Scott, must say I am pleased in some senses - more of the same irrelevance for the Liberals.
With this choice they remain broadly a party closely linked to Labour in Scotland, which allows further room for others. Seems a real strategic error, despite him being the best parliamentary performer.
Nice to see the stone-agers still exist (194 etc ...),
1) You're too poor
2) You're too small
3) You're too stupid.
When even the likes of Des Browne and David Cairns are disowning such arguments ... it's time to give them up!
Complain about this comment
#192
Why would it want more powers, when under this current adim,it is found wanting dealing with the here and now! powers of today.
Complain about this comment
patty-wood
What a grim portrait you paint,dense and backwards, Brighten up, its 2008 by the way...
Complain about this comment
I see the Tories have selected their candidate for Glenrothes, the wonderfully named Maurice Golden. Cameron has laid down the challenge to Brown to campaign "in his own backyard". Wonder if he will...
When will Labour finally choose their candidate? No doubt they are keen to avoid a Glasgow East-style farce and will have a proper "first choice" candidate this time (first choice after Henry McLeish obviously). And when will they choose a date?!
Complain about this comment
199. Just so you know, such posts have never convinced anyone to support independence.
If anything, they alienate people.
And denying basic fact and reality only goes to demonstrate how untrustworthy and how unreliable the nationalist case is.
Everyone knows the subsidy exists, even the SNP. For the young nat crowd to claim otherwise and even try to claim that "Scotland subsidises UK/London/the SE" just makes you look, well, silly.
Just so you know.
If the independence argument is as water-tight as the arch-nats regularly claim, why do we mostly hear exaggeration and lies?
Complain about this comment
#208.
I never stated that Scotland subsidised the rest of the United Kingdom. Why are you being misleading? You simply have nothing to back your claims, just lies, you rely on fear to achieve your goals.
However lets suggest that Britain subsidises Scotland. For that to happen Britain would be operating with a surplus but that is not the case with tens of billions being overspent each year.
How can Britain subsidise Scotland when Britain already overspends annually (what is it? 500-700 billion in debt so far and rising)? If Scotland is subsidised it is not with British money.
Complain about this comment
The Tory Candidate for Glenrothes has been announced.
Some background on Lib-Dem candidate.
Complain about this comment
#208
Look i've no idea what musical instrument you play for the army, i bit of advice but
Stand ready and listen IN, "crap hat" your making no sense......no sense.././..../ no sense
Complain about this comment
Thomas and Expat
Neither of you are giving any supporting data for your economic arguments.
I don't have the most recent eurostat figures to hand, but they're not likely to be that much different from the 2002 data, which are included in this UK business report
You will note that London has the highest GDP : 27,633 GBP, then the South-East : 18,692 GBP, then Scotland : 16,397 GBP. Wales comes last on 13,174 GBP.
Complain about this comment
#208
Can you please enlighten us where all these facts/opinions can be substantiated.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom#Economy
Just look at some the countries where the old empire took resources from in the past Nauru, Burma, Zimbabwe, Iraq oh I forgot were back there now.
Complain about this comment
209. But you aren't claiming that Scotland subsidises the UK.
As long as we are clear.
Complain about this comment
What policies has this new liberal guy got that will inspire people to flock to the polls to support the Lib Dems?
Answer, big fat zero!
Russell Johnston, Charlie Kennedy and David Steel are the only Scottish liberals of note. None of these is now politically active and sadly one deceased.
The liberal MSPs in Hollyrood are a very strange bunch. They know what they do not want, they do not know what they want, they do not have any policies and they do not have any friends.
Hence I'd ask what are they for?
In Westminster the same fate happens to Scottish liberal MPs as happens to Scottish Regional labour MPs. They go missing. When was the last time we heard a peep out of any of them. Value for money, I do not think so.
This gives rise to more questions than answers.
What have the liberal achieved over the past 90 years?
What will the liberals achieve over the next 2 years under this new guy?
Answer to both, big fat zero!
Complain about this comment
#212.
Just ask me, Oldnat. Tell me which points you would like me to provide evidence for and I will get on it.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Thomas.
Can you get the latest eurostat UK regional data. I quoted the 2002 figures, but I'd like to see the latest ones.
In my earlier post, I should, of course, have stated that the London data is skewed by data for commuters from elsewhere (including those who commute from Prestwick!)
Complain about this comment
My 211 post, should have been #209.
Sorry Expat....
Complain about this comment
Expat,
Of course the stats you give are correct and true and on or in all economically data.
These arch- nats are just trying to discredit your truth.They believe their on a mission.
Complain about this comment
Numpty nation indeed.
I see there are still those contributing to this topic who imagine the case for independence rests entirely on oil revenues. Presumably they haven't noticed that Scotland, like every other country in Europe, has an efficient and wide ranging economy which includes among its other strengths the third biggest financial centre in Europe (after London and Bonn) a much admired electornics indusatry, a wide range of manufacturing industries, hugely efficient farming community, Europes biggest fishing community (except tiny Iceland) a steadily growing IT sector, whisky of course, a huge but underpromoted tourist industry and oil and a budget economy the equal to or already bigger than most comparable small countries around the world.
The notion that Scotland requires subsidy is only the fallacy of idiots now AND IN FACT THE HIGH COST OF OIL MEANS THAT SCOTLAND IS WITHOUT ANY DOUBT HUGELY SUBSIDISING THE REST OF UK AT THIS MOMENT. JUST GO AN CHECK THE RECENT FIGURES PROVIDED HELPFULLY BY THE TREASURY.
Can the asssorted timid eejits that still believe that Scotland sucks at England's tit explain to me two things.
1. Why are they hanging grimly onto us if this is the case? and
2. How can it be the case if the "Union " is good for us?
Complain about this comment
We could all argue until the kye come hame about the economics of independence. "Labour" politicians claim we are all enjoying the fruits of the "Union Dividend", presenting Jockland as being inhabitated by subsidy junkies.
