Politics as football
He's said it before, I know: this stuff about Scottish fiscal powers, not least in an interview I conducted with the Prime Minister back in February.
I recall that interview, in Kirkcaldy, for a couple of other reasons. Mr Brown, understandably keen to bolster his colleague, forecast then that Wendy Alexander would be a "great" leader of Scottish Labour.
And, immediately after talking to me, the PM headed for Starks Park hoping to join the football fans singing and dancing in the streets of Raith. The mighty Rovers, GB's boyhood delight, were thumped.
So nothing is fixed in politics or football. Nonetheless, the Prime Minister is pursuing an intriguing theme when he talks about the Scottish Parliament gaining responsibility for raising money as well as spending it.
When Donald Dewar took Labour into the Constitutional Convention, he said that his party was going to have to "live dangerously" for a while.
Mr Dewar, like Mr Brown, was intuitively averse to risk.
Yet it would appear that Mr Brown now, like Mr Dewar then, is prepared to consider what would previously have been regarded as unthinkable.
Popular mood
Is he "caving in" to the SNP? To some degree, yes. His comments reflect the political reality that people in Scotland seem to like the concept of decisions honed in Scotland, reflecting Scottish wishes and driven, solely, by a Scottish mandate.
In response to the SNP pressure for independence, he is still firmly saying no.
Now, however, it is "no, but . . . " This resembles the instigation of devolution itself.
Labour is responding, directly, to the popular mood which is, to some extent, represented by the SNP.
However, the origin of this initiative should not concern us exclusively. Personally, I am much more interested in the details of the project and its next phase. If you like, let's look at Leviticus and Exodus, taking Genesis for read.
What is Gordon Brown proposing? Strictly, nothing precise at this stage, given that he anticipates the Calman Commission will guide on this matter.
Since he and others directed Calman's remit, that is a reasonable presumption.
What, then, might we expect?vI believe that Gordon Brown is talking about assigned or devolved revenues.
Declining economy
Assignation means that the product of a tax raised in Scotland, say income tax, stays in Scotland. Devolution means the Scottish Parliament would have full or partial control over varying that tax.
Which taxes might be assigned or devolved? Holyrood already has the power to vary the standard rate of income tax. But the tax isn't assigned - in that Scotland simply gets a block grant.
Under assignation or devolution of tax, the Scottish Government and parliament would have a direct incentive to grow the economy: because they would get the extra tax cash that thus accrues.
Equally, they would have to live with the consequences of a declining economy.
VAT? Could be assigned, difficulty perhaps with devolution because of EU consistency rules.
Corporation tax? Could be assigned - but probably not devolved in order to avoid the problem of companies shifting their HQ plates within the UK to skip tax.
That's one reason why such a move has been resisted for Northern Ireland.
Other taxes like stamp duty seem clear candidates for assignation or devolution. Oil? That will be the SNP's greatest demand - but assignation/devolution would be strongly resisted by the Treasury.
Borrowing power
There are other issues. The Treasury would dislike any substantial assignation or devolution if it weakened their control over the UK's overall finances.
That might suggest there would be a requirement for rules governing such matters.
Further, the Scottish Government - both ministers and officials - are exceptionally keen on gaining borrowing powers. They point out that local authorities can borrow - but they can't.
Assignation of tax might well be accompanied by borrowing powers.
Bear in mind that, for the PM, this is not solely about Scotland.
In his speech last night, the line about Scottish economic flexibility was followed immediately by a statement stressing that this was all about "preserving the unity of the United Kingdom".
Under assigned taxation, there would still be an equalisation system to top up for Scotland the revenue that isn't transferred, such as oil, and to deal with differential need, however assessed.
There would, in my view, be a full-sacle needs assessment review.
English disquiet
But, by definition, any cash lump sum paid annually to Scotland would be much lower than the present Barnett Formula level. That is because Scotland would retain, primarily, the product of one or more taxes.
The equalisation payment would be a top-up rather than the sole sum.
So Gordon Brown could, arguably, tell the good and sensible people of England that he had cut the grant to Scotland.
Depending on the equalisation formula which replaced Barnett, it might also be the case that the overall funding available to Scotland would indeed be cut.
It is scarcely likely to be increased, given disquiet in England.
Good advice to all politicians: be careful what you wish for.
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.
Finally, Gordon Brown is coming around. He may survive afterall. Scotland should be capable of raising her own taxes and controlling all her resources (yes, oil etc). Scotland should then contribute to the UK Treasury. This could quite simply act as a checks and balancing power, the UK English dominated Parliament would have to consider what the Scottish Government says. Our Scottish MP's really are very poor and only are there to follow Labours party line. The Scottish Parliament represents Scotland best.
Some areas of worry...
"Other taxes like stamp duty seem clear candidates for assignation or devolution. Oil? That will be the SNP's greatest demand - but assignation/devolution would be strongly resisted by the Treasury."
A declining resource that lowers and rises in value quite unpredictable, appears to be worth something to the Treasury? It would be quite difficult for the Unionists to claim oil is in fast decline and worthless if the Treasury wants to control oil. It must be worth something.
"Depending on the equalisation formula which replaced Barnett, it might also be the case that the overall funding available to Scotland would indeed be cut. It is scarcely likely to be increased, given disquiet in England."
I would not be surpised if our overall budget was cut. It would be our punishment for voting for the Nationalists (something Labour would do). But is Gordon Brown putting Englands voters first here rather then Scotland? Attempting to appeal to the English voters rather then Scotland, his own home? If Brown wants to impress the English then we would be given all our tax raising and spending powers etc etc then the English would know that there money is spent in London and not Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Oh, naturally we mustn't do anything that might cause "disquiet in England"!
I couldn't give a monkey's about "disquiet in England."
The important question that isn't being answered here is if (as we are constantly being told) Scottish oil revenues "are running out" then why would assignation of oil revenues be so "strongly resisted by the Treasury"?
Is is because we're being fed a load of lies about the value of oil revenues?
Complain about this comment
It is interesting to note that Brian Taylor asserts that, contrary to the UK government view, the UK PM is "caving in" to the SNP to some degree, in that his comments of yesterday evening reflect the political reality, largely represented by the SNP, that "people in Scotland seem to like the concept of decisions honed in Scotland, reflecting Scottish wishes and driven, solely, by a Scottish mandate".
Labour's devolution scheme is a botched job. No tinkering with it can save it in the long run. The ambitions of the people of Scotland are outpacing any concessions that Labour seem to be capable of contemplating.
Although devolution has not been in place for very long, as constitutional settlements go, it has already failed and needs to be replaced. Either a federal UK, with extensive inalienable taxation and borrowing powers for the Scottish government, or an independent Scotland will meet the people's requirements, and these are requirements. The period of waiting about for crumbs to be tossed down from Westminster is over. Labour must wait for its Calman Commission, presumably. Whether Scotland will wait is another matter, particularly as we know that the Labour Party is not very likely to be in a position to implement any changes to the devolution settlement that it may eventually come out in favour of.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again. Same old, same old.
All we have is an opinion piece by Brian. Essentially stuff that is "easy" could be devolved and assigned, stuff that maybe isn't so easy (ie business rates, company revenues) and could affect the UK as a whole may not be.
Nothing has been proposed yet, nothing has been debated, nothing has been "imposed", nothing has been cut.
There is no "evidence" that is usually demanded by BigHotairBalloon. There are no "links".
But that doesn't stop all the Nats immediately adopting the "we're the victims" stance again. The victims of what? Somebody (a non-politician) saying something.
Why don't we just wait and see what is actually proposed and then debate that.
Complain about this comment
"Good advice to all politicians: be careful what you wish for."
That old Unionist media scaremongering really dies hard, doesn't it?!
How much longer before they realise nobody in Scotland swallows their scare stories any more?
Complain about this comment
This is a very slippery slope. You either have union or you don't. Remember a deal requires 2 to agree. And if they don't it will become a mess. Too much difference causes resentment.
Salmond has played a clever game so far but has not yet got any competent opposition (Labour C team).
By the way - who votes on Scottish independence: those who live in Scotland at the time? those by birth? Who gets Scottish passports? Why not England - do they want union or not?
It is when you think things through you begin to realise the complexities.
Oh yes Ireland has done well: Has it? It only did well after a massive injection of EU aid.
I am not sure Scotland would do so well. Oil will be finished very soon (I am in oil). There will be a massive debt and a lot of British Govt jobs will go.
Labour's ill thought out 'jobs for the boys' devolution plan was the biggest mistake ever.
Complain about this comment
ALL taxation-raising powers should de transferred to Holyrood, and HM Treasury should submit an invoice (to be met before all other liabilities) for Scotland's portion of UK expenditure.
Or perhaps we should have the reciprocal of the Barnett formula, where Holyrood is allowed to raise as much or as little revenue as it likes, but with a proportion of that amount passing to HM Treasury.
Complain about this comment
#3, Craig_Ellachie
"... the UK PM ..."
Is there any indication that Wee Eck is pushing for a new title?
After all, the head of a Government is usually called Prime Minister... (as was the case in Northern Ireland, 1921-1972).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#5 Blogpolice
" Oil will be finished very soon (I am in oil)"
Since you are "in oil" obviously you're in a position to explain to the rest of us why, since "oil will be finished very soon", the assignation/devolution (of oil revenues) "would be strongly resisted by the Treasury?
Look forward to hearing your answer. And if there isn't an answer, that will speak for itself.
Complain about this comment
Brown is just as much a British Nationalist as Salmond is a Scottish Nationalist.
Brown will concede as little as he thinks he can get away with in order to preserve his nation's control over Scotland. If he can do that in a way that will worsen Scotland's economy and governance, then that is a bonus, as he would hope that would put a dampener on Scotland's aspiration for increased control over its own affairs.
Salmond will try to maximise UK concessions in order to establish his nation's control over Scotland. For him, however, it is essential to ensure that these concessions are not done in such a way as to worsen Scotland's economy and governance.
Both hope to persuade us, but it's our choice.
There are few points in history where voting for one party rather than another makes very much difference. This is one of them.
Complain about this comment
# 4 "There is no "evidence" that is usually demanded by BigHotairBalloon."
This is abusive. I don't see why it should be allowed to remain on the board.
Complain about this comment
Whats the point of some tax powers ? The Isle of Man has more fiscal and political freedom than Scotland has at the moment . I dont see them clambering to let Westminster control them,all this talk that England couldnt afford Independence or Scotland couldnt afford Independence is scare tactics. If politicians want this POLITICAL Union between Scots and English to continue then they better hurry up and give us a reason as time and patience is running out.
check out The Isle of Man and see how a federal UK could work
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Isle_of_Man
Complain about this comment
The shenanigans yesterday have strengthened my feeling that the Scottish parliament is becoming a very poor representative body for the Scottish people. To think that they are to be given more powers to raise money is quite difficult to understand. Notwithstanding any parochial views the assembly lacks leadership and personality.
We don't need the Scottish Parliament to become a House of Congress where the politicians fill their bellies in the trough of self interest because, as yesterday showed, self interest is often not in the interest of the Scottish people.
Complain about this comment
#11 oldnat
If I am reading you post correctly, in your view Brown acts in ways that will worsen Scotland's economy, whilst Salmond acts in ways that will not worsen Scotland's economy.
Speaking as a Scot, I don't have much of a problem deciding which of these two I prefer!
Complain about this comment
#12 Big whatever.
Sorry but you lost the moral high ground on this donkey's years ago.
"BigHotAirBallon" is no more abusive than "Loser" or "Balloon" - both of which you have used in your posts despite ranting on about "Petty Insults".
So please, spare us the posturing and the wounded ego.
Complain about this comment
#6.
"Oh yes Ireland has done well: Has it? It only did well after a massive injection of EU aid."
I suggest you pick up a history book, then you will understand why Ireland needed a massive cash injection (what happened in the first place?).
Are you suggesting that Scotland is as bad as Ireland was when Ireland left the Union? Scotland is in a stronger postion then Ireland for a number of reasons.
Complain about this comment
The Iraq dodgy dossier" may well have a part to play in Brown's ability to deliver anything, and the timing of the Glenrothes bye-election.
The UK Government has 35 days to publish the details (by 9 October) or appeal the decision (which postpones publication till November?).
The origins of the Iraq war back in the headlines, and a "Real Labour for the Black Watch" candidate, would destroy any lingering hopes Labour might have in Fife.
Complain about this comment
This speech higlights how weak Gordon Brown's position is and also the growing tensions in the UK government and Whitehall over the SNP's indpendence agenda.
The Treasury's stance over North Sea oil revenues undermines the public utterances by Labour ministers at the Scotland Office. North Sea oil is an important resource, and will be for some considerable time.
Also Gordon Brown has finally accepted that devolution is a process and that "the will of the Scottish people" is actually a demand for more and more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Scots are slowly breaking the ties on the political union with England.
Gordon Brown's speech reveals that Labour still has to come to terms with the fact that it has no future in Scotland until it becomes a truly Scottish Labour Party, with it's own Scottish policies, it's own Scottish leadership where MPs, MSPs, MEPs and councillors owe their direct allegiance to.
Finally, Gordon Brown will be the last ever Scottish Prime Minister of the UK. He will also be regarded as being the worst ever Prime Minister to. That is something that Brown personally will have to come to terms with.
Complain about this comment
@6 Blogpolice:
Oh, come on Scotland, have some self-confidence in yourselves! There is so much more to Scotland's economy than oil and gas: Scotland dominates retail banking in the UK, you have many of the biggest life insurance and the biggest pension companies are based in Scotland. You also have tourism and whisky to name just two other major export earners - and that is just for starters.
Brian's assertion that Scotland cannot be given powers to vary Corporation Tax because the UK Treasury will not allow it is just the kind of reason why a federal UK will not be enough - after full independence, Scotland will be able to cut the rate as in Ireland and attract far more inward investment, including from England.
As Scotland and England will both be in the EU, there would be a complete free market, and Scottish companies would continue to trade south of the border just as they do now, and vice versa, with no import taxes or customs posts required.
The Scottish Regiments would form the basis of Scotland's army, many of the cross-UK Government services could simply be provided on a cross-border basis under contract, just as now, as could some diplomatic functions, at least to start with. UK defence establishments like the Trident cbase ould be retained under a lease of say 20 years to England.
The North/South border in Ireland is open to road and rail traffic, with no border controls, and (along with Schengen) provides a model for how the Scottish/English border could work, with mutual recogintion of travel visas and possibly even work permits for non-EU nationals. It is sure to remain completely open in any event.
As for who would vote in a referendum, as the starting point is that we are all UK nationals at present, it would really have to be based on who appears on Scottish electoral rolls on the due date.
I hope that Scotland shows the self-confidence to stand up to all the ridiculous scaremongering and votes for full independence.
As I am English, you may wonder why I am saying this: the answer is simple. I believe that BOTH England and Scotland will benefit from being two independent but friendly nations.
Complain about this comment
This is easy, rescind the Union of Parliaments and keep the Union of the Crowns.
Scotlandwill have Full Fiscal Autonomy, so will England. We each collect ALL our own revenues.
Perhaps we can agree some common finances and contribute to a central fund.
Whatever, Mr Brown has been dragged to this position.
Whether the treasury like it or not, they will have to concede control of Scotland's resources..
This appears very similar to what the Libdems proposed, need real details now.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I agree with the final statement in your piece, be careful what you wish for.
We wished for a mature proper parliament that would represent the people and behave differently to Westminster.
Look what we got.
In may last year we wished for a government that would be different to labour.
Look what we got
We wanted a first Minister that would act in Scotlands best interest honestly and fairly, able to look beyond petty party boundaries and offer a vision of a new scotland.
Look what we got.
Personally I would only back extra powers if someone could make a good case for doing it. The standard of government debate on LIT is woeful, the idea seems treat the electorate like they are too stupid to understand, keep repeating a few short soundbites and everything will be okay. Don't tell them how much it will cost or how it will be paid for.
I need convincing of either new powers or independance. Nobody has offfered much so far.
Complain about this comment
#6 Blog police "Oil will be finished very soon (I am in Oil)" Do you work as a room boy?
Please enlighten us as to where you get your information from? I am also "in oil" (Drilling) and it has never been busier, and like most people in oil I could not tell you when it is going to run out. What we do know is that at current estimates there is at least thirty years left and that figure keeps growing as technologies for recovery improve.
How much was the massive cash injection that Ireland received from the EU, and how much Oil revenue remains? I am quite sure the latter will be greater. And if you know something that the rest of us don't
then please let me know so I can start looking for a new job.
Complain about this comment
Re my #18
And don't expect Brian to be commenting on the "dodgy dossier" story! The BBC hasn't even mentioned the Information Commissioner judgment!
Complain about this comment
It will always be that, a power devolved is a power retained.
Bungler Brown is noted for two traits, caving in under merest whiff of pressure and hiding. Hiding is his favourite, ask Dawn Primarolo.
Any time there was bad news in the Chancery, the chancing Bungler would put poor old Dawn up in fromt of the Commons and then go AWOL to sulk and plot Tony's demise.
Not the traits of a leader. Becoming leader merely exposed Bungler's short commings to people outside the Westminsterr Village.
Brian you state that - Labour is responding, directly, to the popular mood which is, to some extent, represented by the SNP.
I disagree, I suggest - the SNP is responding, directly, to the popular mood which is represented by the Scots wanting more and not settling for second best.
Labour does not fit into this equation, they are by-standers, not knowing what to do, caught in the headlights. Bungler is heading for the verge.
Complain about this comment
#16 Moaningonabout
Of course, your petty name-calling leaves your own "moral high ground" intact - I don't think so!
People might be willing to read what you write if you just gave the name-calling a rest and focussed on writing something worth reading.
Complain about this comment
#8 The Forfarian
Forgive my little foible, do.
In France, the politics of which I generally concern myself with as much as the politics of the UK or England, as the French generally refer to it, the distinction between the terms prime minister and first minister does not exist, the French language requiring both the UK PM and the Scottish FM to be referred to as prime minister (premier ministre).
So I think of Mr Salmond as our prime minister and of Mr Brown as the UK PM or prime minister of England, as the French say. I bet you're sorry you brought this up now, although you are, of course perfectly right to suggest that, as the term PM applies in the UK only to the head of government of the UK in currently accepted usage, it is sufficient to refer to him as the PM. Nonetheless, I do not wish to do so, as I am looking forward to the day when the head of government of Scotland will be known as the Scottish PM. So there.
Complain about this comment
In response to the SNP pressure for independence, he is still firmly saying no.
Brian
Pity for him that he only has the same say as you or me, i.e. one vote.
The people of Scotland will decide when we gain our independence (note the when not if)
Another win win for AS and the SNP, promising more fiscal powers, once he fails to deliver, which he will, as oil revenues will not be devolved, but most right thinking Scots think they should, is only trying once again to delay the inevitable.
P.S. Did every part of the Scottish Media not call it Wendys Calman commission. Now Broon is saying he set up the Calman commission. Will the Tories and the Fib Dems still want to be part of another Broon Midas in reverse initiative.
Complain about this comment
#16 Moaningonabout
If you don't want people to complain about it then don't start it in the first place.
Complain about this comment
If Scotland receives the benefit of all taxes raised there, then she cannot expect to still receive any block grant from the UK Treasury, which, by extension, will only be getting its revenue from England and Wales (and possibly NI). What would these other home nations be paying for? Even the most passionate nationalists couldn't make a fair argument for anything else. Self sufficiency means just that after all.
Scotland on the other hand, would be required, unless full independence is achieved, to make a contribution for things like defence expenditure, the passport office, foreign diplomatic cost etc. In the event of full independence then these things would still need funding, albeit from Edinburgh rather than Whitehall. The flow of money would therefore only be from Scotland to England, and never the reverse.
Scotland has a population of about 5 million, but that includes non-earners like children, pensioners and far too many on benefits. How high would taxes north of the border have to be to become completely self-funding, let alone meet the UK obligations above? Oil, the emotive answer to all SNP economics, will run out some day, but even before it does, its value fluctuates, and demand dries up in hard economic times as we are seeing now. Moreover, every developed country is seeking to reduce its dependence on oil because of climate change and the geo-political dangers inherent in supply. Those efforts will only increase in the future. Whatever the truth about North Sea reserves, the future of oil is bleaker with each passing decade. Scotland cannot rely on being a one-trick pony.
Scotland, because of its remote regions and islands, will never be a cheap country to run, oil or no oil. Attracting inward investment sounds easy, but its geographic position makes it less attractive for many potential investors than what would be its nearest direct competitor, England, because of transport infrastructure and access to the continent. Scotland can build larger airports and better rail links, but at what cost and who would pay? Tax incentives to investors to relocate in Scotland have to be paid for. How high would the average Scot be willing to see his or her taxes go?
The tired arguments about whether England subsidises Scotland, or "Scottish" oil keeps England afloat miss the essential truth. By pooling the revenue from all the home nations, allocation can be made to those at greatest need. That need will change from time to time. If Scotland decides to go it alone economically, then be very sure that she can survive the hard times as well as the good. And let's hear no complaining if those businesses now in Scotland decide to relocate to England because of better tax breaks or improved transport links. It's not the today that needs to be considered; it's the future of your children's children. In their hearts, many of those who shout loudest for Scottish independence, economic or political, know this.
Complain about this comment
As previously conceded, I'm not too hot on fiscal intricacies. But here goes. Brown seems to be hinting at a possible future scenario, no more than that.
My reading of it is: If the Scottish Government gets more revenue raising powers, from whatever source, there will be a top-up from Westminster on a lesser scale than Barnett.
If the Scottish economy prospers, Scotland will retain the extra tax revenues. But if the economy declines we are on our own with no extra top-up to restore the former Barnett situation. Because part of the deal is that England will no longer be able to complain about "subsidising the workshy Jocks" -- at least, not as much.
So it's a gamble, or a challenge if you prefer. We could lose out, big time, or we could prosper, depending on your view of the economy. This is not just oil. Far from it.
Someone much smarter than me will have to explain how this fits in with LIT. Frankly, I have no idea. But I have worries.
If we lose a third of Council tax income, and if we lose Barnett, and if the economy declines, that's an awful lot of shortfall to be made up in Scotland. To my fiscally untutored mind that would mean a series of huge extra charges and taxes on the Scottish people.
If anyone can allay my fears - without directing me to a link filled with financial-technical gobbledygook (I'm just a layman!) I'd be very grateful.
Complain about this comment
Minuend
If you watched the three numpties on Newsnight Scotland last night (on BBC iplayer) you will see just how weak Labours position in Scotland has become.
Gordon Brewer made then look like three clowns and he was not even trying.
What we found out last night is that all three think Broon is a great leader. But they disagree with him on public sector pay, where he wants a 2% maximum increase, they all want a higher increase in Scotland, but they were tying themselves in knots trying to argue for a big increase in Scotland but totally agreeing with his position.
You could almost see them reminding themselves "I better not say anything Gordon disagrees with as I may get into trouble"
The only thing they did not say was I will tell you what my position is once Gordon tells me. Says all you need to know about Labour in Scotland.
All three reminded me of Churchill. No not the wartime leader, the wee nodding dog from the car insurance adverts.
Complain about this comment
#20 SuperJulianR
How refreshing. You are absolutely right, of course, Julian. Your clarity of vision suggests that you know Scotland somewhat better than does your average resident of England.
As for your average resident of Scotland, seeing clearly and having self-confidence is not so easy when there are vested interests in the media and elsewhere clouding every issue so as to make us think that we shall inevitably stumble and fall if we attempt to stand on our own feet. This is the environment in which we live, as bighullabaloo will confirm from his media perspective.
To be realistic, therefore, one cannot expect to move from where we are to independence in one step, although I wouldn't altogether exclude it as a possibility. That is why the deficiencies of federalism are insufficient to rule it out of court, particularly as a federal arrangement would be a much better constitutional fit for very many of us than what we have at present.
Complain about this comment
As the title of this blog indicates, this is all blether. He is doing nothing until Calman reports. By then, Brown will be sitting on the back benches.
Complain about this comment
Let's wait for Calman, but as an Englishman I am all I favour of Scots being in control of more of their own public spending - and paying for it. Barnett robbed English tax payers to prop up Scottish self-delusions for far too long.
Complain about this comment
"...people in Scotland seem to like the concept of decisions honed in Scotland, reflecting Scottish wishes and driven, solely, by a Scottish mandate."
Get away! Who would have thought that!!
Complain about this comment
#30 Malcolm
"By pooling the revenue from all the home nations, allocation can be made to those at greatest need"
You really don't understand, do you?
Any pooling of sovereignty into any form of union in the democratic West involves a redistributive mechanism. We already have a Union which does this - the EU. Why would we want another one based on London?
There are some Scots (and a lot more English) who want to leave the EU, but UKIP gets only derisory polling up here.
Scotland will be a net contributor to the EU. That's perfectly fair.
I'm afraid that your scare-mongering is past its sell-by date. Time to develop a new tactic.
Complain about this comment
#26 Bighullabaloo
Now that was more like it. A quick name call and put down. Clean, quick, unpretentious.
If you'd done that in the first place I would have had a laugh and moved on.
But then you had to ruin it with #29 by not letting go. So now I feel I've got to come back.
Re: #26 I don't consider myself to occupy any high ground. I'm quite happy to indulge in a little bit of name calling - especially if it's funny. I don't (and won't) do it very often (check my posts) unlike Brownedov who got a bit boring with "Westmidden" and "Duff" Brown.
I like a bit of rough and tumble in my debates - you won't find me saying what should and shouldn't be posted or saying who should and shouldn't be allowed to post.
I wouldn't dare to presume that I spoke for anyone else on this blog.
Complain about this comment
#31 Brigadier
Sensible concerns, and congratulations for seeing that whatever proposal emerges has potential for positives and negatives.
The status quo is also a risk. This year's Block Grant had the lowest growth factor since devolution started. This might have been as a "punishment" for Scotland not voting Labour, or the failing UK economy. I don't know.
Like you, I'm not an economist, but the latest analyses suggested that the Scottish economy is predicted to do better than the UK economy over the next year or so (not including oil). These things change over time. Sometimes we'll do better than England, sometimes worse. What always make sense is to invest money during the good times to cushion the effect of the bad times. (Let me see, is there anyone around who didn't do that?)
As far as LIT is concerned, there is the potential for significant change. For example VAT is subject to European limits (at least 15% for the standard rate for example), but can vary within countries. Even highly centralised France has a VAT variation in Corsica, and Greece has different VAT rates in 9 departments. That would allow the possibility of variable sales taxes to be considered.
My main concern is that Brown's ideas are likely to be politically partisan. To devolve the tax revenues from the economy, but not the levers to manage the economy would not be a good deal.
Complain about this comment
I hate to point out the obvious, but Gordon Brown is finished, it makes no difference what this man says or thinks -
Independence is going to happen, and if there was 1000 Gordon Browns there is nothing he can do to stop it.
Complain about this comment
The argument that Scotland and England should stay as a political unit just because we can bail one another out when the going get tuff is a no brainer ,if that is the only argument then tell me are we not better of being part of a federal EU ? Scotland and England would have there own parliaments that would pay a fee to the EU for defence,social security,embasy representation etc then when the going got tuff we would be part of a bigger pool to bail us out.
Complain about this comment
# brigadierjohn
"But if the economy declines we are on our own with no extra top-up to restore the former Barnett situation."
Scotland has no problem going it alone financially as long as the Scottish government has 100% control of revenues from all its economic resources - including oil production.
However if the UK parliament wants to retain control over Scottish oil revenues whilst "assigning" control over all other revenues, then that's hardly Scotland "going it alone" is it?
No doubt the UK government would like to continue to "have their cake and eat it" but I think they might find the Scottish public has something else to say about it.
Complain about this comment
#27, Craig-Ellachie
I take your point completely.
Indeed, when I thought just a little about the matter, I readily came up with seven other instances where French uses a single term whilst English makes a distinction and needs at least two (mushroom/toadstool, etc.); there are doubtless many, many more. And, in terms of ordinal numbering, what else does Prime mean but First?
But now that the seed has been sown in my mind, I do begin to wonder if Alex Salmond's decision to change the name of the Scottish Executive to the Scottish Government involved thinking ahead somewhat...
Complain about this comment
#31 brigadierjohn
"To my fiscally untutored mind that would mean a series of huge extra charges and taxes on the Scottish people."
If you have no facts or figures to back up this statement then why make it?
An independent Scotland would only be able to spend the fruits of its own Labours - like every other independent country on earth.
What proof is there that our standard of living would necessarily be lower than the one we currently enjoy?
Given that we'd be making our own decisions in our own best interests, common sense alone suggests that it could very well be higher - and potentially much higher.
Complain about this comment
#34 Daviedites (haven't heard that for 40 years!)
"He is doing nothing until Calman reports"
Calman has to publish his interim report in 2008, and the final report in 2009. Like every other "independent" Commission that Labour has set up, Calman will do as he's told by Government, so Gordon will have to be busy working out how to instruct him.
Complain about this comment
"Is he "caving in" to the SNP? To some degree, yes. His comments reflect the political reality that people in Scotland seem to like the concept of decisions honed in Scotland, reflecting Scottish wishes and driven, solely, by a Scottish mandate."
sounds like independence to me; dangerous, dangerous stuff.
Gordon is going to try and portray Scotland's economy minus oil once again so he can bring out all the old clap-trap about subsidy when in fact Scottish oil (almost) bridges the gap between general taxation and the UK going totally insolvent.
Complain about this comment
#8 The Tumshie can only be called First Minister, as he is the head of the Scottish Executive, despite the name change the Nats imposed when they got in. They can call themselves what they like, but under the terms of Devolution, legally they are still the Scottish Executive. It's a cause of great amusement for many civil servants to see the posturing that goes on - and this is only one facet of it!
Complain about this comment
33. And another arch-nat who is deluded enough to actually believe that 'opposition to SNP policies' is the same as 'negativity towards the future of Scotland'.
Get over yourself.
Complain about this comment
At more than 2 hours between posting and moderation this is not a blether! #37 is still awaiting moderation at 17:32
Or is it a unionist ploy to prevent the Scots from suggesting such naughty things as independence instead of indulging in or praising politics as it was before.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Interesting, but looks like another attempt at Brown trying to save his skin.
It has taken me a long while to come round to the idea that fiscal autonomy might be good for Scotland, within the Union if that is possible. However, my fear is that under such circumstances Scotland would be more highly taxed than it is at present. I am willing to listen to arguments that would allay these fears though. The benefit of fiscal autonomy is that it should at least lay to rest any arguments over Barnett, and who is subsidising who.
Fiscal autonomy is an interesting idea, but we should remember the reports that followed the revised GARS figures a while ago. With oil revenue included Scotland ran a modest £1 billion surplus, just enough to make up the suggested deficit with LIT in its present form. With oil excluded it ran a £10 billion deficit, just about the amount required to bring public expenditure down to 40% of GDP.
As I have posted before, oil should be the icing on the cake not the staple of our economy. In addition, we should be taking a careful look at the amount our public services consume, and our non-oil revenues. These would give a more balanced picture of what we could expect if full autonomy were granted.
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
What G Brown thinks about extra powers is largely immaterial. He has, at most, 20 months before losing the next General Election. The Calman Commission's report is not binding on the current or future prime ministers. It is unlikely that the Commission could report and its conclusions debated and legislation amended in that time span.
We live in interesting times. Labour imploding in Scotland has created a tsunami that is still raging. I don't know where we will end up, but after decades of stagnation under Labour, it can only be better
Complain about this comment
#40, A_Scottish_Voice
"1000 Gordon Browns"
I hope you realise I'm going to have nightmares, now.
Complain about this comment
Worry not dear people. London will spend your money properly
Complain about this comment
#38 Bangingonabout
Same old story: can dish it out but not take it. If you can't take it don't dish it out like you did in your #4!
You're like other people on here that think when you do the name calling it's funny but when you get it back then you've "got to come back" because by then you've discovered it's not quite as funny when you're on the receiving end.
How much intelligence does it require to understand that? It's a waste of time trying to get that through to some of the thicker skulls on here.
Complain about this comment
#49 handclapping
It's just as bad on the other BBC blogs. Moderation is fine, if it's resourced, but this is much more likely to be BBC cheeseparing.
Complain about this comment
#42 and #44: Certainly oil will be the problem issue if Brown's possible scenario comes to pass. Whatever the rights and wrongs, I think it is unlikely that a devolved Scottish Government will ever achieve 100 per cent control of oil taxation. But I didn't claim expertise on the matter.
#44: We are talking about a possible scenario here, not hard facts and figures. Having confessed my inadequacy with figures, it would be a bit rich then to quote figures to "support" something I don't fully understand.
But surely I'm still allowed to have an opinion? And I did ask for help with an explanation.
Smarter people than me have decreed that LIT will produce only two-thirds of Council Tax revenue. Brian is saying that Barnett-type top-ups could be lost or reduced. And there is a world recession. Is it unreasonable for an inexpert onlooker to have concerns?
If every comment has to be supported by facts and figures as "proof" then this discussion is redundant. There can be no argument with facts.
Complain about this comment
A plea to Brian.
The proliferation of short single-sentence paragraphs and football anecdotes makes this blog low-brow compared to the other BBC blogs, especially Mark Easton and Nick Robinson. They launch straight into the topic at hand, without the need for meandering introductions. Could you do the same?
Complain about this comment
#54 Bighullabaloo
Once again you've totally misunderstood me.
I was actually amused at your #26. I thought "moaningonabout" was pretty good and I would have left it there. As I said, if you'd read it properly, I'd have had a laugh and moved on.
No, I felt I had to come back to your #29 because you were being all pompous again.
I can take your name-calling all day. It's your pompous, smug, posturing that I don't like. I thought I'd made that clear. Perhaps yours is one of the thicker skulls you're referring to.
Still enough now - I know when I've met my "intellectual better" :-D
Hopefully we'll get a thread that is about what's happening now, rather than some hypothetical situation that Brian has dreamed up.
Complain about this comment
#58 Bangingonabout
Obviously some are even thicker than others.
Complain about this comment
#58 bangingonabout
This isn't Brian dreaming. Haven't you read any of the reports of Brown's speech?Brown has moved significantly to suggest an alteration of the devolution settlement. The implications may be huge.
Seems reasonable to debate these implications on a political blog.
Complain about this comment
A plea to Brian.
Ignore Anaxim #57. He's a good guy in many ways, but I like reading your well-crafted journalism.
Complain about this comment
#43 The_Forfarian
I'm sure you're right. My reading of the man too.
Complain about this comment
The whole world is football shaped,
it's just for big Gordon to kick it straight.
Go on Big G smash it right into the roof of the net!
Gooooooooooal!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
GB - 1 AS - 0 alright..../.
Complain about this comment
# 56 brigadierjohn
"But surely I'm still allowed to have an opinion?"
Of course you're allowed an opinion.
Your opinion - which apparently you don't have any particular reason for holding beyond your admitted ignorance - is that if Scotland gets independence we'll all end up taxed to the hilt. I hate to have to point this out, but we're ALL BEING TAXED TO THE HILT UNDER LABOUR!
But what I really don't like to see is the total lack of respect displayed for the abilities and potential of the Scottish people. When it comes out of the mouths of Scots it's a peculiar sort of self-loathing - one I don't share with the hordes of misery-guts Unionists darkly muttering: "we're all dooooomed!"
I don't think these people realise how ridiculous and out of touch they sound these days. The Scots have seen for themselves that life under the SNP isn't the end of the world as they were led to expect - quite the opposite.
It's time for the Unionists to knock a few heads together and come up with something fresh rather than the same old Stalinist propaganda scare stories. They just aren't working any more.
Complain about this comment
#63, derekbarker
I think at least one of YOUR senses is working overtime...
Complain about this comment
Maybe not so much football as snooker, you see GB has put AS behind the black-ball.
Labour shouldn't fear talking about Fiscal power, labour should embrace it (bring it on ) look the arguments so far on OIL, INDEPENDENCE, LIT have all been rubbished.So let the debate rage, labour is 3 - 0 up and we are only starting.
Sharpen up NATS, its your policies
Complain about this comment
#65 The- Forfarian
I'v got 12345
Complain about this comment
Quoted in the Scotsman -
Fighting talk from the Lib-Dems! But we need to know what the LDs are suggesting that Calman should come up with.
Alex Neil has put forward a concrete suggestion - So we have a situation where the 3 Unionist parties are hiding behind Calman, clearly because they haven't thought out what to do, while the SNP gives a straightforward answer that can operate within the UK.
Complain about this comment
The words Genie, bottle and out all seem to belong in the same sentence here.
Political devolution has happened and fiscal devolution is the natural consequence. No matter how hard Westminster tries, the cork is out of the bottle and we're now looking at managing change not preventing it or even pretending it hasn't happened and will go away if it isn't encouraged
Gosh, could I get any more cliches in here if I tried :-))
Complain about this comment
The Times which still has real journalists, as opposed to the Scottish papers has the story of Labour in London madly spinning the "Scotland U-turn on Tax" story as being a sop to the English.
Yet more evidence that everything Labour tries to shore up its position in Scotland is counter-productive in England - and vice-versa.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat souds like the young fledglings are flapping..........FLAP FLAP FLAP.
Complain about this comment
#54
Aladdin, you may have a case if your peers can provide good solid economics????
Complain about this comment
#70 oldnat
"Yet more evidence that everything Labour tries to shore up its position in Scotland is counter-productive in England - and vice-versa."
Or to put it another way: Salmond has got them trussed up like turkeys. Sooner or later Labour will be forced to acknowledge the obvious - they've been outsmarted by a shrewder political operator.
And Salmond knows Labour are rapidly becoming irrelevant in the bigger picture. He will then turn his attention to the real question: what do Scots prefer? Life being crushed under Lord Snooty's riding boot or the chance to control their own destinies? By the time we get round to addressing that question, the sound of whingeing from England over "all the things the Scots are getting" that they aren't, will be completey deafening. By that time, Lord Snooty's main opposition might be the English National Party. I certainly hope so.
Complain about this comment
To be fair bighullabaloo, your simply not winning the arguments on the economics.
Brown > Salmond, go phone Alex, your well off the mark there.
Complain about this comment
After due reflection I don't think Gordon Brown is giving in to the SNP at all - I think he is preparing a place for himself and Alastair Darling and possibly a few others after the next election, when England will surely fall to the Tories, and Alex Salmond would surely welcome some experienced politicians into his fold to assist in governing the country after independence.
Complain about this comment
Re. 73
Perhaps Scotland should go for a republic, as advocated by Clydesider John Maclean in the 1920's?
At least we would be rid of all the "Labour fakirs" such as "Labour" Lord Foulkes and all the other "Labour" Lords. We have a "Labour" Baroness Adams here in Paisley, a real fighting Baroness for the working class.
Does anyone know the present total of "Labour" Lords and Baroness' now dwelling among us more modest working class folks?
Complain about this comment
#74 derekbarker
Even if you were the judge of who is winning the arguments (which you most definitely are not) I have a policy of not paying attention to the idiotic outpourings of trolls.
Complain about this comment
Ah, John MaClean (1879 - 1923)
Maybe the liberals can tells us more about workers rights in those days...
Re 76
Complain about this comment
I've started a list of things available in Scotland that the English don't get and are fed up paying for:
1. Our own parliament
2. Free care for the elderly
3. Free university education
4. Cheaper NHS prescriptions
5. Smaller class sizes
6. Higher pay for teachers
7. Shorter hospital waiting lists
8. Prescription drugs and surgical procedures that are unavailable in England on grounds of cost
Watch out for my future updates of this list. To me SNP colleagues, feel free to suggest more things I can add to the list.
Complain about this comment
#77
And so it came to pass; that the big bear (HULLABALOO) continued to roar...and roar....and roar.....and roar
It's nice to be nice...you know....O... you dont know....
Complain about this comment
#20 speaks some sense.
The SNP need to get away from the "it's our oil" argument.
If they can show - without all the usual patronising spin - that the Scottish economy could cope without the oil, then I might start to be in favour of independence.
The financial sector is quite good up here, but if more tax powers are devolved to Scotland, then the Scottish Government must resist temptation and not impose high taxation on it.
One question still worries me: what is the SNP's stance on energy? If they are against nuclear power, and insist on "green" and "renewables", can they please state how we are supposed to heat our homes for the next twenty years?
I also worry about their target for zero refuse. That is physically impossible. What about clinical waste? Food waste? Not everyone has a garden and not all foodstuffs are suitable for composting - try a banana skin if you don't believe me.
But back to topic: Gordon Brown is now fighting for Labour's political life - not in Scotland - but in England.
If a general election happened next week, yes Labour would be slaughtered. But I think Brown is going to hang on for at least 12 months, in the hope that the SNP fail to deliver on several policies. He has had a little relief, with the uncertainty of LIT, and the Wendy Alexander debate making the SNP appear childish.
Alex Salmond has to start delivering over the next 12 months.
Complain about this comment
Well bighullabaloo.
That is not a smart list, to be fair (ENOUGH SAID)
Complain about this comment
#82 derekbarker
The fact that you don't like the list means you'll be seeing it again.
It will be a longer and much more detailed, with the message loud and clear that the English are not getting any of the things on the list. They are just the mugs picking up the bill so the Scots can enjoy all those fabulous advantages.
Watch out for it.
;-)
Complain about this comment
#79 bighullabaloo
9 Oil;
or is that just being mischievous?
Complain about this comment
#80
This tells us that "Care in the Community" is working.
This tells us that "Care in the Community" is not working.
One must be right but I'm not sure which.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
"If they can show - without all the usual patronising spin - that the Scottish economy could cope without the oil, then I might start to be in favour of independence."
The public, especailly those in the North East of Scotland rely quite heavily on the oil industry. How can you ask the Nationalists to convince you that we could cope without oil? Thousands are employed through the industry, billions are generated annually etc etc
"What is the SNP's stance on energy?"
To attempt to use re-newables as much as possible.
"Alex Salmond has to start delivering over the next 12 months."
Have the Nationalists ever stopped? The Nationalists will continue to deliver what they can.
Complain about this comment
#70 Oldnat
Normally I take what you say in good faith, but must say that the Herald is the exception to the rule re Scottish papers political coverage. As for the Times? A Murdoch rag at best! I trust you are not being ironic this time.
Slainte mhath or should that be Na zdorovje (given your vodka preference)
Complain about this comment
What a hoot!
Several Labour supporters on this post are so out of touch they haven't even noticed that this is the most unpopular government ever in British polling history and are suffering the delusion that GB is winning some arguments.
There is no chance of Labour winning the next UK election and no chance of the Tories winning in Scotland.
I'm rubbing my hands in anticipation as the union unravels. Let's not waste any time on complicated schemes for "federalism" which could keep us arguing about details for decades and will only hold up our inevitable progress towards normal nationhood.
Independence is easier and more logical. You can't have a sensible federal structure in which one part is more than ten times the size of any other parts.
The promotion of "federalism" is the union's last throw of the dice.
It is a recipe for continuous friction without the benefits of simple, normal independence. Don't be taken in.
Complain about this comment
The money acquired from Scotland through the lottery ought to stay in Scotland. Think that adds up to a few pounds a week or is it a few hundred thousand...
Complain about this comment
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Not many seem to have taken him up on this judging by their website.
"They "encourage" people to respond according to their format, but there's no reason why we should.
I suggest everyone emails their suggestions for extending devolution to the Commission
info@commissiononscottishdevolution.org.uk
Alex Neil's suggestions on fiscal reform that I quoted in my #68 would be a good start.
No reason why we should leave all the input to the professionals!
Complain about this comment
#7 The_Forfarian has it right. We keep ALL of our money and pay in to the Union for as long as we want to remain a part of UKPlc.
That is the only chance unionists have of retaining anything even remotely like a UK.
But I think by the time they get round to conceding that it will be too late. The concept of Independence will be well and truely established in the Scottish psyche.
Complain about this comment
#85 HANDCLAPPING
Sharp reply/ Are you going to add to bighulla baloo's LIST.
Complain about this comment
Might not a better solution be for Scotland to take ALL taxable income, and then repay to the UK Government that portion of the money that relates to Scotlands share of non-devolved issues - defence etc.
Whilst thare might (would!) be a significant outlay in setting up such a system - and many battles to be fought on what precise share that should be paid to the UK - it seems to me that this would be a fair way to reallocate resources, and at the same time get rid of the Barnett formula.
This would also open the path to allow the Scottish Government to borrow - primarily if it wished - from the UK Government.
I realise that someone will probably shoot this down in flames, but it is just a few late night musings!!
Complain about this comment
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Not many seem to have taken him up on this judging by their website.
"They "encourage" people to respond according to their format, but there's no reason why we should.
I suggest everyone emails their suggestions for extending devolution to the Commission
info@commissionon
scottishdevolution
.org.uk
Alex Neil's suggestions on fiscal reform that I quoted in my #68 would be a good start.
No reason why we should leave all the input to the professionals!
Complain about this comment
#81Neil_Small147
Oil is the life blood of most economies, from the food you eat, transport, all forms of electricity production the list is endless.
http://www.energybulletin.net/node/14416
By having control of the oil this country can use it to rebuild our decaying infrastructure and not waste it on illegal wars, nuclear power plants and weapons. Once its gone its gone for good.
Complain about this comment
Unlike the Scots, the English do not get any of the things listed below.
They are just the mugs picking up the bill so that Scots can enjoy all these fabulous advantages:
TAXES AND TOLLS
A freeze on council tax for three years
Scapping of tolls on Forth and Tay road bridges
EDUCATION
Smaller class sizes
Free school meals for some Scottish children between the ages of four and seven-with plans to extend to children of all ages
Free university fees
Higher pay for teachers
HEALTH
Shorter hospital waiting lists
No charges in hospital car parks
Cheaper NHS prescriptions
More readily available specialist drugs for many serious illnesses, such as cancer, sometimes free
Prescription drugs and surgical procedures that are unavailable in England on grounds of cost
Free dental check-ups and eye tests
ELDERLY CARE
Free care homes for the elderly
Free central heating installation for pensioners
THE FUTURE
No council tax ? replaced by local income tax by 2011
Free NHS prescription charges for all by 2011
Watch out for further updates of this list!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The mods have refused 3 posts because I urged everyone to email the Calman Commission with proposals for extending devolution!