"Labour" politicians tell lies, however. Just look at their political acrobatics about the reasons for the Iraq War. Blair may be "history" but his miserable Thatcherite Jock successor, Broon, carries on with the wars. Well, he did agree to pay for them as Chancer of the Exchequer.
Complain about this comment
#220 sneckedagain
You are one of few that actually list a multitude of other sectors that would benefit our economy, should we go independent. I must congratulate you on that.
You needn't have spoiled it all by throwing in the following:
"a budget economy the equal to or already bigger than most comparable small countries around the world."
Anyway.
1. They're not hanging on grimly? To be hanging on grimly would be to be holding on to it despite the clear opposition. There is no clear overwhelming opposition within Scotland, and there's certainly little opposition outwith Scotland.
2. I won't bother answering this one in full because any argument I have is based on my non-nationalist thoughts. As I've mentioned on posts before, the Union is great because we share a lot of common policies and issues - see earlier posts for further comment on this if you so wish.
oldnat - have you got any scoop on this Tory candidate? I can't find anything very exciting.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
I respect your opinion but you really undermine the whole issue by mentioning the BNP.
I don't agree that racists are allowed to be represented in Parliament. PR only gives people like this the oxygen to feed on and further destroy our society.
The local government election has been a good advert for not having PR. Under the last system we had a local councillor. We don't any more. We used to have an Independant council, we now have a politically driven one. One of our new PR councillors with a bit of a concsience got expelled from the SNP for voting in accordance with the local viewpoint and not with the SNP policy.
Therefore I don't really think PR delivers everything you say, in local government i doesn't reflect my wishes.
I also agree that the current system has its flaws but I still prefer it to the crap we have now
Complain about this comment
Brownedov,
Political Manifestos in my opinion should be seen as a contract with the voters, not merely a method of hoodwinking said voters merely to deliver office and permit the winning politicians to obfuscate and change or create policy on the hoof; such a system would have prevented the hullabaloo which surrounded the main parties? manifesto promises vis-á-vis the referendum on the European Treaty.
These politicians are promising specific levels of service and legislation; I believe if they were to be held legally accountable for their Manifestos we may actually see reasonable and fiscally achievable promises with a clear timetable of events and actions.
Failure by a Government in delivering on their promises without justifiable reasons would lead to a General Election in three months; enough to concentrate the minds of those egotist who parade with the suffixes MP an MSP while they claim their exorbitant expenses.
The largest party should have the first chance to form a Government; if they needed numerical support from another party they should promise only positions within the Government not the implementations of rejected policies; if they fail to form a Government or operate a minority administration the next chance to form a Government et al.
If as you say the ?...UK may be on the verge of being a one-party state ruled by the Tories for the foreseeable future...? I would differ merely in my interpretation of your choice of adjective ?foreseeable? insomuch that I feel once the old right guard of the Conservative party which are being carefully kennelled at the moment are wheeled out, should they gain power, people will realise how insufficient was their leader?s job of papering over the cracks of that obvious bipolar Conservative Party.
It is my opinion that the likes of John Selwyn Gummer, John Redwood, Michael Portillo, Malcolm Rifkind, Andrew Lansley, Francis Maude and Jonathon Aitkin to name but a few are being kept under control for fear that early release could well alarm children, animals and voters
Personally I see little difference between Old and New Labour; the main changes were made or caused to happen by Margaret Thatcher.
?...PR using multi-member STV would also allow voters to make their choice between candidates within the same party to reduce the power of the party "leadership"...?
?...What I do assert is that most voters probably did want government to continue rather than have daily, weekly or monthly elections until somebody got a majority...?
You have now detailed some of the obvious problems associated with proportional representation; now what is the frequency of elections in Italy?
Complain about this comment
#222 drew
Nothing much of interest on the "Golden Boy". He was the Tory against Tricia Marwick and 9th on the Tory Mid-Scotland and Fife list (which means even the Tories didn't want him to get in.) In 2007, he came in last behind the Lib-Dems, though the Tory claim that he increased the % share of the vote is accurate. The Tory share went up by 0.4%, but they slumped from 3rd place to 4th. (In 2003 there was an Independent who came 3rd with over 2000 votes)
In 2006 he was on the short list as Tory candidate in the Dunfermline and West Fife by-election and was described by Fife Tory leader Cllr Stuart Randall as 'the token male'.
Complain about this comment
#223 northhighlander
Why would you deny anyone free speech within the law? If the BNP break it they can be charged and tried. If the law needs amendment isn't that exactly where a consensus involving more than the view of a single minority party is needed?
I think the old plurality system worked well enough until the party system gained real teeth in the 1870s. Before then, those fortunate enough to have a vote really did pick a representative who mainly voted with his conscience. Ever since, the power of the whips has moved inexorably to the current state when 99% of the time the incumbent PM has 100% of the power from a minority of the votes - about 35% in the case of NuLab.
The choice is ultimately between most of the people getting some of what they want all of the time or most of the people getting none of what they want most of the time.
Another 18 years of Thatcherism, anyone?
Complain about this comment
Further to my #225
Golden (admirably, and like myself) is keen on home composting and recycling rubbish!
Complain about this comment
Tavish Scott is such a giant of a political figure that we have all reverted to the pro/anti independance debate!!
Perhaps the SNP could better it's case for independance by not demanding a Scottish-this and Scottish-that every time something happens.
Alex Salmond was back on form when Chris Hoy won his medals, only to go very, very quiet when the great man (Chris) turned round and pointed out that he lives and trains in England since Scotland cannot provide the facilities required.
The SNP did not win power - Labour blew it.
They are lucky that they have Salmond in charge, since his political charisma is very strong. But he is starting to get a little tiresome and frankly embarrassing.