I'm not allowed to give the Commission email address.
I'm not allowed to give you the URL where you can find the Commission email address.
Presumably they think everyone is too stupid to google the words Calman Commission, and find it for themselves.
Complain about this comment
Criticism of the moderators seems not to be allowed.
Or
Mention of the Calman Commission is not allowed.
Complain about this comment
Part1
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Complain about this comment
Parts1 and 2
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Not many seem to have taken him up on this judging by their website.
"They "encourage" people to respond according to their format, but there's no reason why we should.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Parts 1-2 and an 2nd amendment to part 3
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Not many seem to have taken him up on this judging by their website.
"They "encourage" people to respond according to their format, but there's no reason why we should.
Some people may wish that their ideas for extending devolution were with the Commission.
Complain about this comment
Parts 1-2,2nd amendment to part 3, and part 4
Parts 1-2 and an 2nd amendment to part 3
Sir Kenneth Calman has invited all Scots to submit their proposals for extending and improving devolution (short of independence).
Not many seem to have taken him up on this judging by their website.
"They "encourage" people to respond according to their format, but there's no reason why we should.
Some people may wish that their ideas for extending devolution were with the Commission.
Democracy would not be served if people who wished the Calman Commission to have their views, did not know how to do that.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Can anyone tell me how to contact the Calman Commission?
Complain about this comment
re my #108
Actually I know the answer to this.
I am amazed that many of my previous posts have been "referred" internally by the BBC when I tried to post this information.
Complain about this comment
Courtesy of doonhamer (in another place)
Populus Poll for the Times
Westminster Parliament
Scottish Numbers
Aug 29th to 31st 2008
(seats allocation ? Electoral Calculus)
Vote Percentage (seats)
SNP 42 (44)
Labour 27 (7)
Conservatives18 (3)
Liberal Democrats 12 (5)
Others 1 (0)
Now will our current Unionist mod refer this?
Complain about this comment
I first posted the address of the Calman Commission at 10.47 last night.
Let's see if the BBC is now willing for this dangerous information to be released to the public.
Their electronic contact address can be found here
Complain about this comment
It's taken the mod 4hrs 45 min to allow the posting of the address of a commission established by 2 Parliaments, and which is in the public domain anyway.
If there is a hierarchy of moderators, then the performance of tonight's idiot should be reviewed, and s/he then sacked.
I support the idea of moderation, but this has been a ridiculous saga of petty bureacracy and/or political bias.
Complain about this comment
#112 oldnat
Not so long ago you told me to be patient when I was having a moan about the mods.
I do agree with you here that over four hours is nonsense and the waiting times can be so slow as to make one lose interest.
It does not help debating when it takes so long for even the shortest post to be scrutinized.
C'mon Brian its time some backside was kicked. We want some answers.
Complain about this comment
I am always amazed at our woefully inefficient and untrustworthy memories when it comes to things political, particularly in relation to the trustworthiness of our current 'leaders'.
A short piece of rhetoric by the UK PM (yes, it's recorded and documented and citeable) and we applaud the 'road to Damascus' moment.
Those of us who felt certain a referendum on the EU constitution was on the cards now know the full value of an apparent undertaking by our masters. Until enshrined in legislation and not simply an apparent ploy to boost ratings and electability on both sides of the border, I don't think I'l hold my breath.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat ... re being referred to the mods...you must have been doing a lot of cussing !! Either that or posting stuff that we're nae allowed to see. I guess the BBC learned a lot from the Chinese.
Complain about this comment
96
All of the items you quote have been the result of devolution.
Since the money coming to Scotland has not increased and is merely being spent in a different way, England having the same money as before could do likewise.
If you want the things on your list that 'Scots enjoy' then why don't you form an English National party and get your own equivalent of the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#116 I think you've misunderstood his point.
Complain about this comment
As an English person living in Glasgow.
I see both sides of the argument, my family is always complaining about funding Scotland, and I see the anti English Clap trap spouted out of Scotland.
From where I sit, people including the Nats want independence, yet avoid the important issues of Defence etc.
Salmond has said he wants to leave NATO.
If he does, what about the Scottish Armed forces will they still be there, who will pay.
Noth Sea Oil, not all of it will be in Scottish Waters, or are you going to redraw the border to ensure it is, north Seas oil includes Gas, a lot of it comes into Scottish refineries from what will be English waters.
If Scotland does become Independent do you really think England will send it's Navy orders to Glasgow ship builders, or will they use Liverpools ?
At the moment, Scotland is not ready for Independence there are too many unanswered questions, be careful what you wish for is about right, England is becoming increasingly fed up of the rhetoric coming from Scotland, and may well be cut adrift.
The issue at the moment is not when Scotland will vot on Independence but when England decides it's fed up of being run by Scotland for Scotland.
The latest figures showed, 43% of England want independence.
Latest figures also show, Scotland with it's free Eye sight test, lower Prescription charges, no Tuition fees, not to mention sickness, and Scotland being the unhealthiest European country, etc. Having a spending defecit to taxes (excluding Oil at
£-125 BN. Oil income was seen at approximately £60 BN, still leaving a defecit of £60BN. These were reported in England as part of what I see as a back lash towards Scotland.
From a person who runs his own business, all be it a small one, England is ready Scotland are not yet ready.
Be very Careful what you wish for, the latest figures show the Housing market doing better in Scotland than England, however the forcast for the economies is the same, both will decline.
The housing market is only doing better because it is not as artificially high as down south. Thi sto will level out and decline at some pint soon, Scottish house builders are already cutting back on sites, and new houses being built, which is propping up the second hand house market.
Complain about this comment
Post 116,
There is a new English Party, called the English Democratic Party.
They stood in the London mayoral elections and are looking to stand in the next General election, whether they will be a force who knows, I do know if one of the main stream Parties stood up and said the would create an English Parliament, where only English politicians can vote for English issues, they would see a massive upturn in there votes.
Complain about this comment
#118 asks if English orders for warships would still be fulfilled on Clydeside if Scotland became independent.
Given that the UK Treasury and the City of London have been working hard together to completely deindustrialise the UK I would think they would welcome the idea of being able to buy in warships from a friendly neighbour!
Complain about this comment
117
I have responded to the points given in his email - the fact that he was just having a moan about funding and was disguising that by trying to make it more interesting by quoting this list of items is not my concern.
His opinion re. funding is his opinion - it is not supported by the facts as reported earlier this year in the National Press - the truth is Scotland more than pays its way.
However, there is a certain section of English Society, (I suspect mainly Sun readers), that will never accept this - that is up to them but I have no intention of indulging in the petty squabbles that they foster on this and other blogs.
Complain about this comment
120 - not a chance, any English party that sent orders outside England would soon be given short shrift.
There were complaints that it was sent to Glasgow now.
That is nothing to what will happen with an independent England
Complain about this comment
121 Erm i dont think hes English and also i dont think he'd start an English National Party ... well he could but i doubt he'd get much votes not with all the high up Scots in the Government just now away to get the boot!!!
Complain about this comment
#122 glasgowwolf
It's rather a rash assumption that the English would want to build much in the way of warships anyway, given the size of their fiscal deficit.
It's not the English who want to intervene elsewhere and be America's poodle, but British imperialist warmongers like Brown.
Complain about this comment
#116 Sheneval
I'm not interested in joining the English National Party (actually called the Englsih Democrats) thanks.
I'm a Scot. I'm a member of the Scottish National Party.
Maybe it will help you get your head round it if I tell you I've posted that same list on as many English newspaper forums as I can find.
;-)
Complain about this comment
125 LoL :o)}
Complain about this comment
(Wearily)
As I have indicated on any number of previous posts, although as yet no one has ever thought to challenge me, presumably on the grounds that my position is unarguable or you didn't understand what I was saying, I'll try one more time.
# Bighullabaloo - various posts.
First of all, nothing is free someone has to pay for it and given that it is a UK taxation system that would include around 9 per cent by Scottish taxpayers.
Secondly, it would appear that the purpose of your posts is to stir up atavistic hatred between Scotland and England to the point where England kicks us out of the union and then presumably everything goes back to normal and we're all pally again. Some hope! The net result of your dangerous tactics would be an independent Scotland with fire in the sky and blood on the streets which is, of course, what everyone wants. My advice to you is to lie down in a darkened room with a cold compress, and the SNP to avoid you and your kind like the plague.
Here are some Awkward Facts (AF) that you posters might wish to consider.
AF No.1 The Scottish economy is currently 57 per cent public sector 43 per cent private sector. Therefore the spenders grossly outnumber the makers. This is not a balanced economy.
AF No.2 In order to balance the economy, a minimum 7 per cent has to be cut from the public sector with the private sector growing by the same amount, that means investment, tax breaks, and government intervention (The Irish Model).
AF No.3. The Scottish model is currently to increase the number of so-called free services by increasing taxes (LIT) to a fully-integrated social market system (The Norwegian Model).
AF No.4 You can have a low tax Irish Model or a high tax Norwegian Model, you can't have both.
AF No.5 Scotland will not have 100 per cent of oil revenues. It will not have 50 per cent or even 25 per cent, it will, if lucky get 15 per cent and that's assuming that Whitehall is feeling generous that day. The alternative is war which Scotland will lose and get nothing.
AF No.6 Leaving Nato, trying to throw out Trident and playing kiss in the ring with a bunch of horrible, if non-aligned, dictators will not endear us to the USA, the EU and any other right thinking nation. So we are on our own if England decides to flex it muscles and crush us like a bug, as it has done on numerous occasions over the past 1000 years, Bannockburn notwithstanding.
AF No.7 Britain had no strategic interest in Ireland because Ireland's principal export is Irish people and presumably potatoes. Scotland's principal export is oil and we all know what happens to oil exporters who step out of line. So be sensible.
Sermon over.
Complain about this comment
#116 Sheneval
As a result of posting #96 I've also learned that BBC mods are quite happy to let through stridently pro-English posts, it's just stridently pro-Scottish ones they don't like. A lot of items on the list come from the English Democrats website (the English equivalent of the SNP). All I'm doing is assisting them in their noble and just fight to obtain a quality of life at least as good as Scotland's.
Complain about this comment
125
I see - you are acting as some kind of rabble rouser in an attempt to encourage the less enlightened or immature English person to react, thus helping to drive a wedge between the people of both countries.
A devious, if not a dirty game and one
that gets politics and politicans a bad name.
Alex Salmond may be playing the same game as he endeavours to bring further benefits to the Scottish people but he has the justification in that he has the support of many of us for doing the right thing and if that conflicts with Westminster's views too bad - provided he remembers to keep doing the right thing after he gains independence, and his policies are not merely a subterfuge to gain power.
Complain about this comment
#127 Dick
No one has bothered with your "Awkward Facts", because they are simply misinformed opinion.
One example from Public Sector Employment in Scotland: Statistics for 4 th Quarter 2007 on the proportion of public/private sector employment in Scotland -
Complain about this comment
#64 Bighullaballoo: I'm a bit concerned that you read some disrespect for Scottish people into my comments. I did try to answer your posts with civility, but was met with your sarcastic rant that offered none of the "facts, figures or proof" you demand of others.
You accuse me of " ridiculous, out-of-touch Stalinist propaganda," and scare stories. But if you care to read my #31 you will see that I freely conceded the possibility that Scotland might prosper with its own revenue raising powers. Please see #39, from oldnat, as an example of how a courteous, reasoned person responds.
With respect, you are sadly deluded if you think your own responses on this thread, to a variety of posters, do any credit to the cause of Scottish Nationalism or yourself.
Complain about this comment
#127 Dick
Re your estimates of the Scottish share of North Sea Oil. Check the data in the GERS report They estimate our geographic share as 83.3%. Actually this is a little high, as it is based on the median line principle as employed in 1999 to determine the boundary between Scotland and the rest of the UK for fishery demarcation purposes. Under international law, the demarcation line would extend out to sea continuously from it's last land direction. This would put the actual demarcation line running in a north-easterly direction, and put some of the older fields into English waters.
Complain about this comment
#127 Dick-Whittington
#129 Sheneval
It's interesting to note that when one points out the advantages of living in Scotland as opposed to England, that is "rabble rousing".
I suggest you direct your comments/condemnation/scaremongering to the English Democrats' and the Campaign for an English Parliament, from whom I got most of the items on the list.
There seems to be an unwritten, universal law that Scotland isn't allowed to have anything that England doesn't have.
Perhaps one of you would like to have a stab at explaining what deep-seated emotions in the English is giving them that idea?
Complain about this comment
127 If those figures for public sector are correct thats a helluva increase in nurses,police etc .... so the SNP must be doing something right then .
Complain about this comment
#127 Dick
So with most of your "Awkward Facts" exposed as rubbish, we are left with your assertion that Scotland cannot gain independence as long as we have oil, because the English tanks will roll across the border to overturn the democratic wishes of the people.
The last time I heard such scaremongering nonsense was in the 1960's.
Complain about this comment
#127
Come back derek. It is working for you!
Complain about this comment
#135 oldnat: I don't want to enter the "awkward facts" argument, but on the issue of "public sector employment" it would seem to be a case of whose statistics and whose interpretations you choose to believe. I do seem to recollect, however, that 53% was a relevant figure last time I saw the issue raised.
Perhaps the discrepancy can be explained by the fact that tens of thousands of workers, while privately employed, rely entirely on public sector work. Agency nurses would be an example. Virtually all social work care is contracted out to private firms.
So, while official stats don't necessarily lie, the can conceal the real truth. I suspect the correct position is that "53% of workers owe their living to the public sector."
Complain about this comment
#134 rabbie
Lack of facts never let a good Unionist down! It's the Goebells technique - shout lies loud enough and often enough and hope you get away with it.
Or as Nixon (I think) said "You can fool all of the people some of the time - and that's all you need to do."
Complain about this comment
#31. That is no different to the present where we are lumbered with the liabilities of the UK but have no say in how much we have to spend or any say on how the overall UK money is spent. Being a small partner depending on charity from the larger party who will always pick policies to suit themselves first is not a good option ever. Far better to have your own money and decide yourself how you spend it , even if at times it is less money, you at least decided where it should go, eg get rid of Trident , ID cards to name but 2 and we could well afford to have less money, without even considering our biggest drain of Iraq and Afghanistan.
Complain about this comment
The head of the CBI when asked if the change of administration at Holyrood last year, from Labour-Liberal Democrat to the SNP, had made Scotland a better or worse place to do business, or made no difference, Lambert replied: "I certainly have a sense that the business community here is, on the political front, relatively impressed with the way the events have unfolded over the last year."
Bit of a problem for the doom sayers who say that Scotland is too wee, stupid, poor, incompetent, the SNP will drive business away.......
The same bloke said there was greater flexibility in the Scottish economy to resist this down turn as unlike the 'City' the economy was not so dependent on investment and financial services.
So even the CBI now see the Scottish economy as a separate entity reacting differently (and probably more resiliently) to the current trading conditions.
There in lies the problem for those Unionist nay sayers. With every month the SNP hold control in Holyrood more and more of the scare and independence for Scotland would be a disaster stories are shown for what they are - fairy stories.
Combined with the cancer of her Wendiness, Marshall's alleged £500,000 swindle of tax payer's money, the illegal donations by Catz to Labour and other unpleasant facts Labour refuse to face up to like the voting intentions of 42% of Scots voters leave Brownovitch only heading one way, to sit in the stands at Stark's Park wittering about what might have been or along the esplanade at Kirkcaldy - his own Green Mile!
Complain about this comment
#127 Dick-Whittington
"(...) if England decides to flex its muscles and decides to crush us like a bug (...)"
The above conditional clause extracted from your post determines the response which it deserves. I should waste my time on every deluded, scare-mongering British Unionist that comes along? If I see England flexing its muscles and crushing anything like a bug, I'll let you know.
On reflection, I shall be generous and humour you just this once. The British Empire left the Irish Free State to go its own way into neutrality in England's hour of need during the Second World War. Although Churchill was sorely tempted to flex the muscles that England had then and employ 'force majeure' in respect of Ireland on the pretext of "necessity of war", he refrained from attempting to do so, realizing that it would not work to England's advantage. Instead a practical accommodation was reached, which worked well enough, allowing, for example, Allied planes to use the vital route over Donegal to guard the vital Atlantic convoys and the Dublin fire brigade to rush over the border to help to put out the fires in Belfast in the bombings there even though this possibly led to the bombing of Dublin by the Luftwaffe.
To understand anything about relations with England it is necessary to appreciate the extent to which England is by nature enduringly and unalterably pragmatic and the extent to which the social union between the British peoples is a phenomenon which transcends and is indeed separate from and independent of constitutional arrangements. When Scotland comes to the point of independence, a constitutional arrangement intended to preserve and enhance the social union with England in the circumstances in which we find ourselves in the present day, a practical accommodation will be reached.
In any case, even if it were minded to do so, England cannot in any sense crush Scotland like a bug or cheat an independent Scotland out of what will rightfully belong to that state under international law without damaging its own vital interests irreparably. One would have thought that this plain and relatively simple fact was obvious enough not to require to be stated. Be sensible.
As for points raised by several posters on the specific question of defence, time moves on, and changes are taking place in the background which will in due course result in the further development of the European Defence Agency of the EU into a mechanism for the complete rationalization of defence arrangements within the European Union. The fact that the UK media are paying little attention to this does not mean that it is not happening. This is a matter which our European partners are taking very seriously despite the reservations of the UK that are hindering progress as usual. The SNP attitude towards NATO needs to be considered within this context in view of the fact that it is the SNP's intention that independent Scotland will be a member state of the European Union. As we shall be in the same political, economic and embryonic defence structure as England and whatever else will remain of the present UK, the scope for Scotland being crushed like a bug would appear to be very limited indeed beyond the bounds of the fevered imaginations of dyed-in-the-wool British Unionists.
Complain about this comment
#135 oldnat
Apparently, Dick-Whittington is now warning us that UK tanks would roll into Scotland to secure oil and that Scotland "will lose and get nothing".
This is the same oil, remember, that Blogpolice (#6) tells us: "will be finished very soon". If they insist on telling their scare stories, I wish they could at least knock their thick heads together and start singing from the same songsheet.
As it is, the story amounts to: "Scottish oil is so valuable the Treasury will strongly resist any attempt to assign oil revenues to Scotland and....the oil will run out at any minute."
Even the BBC's own Hayley Millar laid the "running out" lie to rest in June this year: "The North Sea has almost as much oil left as has already been extracted, a BBC Scotland investigation has been told. Experts believe between 25 and 30 billion barrels could still be recovered over the next 40 years."
And yet, what we get on here are these people telling us to be "good little Scots" and not rock the boat by doing anything that might actually result in the quality of our lives and the lives of our children.
I note they don't like me simply repeating the grievances of the English Democrats, so I expect they are going to loathe with an absolute vengeance the future updates of the list!
Complain about this comment
#137 brigadier
The Statistics Department of the Scottish Government use the standard OECD methodology for calculating employment figures. Only these allow viable international comparisons.
I've also seen the 53% figure floating around but suspect that it is a "faux number" calculated by a political party for partisan reasons. It may well have been concocted as you suggest, but for that to have any meaning for economic comparison, you'd have to apply an identical process for every other country.
The latest UK data that I can find in "National Statistics Online" for the 2nd quarter of 2005 is -
"Public sector employment in the United Kingdom as a proportion of total employment was 20.4 per cent in June 2005. This was still below the June 1992 figure of 23.1 per cent but above the low point of 19.2 per cent in June 1999."
If the 53% calculation model were to be used, then in the US economy, the vast military industrial complex would have to be categorised as "public sector".
Much better for everyone to use the OECD statistical model rather than making up their own figures for partisan purposes and scaremongering.
(Thanks for the earlier compliment btw)
Complain about this comment
#130,132, 135 oldnat
First of all, I won't dispute your employment figures. However, I was talking about the entire Scottish economy of which employment is only one factor and not an especially significant one. My figures which you claim are rubbish, have in fact been voiced repeatedly in every political and media outlet in the country without dispute, although you appear to have missed that.
By way of explanation let me explain exactly how certain sectors of the economy work, in reality, not in some academic tome.
We'll take the media first, admittedly a small sector. Numerous production companies (private sector) operate in Scotland. They are totally reliant on the BBC (public sector) buying their product. If the BBC doesn't exist, they don't exist. This is not what you call balance.
Now lets take a big sector - pharmaceuticals, life technologies (one of Alex Salmond's favourites), sterile wipes, etc. etc. (all private sector). Virtually 90 per cent of their work is directed towards the NHS (public sector). If the NHS doesn't exist, they don't exist. This is not what you call balance either.
Point No.2 In an independent country you do not have 'median lines' what you have are frontiers. The may be friendly frontiers, like the USA and Canada when they are called borders. Or they may be very unfriendly when they are armed frontiers (see Cyprus - both parts).
#133 Big hullabaloo.
Please note the Cyprus example, frontiers do not have to be round countries, they can also be through countries, which is exactly what you seem to be looking for in Scotland. Oh yes please!
Complain about this comment
Bighullabaloo, you could shoot peas through your list, for someone who claims to be a member of the arch-nats, your a real amateur.
the game is up for the nats, they are in free fall, unable to deliver on workable policies, their bubble has burst.
An outdated thatcher programme (hated) in Scotland, has been exposed,like i'v said let the debate rage, labour is dismantlling the arch-nats policies "ONE BY ONE"
oldnat let calman do the report???
Complain about this comment
#143 old nat: Fair comment, and for international comparison purposes you are correct. At least, I believe you.
But I think we are left with the fact, which I find uncomfortable, that 53% (arguable) of the working population is reliant on the public sector for income. Many are non-jobs, reliant on union staffing agreements.
Quite aside from making masses of people vulnerable in hard times, there is potential for the more sinister political use of the statistic: We own your jobs, your services... so how will you vote?
I think we should beware stats, whether we are using them or dismissing them. I prefer to trust my gut feelings.
Complain about this comment
#81 , are you stupid , why would we discount one of our major earnings. Do we discount it in the UK budgets , that are currently in £70B deficit. Of course oil needs to be counted and once we have control of our finances we can budget accordingly , it leaves plebty of time to use the oil revenues to improve our other business area and balance our budget accordingly.
Complain about this comment
#144 Dick-Whitington
Not me, old bean! The English Democrats.
It's their list, not mine.
Obviously you're either incapable of understanding that or you're wilfully ignoring it - simply because it doesn't tally with your ridiculous warped version of reality.
I'll ask you again: why are the English so upset that Scots are getting something they're not?
No doubt you won't answer that.
If something doesn't suit your blinkered world-view you ignore it. The only good news is that as time goes by your sort become extinct.
Complain about this comment
#144 Dick
"My figures which you claim are rubbish, have in fact been voiced repeatedly in every political and media outlet in the country"
Simply confirms what I said to Rabbie about the Goebbel's technique. Btw - like to give some evidence for your statement? I know it's not your normal approach, but bald assertions are never convincing.
Re your examples - see my #143
If you think OECD data (which underpins economic policy throughout the Westernised world) is an "academic tome", then you really have no idea about the realities of governance.
Complain about this comment
#144 Dick
ps Try actually reading other people's posts. The "median line" I referred to is a UK construct for the purposes of demarcating fishery protection areas. It has no meaning in international law. If you don't understand the technicalities of an issue, it's usually better not to post.
Complain about this comment
#144 your comments get more and more bizarre, are you now telling us that if we get independence there will be no health service and so all private pharmaceutical companies will go bust. Also we will have no SBC to cover the palrty amount the current EBC spend in Scotland , ie 1/3rd of the TV licence we fund.
You are either blinkered or extremely stupid.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If Brownedov is still around, there's a new Com Res poll - tiny Scottish sample as usual. I'll try to have a look at it after the gemme this afternoon.
Complain about this comment
#146 brigadier
The similarity between the older UK figures to the Scots ones would indicate that dependency on public sector funding is likely to be similar throughout the UK. It's not, therefore, an argument for or against independence. It's very similar to the constant Unionist propaganda about Scotland having a fiscal deficit, while never mentioning that it's proportionally the same size as the UK's fiscal deficit. Again - a non argument about independence.
"I prefer to trust my gut feelings"
Each to his own. My only point would be that gut feelings are often affected by the propaganda of the establishment.
Complain about this comment
#152 Bangingonabout
In your case it's not so much "posturing" as gesturing. I'm sure you can imagine the gesture I'm giving you, so I won't go into lurid detail.
I'm not sure why you've posted a long boring attempt to discredit the items on that list. How many times do I have to tell you thickheads? It's not my list. It's the English Democrat's list, not mine.
Direct your ridiculous post to them. Maybe it will help them get that enormous chip off their shoulder over all the things Scotland is getting that they're not, and that they're just the mugs who pay for them.
Complain about this comment
#152 Bangingonabout
I note you seem to be obsessed with a single thought: "More money in my pocket that isn't going to someone more needy."
I don't think I've seen quite a breathtakngly selfish showing as your post in many a long year. I suppose Thatcher's "selfish cabal" dream is still holding up well in some parts of the country.
Complain about this comment
re my #153
I think we can forget this poll. It has 1% of English voters voting SNP!
Complain about this comment
RE #127 England invading Scotland ... ha ha thats silly ... but i dont think its Englans we need to worry about ..... If George W finds out we have oil watchout .... Iraq, Maybe Iran ..... jeepers Scotland could be next!
Complain about this comment
#157 oldnat
That 1% are the English Democrats!
Complain about this comment
#155 bighullaballoo
I think irony is a little lost on some of our fellow posters. I don't know about bronzy, but they probably appreciate goldie :-)
Complain about this comment
malcolmw2@30,
Good post, we should be thinking about economics, geography, inward investment, and taxation in this debate, but these important factors get lost in the rabid posting of many bloggers.
In addition, a nice turn away from the "its our oil" and "we're subsidising them" arguments on both sides of the Border in your description of how union can be beneficial.
Neil Small@81
A good post too. Like you, I am worried about the energy policy, the SNPs de-facto rejection of nuclear energy is patently absurd. Wind, wave, and hydro will not supply our energy needs. Clean coal has a chance, but it is still in its infancy. The trouble is by the time we find out just how badly wrong they are, it will take years to build the power station (nuclear or otherwise) we need just to catch up.
The level of personal and corporate taxation is another issue. I simply do not trust a Scottish Executive or Government of any persuasion to keep its hands out of my pockets. I find it interesting that we never hear any of the main players in Scotland speaking about reducing taxation; it is always how do we raise more. I could just about live with the SNPs version of LIT, although it would cost me a fair deal. The Lib-Dem version scares me witless as I trust local goverment less than I trust the national goverments over tax. They have lost this former Lib-Dem voter for good.
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
#160 oldnat
I don't know about irony but pointing out logical absurdities in their ridiculous arguments is definitely a waste of time!
Complain about this comment
133
I am sorry if I misunderstood your post 96 but if you read it yourself you can see it appears to be coming from an Englishman who is complaining about the English having to pay more than their fair share whilst listing all the advantages of living in Scotland introduced from devolution - if you intended the opening paragraph to be a quote from one of these types, it would have been better to put it in quotes.
As for your query regarding Englis emotions I am unable to assist but I don't think you should lump all of them in the same category as I have English relatives and they are every bit a sgood as the best of my Scottish relatives.
I would also ask you not to include my name linked to Dick Whittington - his suggestion that England would invade us to prevent us having a fair distribution of oil, which is covered by International law, is so nonsensical that it hardly deserves mention.
Complain about this comment
Sorry Bighullabaloo@156,
If it is not your list why bother posting it. Bangingonabout@152 is quite entitled to make his points whether you agree with them our not.
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
#155
If it's not your list why post it then if you don't agree that these are all benefits enjoyed by Scotland? If you do agree then, to some extent it IS your list and my points stand.
Maybe the chip is on your shoulder.
Or maybe it is yet another post to further your percieved "standing" on this blog as some sort of rallying point for the SNP (To me, to me..... HA, HA, HA).
#156
Once again, you don't even bother to try and understand my post.
I'm not being selfish at all. I think public money should be directed to people who need it rather than putting it into the pockets of people who don't. My point is that a lot of SNP policies are putting money is my pocket when I think it should be spent elsewhere.
I don't think I've seen anything a breathtaking obtuse as your post.
Complain about this comment
#154 oldnat: I'm not trying to make a point for or against Independence, simply trying to extract the reality from the stats. Also, I don't fully understand fiscal matters, so I ask questions. I can form a layman's opinion about whether I trust the source or the rationale of the case. Does it make sense to me? Honestly, I'm quite bright enough to comprehend a simple explanation.
As for being affected by Establishment propaganda, one of the first things a journalist learns is not to accept information as truth because he wants it to be true. So I have spent a lifetime sifting and scrutinising Establishment material with a critical, cynical, sceptical eye. In general, I have found that I can take the SWRI baking competition results at face value.
I have had face-to-face dealings with people from all levels of society, from minor royalty and captains of industry, to incoherent down-and-outs and the clinically insane. And of course politicians (those not previously mentioned), and even statisticians.
My gut instinct has never let me down. But I usually manage to control it!
Complain about this comment
#163 Sheneval
With regard to you not "understanding" why I posted #96, may I refer you to oldnat's #160 which answers you better than I ever could.
# 164 william1957
I'm not against Bangingonabout making posts. I'm happy he does so that people can see for themselves just how ridiculous his arguments are.
#165 Bangingonabout
With regard to you not "understanding" why I posted #96, may I refer you to oldnat's #160 which answers the question better than I ever could.
Also, if you can't see why your #152 is coming across as outrageously selfish it's time you did a refresher course on communication skills.
p.s. I mistakenly typed "me" instead of "my" in #79 - if a minor typing error is a hanging offence according to your twisted logic I'm afraid I have to be the one to break it to you - they do happen, and even you can make one: it's perceived, not percieved.
Complain about this comment
#166 brigadierjohn
"I have found that I can take the SWRI baking competition results at face value."
I'd strongly advise you not to agree to be the judge of your local SWRI baking competition or you might discover that the "wrong" result could end with you dangling from the nearest tree!
Complain about this comment
I'm off for the time being but rest assured there will be future updates hot off the presses from the English Democrats....so you better get used to it.
Complain about this comment
#168: No, no, no! The SWRI are wonderful. If you want real danger, try explaining a misspelling to the mother of a five-year-old highland dancing competitor.
Complain about this comment
#167
Ah yes, "communications skills". They go both ways you know.
You obviously come from the school of thought which says
"If I can't understand you, you must have bad communications skills, but if you can't understand me then you're stupid".
Self awareness is a wonderful thing at times.
Tell you what then, instead of posturing, humour me. Go through each of my points re policy in #152 and point out why each one is ridiculous. Let's have a debate about them.
Complain about this comment
Why do we still want to be part of a failing union? I think Scotland has everything to start working on her own! SNP leader Alex Salmond is the best politician ever, I live in Wales and I wish we had a politician like him who is eager and has a strong charisma! Scotland has many tourist attractions businesses growing, and Scotland's economy is growing, especially if she becomes indpendent!
its time to get rid of this 18thcentury flag with its19th century style union, and have a new start for the scottish people, its time for the people of Scotland to fly the flag of Scotland not another country, I ask labour,tories and lib dems.....
WHAT IS SO GREAT ABOUT BEING RULED BY ENGLAND?
if France ruled england scotland and wales would you call yourself french?
Scotland's government have ambitions to make Scotland a better place to live, starting from now, whoever says scotland will be poor, its a total rubbish!
GOOD LUCK SCOTLAND!
Complain about this comment
53
worry not dear people--london will spend your money properly---and with full independance and being an eu member--- brussels will do the same job.
Complain about this comment
167
I have no problem understanding your post now I am aware that you were reflecting views other than your own - it may be that those who have been following your postings for some time and are aware of your idiosyncrasy understand where you are coming from but for the rest of us who are left to guess you can hardly complain if we jump to the wrong conclusion.
Had I known you were quoting from another publication I would simply have ignored the post as I have little interest in second hand information - there is more than enough misinformation and unsupported assertions on this blog as it is without compounding the confusion in this fashion.
Complain about this comment
Déja vu? I've seen it all before, and here it is again.
Without sifting through the oh-so-familiar tedious detail of the predictable unionist texts above, allow me to identify an underlying central theme which has come to mind and which asserts itself in every generation and in every era, one with which the advocates of Irish Home Rule were only too familiar a hundred years ago. Essentially it goes as follows: in so far as anything can be said to be satisfactory about the political, economic or social condition of the territory aspiring to independence, it is thereby demonstrated that independence is unnecessary and indeed undesirable, for a change of constitutional status may jeopardize that which is considered satisfactory; on the other hand, in so far as anything can be said to be unsatisfactory about the political, economic or social condition of that territory, its gravity is magnified and its causes misrepresented to demonstrate that a change of constitutional status is not merited and may make matters worse. Furthermore, although that which is unsatisfactory arguably results to some considerable degree from the existence of the Union, the way to respond to it is to keep the Union going!
Here is the same theme revealed and described by Erskine Childers in considering the unionist case against Irish Home Rule. You will notice that, despite what can be said to be significant differences between pre-independence early 20th-century Ireland and pre-independence early 21st-century Scotland, the essential underlying theme is much the same:
"The modern case for the Union rests mainly on the abnormality of Ireland, and that is precisely why it is such a formidable case to meet. For Ireland in many ways is painfully abnormal. The most cursory study of her institutions and social, economic, and political life demonstrate that fact. The Unionist, fixing his eyes on some of the secondary peculiarities, and ignoring their fundamental cause, demonstrates it with ease, and by a habit of mind which yields only with infinite slowness to the growth of political enlightenment, passes instinctively to the deduction that Irish abnormalities render Ireland unfit for self-government. In other words, he prescribes for the disease a persistent application of the
very treatment which has engendered it. Whatever the result, there is a plausible answer. If Ireland is disorderly and retrograde, how can she deserve freedom? If she is peaceful, and shows symptoms of economic recuperation, clearly she does not need or even want it. In other words, if all that is healthy in the patient battles desperately and not in vain, first against irritant poison, and then against soporific drugs, this healthy struggle for self-preservation is attributed not to native vitality, but to the bracing regimen of coercive government." (Erskine Childers, The Framework of Home Rule, 1911)
Yes, we have all been here before, and so have our parents and grandparents and great-grandparents. It is the story of an old imperial power grimly holding on to what it can simply for the sake of doing so. The British Unionist mantra is not only ancient but it is also out of date. An evolving European Union is beckoning to us and ushering in a future which the United Kingdom is dedicated to preventing us from embracing. Any union whose defenders seek to bully us and frighten us into remaining in it is ipso facto the wrong place for Scotland to be. The British Union is the past. We were bullied into it, and its foundations are flawed and unstable. Everything Scotland can possibly need as a small self-governing country requiring upon a basis of respect and equal rights the solidarity of both more and less powerful partners who will recognize and value what we have to offer awaits us in the European Union. In the old British Union, on the other hand, we are told by our dear friends and masters, the English, that "Scotland is not ready for Independence" (#118). Subordinate territories are always unready for independence if judged by criteria determined by the dominant power, because the dominant power would not be so dominant if it let the subordinate territory escape from its clutches.
Complain about this comment
#171 Bangingonabout
Okay, let's debate. In your #152 you say you are going to address the "points" I make.
Everything on the list in #96 is a stated grievance of the English Democrats and/or the Campaign for an English Parliament. I have simply listed those things they feel aggrieved that the Scots are getting that they aren't getting.
Now, if you want to dispute claims I've made: i.e. that Scots are actually getting the "benefits" on this list, or that Scots are entitled to those "benefits", or that the SNP is spending the money in the best possible way, can you first point out where I made those claims?
If you can't, then what you are actually doing is mistaking this list of English grievances for a list of claims that I, in fact, have not made.
So, let's see the quotes from my previous posts where I make those claims. Read that last sentence again so you are crystal clear about it.
If, in your next reply, I do not see quotes from my previous posts where I make those specific claims, then the "debate" is over. I am not going to waste time defending claims I'm supposed to have made that in fact only exist in your imagination.
Complain about this comment
#174 Sheneval
I've got no problems with anything you've said except where you write: "you can hardly complain if we jump to the wrong conclusion."
If you want to quote where I complained about you "jumping to the wrong conclusion" then I will accept your point.
p.s. Irony isn't an "idiosyncrasy" unique to me. It's a very common method of exposing the absurdity in the arguments of others, which is exactly what I did in #96.
Complain about this comment
Apologies for the curious characters at the beginning of my earlier post. Can the BBC not fix this site?
The first sentence in the post, stripped of accents, is: Deja vu?
Complain about this comment
"Politics as football"
How about 'football as politics', since scotland nearly always overachieve - except, of course, for when it REALLY matters.
That said, a 1-0 defeat to FYROM isn't a good start to Scotland's latest campaign.
--
I think I've just got time to hang my Andorran flag out of my window ready for this evening's game...
Complain about this comment
#174 Sheneval
Everyone else seems to have "got it" when I posted the initial version of that list and invited my "SNP colleagues" to add to it (which some actually did!). I think that the reference to my "SNP colleagues" was probably a little clue for most people!
Complain about this comment
Test
Complain about this comment
#166 brigadier
Enjoyed your post.
Complain about this comment
We lost today.
Those of you approach my years will remember how in the 1970's we defined our nationality through our sporting achievements, because we had no political identity and had not yet defined our post-imperial role. Thank heavens, those days are over.
The British (eg G Brown) and the English still seem to use sport as a surrogate for identity, because they still lack the confidence in themselves which (most) Scots have achieved.
Complain about this comment
#174, Sheneval
"Had I known you were quoting from another publication I would simply have ignored the post as I have little interest in second hand information."
In 'second hand information,' you presumably include properly-referenced quotations from official publications.
Personally, I derive great satisfaction from the informed postings of [certain] other contributors, and almost every discussion leaves me more knowledgable than I was before.
Igenuinely pity you if your preference is for uninformed, prejudiced ranting.
Complain about this comment
SuperJulianR at posting 20 expressed a fond belief that an independent Scotland and England would be 'friends'. Presumably the postings on the English Democrat Party and on 'English masters' made since will have disabused him of this belief. The spirit of revanchism at the core of many Scots will ensure that any even vaguely democratic Scottish government will be anti-English.
If he needs greater proof of this he ought to visit the blogs run by The Scotsman and The Herald where the hostility is less understated. Alternatively he could visit the 'Have your Say' site run by the EU where, under "Intercultural Dialogue" there is a thread prompted by a Scots nationalist proposing an 'anti-Saxon' [sic] alliance of Celtic and other Europeans.
He, like all my fellow Englishmen, needs to recognise that Scotland will become independent, it will not be friendly or neutral, and the process will be painful and possibly even bloody. We need to ensure that both we and our government [whether 'British' or English] is prepared for that.
#120 If you are referring to the new carriers, they are being built in yards across the UK with final assenbly on the Clyde. Switching the assembly stage to a southern yards is not problematic.
Complain about this comment
What is interesting to me is that anyone who raises concerns about the detail of independence (political or fiscal) is immediately pounced on by the likes of Old Nat and told they are scaremongering. I for one was doing no such thing; I argue neither for nor against Scottish independence, but I do have concerns. As ever the devil is in the detail, and the only economic answer I can ever find from the SNP is "our oil". That simply isn't enough; I want a proper. fully costed, detailed explanation of how Scotland, a small nation of 5 million, will be able to pay its way after "our oil" runs out or is no longer valued highly by nations which have developed alternative answers to their energy needs (and the race is well under way to do just that). People have pointed to Luxembourg and said, "look, they manage". Scotland has a far more scattered population and is far more expensive to run. I don't say it can't be done without punitive taxes or drastic cuts in living standards; I simply ask for details of how it will be achieved, not just now, but sustainably into the distant future. Independence is, after all, for ever.
Being told that the European Union replaces the need for a British union is one of the things that has always worried me about the SNP position. The EU already has signs of strains showing in these harsher economic times; it is undergoing its first real test. The union of 1707 has lasted 300 hundred years through numerous economic downturns and wars, and despite the naysayers Scotland has prospered under it. The EU is still, to my mind an, unproven newcomer on the block which may or may not survive. Let's assume however that it does. Just how does leaving a union (the UK) in which Scotland is a leading player, punching well above her weight, but accepting a union in which she will be at best a bit player, make Scotland more independent?
At present, to my mind, Scotland has the best of all possible worlds: a leading partner in a strong and proven union, in which she is, despite recent reductions in seats, over-repesented on a per capita basis at Westminster, and yet has her own parliament at Holyrood with control of her own domestic affairs. The English would love to be in that position. You can hardly blame them for feeling that they have the short straw in the present constitutional arrangements. A fully independent Scotland would still be subject to all the legislation that flows from Brussels (I understand that something like 80% of UK law starts in Brussels?), and yet as a tiny nation of 5 million would be much harder-pressed to influence or block it than as part of the larger UK. Size in the EU is all. Some independence that would be. Which is why I always have the uncomfortable feeling that many who shout the loudest for severance of the union with England do so because of an irrational dislike of England or the English rather than a true belief that it would create a truly independent Scotland. Perhaps my definition of independence and theirs are just different?
Complain about this comment
# 185 PeterMason46
Another one who's got Scotland and England mired in "bloody" combat!
What exactly is there to argue over that will lead to "bloodshed"?
Complain about this comment
Excellent post at 175 Anaxetogrind; Childers analysis is so apposite it is uncanny.
On a separate point why do so many people accept the half-truth that Ireland?s prosperity is only down to huge EU subsidies? Even a modest amount of reading/research shows that following De Valera?s death, the country was ready to leap forward, and the economic levers used to make the leap were many and varied. Whilst it is true they were a net receiver of EU monies, on balance the other factors, e.g. the concordat with the unions, skilful use of the Diaspora, a highly skilled/trained labour force etc, were a much bigger influence on Ireland?s growth in prosperity.
152 Bangingonaboutit. You appear incoherent but maybe further explanation from you will help,
The reason I say ?incoherent? (and I mean it in its objective sense, rather than as derogatory) is because on a large number of the points you agree that they are a great step! And yet seem to then dismiss them as irrelevant!
On the others I struggle to see the logic, e.g. the scrapping of the tolls will lead to potholes? I assume you think the tolls are sufficient to repair the roads ? well they weren?t they were a drop in the ocean.
As to how much money there is available from taxation and where it goes, the best (but could be much improved still) source is the last GERS report.
Summarising: this clearly shows Scotland not only paying its way but also subsidising the UK national debt.
Complain about this comment
180
No doubt had I seen your initial posting I would have 'got it' too but such is life
Complain about this comment
174
Reserve your pity for those that need it
Complain about this comment
#185 PeterMason
You could have written this in similar terms in 1706. Indeed many of your co-patriots did. Hence they forced the Incorporating Union.
You should also look at some of the comments made by Norwegians and Swedes about each other prior to 1906, and compare them to the Scandivanian commonality that had developed a scant 20 years later.
I also look at Scottish and English blogs, and I fear you misunderstand.
Scottish blogs are frequently full of vilification, but most Nationalist bile is directed at the British (mainly fellow Scots) rather than the English.
The English blogs, on the other hand, contain many vicious anti-Scots rantings, reminiscent of what one heard in Scotland 30 years ago.
Do not fear. England is but an adolescent nation as yet, with many of the fears, uncertainties, and traumas that beset that stage.
When you grow up, we will be the best of friends.
Complain about this comment
#186 - MalcolmW2
"How (will) Scotland, a small nation of 5 million, be able to pay its way after "our oil" runs out?"
First, read this BBC website article June 2008: "Oil reserves 'will last decades'"
"The North Sea has almost as much oil left as has already been extracted, a BBC Scotland investigation has been told.
Experts believe between 25 and 30 billion barrels could still be recovered over the next 40 years."
So this "small nation of 5 million" has got at least 40 years to prepare for oil to "run out" - and that totally ignores the fact that technology is improving all the time, making many currently uneconomic oil wells economic.
Within 40 years Scotland will be almost or completely self-sufficient in non-oil sources of energy, blessed as we are with the advantages of an abudance of wind and water power that many land-locked nations simply do not have.
The SNP government has already embarked on creating just such a future.
So, please take your scare stories and patronising references to "small" Scotland and post them on a forum where people are stupid enough to swallow them.
Complain about this comment
#148 Bighullabaloo
Glad to hear that you don't share the views of the English Democratic party who probably amount to about six people. Although why you would want to voice their venomous doctrine on the blog is something of a mystery. Do their opinions kinda float your boat?
At no time have a suggested that England is going to invade Scotland. However, if Unionists in Scotland were to feel threatened by a particularly nasty streak of nationalism, some of which has periodically appeared on this blog, they might ask for military assistance from down south. I believe this has previously happened in Northern Ireland and Whitehall had no hesitation in putting troops on the ground (so I guess it's not so bizarre after all), and whilst the International Court might not approve, they do not to the best of my knowledge, have armoured divisions or a strategic nuclear arsenal. They might want to think about that .
#149 oldnat
Your 'median lines' might be about fishing, but they could equally apply to oil, just by way of precedent. Politicians are usually pretty hot on precedent.
Oh! and incidentally the westernised economies are not based on OECD data, they're based on oil, you might want to think about that as well.
Complain about this comment
#186 Malcolm
From your #30 "How high would taxes north of the border have to be to become completely self-funding, let alone meet the UK obligations above?"
I accused you of scare-mongering because you included absolutely no economic analysis, but predicated potential disaster. You talk about "Oil, the emotive answer to all SNP economics".
This simply indicates that you have made no analysis yourself of the fundamentals of the Scottish economy, and are making assumptions that the economic case is predicated on oil. It isn't.