Perhaps Tavish could gain some kudos by painting the First Minister in a corner at the next question session? Perhaps use a little humour with the Chris Hoy situation?
While we are at it. Who else thinks Tavis Scott will last less than two years?
Complain about this comment
#222.
"As I've mentioned on posts before, the Union is great because we share a lot of common policies and issues."
Such as Trident, nuclear power, foreign wars. Britain fails to represent Scotland within the European Union still .
;-)
Complain about this comment
I have a new job which is eating up my time, so I won't be posting here as often.
Cynicalhighlander's rejoinder that Britain made its money on the back of empire is a distinctly nationalist attitude, where the children are held responsible for the sins of parents. This is a potentially consistent moral stance, even if I think it's wrong.
Unfortunately, the nats disregard the sins of other major states, which equal or exceed anything Britain did. When Salmond visited America, he did not demand that it be dismantled. The nats also ignore modern sins; every tyrant on the planet has a cheery letter from Salmond in their filing cabinet.
Complain about this comment
#228 Neil
Every thread reverts to this because the constitutional issue is the dominant issue in Scottish politics.
There's not much separating any of the parties (except for the Socialists) in Scotland. Perhaps the only other fault line is the question of subsidiarity within Scotland - do parties think (like Labour) that all decision-making and policy determination should be centred at Holyrood, or should significant amounts be devolved to local authorities.
Complain about this comment
#224 Peter_Fife
"You have now detailed some of the obvious problems associated with proportional representation; now what is the frequency of elections in Italy?"
You have repeated the commonly held fallacy that Italians go the polls with the same frequency as they eat pizza.
In the 60 years from the setting up of the Italian Republic in 1948, the country has held 16 general elections.
In a similar 60-year period in the UK (1945-2005) there were 17 general elections.
So what is your point?
Complain about this comment
sneckedagain
You are clearly not listening(take the colth out) as outlined several times,oil will not deliver a sustainable income.
Answer this, will the nats nationalize the oil fields?
Remember give a clear party line commitment.......
Complain about this comment
#224 Peter_Fife
Thankyou for clarifying your opinion. You make some interesting points, but I'm afraid I still don't follow who could enforce your proposals.
I fully agree that if Cameron wins a large majority it will not be long before "the old right guard" of the Tories you mention will be crawling out of the woodword.
OTOH, while they might want to revert to hanging poachers, they probably won't want to try them "in camera" or to use anti-terror laws to regulate bin usage.
I wonder why it is that everyone who is against PR uses Italy as an example? Yes they have problems, but they are a pretty new country with a pretty new democracy. Belgium is having similar problems for similar, largely ethnic, reasons.
Do you regard Norway, Denmark, Sweden, Germany, Iceland and Switzerland (to name just a few) as equally unstable?
Complain about this comment
#230 Anaxim
Congratulations (I hope!) on the new job. The blog will be less erudite without your regular posts.
If you have time, I've been seeking answers from Lib-Dems on
"Calman is to present his final report at some point in 2009. When will your internal study of devolution be ready? How will the options from those two analyses be decided - by the leadership, or by conference?"
"I've been googling to try to find out the attitude of the Scottish Lib-Dems to the Government concordat with COSLA, ring-fencing etc., without success.
Can anyone direct me to a policy statement etc on this?"
Can you help?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat ..... i have some gossip of what my local councillors have been up to ....allegidly lol
Complain about this comment
The constitutional issue IS the dominant issue for the arch - nats, not prepared to reason on the economics.
Oldnat for someone how has stated that he has voted for 3 differnent parties,its hardly surprising that you have a problem with defining different political movements.
Or is that the liberal part of you , advocating a one party state..Trip Trap
Complain about this comment
#227 oldnat
LOL. A brave admission.
Complain about this comment
Not much comfort to John MacDougall's family MacDougall believed that his lung cancer was contracted a result of working at the Royal Naval dockyards in Rosyth in the 1960s and 1970s when he was exposed to asbestos. One would normally expect Government to be more moral than private industry .....
Complain about this comment
231. At 8:48pm on 28 Aug 2008, oldnat wrote:
There's not much separating any of the parties (except for the Socialists) in Scotland. Perhaps the only other fault line is the question of subsidiarity within Scotland - do parties think (like Labour) that all decision-making and policy determination should be centred at Holyrood, or should significant amounts be devolved to local authorities.
I'm all for all decisions to be made at Holyrood, but perhaps within a federal system. I'm wondering if that is now what is on the cards, since it appears that Labour is going to get wiped off the map in England and will certainly lose a few seats in Scotland.
A federation of four states is perhaps the best - and in my opinion the safest - option.
Too many people are looking at the short term, and by that I mean twenty to thirty years. All parties are like this. The main reason is down to what is best for the politician rather the people.
This has filtered down to local level. Local councillors should all be independant. If, as they state, they work for the local people, why do they need to be a member of a political party and be required to follow the whip?
At the moment Scottish politics are a bloody mess. Labour is in flux, the Lib Dems are non-entities, the Scottish Socialists have had their fifteen minutes of fame and the Conservatives simply do not have enough local support yet. As a result we have - albeit currently a minority - party in power. But this is likely to change significantly come the next Scottish elections, unless Alex makes a clanger. We are then in a situation similar to the UK when Labour dominated Parliament and pushed through all sorts of destructive policies.
And don't get me started on list MSPs.......chocolate kettle comes to mind.
Complain about this comment
#228 .... thats very true regarding Hoy not having anywhere to train .... but the feeling i got was that it was a dig at edinburgh for closing the velodrome, not so much a dig at scotland going it alone.... Was sad to hear about Jason Mackintyre being killed on a post a way back i met him a few times at time trials and he was a fine boy .