Now, if you want to suggest a detailed case that the Scottish economy is not viable without a permanent flow of resources from England to Scotland, then I'll happily debate it with you.
The conditions for the debate are, however, that you provide referenced sources for your data.
Complain about this comment
#189 Sheneval
"No doubt had I seen your initial posting I would have 'got it' too but such is life"
I have no doubt you would have got it too, but I'm afraid I have no control over what posts you read and what posts you don't. I did say in my first post that people should watch out for the later version. I can't repeat everything I say in every post just because some people are only reading some posts and getting the wrong end of the stick.
Complain about this comment
# 192
I am surprised your colleagues tolerate your naff posts. On the other hand, continue, your doing a great job in demeaning the nats.
Forfarian, a second class ill informed imp,who believes all evidence is tabloid based. Brush up on your parties real non achievements, all words and no action.
Complain about this comment
#186.
MalcolmW2.
"Being told that the European Union replaces the need for a British union is one of the things that has always worried me about the SNP position."
Why? The Euoprean Union is far greater in economic strength and financial capabilities then Britain could ever be. It is true, some countries are becoming restless and the economic times are a test of the EU. However which other EU state is in the same trouble as Britain? We are so close to a reccession the rest of Europe look untouched by world circumstances.
"Just how does leaving a union (the UK) in which Scotland is a leading player, punching well above her weight, but accepting a union in which she will be at best a bit player, make Scotland more independent?"
Scotland, a leading player, what planet are you living on? You have to look at the facts, the three main unionist parties are pro-european. Britain will be sucked into an EU-Superstate but Scotland should at least be Independent while this happens so our concerns are raised and not of those in London.
Scotland...a leading player? Are you sure we are talking about the same country?
Complain about this comment
" Within forty years Scotland will be almost or completely self- sufficient in non oil sources of energy"
That's it bighullabaloo keep shooting your party down.....laugh.....laugh
Complain about this comment
To 186 Malcolmw2. Your final point is addressed by studying the current relationship between Eire and the UK, there is no emnity, a deal of respect and the desire to work together in the EU on areas of common interest.
As to your point about Scotland?s economics: go to the last Gers report (Google it), which shows a good position. Then factor in savings from not doing ID cards (a lot), Son of Trident (a lot), and the Iraq war (a lot). Add back the boost to Scottish tourism that would flow from Independence (a lot), and the return of the Diaspora as happened in Ireland in the 80?s and 90?s. Add the jobs of civil servants on reserved matters into Scotland?s economy (Gers has a contribution for this) - better to have them working and paying tax in Scotland. These are just a few examples, there are many more adjustments possible.
As to comparative countries you quote Luxembourg?? First time I have heard that, quite right not a good example. Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Ireland, Slovenia, Switzerland, Austria etc are oft quoted and are much more relevant.
As to the EU it has been around for over fifty years and countries are still queuing to join. You mention stresses and strains, where and what, can you elucidate? As to the contention you have to be big in the EU ? that is, I am afraid nonsense, if it were true why would any of the smallers countries be there? Non suggesting secession at the moment, but that is always an option.
Complain about this comment
#193 Dick
You're struggling now.
I'm glad you think that the fishing median line may apply post-independence (though you're wrong - check the Convention). However, if you were right that would mean more oil for Scotland, and less for England. And your point was .....?
Misquoting your opponent is the real sign of a loser. I said OECD data underpinned economic policy, not the economies themselves.
Any other points you wish to make to reduce still further any remaining thrust in your arguments?
Complain about this comment
#193
Blessed as you are with such great wind. I commend all your post to those who dont want to vote for the tartan tories( con- nats)
Complain about this comment
One must remember the primary tools in the pro-Unionists arsenal
Claim that Scotland is subsidised by the UK.
Claim that Scotland is has benefited greatly from being part of the UK.
Of course, never mention these two in concert as there is a slight compatibility issue.
Regardless of the fact that if we were independent we would not have such a problem as UK subsidies (if they existed which they dont) wouldn't exits. So socio-economic conditions would improve as aledged subsidies would not be forthcoming.
Alternatively, as people with sense believe Scotland would benefit enough to restructure the economy into a major success. Unfortunately perhaps the rest of the UK are afraid of the competition.
On the subject of the Nats being vicious against pro-Unionists in Scotland it is a simple case of the pro-Unionists being afraid of Westminister, afraid of the Westminister gravy train leaving them to their doom (or so they believe). Scotland (and Belarus) are the only two countries in Europe stuck in the politics of fear.
Complain about this comment
#196, derekbarker
I would like to choose whether or not respond to your attack upon me, but I have no idea what you're talking about....
Complain about this comment
... or the point you're trying to make.
Complain about this comment
... or why you continue..
Complain about this comment
Why?
Complain about this comment
DerekBarker please contribute to the debate, your last few posts have not been constructive at all.
You clearly have views, let us hear what they are, and argue for them.
Complain about this comment
#193.
The situation in Ireland and Northern Ireland would never be replicated in Scotland. Nationalism in Scotland has existed for decades, at times been low but sometimes high, much higher then the Nationalism we see today. If Scottish Unionists are safe today then if we were Independent tomorro nothing would change (apart from being Independent).
Plus, the situation in Ireland was different to that of Scotland. How dare you attempt to scrape up history for your political goals. I suggest you read on how Ireland became to be Independent and how the Nationalists are in Scotland are working towards Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
# 193 Dick-Whittington
The English Democrats don't have a "venomous doctrine" as far as I can see.
They are decent, law-abiding English people who feel England is getting a raw deal.
They are entitled to their views, even if I don't agree with them. I don't see anything "venomous" on their website but, then, unlike you I have actually taken the trouble to read it.
Maybe you are mistaking them for the BNP? The English Democrats have nothing to do with the BNP as their website makes abundantly clear.
I know how you hate facts to interfere with your fantasy world, but it might help if you at least tried to base what you are saying on some form of reality.
"At no time have a suggested that England is going to invade Scotland."
So when you wrote the above in your # 127: "we are on our own if England decides to flex it muscles and crush us like a bug, as it has done on numerous occasions over the past 1000 years" that wasn't suggesting that England might invade Scotland?
Okay, if you say so!
"they do not to the best of my knowledge, have armoured divisions or a strategic nuclear arsenal. They might want to think about that ."
Well, here in Scotland we have access to all the Trident missles. And the ability to disarm them. You might want to think about that before you launch your invasion with the help of Scottish traitors!! (You really have got a screw loose, haven't you?!)
I don't think it's worth responding to anything else you write from now on, because it's getting so absurd that it's difficult to actually take it in.
"
Complain about this comment
#196, #198, #201 derekbarker
Gratuitous abuse is no match for debate.
Again, why???
Complain about this comment
210
As you derive (your words) great satisfaction from the "TIMES PAPER" spare a thought! 4 your conservative buddies..........
oops you do consider all conservative alliances......Trip....Trap...
Complain about this comment
# 198 derekbarker
" Within forty years Scotland will be almost or completely self- sufficient in non oil sources of energy"
I know you don't like to deal in common sense, never mind facts, but here are a few facts.
SNP target for the next 12 years (2020): Increase sources of non-oil energy from 6% to 50% (an increase of 44%).
If we can increase non-oil energy by 44% in 12 years, we could achieve more in the future as follows:
2008 6%
2020 50%
2032 94%
2044 138%
2048 Oil runs out
You will notice Scotland could have 38% more than 100% non-oil energy capacity by 2044.
It is the intention of this SNP government to export this surplus energy to other energy deficient European nations.
So, I will continue "shooting my party down" and you keep proving that you are definitely not the full shilling.
Complain about this comment
#197 Thomas
I've wondered for a long time about this Unionist contention that Scotland is a "leading player" (or similar terms) in the UK.
My conclusion is that their understanding is totally different from our reality.
By "Scotland" they actually mean those Brits (who happen to be Scots) who are MPs and have significant control over English Health, Education etc in their Parliament.
Remove the Scots MPs from Westminster and their problems are solved (OK we have to find something to do with them, but a bit of imaginative job creation will find a role for them - I have some ideas, but they would be referred by the mods).
Complain about this comment
oldnat,
I would be interested in hearing your views on the Standards Procedures and Public Appointments committee's 3rd Report 2008 published on the 16th May, which can be found on the SPPA committee's page on the Scottish Parliament's website.
Complain about this comment
#210 Forfarian
You have to understand our little troll.
There he sits in his million pound pad in the Merchant City, spaced out of his skull, and convinced that he is adding to the world's understanding of the true beauty of Socialism.
Have some pity.
Complain about this comment
Several posts seem to indicate that the think independence for Scotland is inevitable. Sadly, I think that is far from the case - even if the majority in Scotland and even in England are in favour of it.
There are very powerful establishment forces in the UK, mainly in Westminster and Whitehall who will see this as a threat to their personal power and influence both at home and on the world stage, and will fight this tooth and nail.
Gordon Brown and David Cameron have personal vested interests in the Union so they can rule our two countries (and Wales, though sadly neither seem to give two hoots about Northern Ireland), and this will be duplicated across the military and the civil service.
In short, then, the Scottish people will have to work hard to make this unstoppable - I really hope you suceed.
As for England, several posts have talked about the English Democrats - they are not the solution. The solution has to be (at the verty least) the establishment of a proper parliament for England, like yours in Holyrood. This was of course denied to us - because it would mean the end of Labour Party domination in England, and it would give the English elecorate more of a voice than politicians want us to have.
#185 PeterMason46
Much of the emnity among Scots towards England, and, increasingly, by the English towards Scotland results from the wholly unsatisfactory consitutional settlement between the two countries which was set up 10 years ago by the Blair/Brown Government.
By becoming independent from one another, each country becomes responsible for its own affairs. No longer will it be possible for Scots or English to blame each other for their ills or complain that the other is spending too much of the tax revenue.
The fact is that we will retain considerable economic integration even after independence (nothing wrong with that), and share a common border, so we will have to work closely together, and in that sense will have little choice but to be "friendly".
In fact, retaining the current arrangements are guaranteed to cause hostility and recriminations to increase between us.
Complain about this comment
#210
So what part of the fictional debate are you contributing to.......mischievous oil (No9)
Why lie....lie''''lie
Complain about this comment
#213.
Oldnat.
I was also thinking that Scotland can't exactly be a leading power when the Tories are the Government...
Complain about this comment
#212
Deal with common sense ????
The nats cant deliver on the manifesto they promised the people of Scotland never mind "HEARSAY" future energy needs...
Stop.. Think...listen........
Your just so anti- English and thats all your offering in terms of anything productive....
Complain about this comment
#212
Is your assumption based on the fact that all future re-newable energy sources will be nationalised or is this another one of those stupid tax gimmicks (WE WILL SELL PRIVATE FUTURE ENERGY TO THE EUROPEANS AND CREAM OFF THE TAX?)
TAKE YOUR TIME NOW... REMEMBER A SENSIBLE ANSWER....
Complain about this comment
#216 SuperJulianR
"As for England, several posts have talked about the English Democrats - they are not the solution. The solution has to be (at the verty least) the establishment of a proper parliament for England, like yours in Holyrood."
What do you think the English Democrats are calling for - compulsory Morris Dancing lessons?
Complain about this comment
216 SuperJulianR you make a number of good points, and I agree the Establishment is powerful, just look at the biase in the "Scottish" press.
But the recent past has shown that when democracy works the Establishment can do nothing but look on aghast.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, the public normally dont like out of date news, depreciation and all that.
Look you keep saying your an old liberal, that seeks Independence, you have stated in past posts that if Scotland gained Independence, you would galdly share sovereignty with the EU on mutual agreement...
Your clearly at an age where your senses are failing...In short you make very little sense..
Complain about this comment
# 220 derekbarker
Your just so anti- English and thats all your offering in terms of anything productive...."
Yes, derek, I am so rabidly anti-English that I just wrote a few posts ago (#209):
"The English Democrats are decent, law-abiding English people who feel England is getting a raw deal. They are entitled to their views, even if I don't agree with them."
I suggest you keep taking the tablets, but I'm having doubts aboyut whether they will do you much good.
Complain about this comment
#220 derekbarker
If you think I'm going to get involved in a protracted argument with you about anything then you really are off your rocker!
Complain about this comment
The nationalists' comments about what they call 'self-confidence' offers a fascinating window into their worldview. They seem to equate self-confidence with patriotism, even though these are not the same. It's easy to imagine a person who is supremely self-confident but entirely unpatriotic. I suppose the nats don't see it like that. The self is the group and the group is the self.
Who needs individuality, anyway? The oil will provide. The diaspora will provide. The state will provide. Even the corporate tax cuts are a form of state intervention, being an effective subsidy underwritten by oil.
Complain about this comment
# 224
The English are decent law - abiding people.
Who in your opinion are being ripped off by the Scottish government...(not the uk gov)
Anti-English or just stirring it up..
Why dont you talk about how the snp have failed to implement their manifesto..
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
#225
What a catalist you are bighullabaloo, make a statement on future enegy goals, then run away from your own argument.
Who is the one with no common sense....
Complain about this comment
#226 Anaxim
Do I get a prize for "imagining" Gordon Brown? Why doesn't the man call a General Election so we can be rid of him and have England governed as it should be by DC and Co
Complain about this comment
Christ i leave work to come home and find WWIII on this blog !!! Guys you ignored Derek for a good while but now your biting back, you should just ignore his stupid factless comments as he's clearly got a sandwich missing from the picnic basket ...either that or some activist for the labour party...either way he lacks vision.
Bighullaballoo ... i agree with what you said about the oil... we will have plenty of time to advance new technologies before the oil runs out and as you say we are a country blessed (or cursed) with lots of water and wind. Nuclear is one answer but unfortunately it costs a lot of money to run then to dispose off ala Dounreay.
At the end of the day we can either toodle along as part of the UK and be in the same state in 30 years time or ... make the move and go it alone with a successful country... sure it might be hard at first and there is a lot of things to sort out ... but it will work ... you only have to look at the arab countrys to see how oil affects them ... but were not buying Manchester United if we get independance !!! Excuse me if im rambling some what ... the homemade Elderberry wine is kicking in ;o)}
Complain about this comment
Why is it every-time the nats get drawn into a debate about their policies they close shop and run away, they keep using examples of Europe and playing the anti English card, yet (again) when challenged on their on manifesto, there's not much there.
Complain about this comment
#214 Keith
"I would be interested in hearing your views on...."
I'm sure you would, but as I am not a member of any party I have no additional information, other than that you refer to.
In general terms, however, it seems to me that a party which wishes to be seen as upright and honest would be very embarassed if one of their members were found to be in breach by the SPPA.
Under such hypothetical circumstances they might decide that an unconnected contravention of party rules might necessitate removing the membership of such a person. Alternatively, they might decide that they could cobble up enough votes in the chamber to overturn the decision of the SPPA, and thus claim "victory".
Complain about this comment
#188 ImpeachBlair
I only actually agreed with two things on the list - free school meals and the stuff for the elderly.
The others "Great. More money, etc" were meant to be ironic.
I believe that the money spent on these policies could have been better spent elsewhere targetting people in more need of the money that I am.
I was maybe a bit flippant with the tolls but, given that the money raised from the tolls was a few million, that's a few million not being spent elsewhere. For me, living in Aberdeen, the cost of the tolls was nothing since I hardly crossed them. Maybe a better policy which kept the money coming in would have been to RAISE the tolls but them have a "residents scheme" which lowered them for everyday users. But that doesn't grab the headlines in the same way.
I'm not really arguing about the how much available money there is. I'm arguing about how best it should be spent.
Complain about this comment
#227 derekbarker
"The English are decent law - abiding people. Who in your opinion are being ripped off by the Scottish government...("
I just wrote in my #224: "They are entitled to their views, even if I don't agree with them." So, no, I don't agree that they are being ripped off by the Scottish government. Quite the opposite.
Responding to you is like trying to deal with a jabbering madman. You've had your lot as far as I'm concerned. Sorry, I only deal with people who are capable of coherent thought.
Complain about this comment
The fallacy peddled by unionists is that because nationalists are pro Scotland they must be anti English.
This is like saying wishing for a reasonable settlement for Palestinians means you must be anti Israeli, when in fact it is the policies of the Israeli Government that are objectionable.
The SNP is not anti English. Alex Salmond has spoken on more occasions than I can remember of his hope of Scotland and England being good respectful neighbours to each other. Anyone can access SNP policy and see it welcomes anyone from anywhere who wants to live and work in Scotland. Additionally, the fallacy is roundly refuted by the number of people, originally English, who are members of the SNP, see themselves as Scots, and are proudly working for Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
I can't keep up with you guys. Oldnat seemed to be up all night!
Many of you guys moan about the slowness of the moderators which I think is right .Their tardiness slows up the debate.
Disappointed with the score today. Funny thing is Joe Bloggs doesn't know whree Macedonia is. Yet they they have gained their independence. God knows what resources they have! The comparison between Macedonia and Scotland is beyond comprehension. Yet we are held back by unionists and the like who are Scottish. Shame.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
bad start, name should have been derekbarker
Complain about this comment
Theme, politics as football
What about blow football an interesting game, he who blows the hardest usally wins.
Oldnat and Bighullabaloo might even reach international standard......headlines......
representing Scotland are our best blowers......Oldnat and Baloo (Pashtun -FORFARIAN)
Complain about this comment
#238 hadrianswall
I was only up all night because of a mod who was either incompetent, spiteful, stupid, a Unionist bigot - or all four.
I sure wasn't going to let the likes of him beat me!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
(part 2)
At #83 you again say that the English are not getting any of the things on the list. Again no mention of the EDP.
In #85, derekbarker refers to "bighullabaloo's LIST". You didn't refute the ownership of the list at that point. You didn't say that you got anything from the EDP.
In #96 you produce the list again with additions. Again no mention of the EDP, again stating that the English do not get any of the things listed below. Again the clear implication that you believe these are benefits otherwise why would you list them?
It's only after Sheneval in #116 confuses you with being English that glasgowwolf points out there is an English Democratic Party.
In #125 you say I tell you I've posted that same list on as many English newspaper forums as I can find Again no mention that it is anyone elses list but your own.
Complain about this comment
(part 3)
It's only when you get to #128 that you say A lot of items on the list come from the English Democrats website. Some 12 hours after your original #79. But you never say you don't agree that they are things available in Scotland that the English don't get.
In #133 you say ..when one points out the advantages of living in Scotland as opposed to England... again reinforcing the implication that you believe they are benefits.
Now, to be fair, in #142, you say
I note they don't like me simply repeating the grievances of the English Democrats, so I expect they are going to loathe with an absolute vengeance the future updates of the list!
But, again, you're not going to put stuff on the list that you think aren't benefits otherwise why would they loathe you?
Then I come along in #152. I am addressing the list in #96 which, remember, had no previous mention of any other list except your own. I point out that many of these "benefits" or "advantanges" are, perhaps, debatable.
Complain about this comment
(part 4)
In #155 you then say
How many times do I have to tell you thickheads? It's not my list. It's the English Democrat's list, not mine.
Well my count is twice maybe at a push three times. All at least 12 hours and 50 posts after the first time you listed them.
So, if you've kept with me, there are all the quotes from your posts.
No, you don't say "I claim that ...." But the clear implication from all your posts is that you think these are benefits to Scotland by repeated use of words like "don't get" and "advantages". You never say "these are not benefits".
As I've said before, many of these items on the list are SNP policy which they themselves say are benefits to Scotland. Are you seriously trying to tell me that, as an SNP supporter, you disagree with them?
Now, as an SNP supporter, and these are SNP policies, lets hear your defence.
Complain about this comment
Sorry about the above guys. My original got referred so I tried to break it down to spot what was wrong.
Complain about this comment
#226 Anaxim
This contribution is really beneath you.
You are an erudite, intelligent person who can't fail to be aware that "The self is the group and the group is the self." is a direct reference at least to totalitarianism, if not to Fascism.
In which case, you need to prove your allegation or withdraw it.
Additionally you say "The nationalists' comments about what they call 'self-confidence' offers a fascinating window into their worldview."
Attributing a particular gestalt to all supporters of a political stance is inappropriate for one who claims to believe in individualism. As far as I remember on this thread, the only reference to "self confidence" was in reference to the economy. You will be as aware as Richard Lambert that confidence in the economy is critical to good performance.
If I have missed another posting which uses "self confidence" as a surrogate for "organic development of the nation", then please point it out.
Complain about this comment
#239
Dont vote_ nat, What
Complain about this comment
interesting that my first post was not passed by the mod.
derekbarker does not join in debates but only tries to provoke reaction, ignore him.
watch out for the sting in the tail from GBs calman report, which may be the same as they did with the edin. trams when they knew that the edin. residents did not want them, and the congestion charge which the edin. residents did not want.
the edin. referendum gave you a choice
1/ the trams.
2/ congestion charges.
the labour/liberal council took the edin. residents for mugs and after the congestion charges was voted down they then stated that the residents had voted for the trams.
the same may happen with the calmen report and the ensuing referendum on it.
Complain about this comment
#241
Pity your not as competitive with your political views. Then again NO need for age discrimination, is there....
Complain about this comment
#33 Anagol:
Whilst in theory, the gradualist approach towards independence that you advocate is entirely logical, in practice Westminster and Whitehall will ensure that Scotland is never "ready" for independence (just as the UK was never "ready" to pass Gordon's economic tests to join the Euro - the truth is that he never intended us to be ready)
The people of Scotland will have demand their referendum, and then vote for independence - and then go for it. When learning to swim, there comes a point where the lessons on dry land have to end, and one has to get in the water and swim. The mind will tell you that you might sink, but the reality is that you won't.
#221 bighallabaloo:
The point is not whether the English Democrats have the right policies, but that the Westminster voting system does not allow new parties to make progress.
Despite receiving so much support from the EU-hating editors of several daily papers, UKIP are going no-where, finishing behind the BNP in the Crewe by-election, and even the Greens, so trendy among middle-class do gooders, are no where near winning a seat at Westminster.
We will need to work through the existing parties to get an English Parliament - the Tories being the obvious choice as they have so little to lose. If only David Cameron would for once drop idealism for realism.
#236 impeachblair:
well said
Complain about this comment
bangingonabout ... gee man have you no patience .... 5 posts in a row ....
Complain about this comment
#233 oldnat
What has party membership got to do with anything in this case? His party had thrown him out prior to this coming to light, and look where they are now. Best move they ever made. He is a national embarrassment anyway.
Thankfully CM is even more irrelevent now than he was when he spent 3/4 of his time in the Scottish Parliament as an unelected Independent. According to the Parliament's official reports he was hardly ever there.
£25,000 is the largest amount someone has been caught out not declaring on the Scottish Parliament's register of interests.
The report is a hoot, and displays a staggering level of hypocrisy from the idiot, still, can't expect anything less from an unprincipled conman and liar I suppose.
It's good to see the people of Scotland steadily getting rid of the rubbish in their Parliament.
The Standards committee's inquiry into the code of conduct for MSP's makes good reading as well, and I can't wait for the Public Petitions Committee inquiry to get well under way.
Complain about this comment
Might I commend Sapienter for his excellent post (141) and suggest that anyone reading the continuous stream of unionist drivel which tends to disfigure these debates goes back to post 141 periodically to regain the will to live.
When all is done all the anti-independence posters are saying that Scotland is uniquely small, stupid and poor and the only nation in the world incapapble of running its own affairs.
It's a waste of time trying to have sensible arguements with anybody that is dense enough to believe any of that.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
I am not a member of any party either.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#231 Well said and I add stop feeding the resident Troll.
There are some unionists (I am not putting you all in there) who are still living the Imperialist agenda from Westminster and have not submitted any justification for the union other than self denial.
Oil, yet again, is what released the UK from financial doom in the 70's and ever since it has been exploited for political ends to create an economic turnaround of buy now pay later todays credit crunch.
The following link is published by BERR.
http://www.berr.gov.uk/files/file46984.pdf
As home produced oil is now only capable of supplying 50% of the UK's needs per annum this would supply an independant Scotland 6x's longer (c60million pop - c5million pop).
Energy makes the world go round but the UK government has used this to promote its self importance and bribery of foreign powers for selfish party political gain as it is unable to shake off its deluded imperialistic past and can not look to the future beyond its 4 year term.
Complain about this comment
#243 Bangingonabout
In my #176 I told you: "If, in your next reply, I do not see quotes from my previous posts where I make those specific claims, then the "debate" is over. I am not going to waste time defending claims I'm supposed to have made that in fact only exist in your imagination."
Your #243-246 is your next reply. I don't see any quotes from my previous posts proving I made the claims you accuse me of making. It's all "clear implication this" and "clear implication that". You even admit openly (#243) that "you don't say "I claim that ...."
Why should I debate claims I haven't made in the first place? These claims I'm supposed to have made that you argued against at length in your #152 actually only exist in your imagination. Otherwise, you'd have quoted them back to me in your #243-246 - and you haven't.
In your #152 you wrote: "it is pretty debatable whether many of your benefits are benefits at all and whether the money could be better spent."
I haven't claimed that any of the "benefits" are benefits. I haven't claimed that the money is being spent in the best possible way.
That is what is so ridiculous about your long boring post (#152). You are trying to argue against "claims" I haven't even made.
In fact, it doesn't get much more ridiculous than that, except maybe the sort of irrational gibberish we see from the troll.
If you want to debate claims people make, then make sure they've made the claims in the first place. I'm not going to get involved in another long, boring, pointless argument with someone who's accusing me of making claims I haven't made. That's the end of it as far as I'm concerned.
Complain about this comment
#253 Keith
"His party had thrown him out prior to this coming to light"
Whatever makes you say that?
Complain about this comment
#252.
SuperJulianR.
I think a seperate English Parliament would be bad news for the Tories. The Scottish Parliament was originally for Labour but several years later we have a Nationalist Government incharge. The same situation could land the Tories out of power to another party.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just picked up on 161. Nuclear power is doomed. Uranium is the ultimate non renewable and we have less than 20 years supply of good grade uranium left under present levels of usage. This is a count already out of date as India and China are looking to build between then over 80 nuclear plants and now Iran is offering Nigeria nuclear know-how (God save us all). When the good uranium runs out we are reduced to using poor quality which costs as much power to make usable as it can generate and then onto other minerals which are even more expensive to utilise. Renewables can easily supply all our power needs. All that is required is the political will to spend the initially very vast sums of money which will give us clean and very cheap power for evermore. Part of the attraction of nuclear power is it is a political quick fix for which succeeding generations pick up the bill which makes it very attractive to some of today's politicians.
It is estimated by some that the proposed Severn Barrage can provide as much power as eight or more nuclear power stations. Tidal as even better as the tide comes in and out at different times all round our coasts making permanent reliable power easily achieved. The Pentland Firth could power much of Europe if captured and I'm sure the Scottish government has this in its sights - though we will need to be independent and in control of our own economy before we could set about achieving a Pentland Barrage.
By the way there is some mystique about "nuclear power". Actually it is only a very expensive and clumsy way of boiling lots of water.
Complain about this comment
#255 Keith
I totally agree that every party should remove members (much less MSPs, MPs) whose conduct is inappropriate while in office. The Labour Party would be in a better state if it had followed the example of other parties including the SNP.
You won't be surprised that I did not vote for Martin!
There are good reasons for being guarded in my comments.
Complain about this comment
#249
Why do you say derekbarker does not join in debates
you take a partizan stance in your asserstion of GB and the Calman report
you then attack the lib/lab previous devolved gov.
Talk about LIT taxation, energy,PR, forthcoming elections, Independence, Europe, THIRD WORLD ECONOMICS, exchange rate, inflation, housing market, TUC, and many more, you will find I have an opinion on most things, or are you just making the point that your an arch-nat.
Complain about this comment
#257
One of your colleagues suggested oil will be replaced by re-newable energys and Scotland will be a net supplier of energy to Europe (re-newable)
Do you agree with that and is that a policy your party agrees with (giving that oil will eventually run out do you think re-newable energy will be the defining economic power and the low carbon energy produced will not consist of any nuclear input?)
Complain about this comment
Bighullabaloo,
In future then please state
"I claim that..." in front of any statements you make that actually should be interpreted as you having an opinion on something rather than just posturing hot air.
Your state my posts are ridiculous. But pointlessly creating "lists" of things is even more ridiculous.
And that's the end of it as far as I'm concerned (LOL).
Complain about this comment
#254
No is saying that Scotland is unable to function as a country, indeed I have said several times that if the Scottish parliament cant gain additional powers then its function is no more than the "PARISH COUNCIL" Blair intented it to be.
I dont feel any less Scottish for being part the UK.If Scotland did gain Independence, then joined the EU to become a greater federal state, would you feel less Scottish.I make my stance on the economics and security of being part of the UK. Do I not have the right to challenge a different view.
There are thousands of scripts on the value of oil,but the real one is oil can decrease as fast as it increases in price.
Complain about this comment
#264, derekbarker said:
"Why do you say derekbarker does not join in debates"
Oh dear.
It's always a cause for concern when someone starts referring to themselves in the third person....
Complain about this comment
Some interesting opinion pieces in tomorrow's Sunday Herald
Complain about this comment
To oldnat, here is an excerpt from the SNP website:
"As individuals, we value our own independence. We accept that it is entirely natural to make our own decisions, to earn and spend our own money, and to take responsibility for our own lives. Why should we settle for anything less for our country? "
A clear equivocation between individuals and nations, no?
Blurring the lines between the individual and the nation needn't mean fascism. It could just entail a dreary, dull society, where parochial attitudes dominate and people feel constrained into living in certain ways.
Complain about this comment
derekbarker does not join in debates but only tries to provoke reaction, ignore him.
Complain about this comment
derekbarker does not join in debates but only tries to provoke reaction, ignore him.
further more he does not read postings before replying with his rubbish.
see post 175 for how he works
Complain about this comment
#266 Bangingonabout
Oh, for goodness sake!
It's simple.
Where did I actually claim the "benefits" are benefits? Where did I actually claim the money is being spent in the best possible way?
Don't tell me what I "didn't deny", "didn't mention" and "didn't refute". Forget about what I "clearly implied".
All you had to do was provide two short quotes. That's your problem. They don't exist!
I decide what I write and how to state things, not you. You are just making yourself look even more ridiculous!
Complain about this comment
#267.
"There are thousands of scripts on the value of oil,but the real one is oil can decrease as fast as it increases in price."
Derek, in this decade the world is developing at an incredible pace, with development the need for energy, particularly oil is needed. The world reserves are running out. China, India, USA and Europe all are concerned on their energy supplies and companies are going out for all or nothing finding and getting that oil. Oil will have to remain expensive on the world markets for the exploration to continue or companies will simply not bother if profits are not high.
Complain about this comment
# 267
You have that unionist 'shuttered' attitude that nobody could ever penetrate. It's your loss far more than it is of people who are prepared to listen to balanced viewpoints and to do serious homework concerning the finances of Scottish independence.
Enjoy your English breakfast tomorrow but I expect it would be healthier with a bowl of porridge for starters.
Complain about this comment
#268 The_Forfarian
"It's always a cause for concern when someone starts referring to themselves in the third person...."
Not if the person who's doing it is having an out-of-body experience at the time which, I think you'll find, is true in this particular case.
Complain about this comment
#262 sneckedagain
Glad to see someone else trying to expose the truth on the misguided anomaly of Nuclear Energy being clean, green, cheap and a secure way of generating electricity.
People are seduced by the fact that all they see coming out of the cooling towers are alleged clean steam, far from the truth when one does some online research.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] I have posted this one before and it is from the Oxford Research Group. Another couple of links for those who wish to be better informed.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-photography/nuclear_cost_3481.jsp
and
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/PeterBossew.html
Its quite strange or an inconvenient truth that the present GB PM at Westminster has a brother who works, I think in the PR dept. of EDF the French energy company who surprise surprise wish to build the next generation of reactors!
Complain about this comment
Bighullaballo.
Clearly not the end of it yet then.
OK. Please explain, in very simple terms, because apparently I'm not very bright, what the point of your "lists" post was then.
You weren't claiming anything. You were not stating your opinion on anything. You were not trying to make a point in order to have or further a debate.
So what exactly were you doing?
Apart from posturing that is.
Complain about this comment
Still waiting for the two sentences....if you don't want to be a total laughing stock then let's have them. Otherwise, quit while you're behind!
Complain about this comment
#273
So what was the point in your original #79 post, you seem to be contradicting your self now!
Fair question are you a member of the snp.
Does the snp have a policy that all members can make the policy up as and when required?
Complain about this comment
#275
Porridge with sugar, no salt although.
On a positive note, I would like to see some of your elaborated home work on the finances of Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
#278 Bangingonabout
Oh dear! You've been referred to the moderators before it even got on the board. Just because you've lost the argument is no reason to resort to insults.
Complain about this comment
Thomas, there are many who share your view (emerging economys) however I do not agree with Mr Huttons stance.Thomas I stand with the people and their argument against an unfair greedy attitude of private firms, to drive us all in to fuel poverty.
Where does all that profit....profit go.
Complain about this comment
Moderation is highly suspect in its interpretation of its own rules/or moderators. I have had one post previosly removed 2 days after posting it. One can only suspect that someone is totally bored with their job or "Big Brother is watching". I will try again
#262 sneckedagain
Glad to see someone else trying to expose the truth on the misguided anomaly of Nuclear Energy being clean, green, cheap and a secure way of generating electricity.
People are seduced by the fact that all they see coming out of the cooling towers are alleged clean steam, far from the truth when one does some online research.
http://www.stormsmith.nl/publications/secureenergy.pdf I have posted this one before and it is from the Oxford Research Group. Another couple of links for those who wish to be better informed.
http://www.opendemocracy.net/arts-photography/nuclear_cost_3481.jsp
and
http://www.ratical.org/radiation/WorldUraniumHearing/PeterBossew.html
Its quite strange or an inconvenient truth that the present GB PM at Westminster has a brother who works, I think in the PR dept. of EDF the French energy company who surprise surprise wish to build the next generation of reactors!
Complain about this comment
Bighullabaloo.
I admit, I can't quote two sentences where you actually claim anything. There, make you feel better? You've won !!
But now you've won, humour me.
What was the point of your lists post?
You say you weren't claiming anything. You say you weren't implying anything by saying "I've started a list" in #76. You weren't attempting to make a point that could be debated.
So why bother?
Complain about this comment
#270 Anaxim
You started your post on this thread with "The nationalists' comments". Now if you had been referring to the SNP website, you would/should have said so. The context of your statement places it firmly as a comment on the nationalists who post here, and clearly you can't justify it.
Your search for any statement anywhere to justify your comment has hardly been worth while. The SNP website statement that you quote is clearly an analogy - and you're calling that a "worldview"?
Your lame attempt to blur your original words "The self is the group and the group is the self." to "Blurring the lines between the individual and the nation" doesn't work. Both imply the Fascist (I use the term properly) concept that "being anti-individualistic, the Fascist system of life stresses the importance of the State, and recognises the individual only in so far as his interests coincide with those of the State." (Mussolini : The Doctrine of Fascism 1938)
If you were simply an ignorant guy, I could have accepted that your original phrase was some accidental phraseology. However, you are not and it wasn't.
Complain about this comment
#285 Bangingonabout
Still waiting for the two sentences....
Complain about this comment
#285
What was the point in #79 list
he clearly tries to outline snp policy.
Maybe you can answer my question?
does the snp allow its members to make up policies as they go along.
Complain about this comment
#286
How about accepting the phrase "regime"
Complain about this comment
This is a really good article on the black hole that is the Calman Commission Well worth a read.
Complain about this comment
Looks like the SNP are still doing well in the polls, but there's doubt about Lit in the YouGov poll in the Times
Complain about this comment
Over 10,000 people have signed a petition against the Scottish governments proposal to raise the age of buying alcohol in shops
The honeymoon is over and the people are turning on the "NATIONALIST" agendas
Complain about this comment
More crisis in the NHS C" diff outbreak in Paisely....
Complain about this comment
Does anyone agree with the proposal to raise the age of buying alcohol in shops.
Complain about this comment
#294
YES!!
Complain about this comment
.........I also believe that licensing hours should be cut to where they were 35 years ago. Pubs closed at 10 and the noisy drunks were in bed by 11
Complain about this comment
#296
Would you extend the noise levels to any other part of social life...say musical or transport
Complain about this comment
#296
i believe that many years ago there was a sunday drinking law, if someone wanted to drink alcohol on a sunday they had to do it outwith there own community.....would you consider that law again.
Complain about this comment
#296
When America introduced the prohibition law in the 1920, do you think it was a magnet for crime and if the 21 years of age law was accepted here, do you also think crime levels would increase.
Complain about this comment
Jack, If Independence was won in 2010, do you think some people might become over-stimulated and conduct them-selfs like little generals and make claims to the ownership of Berwick apon tweed
Complain about this comment
#298
Pubs used to be closed all day Sunday but hotels were open. Nobody was bothered about it then.
I'm not advocating prohibition but I do believe that the hours should be cut.
We are a sad bunch when the only way we can enjoy ourselves is to get pissed.
I can't see why crime levels would increase if the legal age to buy alcohol from a shop was 21. 18 to 21 year olds could still have a drink in a pub.
Complain about this comment
Dick-Whittington #127 -
Scotland will be lucky to get 15% of the UK oil revenue?
Where are you making that figure up from. According to international law, approx 90% of oil is in Scotland's jurisdiction. Without resorting to war, Scotland can resort to the legal system.
The only way England would win such a legal case would be by promising a large portion of oil to other countries. So, if Scotland only ends up with 15%, this would be no less than England would be left with. Are you claiming the English are that spiteful they would rather see France and Germany benefit from Scottish oil than allow Scotland to benefit from it?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
We english already know the differences in living standards between the four uk countries,if we had an english leader that cares for england as much as your leaders care for scotland instead of a no-hoper who is still clinging to a britain thats way past it`s sell by date we would all be a lot better off.
Complain about this comment
Anaxim #226 -
I think you are imposing your own view on nationalists and treating them as a collective hive mind.
One of the stumbling blocks for the nats has been a particular lack of confidence to govern themselves. The disastrous world cup campaign of '78 does appear to highlight this with many blaming it for the failure to achieve a devolution settlement in '79.
Now, you can't blame Scots for this lack of confidence. For years, we've been subject to accusations that we're too wee, too stupid, too insular to run our own country. These accusations have came from both sides of the border but there's no denying we're our own worse enemy at times and are world leaders in self denigrating. On an aside, I always remember a by election in Glasgow where BBC Scotland interviewed this wee wifie who boldly claimed she was voting Unionist because "running a country isnae for the likes of us".
I still meet people who are convinced that the SNP would have them back on a boat to Ireland quicker than you could say three hail marys, even though they haven't had a connection with Ireland for at leat 3 generations. And there's no need to mention those loyal to the crown who believe with all sincerity that attendance at 6 o'clock mass would be compulsory.
Luckily, Scotland's young people haven't been subjected to this systematic brainwashing and wouldn't believe it even if they were. They reflect an increasingly confident Scotland who are now well aware that the world didn't end on 3 May 2007, despite the Unionists warnings.
With this increased confidence, or at least the nationalist's hope is, comes the increasing desire to control your own fortunes, your own destiny (without trying to sound too grandiose). The logical conclusion is that these confident Scots will increasing want to govern their own affairs.
At the end of the day, it's not just the patriots who are voting SNP. Anybody who wants to bring democracy as close to the people as possible would rather have their parliament 40 miles away rather than 400.
Complain about this comment
Derekbarking #264 -
Yes, we're all aware you have an opinion on most things but we're actually trying to have a debate on the merits of devolution/independence/et al.
Posting "1-0 to GB" without any substance hardly constitutes an exchange of ideas.
You claim Labour are demolishing the nats policies one by one yet refuse to elaborate.
Wild assertions do not a good debate make. How about posting some substance? If you do believe Labour are winning the argument, tell the rest of us what the strengths of their stance is in comparision to the nats.
You never know, people might actually respond to you with more than just derision.
Complain about this comment
Communitarian political philosophy doesn't begin and end with Mussolini, oldnat. There's a vigorous debate between liberals and communitarians in political and philosophical circles. The self is the group etc is a crude statement, but one I stand by, given that I agree with criticism of communitarians by liberals. You know, encouraging conformity and discouraging autonomy, and so on.
As for this thread, you can use the text search feature on your browser to find Anagol and JulianR's comments, which could mean either the group or the economy. You can also look through previous threads.
Complain about this comment
#302 Forteanjo
It is called how you conduct a negotiation, what bargaining chips does your opponent have, and what do you have to do to make the other guy blink.
Here is how it will work:- Independent Scotland demands 100 per cent of the oil. Other guy bursts out laughing, but to show how nice he is he offers 9 per cent, i.e. Scotland's previous ratio of the UK population.
It is at this point that you have to consider bargaining chips. What bargaining chips does an independent Scotland have? Answer none, all the oil companies are based outside Scotland and all the oil resources are offshore where Scotland has no control and no resources to gain control.
Its sole bargaining chip is refining capacity where it can turn off the tap. But this hurts Scotland more than it hurts anyone else, a case of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
So, on to the next phase, the other guy wants to keep his nuclear bases in Scotland and is prepared to up the percentage to get it and this is where luck comes in. If your lucky you get 15 per cent, if you're very lucky you get more, but Trident or its successor stays exactly where it is - or you can go for the war option. Which, for the purposes of clarity, is unlikely to happen.
Complain about this comment
Dick .... all the oil companys are based outside Scotland ..... thats strange i just drove past BPs headquarters .... in Aberdeen.
Complain about this comment
Also Dick .... have you ever been to Aberdeen Airport .. it used to be one of the busiest airports in Europe ... solely because of all the helicopters and planes flying oilworkers out to their rigs. So on that basis your telling us that we have no control of the oil...where are they gonna fly the workers from if its not ours .... Norwich ?
Complain about this comment
Dick Whittington #308 -
Bargaining chips? How about, under international law about 90% of the oil is Scotlands. England, a bigger country, in your scenario at least, decides to throw its weight about and deny Scotland what is rightfully Scotland's. What does the inernational community do? Decide, yep, that's okay? Or, especially with the right promises in the right ears, decide that England's imperial past is exactly that, in the past, and few wee reminders to those in power wouldn't go a miss. Cue economic sanctions, blockades, possibly even more extreme measures. England quickly brought to heel and made to pay reprarations to Scotland to the tune of billions of pounds.
Of course, that also ignores the fact that, in your scenario, there's quite a few tridents sitting gathering dust in the Clyde. Purely because the thought of taking out the home counties is just about as ludicrous as your suggestion of England tanks rolling over the border.
Mind you, it wouldn't be the first time the Westminster government deployed tanks in the streets of Glasgow in anger.
Complain about this comment
Oh and one more thing ... BP's headquarters is a brand new building which probably cost a lot of money to build so i doubt very much if they have intentions of moving anytime soon !
Complain about this comment
As you put it in your blog,Brian,it all seems a bit complex and confusing to the layman especially,as always,in any talk about Scotland and what it wants(or needs)and by association NI and Wales,England gets left out of any such discussion.And probably feels a little p... off as a result.Devolution for England and within England hardly rates a mention anywhere.Just ask someone in Berwick and/or Carlisle how they feel about needing every little thing rubber stamped by Whitehall rather than a local assembly/parliament that knows a bit about what's being discussed.Look to the likes of Germany for ideas on how to balance the national,regional and local body politic with all sorts of equalisation schemes to spread the wealth a little more fairly as well as raising a little bit yourself.
Although I have to add that you can feel patronised no matter the size of the political body.Most people down here in the southwest probably feel that Holyrood looks more to the central belt than down here or up north.And I dare say that people in Stranraer or Kirkconnel probably feel the same way about being governed from Dumfries.It's the natural order of things to whinge!
Complain about this comment
# Rabbiehippo various posts.
Oh My! BP, a multinational corporation, has a brand new office in Aberdeen chock full of paperclip chasers and oil workers have to fly from Aberdeen airport and, of course, as an utterly ruthless, hard-nosed negotiator these are going to be a major concern. Get real!
Complain about this comment
(#308 and passim)
Somebody take this Dick_Whittington chap away and give him some medication or a comic to read. He is totally undermining the unionist case with all of this hopelessly fantastical claptrap.
It is clearly so far from the real world that people cannot reasonably be expected to take unionism seriously if they pay any attention to it. Facts wrong, in fact invented, argumentation unsound, false assumptions scattered about all over the place. An insult to the intelligence.
If this is the best that the unionist case can come up with now by way of advocacy, that case is lost. Rarely have I seen such unmitigated piffle in this discussion forum. Pro-independence posts are looking infinitely more credible and persuasive than this. How embarrassing.
Complain about this comment
Dick ... so what your saying is that the oil in Iraq , Iran , Norway etc etc doesnt belong to those countrys but instead belongs to the oil companys busy retrieving it.
Complain about this comment
#316 rabbiehippo
Yes, that is precisely what I am saying and even the most cursory glance at their profits would confirm that to be the case. BP has a larger GDP than half the countries in the UN
Complain about this comment
I agree with Arthur_Wilson (#315)
Posters like Dick-Whittington fail to understand that the Scottish electorate is much more sophisticated than it was in the 1970s and that current technology gives it ready access to a virtual infinity of sources of information against which to check the wilder asseverations of the more ridiculously extreme would-be defenders of the Union.
Like most Scots, I simply want the best for my country. Blatant misinformation, disinformation and downright intimidatory scaremongering do not impress me in the slightest. I shall need more than this sort of thing to persuade me if I am to go on withholding my vote from the SNP, whose decency, competence, vision and unmistakeably sound understanding of the realities confronting Scotland cannot fail to be alluring.
As unionism seems to be disintegrating before our very eyes, maybe it is time to move on and accept that the world has changed.
Complain about this comment
Here we are again with deluded nats telling us (above) about 'Scotland's oil'. It is oil extracted, refined and sold by companies that are not Scottish - any more than the china clay in your tea cup is 'Cornwall's china clay'. Come on, nats, this is a pusillanimous argument and a sign that, if Scotland's future depends on economic advocacy like this, you are all best off moving to England.
The fact is that, to go back to Brian's original piece here, there is no such thing as a free lunch. You can have more spending powers for a Scottish parliament, and additional tax raising powers to go with it, but that means that other UK nationals should pay LESS to prop up the ruritanian fantasies of Mr Salmond and friends. And after years of Barnett excess, we'd welcome it. Perhaps Scottish taxpayers should even give us English taxpayers a rebate for years of this fraud?
Complain about this comment
Dick you've lost the plot mate, all of the oil companies have their UKCS HQ's in Aberdeen, they have international HQ's in London.
What you should be worried about is an independent Scotland having a much lower tax rate and taking the International HQs from Trafalgar, Paddington and Picadilly to Aberdeen.
Perhaps thats why you are so against Scotland leaving the UK?
Complain about this comment
I see no point in answering any of Whit Dickington's silly posts.
Can the moderator not see some merit in removing posts that are patently absurd rather than pouncing on some of the more robust but entertaining items which seems to exercise him/her at the moment.
Can we perhaps get back to sensible discussions such as....
how can UK sensibly become a federation (which is the latest wheeze to try to halt the independence bandwagon) when one part will be at least 10 times the size of all the other parts (though, of course, we will accept any increase in powers for Scotland)?
or.....
what would a UK federation do for Scotland that independence won't do better?
or....
will there be some dafties in the SNP who will suggest that the SNP should campaign for a federation (as there was some in the seventies and eighties who suggested we should drop our independence aim interim and campaign for devolution as a first step) being completely oblivious to the fact that the minute the SNP drops independence as a continuous campaign and adopts federalism as a step the said federalism will drop of the table and be replaced by our unionist opponents by offers of some lesser concessions?
The SNP's obligation is to push the boat out as far as it will go all the time.
Only by pushing hard for Independence did we get the devolution concession.
Only by pushing hard for Independence will federalism be ceded.
Only by pushing hard all the time for Independence will we get there.
This is the nature of politics.
Death to all modifiers.
Complain about this comment
#308.
That is the most amount of rubbish I have seen someone write in a long time.
How can England offer Scotland 9% of the oil revenue? What legal right does England have over these fields? None (apart from the small amount of oil she is legally allowed).
You are just scaremongering now.
Complain about this comment
#317 Dick-Whittington
So, if Norway's oil doesn't belong to Norway in any significant way, how has the sum of, I hear, nearly 1 trillion dollars got into its oil fund over the years?
So long as the cash comes in, I suspect that the Norwegians couldn't care less who you say it belongs to. What matters is the reality of money in the bank and who is entitled to put how much of it from where into the reserves of the country within whose territorial jurisdiction it is retrieved.
However you look at the matter and whatever agreements are reached at the appropriate time, an independent Scottish government is unquestionably going to be in a strong position to finance the period of transition in the early years of independence and provide a sound basis for restructuring the economy. I haven't the least doubt about that and nor, I believe, has the electorate of Scotland. You have a long way to go before you will get anywhere near frightening the pants off us.
Complain about this comment
#318.
The oil is in Scottish waters. That would allow Scotland to claim that it is our oil, not yours, not Englands, no one elses. Since the oil is in Scottish waters then our Government could do anything they want. The oil companies can't do much against the Governments when the Government will determine everything that oil company can do.
Complain about this comment
#319 Deluded ... haha ..haha ... haha and so on to page 95
So the oil companys dont pay taxes then is that it.
Complain about this comment
Three points:
Brown's comments that help for pensioners this winter with their fuel bills is nothing but ''gimmicks and giveaways'' will haunt him for the remainder of his short premiership.
''Assigned'' revenues are doomed to failure - it is still Westminster saying we know best; we are more important; we will keep the cream. He knows it; we know it - he doesn't care; he is a drowning man grasping at straws.
The Yesman Commission....sorry, Calman Commission, is akin to Monty Python's dead parrot - why doesn't Brown just tell it what he wants [when he makes up his mind], and save us from the charade.
Conclusion - Brown is a lost figure; somehow believing he still knows best; and in denial, given that he has nothing positive to contribute to the future of our society.
Complain about this comment
Maybe people should do some research before posting rubbish opinions which have no bearing to facts.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/It%27s_Scotland%27s_oil
Complain about this comment
#322 Thomas
They are oil fields in the British maritime sector, that's their legal right. An independent Scotland would seek to change that legal position and would de jure have to satisfy the Court that the Scottish claim had superior merit to the British claim. So Britain (not England) is the one with the legal right, not Scotland.
#323 European Unionist.
Hard one. Now let me see, ah yes, from taxation of the oil companies' profits. Which is what I believe happens in this country and so far as I am aware happens everywhere except the UAE and Saudi Arabia who operate a joint-equity arrangement with oil companies, but neither the oil companies, nor any of their employees pay tax. Basically they take their money from the front end, unlike Britain and Norway who take their money from the back end.
Complain about this comment
Excellent piece by Michael Portillo in today's Sunday Times
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/michael_portillo/
Complain about this comment
#328.
The waters have been divided for sometime. England would have to find evidence that supports their right to change the territory that divides his and her ocean.
Could you please start providing evidence that supports your claim that Britain would have overall legal rights on our oil fields. I could use a good laugh.
Complain about this comment
Sorry, Dickington
Scottish Oil is in already internationally defined Scottish waters - a product of us having a separate legal system. It would be a brave English Government that tied to steal it.
Complain about this comment
@305, ForteanJo
Regarding confidence, the nationalists are as bad as anyone for rubbishing Scotland with the 'some parts of Glasgow' argument, happy to give the impression we're all Rab C Nesbitt types. It's entirely misleading to take the poorest place and generalise from that. I could just as easily come up with a 'some parts of Edinburgh' argument, showing how rich and educated Scots are.
Complain about this comment
# thomas and snecked
Please stop referring to England, even if Scotland separates it will remain Britain. Why? Because Britain is an internationally recognised legal entity, England and Scotland are not (they may become so, but for the moment they are not). That being the case, you may, like Moses, divide the waters how you please, but given that the oil is under the seabed, your division like your posts is an entirely pointless exercise.
Complain about this comment
332 ....some parts of Aberdeen fits in there to .
Just reading the piece on the National Audit Office in Private Eye ... now theres a good reason to get out of the dodgy dealing of our Goverment and go it alone .
Complain about this comment
Scotland's Waters? This phrase comes up repeatedly with the implication that an "independent" Scotland would be able to determine what happens in "it's" waters.
Well. What about catching fish in "Scotland's" waters? Just about anyone can do that. Why? 'Cos the EU CFP lets other fishing fleets do so as the fish are considered a "common" resource.
What's to stop the EU deciding that oil and gas are also common resources?
Complain about this comment
#333.
Thank you for demonstrating that you are simply scaremongering. By the way, I say England because it was Scotland and England that formed Britain. Wales was simply annexed by England and of course Northern Ireland is a province, also annexed but by Britain.
You have ignored my question.
Complain about this comment
Jam804:
Slightly scaremongering. What IF they do this...What IF this happens...
Let's continue to debate with facts. The EU has not declared oil and gas as common resources and I highly doubt they will change their opinion because Scotland goes Independent.
Then of course Scotland may decide to not join the EU, if she has not already done so. IF something like that occured.
Complain about this comment
It is certainly disappointing that the level of debate from the Unionist camp is so poor and so ill informed in this thread.
Equally disappointing to see posters continuing to repeat the English tabloid nonsense of Scottish subsidy junkies. It is easy for any of them to go to independent, Scottish or UK Government sites to get the relevant information.
Two easily found stats for instance:
1. North Sea Oil and Gas - in 2006-2007 the UK exchequer earned £9.1Billion, it fell to around £8.0Billion in 07-08 and this year will be around £13Billion at least, even if oil now falls below $100pB. The latest Gers report put the geographic allocation of this to Scotland at 83.3%.
2. There were 2.8millions Scots in work last year from a population of 5.1 million; this represents 78% of those eligible to work. In the UK as a whole the comparable figure is 74%. The average wage/salary in Scotland is 96% of the UK average.
Just two examples, but it should be enough to scotch any idea Scotland is subsided by England, without delving into further detail.
Complain about this comment
#328 Dick-Whittington
An independent state has certain rights over its territorial waters under international law. If Scotland becomes independent, the territorial waters of the UK as presently constituted will not and cannot be what they are now.
Of course there will be a period of re-adjustment. No one doubts that. So what?
As for the other point, a trillion dollars is still a trillion dollars and compares favourably to the 0 dollars that Scotland is entitled to from oil-reserve taxation under existing arrangements within the UK.
Complain about this comment
With respect your the one talking hypotheticals.
The CFP is a fact. The SNP fishing minister found that out recently when he made a fool of himself on Newsnight Scotland when Gordon Brewer pointed out that he was demanding things that were not possible under CFP rules.
BTW the EU has already created the concept of introducing a mandatory and comprehensive European energy policy in 2005. The European Commission has since published proposals for the first comprehensive EU energy policy on January 10, 2007.
The EU also signed (as the "EU") the Kyoto Protocol.
The writing is on the wall!
Complain about this comment
# Thomas
Why? I take it you are accusing me on not answering your question because you didn't like the answer. Moreove, a potted history of how Britain was formed ain't gonna cut it sunshine. Pretty much every country in the world was formed the same way and trying to use that as a convincing argument in a court would barely merit a yawn.
You still, despite your lengthy interjections , have not produced a single convincing reason as to why a court or indeed anyone else would grant an independent Scotland superior claim over a maritime area which has been recognised as British since oil was discovered or would not remain British by legal right, force majeure or whatever.
The question is, how does an independent Scotland assert its claim in any negotiation and the answer which you, and others, have strenously tried to deny, and self-denial is a truly sad exercise, is that you can't, not legally, not practically, not in any way and that is why you take 15 per cent like or not, oh! and the nuclear bases stay where they are
Complain about this comment
This blog began with a football analogy, so does anyone think football will help or hinder the Independence campaign? As long ago as the Argentina World Cup it was said that the subsequent referendum was lost because national pride suffered. Salmond himself, I think, moaned about "90-minute nationalists" who deserted in droves.
It's looking like the Tartan Army will become a disillusioned Home Guard when the next finals are taking place in South Africa. Not good news for a 2010 poll perhaps?
We Scots do tend to let hearts rule heads at times. And I honestly think Salmond will be concerned, and not just as a fan, if there's another travesty in Iceland on Wednesday. A nation on a "downer" is not good for any politician trying to "talk it up."
If anyone feels I'm being too trivial, I'd just say look at some of the wilder posts above, from both sides, I might add. The average football hooligan - let's call him Kenny to avoid naming him - would be outraged by some of the silly abuse. Or maybe not!
And some not so silly stuff - again from both sides - that I found quite scary in its implications for a democratic Scotland.
We had a mention of brown shirts, Fascism, calls for censorship of posters. Is this really Scotland in 2008?
Complain about this comment
#341.
If you re-read the question I asked.
"Could you please start providing evidence that supports your claim that Britain would have overall legal rights on our oil fields."
I see no actual evidence, simple words that you wrote yourself that you feel would happen if Scotland was Independent.
If you read #338 then you will also notice that GERS indicates Scotlands share of the oil reserves to be up to 80 percent. What have you got to prove that this is wrong and England can claim a larger share?
You have nothing to stand on.
The nuclear bases can stay where they are. Scotland can strip them and sell them for spare parts. At least that way Scotland we actually get something back instead of spending billions on pointless weapons.
Complain about this comment
#343 Thomas
I'll try one last time
'Could you please start providing evidence that supports your claim that Britain would have overall legal rights on our oil fields'
Now let me translate the above into what would recognised legally
'Could you please start providing evidence that supports your claim that Britain would have overall legal rights on Britain's oil fields'
Which answers your own question.
As to your para 3, the GERS can indicate all they want, as can Celtic, it still doesn't answer the question how do you assert your claim?
same paragraph:- you're talking about England again (it's Britain- do try to focus).
Complain about this comment
With certain unionists talking of blood on the streets and retaining control of oil through force majeure, it would seem that they believe Scotland to be a source of net revenue to the UK. How is it then, that they keep on insisting that we are being subsidised by the rest of the UK? You can't have your cake and eat it.
My overall impression of this thread (and others) is that the unionists resort to false arguments backed up with little more than thinly veiled threats, whilst the nationalists tend to at least provide verifiable data to back up their arguments.
I've been following up on the evidence over the months, and although of course there is a degree of uncertainty over some issues, figures etc. the end result is a strong sense (call it a gut feeling if you like, Brigadier) that Scotland would be well advised to choose independence in the near future. I also considered the Federal option, but now believe this to be a poor second. Independence has always been my gut feeling choice, but I am always open to argument and am grateful to all the contributors (on both sides) who have taken the time to do their homework and provide real facts and figures.
Complain about this comment
#342 brigadierjohn
Away and lie down in a darkened room.
Complain about this comment
Ive been reading these blogs for a couple of months now and one thing always happens. Brian could right a blog on bananas and we'd still end up debating (not mass !!) on Independence and whos wrong or right .
Complain about this comment
#345
Independence:
"The state or quality of being independent; freedom from dependence; exemption from reliance on, or control by, others; direction of one's own affairs without interference; A situation in which a country has its own government, and rules itself; freedom from control or influence of another or others."
Reasonable definition(s) of "independence"?
A Scotland "independent in 'Europe'", as proposed, does not meet any of the above criteria.
The supporters of independence really do need to address the fundamental question of what do they mean by "independence". In terms of "argument" the only response by those advocating "independence" with regard to the question of Scotland in the EU is one of "it's better than the status quo" or alternatively a complete avoidance of the issue.
I think the issue as it is presented suits all the political parties and in particular New Labour and the SNP. It allows them to portray themselves as being fundamentally different from each other. It's little wonder that so few people bother to vote.
I am not a "unionist", the term used pejoratively by the SNP and others (I am a trades unionist of course). An independent Scotland could work if there was real sovereignty and a positive relationship with our near neighbours and the rest of the world. It seems to me that there are several hurdles to be overcome currently before a situation was arrived at where the above was a prospect.
Thought I would make my position clear (even if it doesn't interest anyone!).
Complain about this comment
rabbiehippo
Independence is the only game in town in a political sense and will dominate Scottish political debate until we assuredly get there.
If the ludicrous and juvenile nonsense posted by unionists on this topic is the best they can do (and I suspect it is, as the scaremongering no longer has any real effect) we'll get there a lot sooner than most of us thought.
Complain about this comment
#344 Dick-Whittington
The notion that one internationally recognized independent state can have a valid claim to exercise control over oil reserves in the territorial waters of another internationally recognized independent state is quite a novelty.
Plainly, if Scotland becomes independent, the territory and associated territorial waters of the state consisting of what then will remain of the state presently known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland will be redefined accordingly in a manner which conforms to international law. In that situation Scotland cannot but have the same rights over oil reserves in what will then be its formally recognized territorial waters as the UK and Norway have over the oil reserves in their territorial waters now.
The notion that the term 'Britain' would be recognized legally as a reference to the present UK state is also a novelty. It would appear to be no more sound than much of the content of your posts, as you must know if you have the sense which out of civil courtesy I assume that you do have, although you conceal it very well. Enough of this drollery. You have had your fun, and we have all had a good laugh at you.
Complain about this comment
Since Dick-Whittington doesn't like references to "England", and Thomas_Porter isn't inclined to accept that Britain-Scotland=Britain - and both points of view have [limited] merits - why not agree upon a term with a particular historical resonance.
"South Britain" (being that part of the island of Great Britain to the south of Scotland).
Complain about this comment
#350
I wonder if the break up of Yugoslavia has any bearing here?
Slovenia, then Croatia broke from Yugoslavia (who I think remained as "Yugoslava" - at least for a time). What happened there with regard to territorial waters? Think it's worth having a wee look?
Of course Yugoslavia didn't have the additional complexity of being a member of the EU!
Complain about this comment
Oil, oil, oil.
Licences to explore for (and exploit) oil resources are already in place, having been granted by the UK.
Any change to the constitutional position of Scotland would not affect the legality or enforceability of those licences.
Negotiating financial compensation (between the two nations) would doubtless form part of the process by which to facilitate independence for Scotland.
If acceding to a claim of a 50% share of oil revenues by South Britain was to hasten Freedom, I would say it was probably a price worth paying...
Complain about this comment
#348 jam804
Of course your position is of interest.
Although independence within the European Union is SNP policy, membership of the EU is clearly something to be decided after independence. A post-independence referendum on EU membership would presumably have to be held so that the electorate could express its view on this in isolation from other matters.
That being so, the question before us concerning the constitutional future of Scotland does not yet strictly-speaking encompass EU membership. You have first to have a state before you can decide what to do with it.
Complain about this comment
#344 Dick Witless -
No, Britain has no legal rights and is not recognised legally in any part of the world. Britain has no legal rights over any oil, be it sitting 10 miles off the coast of Scotland or in a tin of WD40 in your local tescos.
The UK, on the other hand, is the political entity that is recognised around the world. However, the UK itself is a political union and each part of that union must defer to its relevant component when enacting legislation and jurisdiction. Therefore, if and when Scotland leaves the UK, the UK will have no more jursidiction or claim over that component that was Scotland and its interests.
That is the actual situation as recognised by international law. Unless you are able to show otherwise, your ramblings are simply wishful thinking, how you would hope things would be.
Complain about this comment
Dick
You should have been able to look this up for yourself - but since you are clearly intellectually challenged, here it is -
Now go away and stop embarassing other Unionists.
Complain about this comment
#349 Aye but unfortunately winning the arguement on this blog is one thing but the common man (or woman ) doesnt see the facts. Lets hope that the SNP can do a good job in the coming year to turn voters or even encourage more people to vote.
Complain about this comment
#354, Ben_Lomond wrote:
"... membership of the EU is clearly something to be decided after independence."
I know forests have been felled to provide paper for all of the musings on the point, but has it yet been established definitively whether Scotland would be member of the EU de jure, or would require to apply for membership?
I think there would be a significant difference in attitude between a referendum on joining and one on maintaining membership (or withdrawing).
After all, the (in)famous referendum in the 1970s was not to allow the UK population to vote on joining the EEC but merely to endorse the Government's fait accompli of membership.
Complain about this comment
#344.
Dick-Whittington.
Ah, you are one of those Unionists. One who believes the oil belongs to the entire UK rather then Scotland. So you think the UK should be able to keep the most oil if Scotland leaves. Once Scotland departs from the Union then so does the access to the reserves located in Scottish Waters. Plain and simple. Did 'Britain' continue to plunder her Ex-colonies after they won their Independence? No. Either will Scotland.
I believe you should read up on International Law. There are some fancy ways of defining borders that carry on far into the sea between countries. You probely will then learn (with a bit of luck) the rights England will have if she decides to claim more oil then she really is allowed.
Complain about this comment
#348 jam804
I'm always interested in hearing the opinions of others. That's why I blog, to hear contrary opinions.
In a purist sense you may be right about independence. However, there is a tendency among "Unionists" (I'll come to grips with that term later) to be selective about their arguments, and apply them only to Scotland.
On the basis of your argument, the UK is not "independent", Eire is not "independent", Latvia is not "independent", France is not "independent", etc. The SNP's definition is simply to have the same degree of independence as other European states in the EU. ie to voluntarily pool such parts of its sovereignty with others as it and they deem appropriate - the "shorthand" for that is Independence in Europe.
It's difficult to find a collective noun for those who wish to retain the Treaty of Union, and it has a long history of proud and non-pejorative use by the Liberal Unionists and the Scottish Unionists (later the Scottish Conservative and Unionist Party - later still the Conservative Party). Now if you share that aspect of their policy then the application of that existing term to the likes of yourselves is appropriate. You may prefer the alternative "British Nationalist".
Complain about this comment
Jam804:
From using your definition on Independence I could claim that the UK and other EU states are not Independent for relying on Russian energy.
Complain about this comment
#353 The_Forfarian
I think you may just possibly be right on this and am confident that on all matters that will have to be the subject of negotiation or arbitration a mutually satisfactory and practical accommodation can be arrived at, as it will be in the interests of both parties to see that that happens.
#358
I think that probably remains a moot point. Whichever the case is, I think the question of whether Scotland should proceed after independence as a member of the EU in its own right has to be one for the electorate of independent Scotland in a referendum even though we might find that we start off as a member of the EU once independence has been gained.
Complain about this comment
#358
forfarian (wrote) or (writ)
I think there would be a significant difference in attitude between a referendum on joining and one on maintaining membership (or withdrawing)
Lets hear the positive attitude first then?
Complain about this comment
#307 Anaxim
Animagus might have been a better name for you, since you morph politically so easily.
"The self is the group and the group is the self." becomes
"Blurring the lines between the individual and the nation" becomes
"Communitarian political philosophy"
You are doubtless aware that "Communitarian political philosophy aims to balance the individual liberties prized by modernity with the health of the community in which those liberties are exercised." (Selznick 2005)
So your world shattering observation is that Nationalists want to balance the liberties of the individual and the needs of the community.
You have already eschewed "identity politics", and the community as a meaningful concept within your political philosophy. So it would appear that you do not wish any balance to the liberties of the individual. On that basis you are no Lib-Dem but a libertarian.
On the other hand, you may have simply indulged in a quick political sneer in your original post, and not have the courage to admit it.
Of course, both hypotheses may be true.
Complain about this comment
#361
I take your point. And, your taking mine too. The issue is who controls what. What real independence would Scotland have? What would be best in the interest of the Scottish people? That is the question.
Scotland's oil is in the hands of transnational oil companies who care little for Scotland or its' people. The Scottish based financial companies are in reality controlled outwith Scotland. and even Whisky is largely owned by foreign interests. An independent Scottish government would have little real influence over the core economic areas that impact on the lives of our people unless it had a particular perspective that challenged the current economic realties. Even then it would be very difficult.
I am opposed to Britain's involvement in wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, I am opposed to nuclear weapons, - if an independent Scotland was able to remove them and withdraw from NATO then that would be a worthwhile aspiration. But is that enough to justify breaking up the British Labour and TU movement that fought and won our NHS and welfare system? Not for me it isn't.
Complain about this comment
#306
Are you trying too dictate the diction?
I believe its clear, that I have made the point that labour should embrace all the snp's policies.
So far the argument on oil, LIT and Independence,do not fall in favour of the snp according to YOU. GOV. POLLS.
Complain about this comment
malcolmw2@186,
Another good post, I've been trying to get the same answers as you have for months. Result - nothing.
Best Wishes,
William1957
Complain about this comment
At least a National newspaper has come out with a report admitting that most Scots will benefit from LIT - today's Sunday Express which formerly opposed LIT has admitted that the majority of Scots will benefit:
"SNP LOCAL TAX IS GOOD NEWS
Sunday September 7,2008
By Ben Borland
SCOTTISH Sunday Express readers could be as much as £670 a year better off under a local income tax, according to calculations released by the First Minister yesterday.
Government experts were responding to claims their flagship tax proposals, launched at Holyrood last week, will hit the middle classes the hardest.
According to our own internal data, the average Sunday Express-reading family in employment earns a total of £32,507.
Using the First Minister?s 3p tax system ? with the first £6,035 per person tax-free ? it would mean paying no more than £613 in local income tax, compared to the £1,149 per year in a typical Band D house.
Overall, the average reader earns £14,703 per year which works out at just £260 per year in local income tax, although this figure includes pensioners and students who would pay nothing in any case under the SNP?s plans.
It would mean, for example, a single person earning £14,703 and living on their own in a Band D house, is £601.71 better off under the local income tax scheme.
Complain about this comment
#361
I second your motion
Complain about this comment
#365
Jam804.
"What real independence would Scotland have?"
Scotland would be able to govern how she wants instead how Westminister wants. Nuclear for example is an area of tension that Westminister really has control of. We need a Government that wants to work for Scotland rather then Scotland plus three other countries...
A Federal soltuion would be an improvement but if Scotland wanted to lower coperate tax or join the Euro then we should have that flexibility.
"Scotland's oil is in the hands of transnational oil companies who care little for Scotland or its' people."
True but the Government plays a large role aswell. Scotland could only benefit from having a Government which could be held accountable. If Scottish MP's were to take on Westminister we would be outvoted but at Edinburgh there is no where for MSP's to hide. We would get them at the next elections.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#342 Brigadier
Not much chance for Labour then.The "90 minute nationalist" phrase was Jim Sillars.
However, on the football theme, the continuing collapse of Labour is described by Ed Balls as
Complain about this comment
So Gordon Brown could, arguably, tell the good and sensible people of England that he had cut the grant to Scotland.
Depending on the equalisation formula which replaced Barnett, it might also be the case that the overall funding available to Scotland would indeed be cut.
It is scarcely likely to be increased, given disquiet in England.
So, the strategy for Gordon Brown to increase his appeal to the majority of Scots is to introuce a new fiscal system where the funding to Scotland reduces. Thereby driving even more voters towards the logical conclusion of these issues.....Independence.
Complain about this comment
#373, cruachanx
Maybe Gordon Brown is thinking about the future and the world in which he would like his children to grow up.
Putting aside party loyalties, a proud Scot would surely want his children to know what he has yet to experience - a free Scotland.
And the Labour Westminster contingent seems determined to create the ideal conditions to foster and nurture the independence movement.
Complain about this comment
#372 old nat: Thanks for the correction. I wasn't sure. Now Jim Sillars - a name to conjure with for the Nats, and Labour, and Independent Labour, and indeed Jim Sillars! I once heard him address a public meeting in the street behind Glasgow City Chambers. He was Labour then, and quite entrancing in his presentation. Everyone in Labour expected him to be next Scottish Secretary.
Sadly, Jim's politics were too pure, too visionary, to be tainted with the inconvenience of mere parties, and their damnable machines and rules.
Why can't we harness people like that, or give them a free, unconstrained role? A political Baxter or Gascoigne, to continue with football?
#368 Sheneval: Did the Sunday Express say what charges would be added to other services to make up the 33% shortfall (best guesstimate) between Council Tax and LIT?
Complain about this comment
Political parties in government often find it difficult to maintain support through out a full term, giving that everyone will accept that as the said position.Do the snp voters believe that the party should bring forward a referendum on Independence.
Complain about this comment
#372
Especially if the ship is holed below the waterline.
I listened to Margo this morning on the radio its a pity that all politicians didn't show the same integrity.
Been trying to come to terms with "Britishness" as Britain is a geographical term would someone who lived on the outer isles be "Outlandish"!
Complain about this comment
#374 forfarian
A free - Scotland
Would a free-scotland be more liberal in the sense of freedom (independence) or would it feel a need to control its new found freedom more conservatively (a smaller government and less legislation)
Complain about this comment
Just a thought. Is Dick Whit an SNP plant? I mean is he here to put forward weak, to be kind, arguments for the Union so that the Nat posters can shoot him down in flames? The message would be: Look how stupid the Unionists are.
Someone also let slip that English blogs were being bombarded with "red rag" jibes to whip up anti-Scottish feeling, as a kind of insurance that the English will throw us out of the Union even if we don't vote to leave.
Mmmmm. Might work. But such tactics do indicate a certain lack of confidence in the political arguments.
Complain about this comment
@364
I know what the communitarians say, and I disagree with them. The communitarian approach to individual rights is usually to turn them into another tradition to be imparted to the young. I don't consider this to be sufficient. For one thing, it's likely to be jostled aside by older traditions. For another, like any tradition, it will become staler over time, losing vitality, until it is an empty dogma, liable to be hurled aside.
The other problem is that in practice, individual liberty is often ignored. The communitarians' hearts aren't really in it. As I said, the suspicion is that it's really all about the group. That is my view on Scottish nationalists.
As I've said, I could support Scottish independence if it looked like the UK was irrevocably broken. But the SNP give every indication of being New Labour squared, aiming to turn Scotland into one of the most centralised societies in the world.
Neither does the SNP's utterly illiberal and mistargeted alcohol legislation bode well for their commitment to individual rights.
Eschewing identity politics does not entail eschewing identity. It just means that the power of the state should not be directed towards promoting identities. It's similar to secularism. Once upon a time it was inconceivable that the state could function without promoting a certain religion.
There's nothing wrong with community, especially the local community, which should be given as much power as possible, as a check on the power of the executive, to encourage democratic participation and efficient service provision. Communities can be robust and rational; they don't need to be plastered with tradition and myths to make them work, like identity politicians seem to believe.
Complain about this comment
#379: It appears I am not allowed to ask if a particular poster might be an SNP plant, set up to look stupid prior to being shot down in flames.
Complain about this comment
#375 Brigadier
Nice to read that you are impartial to your football, like those who understand the game,its not about the nationality of the player, its about the players ability.
Slim Jim, I remember when he took Allan Ball to the cleaners at the 1967 international game at wembely.
Complain about this comment
375
No - I don't think the Scottish Government has advised what, if any, other charges will be levied, but then you probably know that.
In any case as I suspect you know the Government anticpates that along with the cash allocation which currently comes from Westminster, (this is now supported by top labour and tory politicians although not for LIT just for their own schemes but the principle remains the same ), they will make further efficiency savings which will provide the balance.
I think most people accept that there are savings to be made in Council jobs when they read about all the extremely well paid politically correct nonsense jobs that currently exist.
The Sunday Express has merely moved from being 100% opposed to LIT to acknowledging the fact that the vast majority of us will be better off - this is a major step forward in that the newspaper is accepting the facts rather than distorting them as all the National newspapers have been doing up to now.
Complain about this comment
#381 Brigadier
It probably depends on what kind of plant you thought Dick might be - several vegetables spring to mind as analogous!
I think the reality is that there are stupid Unionists - just as there are stupid Nationalists, and stupid people within every political grouping.
Complain about this comment
#382 derekbarker: Not entirely impartial, but certainly in terms of nationality. You'd think a nation with our pride (in the good sense) could produce a successor to Dalglish, the last "world class" Scot. I saw Baxter's first game at Ibrox. He wore the No.10 shirt. Billy Stevenson, the regular left half (left midfield, kids) was transferred to Liverpool. Ask any older Kop fan how great he was. Can't have two good players in the team, eh?
But I'm not for a GB team, even if we never again qualify for a World Cup, which seems likely.
Complain about this comment
Brigadier, I believe you give a fair assessment of the proposed LIT, I'm sure you understand that the last politicians to create such a fundemental shift in taxation was thatcher (poll tax)I hope you give the same fair assumption to all post, so far when the snp support is challenged on their flagship proposal, they seem to duck and spin their wayout, rather than give strong solid and sensibile support.
Would you agree with the assessment..
Complain about this comment
#383 Sheneval: A fair enough reply. But I'd be very suspicious of "efficiency" savings. You have to understand, however, that "better off" in tax terms does not equate to "better off" in terms of overall living costs.
The SNP is doing nothing to discourage the notion, prevalent among ordinary people, as opposed to bloggers and political students, that there is somehow "free money" going to be flowing from LIT packages or oil, or both.
They would do well to start now on dampening these expectations, or they can expect a nasty backlash when Brigadoon fails to materialise.
Complain about this comment
#385 Brigadier
Some fine names Henderson, Johnstone and so on, I believe your right about the current team in terms of world class players.
Out of curiousity, where you at Ibrox when the sad disaster happened.
Complain about this comment
#384 oldnat: Stupidity is everywhere, of course. But I'm not convinced about you-know-who. When you consider that some Nats admit to bombarding English blogs with material designed to anger them, it can only be to ensure that if we don't vote ourselves out of the Union, we'll get kicked out. A mere "plant" or two would be small beer to people so worried about losing the arguments.
Anyway, I have no plans to join the night shift regulars, so I'm off.
Complain about this comment
#388 derekbarker: Just caught you as I was logging off. I was working for the Sunday Express on a casual shift that day. When word came in of a problem, I phoned Govan police and was told: It looks bad - I believe two people have died......"
Next day, it was my grim duty to knock the doors of 17 of the victims in the Glasgow area.
Complain about this comment
#390
I tip my hat to you sir, I 'm not sure what else to say other than Wow! in a saddened manner of couse.....
Complain about this comment
#380 Animagus
Even the Lib-Dems can fall into the trap of using inappropriate language!"As I said, the suspicion is that it's really all about the group. That is my view on Scottish nationalists."
So that's what it comes down to - as a member of the Lib-Dems you are "suspicious" about the beliefs of those who hold a political idea different from your own.
You present no evidence from any source to support your stance.
Additionally, it is rather illiberal for you to allocate a particular gestalt to all Nationalists, regardless of whether they are in the SNP, any other pro-Independence party, or no party at all.
Obviously, I am a Scottish Nationalist. I share some of the SNP's views, but not all. For you to categorise my thinking as being "dominated by the group", I suspect, stems from a rather arrogant self-centred gestalt, in which you are pleased to see yourself as prioritising the individual, while denying any such views to those outside your increasingly narrow political grouping.
I think the proposed restriction on under 21's buying alcohol from off-licences is unworkable, but not necessarily any more illiberal than denying that right to 17 year olds. These are not philosophical, but practical decisions.
You will know that many of the limitations on alcohol sales were put in place by the strong prohibitionist strand within the Liberal Party.
You said "Eschewing identity politics does not entail eschewing identity. It just means that the power of the state should not be directed towards promoting identities."
I agree with you on this as far as the UK is concerned, but cannot think of a single state in the world where this is the case. For example, if you look at Brown on "Britishness", Thatcher's rejection of the history curriculum in England because it did not sufficiently promote "Britishness", or even Nick Clegg's language on energy policy
Different polities have different needs, and it is difficult to see how the USA could have become a single nation without "promoting identity". The British state did exactly the same in promoting the teaching of English and Imperial History within Scotland and other educational jurisdictions of the UK.
So to revert to the original point, you make a blanket statement demonising your opponents. Not worthy of you.
Complain about this comment
#351 The_Forfarian
"South Britain"?......or "Lesser Britain" perhaps.
Complain about this comment
Just so that we don't become too self obsessed with Scotland in the UK, remember that the crisis in Belgium has intensified, and that they are again without a Federal Government.
Long before Scotland becomes independent, the EU is going to have to deal with a member country separating into its component parts. All sides in the debate over Scottish Independence should keep a close eye on the Belgian crisis, as its solution may well influence the settlement we make within the UK.
Complain about this comment
I suspect Brian will either
1. start a new thread on Scottish Broadcasting
2. want to, but realise that he might lose the income that funds his Tannadice season ticket.
For either of these scenarios, it's worth while having a look at Ian McWhirter's article in tomorrow's Herald Gives us time to get our arguments sharpened!
Complain about this comment
Giving the current uncertainties in this world (n.korea, middle east, africa, far east) would anybody agree that foriegn policy has a large part to play, in so much as the direction of future flash points or unless someone takes a leading role (productively) the chances are, that there will never be such a thing as world peace.(i'm not promoting imperialism,although history is something we can all learn from, if anything i think i'm promoting a more just world of parity)
Complain about this comment
#394
A very sound piece of advice oldnat, however, do you refer to any future settlement as an Independent (scotland) rather than the UK?
Complain about this comment
#395 oldnat
MacWhirter writes: "Labour MPs say Alex Salmond will start writing the BBC Scotland news bulletins if Holyrood gets control, but this is just scaremongering."
Well, at least that will save Labour MPs the bother of having to write them themselves, which is obviously what we've been getting here recently.
Congratulations to Andy Murray on reaching the final of the US Open. We've been listening to people from a certain part of the country telling us for four years that "Murray will never beat Nadal." Now they will retreat to "Murray will never win a Grand Slam".
The words of these people have an eerie ring to those who spend every day on here telling us why Scotland is "too small, too poor, too weak" to stand on its own two feet. We all look forward to the day when they have to eat those words as well.
Complain about this comment
# 395 oldnat
I wouldn't be surprised if BBC Scotland doesn't report a word of Salmond's call for a new Scottish television channel (today's Sunday Herald). My bet is that they'll just ignore it as if it didn't exist. I'll let you know.
Complain about this comment
Another interesting first for Labour but where did they get the idea from.
No thought is original obviously.
Complain about this comment
#398 bighullabaloo
BBC Sport is claiming Britains Andy Murray beat Nadal although I will say they say the Big Scot later on but Iassume if he was English Britain would not have been mentioned.
Complain about this comment
#398 bighullabaloo
Again you choose the devious approach, from what I can remember of this years wimbledon Mr Murray received great support from the whole country, why do you persist in your devisional manner????
Complain about this comment
#400 Jake
But can you imagine the horror on the faces of the Cabinet, when they were told they had to travel as far north as ....... Birmingham!
Complain about this comment
#403 oldnat
Will they want a nice crash pad with large lcd tv in Birmingham as well as London or wherever else they may venture ?
Their expenses will double now.
Complain about this comment
#402.
Murray got the country's support until he lost then he became Scottish again.
Complain about this comment
#402
Yes, I find the "devious approach" much better than the completely barking mad approach you use.
Complain about this comment
#401 Jake
I do enjoy it when Murray wins because you can actually hear BBC commentators spitting it out through gritted teeth, quickly followed by a 10 minute discussion of what a terrible "chip on his shoulder" the lad has, and a wistful sigh about how no matter what Murray wins, it just isn't the same as when darling Tim was playing.
About the only thing you don't get is a reminder that England won the World Cup in 1966, although I couldn't feel sure they won't work it in somehow one of these days.
Unfortunately for them Murray, decked out in his saltires and logos for Scottish companies, is the living embodiment of everything that makes the Scots what we are and what we have always been. I hope he never loses that fierce determination because it symbolises the true character of this nation.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
No Brian, Gordon Brown is not saying No to Scottish Independance. Thats because he has absolutely no authority to say so. That is a decision that belongs entirely to the Scottish Nation, who will do what is good for their homeland and the generations of Scots yet to come.
You certainly made every effort to fatten up your blether and try insinuate that you had some sort of inside track into what someone else would say.
Why exactly was the interview you had with Alistair Darling not on the Scottish BBC homepage. Methinks you and your ilk are operating a censorship of info that you deem will incite us poor wee Scottish Children who need Brits to make decisions for us.
Shame on you Brian, your laddie is through his University now, and Im sure you have enough for your old age. No need for you to sell out your heritage and more importantly your fellow Scots. Yes Brian you may not like it but you are actually SCOTTISH not British, and if the landed gentry hadnt broken the Scottish Constitution, which makes the Scottish People the Sovereign Power, you would have grown up in a better Scotland that we intend to create for our bairns and present and future generations.
Scotland the Brave.
Complain about this comment
Glasgow Herald Report on the YouGov poll
David Cameron's tax plan for 'hard working Britons'Even wee Cathy's a Tory now!
Complain about this comment
LIT getting closer perhaps??
All those against better vote Labour or for Auld Annie next time round as Wee Eck gains support.
Complain about this comment
365
Scotland's government initially as regards the oil reserves would take benefit in exactly the same way the UK government takes benefit from these.
The UK takes huge tax from the huge sums the oil companies are realising on the oil they extract and takes rent from the areas of territorial waters they have leased to these companies.
Clever Norway took a controlling share in all the oil companies it allowed in to their sector so they are taking much more and of course they have invested in a Fund for Future generations by steadily putting aside for years some of their revenues from oil.
This Norwegian Fund now stands at over £200,000,000,000 (£200billion)which is realising in excess of £220 million every week in interest which Norway will have for ever more.
Do the Scots actually qualify as the stupidist nation on earth?
Complain about this comment
Local Income Tax now looks like a possibility. Lib Dems, Greens, Margo might create a compromise to satisfy all their perspectives. Interesting times!
Complain about this comment
402
I well remember Andy Murray getting pelters in the Daily Mirror as Wimbledon started and lots of letters in that paper saying they weren't supporting Murray because he didn't support the English football team so your memory is a bit faulty. They only started supporting Murray after that great fightback and still a lot of them didn't support him. Quite frankly, now that Murray has cracked America, he doesn't need grudged English support so he should just tell them to stick it.
Anyway what has this got to do with a serious topic?
Complain about this comment
#401 Jake
Before I find all the Unionists leaping to the defence of their BBC pals let me provide proof of what I've said.
Just SIX sentences into the BBC's report on Murray's win we get this wistful lament about the sun setting on the glory days of the British Empire: "It brought back memories of Murray's predecessor as British number one, Tim Henman, who famously lost a Wimbledon semi-final to Goran Ivanisevic in 2001 when rain seemingly stopped the home favourite in his tracks."
What on earth this has got to do with Murray's moment of triumph is anybody's guess! But the EBC just can't stop themselves. I suppose it will go on like this until Salmond gets us our own broadcasting company.
Complain about this comment
#414 sneckedagain
No need to go as far as the Daily Mirror to read about the lack of "support" Murray was getting at Wimbledon (prior to the Gasquet fightback when suddenly he was "granted" honourary Englishman status). It was available right here on your impeccably impartial EBC:
"Cool on Britannia" by Sarah Holt
"When Henmania whimpered its final "Come on Tim" last year did it sound the death knell for patriotic fever at Wimbledon?"
My apologies to derekbarking for yet agin using the "devious approach" of providing irrefutable evidence for what I've said.
Complain about this comment
#415 bighullabaloo
Tim who?
Can't say I recognize the name.
Murray does not need to emulate any English tennis players as he is a Scot and if he wins he will be the first Scotsman to win a Grand Slam match for which he should be justly proud.
Complain about this comment
#415
The British (who don't know who they are) are as obsessed by using sport to demonstarte their national virility as the Scots were in the '70s (before we grew up as a nation). Of course the BBC have been chastised so strongly for their English bias that they need to throw in a few Scots references.bighullaballoo
Had a look at the BBC report you quoted and saw this
But why do they bother? This wasn't a victory for "Britain" or "Scotland". This was Andy Murray's victory as an individual.
Also they talk about "the Spaniard" - Nadal was wasn't playing for Spain!
Sad little people these sports journos.
Complain about this comment
#416
I ask for no quater given, I dont hold you to provide any evidence,I simply imply that you do the sportsman and your-self no favours by reacting to gestures of a political nature on sporting issues.
Complain about this comment
If an alliance is formed between the snp the lib/dem, the greens and margo, on the proposed LIT, then I would concede this is very different in terms of political manouvers, although under the devolution settlement Scotland had the varied power of the 3p tax situation, the fact that a national tax like the council tax will be abolished and replaced by LIT, would most certainly be a step much much closer to fiscal control, it does have very serious implication for the UK and the EU.
Interesting times ahead.
Complain about this comment
There appears to be some terrible pontificating going on in the responses to this blog, which is somewhat wearisome for the occasional reader.
The same 'dirty dozen' names crop up with monotonous regularity, repeating their points - or insults - ad nauseum, until the replies bear no relation to the original blog.
There certainly appear to be 7 or 8 die hards Nats who are quite content to do nothing but peddle nationalism. (The SNP advance brigade? - I don't know, but it reads like it!) and 4 or 5 unionists who seem to be in a similar situation (Labour's last stand perhaps?)
However by constantly fighting, berating, and belittling each others contributions, they make it very difficult for any neutral or interested party to get a word in edgeways!
Complain about this comment
Derek.
#420.
"...it does have very serious implication for the UK and the EU."
Why?
Donstim:
Just throw yourself in and hope for the best.
Complain about this comment
#421: You are right. Same names, same arguments. In fact one wonders how they find the time.
Complain about this comment
#418 oldnat
If you think Andy Murray doesn't see it as a victory for himself and Scotland then you don't know very much about Andy Murray. Of course, he's not allowed to come out and actually say he's proud of winning for Scotland, because it causes a lot of "disquiet in England" and we all know what a "no no" that is.
In any case, even if you dispute that Andy Murray is proud of winning for Scotland, my point is that he embodies the true character of the people of this nation. Given the way things are going these days I imagine it won't be long before they'll be trying to tell us we can't say that either. But I'm afraid they'll have to lump it because it's true whether they like it or not.
Complain about this comment
Just had a ride in a London taxi and a conversation with a London Taxi driver who recognised I was a Scot.A summary of the conversation :1 Why is Brown an MP down here when he has his own parliament in Scotland ( a lack of understanding but a presumption that independence was already in place)2 His mother-in -law had moved to Scotland and was receiving much more care and support than she would have down here (London). We are all British so why do you (the Scots) get more than we do.( A recognition that independence wasn't in place)3 Raising the prospect of independence proper (not sure if the concept was understood) the response was that independence would relieve us (the English) and couldn't come quick enough.4 On the economy Brown heavily criticised for fuel price increase ( he runs a taxi after all) and the criticism was its our oil, we have more oil than we need, why do we have to pay high prices for our own oil.Conclusions:If this taxi driver is typical thena) The English will welcome independence from Scotlandb) The arguement will be--as always--who owns the revenues from oil
Complain about this comment
#425.
The real question is not who owns the oil from the north sea. The real question is who owns which part of the sea that happens to have oil in the area.
Complain about this comment
The question, Thomas Porter et al, is *not* who owns either the sea or the oil, since it is clear that both are either in UK territorial waters or outside. Scotland is not (yet) a nation that can stake a territorial claim at the UN - however much the nats may wish it. It can have a go, of course, but then again so could the Isle of Wight...with about as much chance of success.
If you are saying "once we gain independence, and the UK conveniently dissolves, it's our oil", that's also to expect too much: others might have a claim, the UN may decide - as it has with Biscay - that there are a number of claimants, or any number of other things may happen.
But Scottish nationalism is just that isn't it? Dreams built upon dreams to convince yourselves of your own case.
Complain about this comment
#427
Gee, woundedpride.
Talk about "Light blue touchpaper and retire".
Complain about this comment
#427 Woundedpride
"But Scottish nationalism is just that isn't it? Dreams built upon dreams to convince yourselves of your own case."
You mean my whole fallacy is wrong? (as Marshall McLuhan put it) If there is any wishful thinking involved, it is unquestionably on