Complain about this comment
#188 mac827: Your post saddens me and I don't know why. I'm not nuLab, I have never said Scotland could not go it alone, nor have I predicted catastrophe. You say I go on and on about the same Unionist dogma. Not really, I try to challenge people to explain what's better. Not the same thing. Nobody has succeeded. Surprise!
This blog is probably 80% SNP, at least. All I see is the same SNP dogma and rhetoric repeated endlessly, with any challengers immediately, and often offensively, rubbished.
What proof do I have that Scots can't stand alone? None. Can you prove the opposite?
Status quo? I was giving my understanding of the meaning of the words, not defending its workings.
Brigadierjohn? Once more, just for you: I had a dozen usernames rejected and suddenly saw "brigadier" in a newspaer headline on my desk. Hey presto! Satisfied?
You know, Mac, you've taken quite a bit of time to rubbish me. I take no offence. I do this for fun. I have no allegiance to any party. Free speech?
What's your problem? What's your point? Why did you do it? Why not just ignore me?
Complain about this comment
#238 Brownedov
I would have taken the analogy further. Unfortunately Golden's PowerPoint presentation on composting doesn't deal (as it should) with the efficacious use of recycled beer and wine on the compost heap!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
I presume there is a good technical reason why the BBC blogs don't accept links to pdf files. Can you explain?
Complain about this comment
#203 Brownedov: Why am I not flattered that you're seeking my opinions on so much? Is it a spider and fly thing?
The American colonies? No taxation without representation seems a fair old slogan to me. Whether I want to kill for it.....
A written constitution? I love to hear the US version spoken aloud. We could nit-pick about bearing arms, etc., and the number of amendments speak volumes about initial flaws.
Our lack of a written constitution may be a strength, although Human Rights legislation may now be a substitute.
Sometimes it's better to talk something through and reach a conclusion relevant to the times we live in, rather than point to an historical document that must be observed. But it's a very finely argued philosophical issue.
Why do you ask? I contradict myself so often and in so many areas. But I always believe what I say at the time.
Complain about this comment
#188 Mac827: My #242 was a reply to you. It was extremely civil and addressed all your points without rancour. I have no idea what was wrong with it.
Complain about this comment
#230 anaxim
To be in denial of true facts, is this a typical trait of all unionists? Warning don't become a slave to your new job.
oldnat
The Liberal Golden boy has 1 Jaguar S which I am sure will not be going onto his compost bin.
Complain about this comment
#244 oldnat
The mods seem consistently inconsistent about PDFs. I've had some accepted and some pulled, so now try to link to the last HTML page before the PDF.
I think it's different mods interpreting the editorial guidelines in different ways. The only possible justification for pulling them is on Links to Other Websites. Under Presents access or safety problems... the 2nd & 3rd bullets are:
- Sites which initiate a download
- Sites requiring obscure software
Arguably, every link initiates a download, if only of more HTML. I wouldn't call Acrobat obscure software, but the BBC doesn't use it very much itself. If all else fails, you can construct a Google link which should near-guarantee the PDF you want being 1st on the list.Complain about this comment
#245 brigadierjohn
Nothing arachnoid intended, just trying to figure out what's needed to make a status quo fan accept that some change might be desirable.
Thanks for a perfectly reasoned response and also for showing me where I need to hone up my arguments.
Complain about this comment
#247 cynicalHighlander
Tory Golden boy. Is a Jaguar S one of these new fangled horseless carriages?
Complain about this comment
233 derek barker
I don't make any sense of that post. I don't know what point you were trying to make.
I pointed out that the Scotland has a whole economy like everybody else AND the oil on top.
Only the wilfully blind and the seriously dense can't see this
We should be using oil revenue while it lasts to build up our infrastucture and depositing it in a fund for future generations like Norway has done. It now has £200 BILLION in the kitty earning vast
sums on a daily basis which they will have forever more.
By the way Chris Hoy has expressed his annoyance at being deliberately misquoted over the possibility of a Scottish Olympic team but I don't suppose you'll read this in the media which distorted his views.
The fact that Scotland does not presently have adequate sporting facilities is an indictment of the union and a compelling reason for independence.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov,
Italy is most the most popular example because it combines PR with Latin temperament; as you will note these two are not common in the other examples you quote; Belgium?s difficulties are based within tribal issues.
Manifestos, if given an agreed legal status, could be enforced as are all other contract/breaches of contract.
No Conservatives have their own methods of dealing with their testing grounds (Scotland).
Complain about this comment
Talking about traits, lies and all thigs to all people.What have the SNP delivered after 2years,remember how the SNP said that they would end quangos,well! todate 17 in all.Who can forget their pledge to cut class-room sizes,well! todate, none,what about their endeavours to halt student debt,well!thats on hold,what about the Snps drive,to make full use of Scotlands resources,well!were still waiting,remember the one about brick for brick in terms of building new schools,well! todate 2 new schools 2 years in,wait a minute, where are those plans for a new forth road bridge,well!the transport minister has forgot about that one, who can remember way back in december,when wee eck said that Scottish oil revenues would leave us with a 4 to 5 Bn surplus,well!he failed to take spendature into account, which would have giving us a real terms deficit of 2.7Bn.The SNP all things to words,no things to action.
Complain about this comment
I noticed you bulking up the numbers at Murrayfield Brian. Hope you got a high tea out of it.
Complain about this comment
So a new Scottish Lib Dem leadership has been inaugurated, but no bright new dawn for either Scotland or that party is announced. Instead of some inspirational and direction-giving statement upon required reform of the fundamentals of Scottish political and economic life, those of us who are concerned about these sufficiently to be interested in appropriate constitutional reform are disparaged for "guffing on about the constitution".
Instead of skirting round the constitutional issues which the Lib Dems should be confronting and giving a lead on, Mr Scott would have done better to take a leaf out of the Scottish Liberal Party's Federal Unit proposals and to state to the people of Scotland something not dissimilar to the following, taken from a statement of its 1974 document outlining what it recommended:
"With the adoption of a federal system, the House of Commons would become the Federal British Parliament. It would continue to make laws for all of Britain (...). The main effect of federalism on the Commons would be to reduce its business to manageable proportions, since it would no longer deal with State matters. (...)
"The Federal Government in Westminster would be assisted by a reduced Federal Civil Service. Over time, we can expect to see the gradual transfer of Westminster functions to the European level - the future of the huge Whitehall machine would depend very much on the arrangements for self-government made by the English. (...)
"Federal politics is more open and decentralised. It has to be, because the States are so important. Instead of confronting each other in the sterile kind of 'adversary politics' we are used to, the States have to respect each others' interests and take a constructive, bargaining approach to politics. (...)
"With the restoration of the Scottish state in a Federal United Kingdom, the Scottish people would recover control over their own affairs.
"Final powers over all areas of government activity, except those specifically reserved to the Federal Government, would pass into the hands of the Scottish Parliament. The Scottish Prime Minister and Government, appointed by the Queen, would exercise the sovereign powers of the Scottish State, as defined and guaranteed by the federal Constitution. In the few cases of 'concurrent' powers, i.e. where both Federal and State Governments can make laws, the Federal Parliament would, for the most part, confine itself to setting minimum standards.
"The development of the Scottish economy would rest almost exclusively with the Scottish Government. The Scottish Liberal Party believes that control of the land and mineral resources of Scotland is a fundamental right of the Scottish people and should be so declared in the Constitution. This means that the exploitation and development of our energy resources, for example, would be Scottish matters.
"In the economic fields where central government has promised much in the past, but performed little, the powers of the Scottish State would enable us to catch up with our needs. On a Scottish basis, we can effectively tackle the serious tasks of transport coordination, urban renewal and planned energy development, to name but a few.
"In order to develop an effective strategy for economic growth, the Scottish Government must have the power to raise its own taxes and set up its own information services; these are the normal powers of a State in a federal system. The Scottish Government should be free to choose between, say, varying the rate of corporation tax or using selective employment premiums to stimulate reinvestment. Through a Scottish Statistical Office the true facts of Scottish economic life can at last be revealed and be used as a basis for long-term planning. Agencies set up in the past to intervene in the Scottish economy, such as the Scottish Development Agency and the British National Oil Corporation, must be made wholly responsible to the Scottish Parliament. There is no reason why Scotland, like the Provinces in Canada, should not have independent borrowing powers also.
"Economic decentralisation in a federal system makes creative economic planning and innovation possible in the industrial life of the States. Nowhere is this more needed than in Scotland, where the problems of our industries are intimately understood and the will to solve them exists. The radical outlook of the Scottish Trade Union movement and some sectors of business offer us a tremendous opportunity which we cannot seize without self-government. Scotland should lead the way in industrial democracy and strategic planning to the ultimate benefit of the whole of Britain.
"(...) We do not accuse the British Government of wilful neglect; the fault of centralism is that Westminster tries to do FOR us the things that we should do for ourselves.
"On the other hand, the Scots do not want to divide the British people in a tragic conflict for jobs and prosperity. That is why a federal system is the only one which meets our needs. Self-government is balanced in a federation by the fiscal powers of the Federal Government and the open bargaining processes which are characteristic of federal politics. The communities in a federal system compete to innovate and progress, not to destroy one another.
"The restoration of the Scottish State will give us a focus for our national life once more and let us make a fresh start for Scottish democracy and prosperity."
The above is what may be described as a radical statement of policy which lays claim to political territory and gives voters something to vote for if they desire maximum self-government but not complete independence. Regrettably, Mr Scott could not put forth anything of this nature because the Lib Dems seem not to believe in it and are more concerned about not offending their former and potential future coalition partners, the Labour Party, not least on taxation and oil-reserve matters. So far as constitutional reform is concerned, the old Liberal Party was a wolf in sheep's clothing, whereas the Lib Dems are just a sheep in sheep's clothing, and a scrawny-looking sheep at that.
No leadership on constitutional matters being on offer from the Lib Dems under its new leader, there is still no unionist party to turn to for greatly increased powers for the Scottish Parliament. That being so, there is virtually only the Scottish National Party to rely on. It, of course, speaks loudly and clearly for Scotland on these matters. As no other substantial party will do so, why would we turn away from the SNP now? To turn away from the SNP now would be to turn away from greater powers for the Scottish Parliament and would be interpreted as a sign that we are not serious about acquiring them. Mr Scott, in failing to give us much reason to support his party, is leaving us no option but to go on voting SNP.
Complain about this comment
#247
Ouch! Wrong party Wrong name. Apologies to all concerned. (red face)
Up here if a candidate goes under independant read conservative most recent M Scanlon and the liberals change their candidate as often as they change their socks.
Complain about this comment
#247
Ouch! Wrong party Wrong name. Apologies to all concerned. (red face)
Up here if a candidate goes under independant read conservative most recent M Scanlon and the liberals change their candidate as often as they change their socks.
(edit) just seen your reply I would think it has a few horses hidden under the bonnet.
Complain about this comment
sneckedagain 251
What is your point on this oil,you clearly dont read well.The 4 Bn surplus is an oversight that your leader has recognised now as a 2.7 Bn defict ( refer to bbc scottish parliament ) Stop blaming the union for the lack of sporting facilities,were the nats talking about facilities prior to the olympics?
You are caught up in the fever of nationalism,narrow and incased in the belief that nationalism is all things, look 2 years into to an SNP government and the paint is sliding off the walls, health issues, education issues, housing issues, funding issues ( 2014 commonwealth games) transport issues and you want to add another SPORTING ISSUES all lacking the snp admin.............Wise up..
Complain about this comment
snakedagain
In fairness, I probably gave you too an advanced reply.So in laymens terms, you cant recoup every-penny from a private oil firm, you can only collect the rate of tax you impose......as a government, if you want full control of the oil fields, then you must make an offer to buy and then in turn, the oil fields would become a publically owned asset.....or nationalized purse?
So whats the answer, will the snp buy the oil fields??????????
Complain about this comment
Re earlier press reports on whether Brown was being "hands on" in Glenrothes or not, the Times is suggesting that he's under Cabinet pressure to get involved. David Cameron is also planning to campaign - which should be good for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#257 cynicalhighlander
I know little of these modern gadgets, but if there are several horses, then one might suspect that their combined sphincter emissions might counteract the effect of recycling beer onto the compost.
I can hardly believe it of a Conservative but could he be a (I tremble to say the word) Hypocrite?
Complain about this comment
#252 Peter_Fife
Italians are often non-conformist in all except religion, but the Latin Portugese and Spanish don't have many problems working within PR despite regular spats with their ethnic minorities and have been democracies for barely 30 years. I did mention Belgium's ethnic problems. In any event, you do not make much of a case against PR.
Who's going to implement the Manifesto Bill you'd like into law?
I'm afraid I have no idea what your closing "No Conservatives have their own methods of dealing with their testing grounds (Scotland)" means. Could you try rewording it?
No hurry as I'm signing off now but will look in tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
CORRECTION:
The SLP proposals quoted in my earlier post were in fact first published in 1976 and not in 1974 as stated.
Complain about this comment
Anagol
All that, to stake a claim for federalism and not one mention about devolving power to the local governments. The EU treaty or constitutional frame work will not solve the political will of what the snp seek... in fact, it will be an adverse affect, if you consider Trident and America...
Complain about this comment
#255 Anagol
Well said, but the really crazy thing is that most of that is still official Federal LibDem policy. Maybe they're hoping to tear the whole thing up at Bournemouth?
Complain about this comment
#255 Anagol
I've got my fingers crossed one of the Unionist parties will get their arse in gear and push forward with some kind of federalisation plan. To make the alternative to full independence even stronger, all three parties could adopt a common federalist future. Dreamland?
Interesting reading - cheers.
Complain about this comment
#260 oldnat
Good Times article. I'd love to know which MP said: "By going, he would lift morale. By not going, he would be sending a terrible message to Labour people on the ground that the seat isn't worth fighting for."
That one just might be worth keeping an eye on, as I'm sure any diehard Brownites are doing as I write.
Complain about this comment
Re my #260
The Times report has 2 paragraphs about how wonderful the HT of Kirkcaldy High is. I just had a look at the HMIe reports on Inverkeithing and Kirkcaldy. the SNP could have a lot of fun with these, if Labour select him.
Complain about this comment
Further to my # 260
Note the misinformation already being played - "was appointed headmaster of Kirkcaldy High in May by the local SNP-controlled education authority".
HT appointments in Scotland are not politically controlled, School Boards and other HTs have the majority role.
Complain about this comment
Grauniad has an even stronger spin on Roy being the Labour candidate.
Complain about this comment
I wonder how long annabel goldie,scottish consevative leader will last?
Wendy Alexander,Nicol Stephen,-its all change in the opposition parties.Surely she wont last till 2011 election?Shes a nice lady but she has reached her peak, a political plateau.She can only steady the ship.She cant advance them poll ratings wise.Are there rumours of mutterings against her?
Complain about this comment
Even the London Evening Standard (the MPs favourite paper) has Roy as the Labour candidate. Pity that Glenrothes Labour may not have much of a choice.
Complain about this comment
Roy shatters staffmorale at KHS
Complain about this comment
"In the economic fields where central government has promised much in the past, but performed little, the powers of the Scottish State would enable us to catch up with our needs. On a Scottish basis, we can effectively tackle the serious tasks of transport coordination, urban renewal and planned energy development, to name but a few."
Excuse me but these are devolved matters. Surely it would be sensible to see the SNP maximise the use of the powers thay already have before we embark on another government reorg with all the cost and waste politicians will inevitably create.
Urban renewal? Crime needs tackled, 1000 police promised less than 100 delivered. Performance similar to labour, same broken promises
All this talk is just an excuse for doing nothing. President eck is in favour of tidal power, but is putting obstacles in the way of development. After 18months of SNP gov we are no closer. Windmill yard is closing down because planning permission can't be granted fast enough.
What we have is no change from labour. Same inefficient useless government.
We need to stop posturing on Independance as the current gov doesn't have abill on the table to talk about. We need to see them actually doing something before we even consider any more powers
Complain about this comment
Tavish Scott says of Alex Salmond:
"What looks confident, sure-footed and wily today will be seen as arrogant, misguided and politically dishonest tomorrow."
Is it not more likely that these words will soon be used to describe, not Alex Salmond, but Tavish Scott himself.
For it is not the SNP who have failed to deliver on their manifesto commitments, but the Lib Dems.
The SNP have formed a minority government and, on most occassions, facing a united opposition, it is understandable that they cannot implement all of their plans, immediately.
But what of the Lib Dems.
In their manifesto last year, the Lib Dems were said, by most impartial observers, to share about 80% of their objectives with the SNP.
They were offered the chance of coalition government with the SNP. With such agreement, the Lib Dems could have reassured their supporters that there is a purpose in voting for their party. They may never win outright power, but in the traditional pragmatic approach of Gladstone, of seeking consensus where it can be found, on their terms, they can have the majority of their objectives met.
But they turned down this opportunity.
Two reasons were given around that time. The opposition to the independence referendum and that it would be good for the party to have a period in opposition.
The latter explanation simply does not wash. The manifesto, and the commitments it made, were a pledge of what they would do if they got the chance of being in power, not in opposition. How much of that manifesto can they hope to achieve while in opposition? More or less than 80%?
So that just leaves the referendum. How must those people who voted for the Lib Dems (Dem for Democratic) Party on the basis of their manifesto feel that they turned down this opportunity to implement 80% of their objectives, purely on the basis that they would not allow the electorate to have a say in the country's future through that greatest of democratic mechanisms; a referendum?
Tavish Scott was a part of that leadership that led his party into this position.
Throwing away the chance of being able to implement almost all of their manifesto. They agredd with the SNP on 80% and could have negotiated for more.
Throwing away any reputation of being committed to the principles of democracy.
Throwing away any reputation for being the kingmakers of power, leadin to pragmatic implementation of their weaker position.
Is it any surprise that only 60% of their dwindling membership bothered to vote for their next leader?
Complain about this comment
275. For it is not the SNP who have failed to deliver on their manifesto commitments...
Mmm.
Complain about this comment
#274.
"Urban renewal? Crime needs tackled, 1000 police promised less than 100 delivered. Performance similar to labour, same broken promises."
You should look at the SNP website.
Complain about this comment
#274 northhighlander
You make a some good points, but your attempt to exaggerate diminishes its impact. Just over 15 months is hardly 18 and you make no allowance at all for their minority situation. Similarly re the police, the facts are well-established - they have provided the funds for 150 so far and hope to be allowed by the SP to fund the rest by 2011. Maybe they should have ensured the funds were not improperly applied by some forces but that's an entirely different matter.
We share a dislike of NuLab, but who could have done better over the past year?
Complain about this comment
#275 talorthane
Well said and sad but true. What a golden opportunity to advance their federal agenda they have missed. The only possible reason I can think of for it is that first Campbell and now Clegg may be unwilling to offend either NuLab or the Tories in the hopes of a "hung" Parliament at Westmidden next time. Little hope of that now, I think.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]gave his thoughts on what their objectives may be, but does anyone else have alternative theories?
Complain about this comment
Latest Telegraph/Yougov poll.
Figures for both Scotland and the North of England are -
Party,North,Scotland
Number,560,204
Con,45%,18%
Lab,30%,28%
LD,17%,12%
SNP,0%,40%
UKIP/BNP,10%,0%
Complain about this comment
In my #280 I should have shown also Green 2% in both the North and Scotland. The only Socialists mentioned are Respect, we might guess, therefore, the 1% for "Other" other in the North and 1% for Respect in Scotland, may be generic Socialist votes.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #279
My "missing" link was simply an internal one, so I'll repeat it as an fully qualified external link. The 2nd para should have read:
brigadierjohn's #63 gave his thoughts on what their objectives may be, but does anyone else have alternative theories?
Something to be added to the notes if you read this Ed!
Complain about this comment
Any group which shares a pot of money has to fight for it's share - Councils, Hospitals Unions even within a large company Marketing, Design an Manufacturing scrap over their annual budget.
Only the Scottish Unionist Parties say the Scots get more than their share.
Well that doesn't ring true to me - Unless the LibDems push Fiscal Autonomy they are doomed
Complain about this comment
283. Unless the LibDems push Fiscal Autonomy they are doomed.
And only the SNP and its supporters say that.
Complain about this comment
#280 & #281 oldnat
Thanks for the info. Compared to this week's YouGov poll for Compass, things are looking marginally up for the SNP and marginally down for NuLab, but small samples still. The runes still look very good for an SNP win.
The full details of both the new poll and the Compass one are both available in PDF from YouGov's Political Archives. I'm off out this afternoon but will look at it more closely later today.
Complain about this comment
Police numbers 'at record high' the lead story on BBC Scotland. Shame the SNP DIDN'T deliver there eh? :D hoho
Complain about this comment
283. Only the Scottish Unionist Parties say the Scots get more than their share.
By the way, the SNP admits that too.
As I've already asked; do you hear Salmond claiming otherwise since his first GERS report came out?
No. All he has demanded is a share of any windfall tax (which obviously he would get anyway).
That report has been available on the net for a while, do yourself a favour and have a look at it.
Complain about this comment
284.
I'm not a member of any party, just someone who always votes.
I came to poliics late, however I know money is essential to managing the business.
Complain about this comment
#284 Reluctant-Expat
"And only the SNP and its supporters say that."
Untrue. I believe many LibDems will say that themselves, as will many other (con)federalists, some of whom won't relish voting for the SNP.
Anyway, I'm off now and will look back in on the new thread later.
Complain about this comment
#262 Brownedov,
"...Who's going to implement the Manifesto Bill you'd like into law?..."
I do not know if anyone will implement the Manifesto Bill or is thinking about such an action; remember this was in response to your question "...Who would be charged with the "permitting" of coalition government and removing "rogue" coalitions..."; as both question and answer are hypothetical I do not understand your difficulties of comprehension.
However considering the hullabaloo and legal challenges which surrounded the calls for Labour to honour their Manifesto pledge for a referendum I cannot see the launch of Labour?s Manifesto for the next General Election going unchallenged unless they try to change the status of the same by pledging their next Manifesto as a contract not merely a promises.
"...OTOH, while they might want to revert to hanging poachers, they probably won't want to try them "in camera" or to use anti-terror laws to regulate bin usage. "..."
No, Conservatives have their own methods of dealing with their testing grounds (Scotland).
Complain about this comment
286. The number of police in Scotland has reached a "record high", according to the Scottish Government.
There were 16,339 police officers in Scotland at the end of June, an increase of 118 on the first quarter of 2008.
It was a rise of 74 on the figure in June last year, just after the SNP formed its government.
74?
Complain about this comment
New post: do the people think prison is a better place to be in light of the tartan tories social agenda......
Complain about this comment
#290 Peter_Fife
Thanks for the response. A worthy goal, but not one the main parties are likely to take up anytime soon, I think. I do agree, though, that Labour's manifesto commitment for a referendum will come back to haunt them and will make other parties less willing to make manifesto commitments they don't actually.
The comma in your last para negates the meaning of it vs your #262, but I'm still unclear what you mean. Are you suggesting that Cameron will try on something like the Poll Tax? Now that there's a Scottish Parliament, I'm not sure he could and he would certainly need to think twice before doing it unless he actually wants Scotland to declare UDI. Just possibly in the distant future a Tory government at Holyrood could try some such thing just once before being cast back into the wilderness.
As you seem to dislike all of the main parties, do you not bother to vote or which do you feel is leastworst?
Complain about this comment
287
Yes I've had a look but there are so many assumptions, and the categories are mixed so I fear Fiscal Autonomy is the minimum that would allow true control. An example there is no specific figure for Income tax paid directly to engglish Tax offices; there is a ratio used.
I don't claim that we are any better than others in the UK but I think our needs are different.
I still say follow the money and control your own funds.
I'm not a cybernat in spite of my opinions.
Complain about this comment
#293 Brownedov,
Does the last Conservative Governments of Thatcher and Major?s years merely total up to the Poll Tax, what of the industries decimated by years of malice, what of the nationalised industries now under the control of foreign companies, what of the jobs removed from Scotland to be traded for votes in the South West of England by Scotland?s own Judas, Malcolm Rifkind?
The list goes on and on; Conservatives in Westminster would sacrifice anything Scottish to reward their own homelands, one of which, Kensington and Chelsea is currently represented by Malcolm J Rifkind.
At each election I examine the Manifestos of all the Major parties and vote accordingly, I feel only then can I morally hold to account politicians who win my vote, based on their promises, when and if they fall short of their own said promises; I would never vote unfailingly for a rosette or party, such an act I find ludicrous and more akin to those ovine members of the flock.
Complain about this comment
#295 Peter_Fife
I think we'll have to agree to differ. I dislike all the things you quote just as much as you do, but other areas of the UK with low numbers of Tory voters were devastated in the much the same way, except for the Poll Tax, where Scotland was used as a testing ground.
We also differ on our approach to politics in that you seem to be seeking a perfection I fear you'll not find in politicians anywhere, while I take whatever the leastworst option seems to be at the time. I could imagine spoiling my ballot paper if the choice was only between NuLab and BNP but not in many other situations.
If you want to discuss this further, let's move to the new thread.
Complain about this comment
#296 Brownedov,
I do not seek perfection; where humans are concerned this can never be achieved because of our inherent fallibility.
David Cameron?s action of completely ignoring the Scottish Conservative representation at their 2007 Blackpool conference said it all; not only has he no time for Scottish politicians who are not of the right wing, he has no time for Scottish Conservatives.
I truly worry for Scotland and Great Britain if Cameron and Co gain power at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
#297 Peter_Fife
By all means worry for England, as they'll bear the brunt of the Tory storm. I really don't think the devolved countries, especially Scotland, have much to worry about. If Cameron really is a unionist, he'll have to go easy or risk UDI. If he's not, then Scotland will dissolve the union at the referendum. Even after a pro-independence referendum it will take a couple of year's at least to unscramble everything, during which time there will be an opportunity to cool things down.
Anyway. Goodnight now.
Complain about this comment
Well, I don't care who is Lib Dem leader now, unless he is capable of getting to the First Minister and asking him what he will do about the massive increases in gas and electricity.
Answer: absolutely nothing since the VAT returns increase as well.
Alex Salmond wants "green" energy by 2020? I want affordable energy NOW.
I've had a new boiler installed (not cheap), lagged the pipes, loft is well insulated, got double glazing, put on thirty layers of clothes, eat Ready Brek (for the glow).........
Let's get to real issues instead of mucking about with blooming independance issues. Even if there was a "Yes" vote today it would take years to resolve, and we'd still all be freezing.
Stop harking on about the past as well. What is done is done. Deal with it and look to the future without this constant argument whether we will be better off away from the UK or not.
And please, please will some journalist ask Alex Salmond why he will not regulate the bus companies as promised?
We are all paying above-inflation fares, the excuse being "high oil prices". Yet bus companies are able to buy fuel in bulk and prices that are way below what you pay in the garage.
Complain about this comment
#298 Brownedov,
You seem to miss the point, if England suffers under Conservative rule Scotland will suffer disproportionately; Conservatives will try to soften the blows in their heartlands by restricting Scottish budgets attempting to remove or modify the Barnett Formula and creating an 'English Only' voting enclave at Westminster, irrespective of the undeniable fact that there exists a 412 inbuilt Majority of English MPs in the House of Commons.
To adopt a 'who cares what happens to England' attitude is naive to say the least; the backwash of what happens to England will be one of the many crosses Scotland has to bear under a Conservative controlled Westminster.
UDI is pie in the sky; the SNP referendum will precede the acts of savagery that will be perpetrated on Scotland by virtue of the fact that it will come, if it ever does before the next General Election; Conservatives if by then in power at Westminster will do their all to block a third referendum.
Complain about this comment
#300 Peter_Fife
We'll have to agree to differ, I think, but this conversation should definitely move to the new thread. I'll respond to it there along with a response to a recent oldnat poast.
Complain about this comment
Tavish scott is an excellent choice as he is young, energetic, passionate about his beliefs and one of the best media performers who has already shown he has good ideas. At last a party with a leader who has vision and can take on Salmond who has got away so far with u turn on the election promises by the media.
The rudderless old tired Labour and Tories must be worried. Does it really matter who leads Labour as they are obviously split and have run out of ideas. As far as the Tories are concerned they are no where in Scotland as we cannot forget Thatcher and the poll tax and since then even the Tories Shadow Sec of State have no faith in the Scootish Tories.
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS