Anger management
Sir Fred Goodwin has been requested to give up at least part of his £650,000 annual pension entitlement.
The former boss of RBS is, we are told, "thinking about it".
At Holyrood, politicians suggested he might accelerate his thought process somewhat.
The party leaders were united in condemning the deal. (Annabel Goldie pursued a tack of her own with regard to VAT which need not detain us here.)
Tavish Scott of the LibDems was splendidly vituperative. He said that Sir Fred's package was 140 times the size of the state pension.
Iain Gray was agin it, as was the first minister.
However, at that point, unity evaporated. For Labour, Mr Gray attempted to pin the blame for the deal on Sir George Mathewson, formerly of RBS, now chairing the FM's team of economic advisers.
'Misfired attack'
Actually, he said that he was not out to undermine Sir George's reputation - then proceeded to attempt just that.
For this observer, the attack rather misfired. Not least because Mr Salmond ably deflected it by highlighting the role played by the UK (Labour) Government in respect of RBS, including the departure of Sir Fred.
Mr Salmond relied upon a comment from the present RBS boss Stephen Hester to the effect that the UK Government played a role in the arrangements covering Sir Fred's exit.
Chancellor Alistair Darling offers a different view. He says ministers had thought, in October when they intervened in the bank, that the deal for Sir Fred was legally binding.
They learned last week that elements of it might have been discretionary upon the bank.
Should they not, sceptical MPs are now asking, have inquired a little more closely at the time?
Notable exasperation
We are told that both RBS and UK Financial Investments, which manages the UK Government's shareholding, are trying to claw back some of the cash from the departed chief executive.
At RBS, meanwhile, one detects a notable exasperation with the media focus upon Sir Fred. Mr Hester, understandably, wants to focus on the bank's future.
We in Scotland - and taxpayers throughout the UK - must hope that he is successful in his efforts to revive RBS.
However, sometimes the ventilation of public anger is entirely justified. This is one such case.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian,
Having just watched a recording of the live show, the above is fair comment.
More interesting would be insider news on NuLab's "cuts" plans following Duff Gordon's meeting with the 3 FMs. No juicy tidbits to throw us?
Complain about this comment
He should give up the lot.... He did NOT earn it. Full stop!
Complain about this comment
If Sir Fred Goodwin is legally entitled to such a large pension, then he SHOULD take it - in full.
It will then be a matter for him [and not politicians or even his former employers] to determine whether it is appropriate to retain the full amount for the benefit of himself (and his family) or to give some part thereof to charity, or to use it to fund other good works.
The matter of the pension cannot be taken in isolation; it is part of the total remuneration package agreed when Sir Fred took on the demanding role of Group Chief Executive of RBS.
I have no doubt that the RBS board - like everyone else in the world pre-credit crunch - expected bank revenues and profits to continue to rise and so saw this as a means of proffering a lower salary [although all such terms are relative] today with a pension entitlement in the future (the latter to be funded by the increased revenue stream at that later date).
To hear politicians - especially MPs - bleating about this matter, when their own pension arrangements are grotesque to the average taxpayer, is laughable hypocrisy.
After all, whilst on the individual level, Sir Fred's pension seems a tad excessive, if he was to forego part (or even all) of it, it would be a drop in the ocean incapable of causing even the faintest ripple...
Complain about this comment
I'm not out to undermine Iain Gray's reputation but I think he's ( the following was deleted for reasons of taste).
Why all the Labour huffing and puffing about Fred the Shred. I understood Labour were "intensely relaxed " about people getting filthy rich.
Don't tell me they're socialists now?
Complain about this comment
Poor Iain Gray - sad to see an unarmed man engaged in a battle of wits.
Complain about this comment
I'm getting a bit exasperated by the way in which politicians (though it has to be said, Labour politicians in particular) are making EVERYTHING into party political issues.
This is a good example - who, how, why did some Labour strategist think it was a good idea to try to make Fred Goodwin's pension a stick with which to beat the SNP Scottish Government, via George Matthewson? Do they think the electorate is completely stupid?
Worst of all in this is Jim Murphy, who takes every opportunity to say what a believer he is in collaborative politics, before launching into his latest Nat-bashing rant. He spent 10 mins on BBC Radio yesterday talking about the benefits of consensus politics, but still managed to ensure he got in all his favourite phrases of the moment: 'parochial'; 'iceland'; 'arc of prosperity';... you get the picture.
Anyone who is enough of an anorak to watch Scottish Questions at Westminster will know just how hollow Mr Murphy's claims to be a man of consensus are - I have rarely seen a more embarrassing showcase of everything that's wrong with Scottish politics than the behaviour of Labour MPs in that particular forum.
Is it any wonder why people remain cynical about politicians?
Complain about this comment
Not often that I agree with George Osborne, but his comment in the latest [15:36] version of this website's Darling faces RBS pension anger, that Darling's "excuse" that he did not know what was happening "pathetic" is hard to improve on without resort to expletives: "Darling 'thought' [oxymoron?] 50-year-old Sir Fred's early retirement deal was 'an unavoidable legal commitment'!!!!
Is there no stone NuLab will leave unturned?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#157 previous post greenockboy
I like the post! It shows that at least you read other posts before commenting.
On this topic - we need a major clearout of senior execs who were involved in the decision making at RBS.
I thought they had risk managers!
Please clarify my simple economic knowledge - if all the creditors called in these "toxic" loans backed by the taxpayer, what would happen?
Complain about this comment
The anger just shouldn't just be about Goodwin's pension. We should also be asking what real benefit this alledgedly Scottish bank was to Scotland.
It has always struck me as entirely bizarre that we had an immensely profitable bank in RBS and another in the BoS yet our industry was in constant decline with immense difficulties in raising startup and growth funding.
The fact is that the priorities of RBS and BoS were wrong. They should have been working to benefit their country not their own pockets.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7912656.stm
Was this Prestwick?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Think you need to do a piece on the approach of the 'greyteacherman' at FMQ's today. Just what was he trying to achieve inviting the FM to attack SGM??!! The 'greyteacherman' has already demonstrated considerable incompetence in his new role but this was a 'do-lally'. He played straight into the hands of the FM who took full advantage.
The pension issue with 'FredtheShred' may well provoke righteous anger from every outsider but this was private reward with a private company when it was making huge profits. That does not justify the seize of the pension pot, of course, but no taxpayers funds went towards that.
You really need to be even handed about all the criticism of bank execs getting whopping rewards when there are so many stories of our elected reps at Westminster not just having their snouts in the trough, but having 'larger troughs built to accommodate the size of their snouts'.
How about a wee story on a Lanarksire MP being able to afford £800k on a London hoose?? How about a story about a former Scottish Tory MP now a Lord, being able to claim for a third hoose when he's reckoned to be worth £27 million (both recent press stories). Pots and kettles come to mind here!!
It seems that, be it private or public practice, the rule is get your nose in the trough for as much as you can for as long as you can!!
But a wee bit of balance would still be welcome, Brian!.
Complain about this comment
So we have yet another Gray "own goal", as the Daily Torygraph's principal nat basher described the Labour group leader's wholly unconvincing attempt at today's FMQs to link the SNP to the RBS pension scandal by way of its association with Sir George Mathewson, who, in fact, has nothing to do with the Goodwin pension deal.
It is worth putting the whole banking farrago into some kind of context, remembering not least that the Scottish Government, by virtue of the limited nature of its current powers, has, of course, no responsibility whatsoever for it, responsibility for regulation of the financial-services sector lying, as we are well aware, entirely with the UK government, which Mr Gray's party has been in charge of since 1997, as the First Minister did not neglect to mention today, as was to be expected . . . by everyone except Mr Gray, apparently.
Sometimes putting things into context can involve pertinent comparisons that are hardly ever resorted to in the anglophone world, as I may previously have had occasion to mention or at least imply. Now, where is there another territory which has an independentist political party operating within a constitutional framework which affords a degree of self-government to that territory, in which the main political story of this very day involves a banking scandal of gigantic proportions, which both sheds light on the extent to which that territory currently enjoys more self-government than does Scotland and on the likely electoral prospects for its independentist party, with conceivable implications in due course for autonomist movements elsewhere, although I perceive that BT makes no mention of it? Here is a small clue: "Vive le Quebec! Vive le Quebec libre!"
I am referring to the story concerning the CDPQ (the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec), the most important savings bank in the province, to which the provincial government actually appoints directors and to which, controversially even at the time, the current provincial government appointed a director who is allegedly deeply implicated in the bank's current problems, which, as a result of its over-exposure to risk, are threatening to affect savers and pensioners, all of whose interests the governing Liberal Party declared to be quite safe during the most recent provincial election campaign, which converted its minority government into a majority one. The first paragraph of a Cyberpresse.ca report sums up succinctly what is involved here:
"Billions of dollars in losses [39.8 billion], but no one is taking responsibility for them. The Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec revealed catastrophic results on Wednesday. The [Liberal] prime minister [of Quebec], Jean Charest, and the finance minister [of Quebec], Monique Jerome-Forget, have refused to take any blame. They have also rejected the idea of testifying before a special parliamentary commission, a move which has attracted the condemnation of the opposition parties."
Contrast this with the Scottish First Minister's unfailing readiness and indeed eagerness to testify before any Scottish parliamentary committee that should happen to express an interest in hearing from him. But maybe that is only because Mr Salmond has nothing to hide.
As for Prime Minister Charest, despite his protests and that of his now distinctly depressed-looking finance minister, the people of Quebec are taking a very dim view of his refusal to accept any form of criticism or blame. An opinion poll conducted yesterday evening shows that they hold him directly responsible for the immense hole in the finances of the CDPQ, which they apparently regard proprietorially as a sort of communal nest egg. In fact, the provincial government's insistence that it has nothing to do with the alleged maladministration of the bank is failing to convince the public to such an extent that nearly 90 per cent of Quebeckers declare that that government should assume some responsibility for "this fiasco". More than half of those consulted in the poll judge that the Charest government has a substantial degree of responsibility for what has happened.
What may we deduce from all of the foregoing that could possibly have a bearing on today's events at FMQs in the Scottish Parliament? We may safely conclude that the Parti Quebecois, which advocates independence for Quebec, is having considerably more success in associating the Liberal provincial government with banking fiascos, farragos and fandangos than the laboriously plodding Mr Gray is having in landing a similar punch on Mr Salmond, whose capacity to run rings around Scottish Labour appears to be undiminished with the passage of time. Meanwhile, the Labour Party's poll ratings continue to plummet as if to indicate that the electorate is taking the view that the political party that can justly be held responsible to some extent, at least, for the banking crisis in the UK is the Labour Party, whose attitude towards "light touch" Financial Services Authority regulation during the crucial period is becoming increasingly widely understood.
What may we deduce from the story about the CDPQ so far as the electoral prospects of the PQ and so far as the prospects for Quebec independence are concerned? The least that one can say is that the PQ has reason to be optimistic about its prospects in the present economic climate. If the Scottish National Party is paying attention to these developments, it should be encouraged, I venture to suggest, by what it may discover in so doing.
Complain about this comment
It seems they are all at it bankers with pensions MPs with expensives Darling renting houses Brown although nothing about money breaking code,when is it all going to stop.
Complain about this comment
"The former boss of RBS is, we are told, "thinking about it".
That Goodwin even has a choice to "think about it" is the nub of the whole stinking, rotten, corrupt problem.
For certain people in this country it seems breathtaking failure on a scale never before seen is rewarded with breathtaking rewards on an unimaginable level.
Time for the revolution.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Have you not got a wee bit ahead of yourself here??
Where is your comment on yesterday's famous meeting between Pa Broon and, as it happened, not just with the Eckmeister, but with the 'FM's' of Wales and NI as well.
Just for the record, Pa Broon's wee elves had got their story on the web pages of the Torygraph by 8 p.m.last night but, so far, there's been nary a report on the Beebsite offering such elucidation as the moles from the Torygraph obtained. Surely, within those wonderful braces you so elegantly employ there's room for a concealed receiver (or three or four!), so where's the Beeb Scotland slant on all of this??
What was most intriguing about the Torygraph report was that it said absolutely nothing of note about the planned Westminster-imposed budget cuts,but claimed instead, that the Eckmeister had refused, ON FOUR OCCASIONS, to reveal how he would repay any Scottish Govt borrowings!!
So that's the principle conceded then, Gordon, just need to tinker with minor details??
Meanwhile the 'weetimrousmurphybeastie' was being grossly over-exposed on the media and proving himself wholly irrelevant to the main game!!
Complain about this comment
"Mr Hester, understandably, wants to focus on the bank's future."
I'm sure he does, but this mess is not going to go away until we have all the answers and to that end, I'd like to see much more attention paid to the FSA interrogations which have been going on at Westminster this week. We should all be up in arms at some of the revelations.
Robert Peston appears to have been shocked by what Lord Turner said to the committee re the culpability of the politicians ie Gordon Brown and Tony Blair. There was so little interest in any sort of regulation tin fact Blair was positively anti-regulation, that it surely amounted to dereliction of duty. Are they really going to be allowed to get away with that and not be publicly held to account? And what was John McFall's (or whoever was in charge in the past few years) Treasury Select Committee doing during this time other than enjoying the largesse of the bankers and city fat cats while letting them get away with murder?
Complain about this comment
I HAD TO CHUCKLE AT THE "TOON COONCILLORS" - SORRY, HIGHLY QUALIFIED, PROFFESSIONAL AND EXPERT MSP'S AT HOLYROOD... SHOWING OUTRAGE AT GOODWINS PREMIER LEAGUE PENSION.
HOW DARE AN ORGANISATION THAT ONCE MADE MILLIONS OF PROFIT YEAR ON YEAR DECIDE AMONGST THEMSELVES TO AWARD AN ASTROPHYSICAL ANUAL PAY-OFF TO THE MAN SOME THINK RESPONSIBLE FOR "SHREDDING" OUR ECONOMY I HEAR THEM SHOUTING.
GOOD POINT - AFTER ALL, IT'S NORMALLY THE SCOTTISH PARLIAMENT'S PEROGATIVE TO SET THEIR OWN ATTRACTIVE PENSION AND SALARY TERMS, EXTENSIVE HOLIDAY PERIODS (INCLUDING ONE FOR ST.ANDREWS DAY!) ARRANGE A LUCRATIVE PROFIT KEEP FROM SECOND HOME SALES NOT TO MENTION SOME OF THE MOST GENEROUS EXPENSES PAY OUTS GOING.
NO WONDER A FORMER HEAD OF RBS WAS APPOINTED TO A FINANCIAL ADVISORY BOARD BY HOLYROOD - I,M SURE SURE HE KNOWS ALL THE TRICKS....
Complain about this comment
Anyone wanting a little light relief on a bleak day should watch Vince Cable laying into Capn. Darling on this website's Zombie banks and Zombie government.
The LibDems may be (and are) in a mess over their home rule policies, but one has to admire Cable on the economy.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#5 forfar-loon
"sad to see an unarmed man engaged in a battle of wits"
ROFL - Thank you for that.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I had thought that we had moved beyond the old socialist maxim that the only way to make everyone equal is to take away from the well-off - rather than improving the lost of all, but particularly the 'dregs of humanity' - but Iain Gray has proved me wrong.
And if ever there was an example of opposition for sake of opposition - with no regard to the merits (or even political ideology) - it has to be the ridiculous image of George Osborne denouncing Sir Fred Goodwin as a capitalist 'monster'.
Pot, kettle, black...
Complain about this comment
I had thought that we had moved beyond the old socialist maxim that the only way to make everyone equal is to take away from the well-off - rather than improving the lot of all, but particularly the 'dregs of humanity' - but Iain Gray has proved me wrong.
And if ever there was an example of opposition for sake of opposition - with no regard to the merits (or even political ideology) - it has to be the ridiculous image of George Osborne denouncing Sir Fred Goodwin as a capitalist 'monster'.
Pot, kettle, black...
Complain about this comment
Wasn't Sir Fred Mathewson one of the noble banking gentlemen who stood up a few months back to state that Scottish banks were in good shape and mergers with TSB and other rescue vehicles were an attempt to remove an independent banking sector from Scotland a.k.a. evil Unionist plot.
Now that RBS alone have racked the biggest loss in UK corporate history and taxpayers are being asked to stump up approaching a trillion pounds in guarantees I would humbly suggest that Sir Fred Mathewson would be better employed operating the barrier on the Holyrood carpark rather than advising the First Minister on economic matters. It might however explain some of the SNP's more exotic financial plans.
We have only just started to see the true depth of the hole that these worthy banking knights have led us into (all too willingly it must be said for the sake of balance). The fact that firstly some of these individuals still insist on receiving bonuses and secondly take pensions beyond the dreams of avarice just leaves me choking! My 8 year old son will be paying for this hubris into middle-age.
It will be interesting if Fred the Shreds lack of self awareness will lead him to take the money. If he does, as he is legally entitled to do so I can only hope that he is abused in the street every time he shows his face for the rest of his life. Sadly, I suspect that he and others like him will retire to secure places in the sun where they will not be recognised outside their own charmed circles.
Surely by now Alastair Darling has demonstrated that he not fit to run a whelk stall.
Complain about this comment
#9 Wee-Scamp
Trouble is that, although RBS and BoS were - and are still, at least notionally, Scottish companies, the ownership (formerly pension funds, etc., latterly HMG) is London-centric.
The extent to which the respective managements saw/see their SOLE responsibility as being to shareholder interests should not be surprising - company law essentially requires this outlook, over and above which a CEO who put something other than shareholder return as top of his priorities would not long remain in post!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#10 pattymkirkwood
"Was this Prestwick?"
One would think so. Good to apologise on a "bad news day".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Anyone who missed today's study in grey or wants a 2nd dose can now see today's FMQ on this website's FMQs at the Scottish Parliament. Historians who wish to archive it can also now download it from holyrood.tv, who seem to have the link right first time this week.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
STV, 6pm news, quoted unconfirmed sources saying Goodwin would not give up his pension voluntarily. I fear legal action would be expensive with the odds against success. We don't want several more millions down the drain.
I would rather investigate the possibility of direct court action, with The Three Amigos in the High Court dock. Suggested charges: Obtaining money under false pretences, dereliction of public duty, failure to exercise the Duty of Care for customers, and conduct likely to occasion a breach of the peace.
RBS is not my bank. I want Hornby in the dock. Failing that, just give me two minutes...
However, I agree with the poster commenting on the hypocrisy of MPs, with their own huge pensions - for nothing!
Complain about this comment
Well, it would seem that Fred the Shred is utterly unrepentant and will not be handing back any of his pension entitlement. In fact, he is reported to be rather angry.
To those trying to defend him in some way, I'd point out that his pension deal was not the standard one, it appears he was allowed to claim his full pension at age 50 on early retirement. Normally this pension would only be available to him at age 65. Furthermore, I don't believe for one minute that this deal was made in the 'good times', it seems it was made shortly before the bank's demise and presumably all those involved were in full possession of the facts at the time.
I can't tell you what I'd like to do to him or to RBS, but I will tell you what little I can do. I can withdraw a sum of money from the above mentioned bank, something over the annual salary of the average Scottish worker, but still something less than a few weeks worth of his pension.
Complain about this comment
For god sake, is the labour party trying to tell us it didn't know what Sir Fred's pension was. ?????????????????????????????????
Complain about this comment
Fred Goodwin should do the right thing and fall on his sword.
I am an RBS pensioner on a pension of £1800 per annum I worked for this formerly great institution fulltime and partime for 40 years.There are thousands of us pensioners who served Rbs loyally and trustworthy all our working lives and are ashamed to be classed in the same way as FRED.
I personally have lost £25000 through the collaspse of RBS shares.We were HOODWINKED into participating in the recent rights issue which so many people consider to have been fraudulent.
It is totally unacceptable and obscene that this man should receive a pension of£650000 per annum when he has caused so much misery to Staff pensioners ans shareholders.
I would urge Gordon Brown and his government to do all they can to review the terms of Goodwin's pension for decency's sake and to ensure that this intolerable situation should never again occur.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #12 and for the sake of accuracy, a more detailed description of the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec, with which I was not terribly familiar before this week, follows for those who may be interested.
The Caisse describes itself as one of the largest institutional fund managers in Canada and in North America, with net assets under management totalling 120.1 billion dollars as at December 31, 2008, total transactions carried out daily exceeding 8 billion dollars. It is a shareholder in over 3,000 businesses internationally and is one of the world’s 10 largest real-estate asset managers.
Its depositors, mostly Quebec public and private pension funds and insurance plans, are its clients at the Caisse. They entrust their funds to the Caisse to make profitable investments.
The depositors' objective is to maintain their capacity to pay out pension and insurance benefits to their contributors and beneficiaries.
Complain about this comment
Obscene though the sums of money involved may be, if the man financed the pension from salary, then it's his just as our more modest efforts are ours. Whether he deserves it is another matter, but to hear our politicians pontificating about it makes one wonder which of them is not milking the system and quietly building a pension pot, that few of the taxpaying public can aspire to. This is hipocracy of the highest order, overpaid, fiddling expences, and getting a whopping pension for a short spell in parliament, not to mention the various directorships and other sidelines our public servants keep to themselves.
Complain about this comment
#15 freedjmac
"Pa Broon's wee elves had got their story on the web pages of the Torygraph by 8 p.m.last night"
Thanks for the info, but the Torygraph's Gordon Brown challenges Alex Salmond to explain how he would pay back borrowing wasn't easy to find and there's still nothing visible on this website. There's a shock!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#17. homeofgolf
Might be worth reading only shouting with caps on reminds me of "Empty vessels make the most sound" next post when the mods stop counting their pay packets.
Complain about this comment
Looks like Labour's attempt at making Fred Goodwin the scapegoat for their own shortcomings might come back and bite them. Seems that Labour minister Lord Myers had agreed that if Goodwin left and waived his legal right to a years salary then that would be considered an appropriate penalty.
Minister agreed to severance deal
This comes on the heals of revelations that the FSA had been warned off of taking those banks, employing high risk strategies, to task by none other than Gordon Brown.
Tomorrow is certainly to be a day of dilemmas for the editors of Scottish papers, do they put Brown's breaking of the rules on the front page, his insistance that the FSA turn a blind eye to high risk banking or the Goodwin revelation that Brown's government asceded to Goodwins 'severance package'.
I wonder how many Labour MSP's will demand Brown stand down? Didn’t they call for Salmond to reconsider his position after he broke NO rules over Trump?
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
"Surely by now Alastair Darling has demonstrated that he not fit to run a whelk stall."
Are you not rather overestimating his abilities?
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
"Surely by now Alastair Darling has demonstrated that he not fit to run a whelk stall."
Glad we agree on something, Anglophone. I doubt there'll be many here disputing that part of your post.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
Apologies, but I find your point of view rather contrasts with mine.
To me, it doesn't matter. I don't particularly care whether these "bankers" get their money or not.
By their nature, they will (no doubt) be unscrupulous "so and so"s (choose your description of someone with a dubious personality).
- If they do get it they will be richer "so and so"s.
- If they don't, they will be poorer "so and so"s.
- Therefore regardless, they will still be "so and so"s, people of dubious personality.
You probably know the type. Workplaces are always to some degree infested with them.
My point is then that they already have their comeuppance.
Such undesirable personality types always make a mess of it in the end, and if they yet haven't, then their interim behaviour won't be making them happy. They may pretend well otherwise, but inside makes a mockery.
That is my opinion - let them get on with it. They do not need bad wishes from us to bring upon them what they already can't escape (holiday villa in the sun or no villa).
It is better to watch them roll or zoom by, happy in that knowledge (job's already done), and concentrate on ourselves.
We deserve 100% of our attention and these others aren't rightly deserving of it.
As for the financial aspect, it's done now. Vengeful bitterness in taking back as much as we can from those culpable will not achieve any difference to that, rather it would let them know we bother with them - we shouldn't.
The amounts specified aren't in any way going to make repaying our debts any.....well anything. I'm all for financial sensibility but in this case it's better to cut these losses financially and emotionally and inspect the future, as they are now part of the past.
But, perhaps I am wrong :-)
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
Oh, and...
Anglophone, I didn't mention "you know what" or go off topic!
Do I have to hand back my nat badge? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Re: my moderated #24:
According to the BBC: "the ventilation of public anger is entirely justified" but God forbid if you actually try to express it as the BBC will decide that even though it's entirely justified it's not going to see the light of day!
Complain about this comment
This website's Goodwin's letter [on Peston's blog since 17:30] make's clear that NuLab's Lord Myners [Cap. Darling's lackey] knew all about it from the outset, but I wonder if we'll see Darling apologising. Odd that there's been no riposte from the NuLab spin machine in more than two hours.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
With reference to "an attempt to remove an independent banking sector from Scotland a.k.a. evil Unionist plot", it should be noted that the large Quebec-based bank whose current newsworthiness in respect of recession-related difficulties was referred to in my #12 and my #31, cannot be "removed from" Quebec because of Quebec statutory provisions and Quebec government oversight which are designed to protect the essential interests of Quebec, its economy and its people by means of powers exercisable by its government within the framework of the existing federal constitution.
Although Scots may be said to have regarded the Scottish-based banks in an equally proprietorial way, there was, of course, no constitutional basis for this and no possibility of Scottish Government statutory protection or oversight to protect the essential interests of Scotland so far as this matter was concerned. The dichotomy between a widely shared conception of what would have been both desirable and arguably appropriate and the grim reality of what was actually possible within existing constitutional arrangements so far as what were widely perceived to be vital Scottish interests were concerned was what caused a degree of alienation and dismay, I dare say: people saw the importance of the institutions to the Scottish economy and polity but were acutely aware that no institutional protection existed to prevent them from being lost to them.
The fact that such protection did and does not exist cannot but be the responsibility of the UK government. Only the UK government could have provided the Scottish Government with powers to protect Scotland's financial and economic interests over the years in a way comparable to what is institutionally possible in Quebec, where the issue of the Quebec government's manner of discharging its responsibility for looking after such an important Quebec-based institution as the Caisse de depot et placement du Quebec is very much a major political issue, which is liable to have implications for the future constitutional development of the province, just as the inadequacy of Scottish Government powers to protect essential Scottish institutions and financial and economic interests in the face of the serious challenges posed by the recession may be expected to have implications for the constitutional development of Scotland.
In Quebec, as in France, it is assumed that essential economic interests will be protected on behalf of the people who reside within their territorial limits. Within the UK essential Scottish economic interests and cherished national insitutions do not seem to count for very much in the grand England-dominated scheme of things, in which it is, as you have demonstrated yet again, not unusual for understandable Scottish concern for Scotland's vital national interests to be disdained and misrepresented.
Complain about this comment
I see the moderation queue is back to its usual 3 hour wait.
Re the pension, I don't think anyone can legally do a thing about it. While I don't agree with it, if he is legally entitled to it then politicians should shut up. Any, a bit rich when you consider the expenses of our Home Secretary, PM forgetfulness, certain Tory MSP taxi bills and even old Alex's salaries as FM, MSP and MP!
But the pension has absolutely nothing, nothing to do with the SNP! They didn't set it. And to be honest, it is nothing to do with any political party considering the deal was struck when RBS operated as a private company. Any attempt to force him legally to ditch his pension will only result in a lengthy and expensive court case, which will obviously be good news to lawyers.
22. At 5:15pm on 26 Feb 2009, Anglophone wrote:
Re Sir Fred Mathewson.
I think you are correct here. Alex Salmond should ditch Mathewson. He is potentially politically lethal now for the SNP. Why? Because it gives Labour (Westminster spin machine, not the Holyrood tumble drier) some ammunition to use come a general election. He has involvement with the banks that now require support, regardless of his actual responsiblity or not in the mess that has resulted. But its the old headline - "SNP employs banker as economic adviser" etc etc.
Surely, surely there must be a good practical economist or banker who has the business experience but none of the risk taking out there.
Complain about this comment
Anyone in need of an emetic may care to watch Duff Gordon in full McAvity mode on Sky's Gordon Brown On Fred The Shred And Banks.
Just over 2 minutes into the clip you can hear McAvity saying quite clearly: "I became aware of this, er, deal, er, only a few days ago"
Unlikely, I know, but I wonder if anyone in the government will pay for it with his or her job.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
In the Times they say that the only way that the Government can get the pension back is either for RBS to sue Fred Goodwin for negligence or for the shareholders to do it. Both actions are fraught with difficulty as such an action requires a high standard of proof to succeed.
It seems a little odd that when the Government pumped so much money into the RBS that they didn't then demand, as majority shareholders, a root and branch review of the assets and liabilities of the bank. This would have of course included the bank's pension liabilities.
Neither Brown nor Darling have any economic or accountancy qualifications and if they best they can do now is claim they knew nothing about the RBS's company pension scheme arrangements then it is probably symptomatic of their inability to control the entire UK financial debacle which is unfolding before our eyes.
Complain about this comment
More details from Sky on Duff Gordon's "apology" to the HoC Standards and Privileges Committee. In an interview with Sky News, the great "wisnae me" exponent is quoted as saying: "It's been made absolutely clear that I was not properly informed. Where there is an inadvertent breach, you'll apologise for it and that is what I've done."
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Quite frankly Fred Goodwin does not deserve this pension in any manner, shape or form!
He has ruined the good name of the RBS and created misery for it's thousands of employees.
Remove the pension and remove his knighthood. He got it for "services to the banking industry". As he's done the banking industry the biggest disservice in history, the title needs to go.
What kind of message do we send out if we allow this to happen?
Complain about this comment
#28 - "To those trying to defend him in some way, I'd point out that his pension deal was not the standard one, it appears he was allowed to claim his full pension at age 50 on early retirement. Normally this pension would only be available to him at age 65. Furthermore, I don't believe for one minute that this deal was made in the 'good times', it seems it was made shortly before the bank's demise and presumably all those involved were in full possession of the facts at the time."
Richard, it's very probable that this pension is the price of getting Fred to go away. It would explain why the government originally agreed to it, why it seems to be a compromise and why Freddie is getting quite hissy about it now. After all, if there wasn't such an outcry about it, I doubt Gordie and Darling would be in such an uproar. Threatening legal action is nonsensical - on what basis could such action be raised?
I fully suspect that after Gray's pathetic attempt to divert blame onto the SNP spectacularly backfired, with even Tavish Scott pointing the figure at Labour, Gordie and Darling will simply try to ride this out. There's just nothing they can do about the pension agreement so they'll try to claim some sort of (im)plausible deniablility.
Complain about this comment
It's interesting that Darling is not complaining that Fred Goodwin got a big pension, just that he got a very big one.
As the majority shareholder in RBS the Government should have asked the directors to fire Chief Executive Fred Goodwin for gross incompetence under threat of all the directors being replaced, which the Government can do as the majority shareholder with a resolution at an EGM.
But the Labour Government didn't do this as the Government and the big financial institutions are as close as hamsters in a sack.
If he had been fired his pension wouldn't have started till he was 60 and the pension pot required to pay it would be around £10 Million not £25 Million. But he wasn't fired, he was asked to resign, and that's when all the goodies kicked in for early retirement.
The fact that Fred Goodwin got such a huge pension is because Brown and Darling didn't have the courage or the guts to fire him.
Complain about this comment
#29 derekbarker
"For god sake, is the labour party trying to tell us it didn't know what Sir Fred's pension was. ?????????????????????????????????"
Oh, it's worse than that. Lord Paul Myners was told, but seems to have made assumptions that it was a legally binding contract, and no one checked.
Whatever your party has done over the last few years (and there were good things as well as the errors we pick on), I'm afraid that it is enfeebled and without principle or the ability to cope with events.
You should have listened to fourstrikes about what happens to Socialists who become part of the ruling elite.
Complain about this comment
#29 derekbarker
"For god sake, is the labour party trying to tell us it didn't know what Sir Fred's pension was?"
Yes, derek, that's exactly what they're trying to tell us! And, like the good little mugs they take us for, we are all expected to swallow it without fuss as usual.
As Brownedov says in his #7: "Is there no stone NuLab left unturned?"
Clearly this bunch of Labour clowns have been telling giant porkies about how "tough" they were being on the banks in return for our billions to bale the other bunch of clowns (silly bankers) whose unashamed greed is running us into the ground.
I wonder if the Labour clowns know how stupid and impotent they look now that Goodwin has thumbed his nose at their polite "request" for him to give up the £16 million? "Er, no I think I'll just keep it thanks. You never know when the economy might turn ugly!" Er, Fred, it already has for the rest of us!
As for the Scots, the best thing we can do is go it alone, start from scratch, try and build a society with some trace of responsibililty and honour instead of the cesspit of corruption, greed and utter arrogance that we now have.
Complain about this comment
Interesting stories breaking right now, some good links on the blog - however the blog has slowed to a crawl again !!
Are they by chance related?
Complain about this comment
A new YouGov poll in the Torygraph's Immigration is top issue for both Labour and Tory voters, YouGov poll shows has no big surprises re overall party support, and no detail yet, but the really interesting bit is: "There is more bad news for the Prime Minister with the finding that only 14 per cent believe the Government's measures to tackle the recession are working".
Remembering that this poll was taken at least a day or two ago, one can but wonder what the "bottom" level of support for Duff Gordon and Capn. Darling will be. It's certainly hard to imagine that they can recover their own fortunes, but what have they done to the rest of us in the process?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
The Labour government looks in office but not in power. It is re-acting rather than leading.
It should have nationalised RBS months ago.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #42, the UK banking farrago should arguably lead Scottish political parties to advocate that the Scottish Government should have vested in it the power to found a bank such as the CDPQ, which was set up under a statute of the Quebec National Assembly with the initial purpose of administering all public pension funds within the province but which has subsequently been mandated to broaden its range of activities for the benefit of Quebec.
If a Bank of Scotland is ever founded upon such lines and also incorporates retail functions of the original one, with directors appointed by the Scottish Government along the lines of CDPQ director appointment and subject to Scottish statutory control and Scottish Government regulatory and investment-policy oversight, we shall know that Scottish independence has been achieved, albeit at the expense of the independence of commercial banks, which is largely lost to the UK government now in any case. Of course, nothing of the sort will ever be allowed by the UK, within which "the Scottish national interest" would appear to be little more than a joke.
To be taken seriously and to have banks that serve the Scottish national interest as opposed to mainly English interests and cowboy capitalists, Scotland will need to vote for further constitutional change, just as Quebec will need to put the Parti Quebecois back in power and have another referendum on independence. Thanks to the recession and to lessons which are being learned from it, the result may be different next time.
Complain about this comment
The time has come for labour MP's to demand that Mandelson goes, no more protectionism for labour unless they return
the party to it's core believers.
Complain about this comment
#35 greenockboy
"Tomorrow is certainly to be a day of dilemmas for the editors of Scottish papers"
Scottish editors will solve their "dilemma" by having a big picture of a smiling Sir Fred and a two-word headline that would be a fitting accompaniment to a photograph of any person giving a two-fingered salute.
Let's just see if I'm wrong.
Complain about this comment
Anger Management!!!!!! correct title Royal Mail 2nd class is quicker or will the trams be running sooner than these post appear.
Complain about this comment
Seems the Welsh are out for some constitutional change of their own.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/wales_politics/7912263.stm
End of the UK on two fronts?
Complain about this comment
#22 Anglophone
I'm very uncomfortable with British nationalism. It's a panacea for frustrated egos and a vehicle by which aspirant politicians can galvanise support to meet selfish ends. Nothing works better than noisily pointing out the enemy.
One of the worse elements of the Union in my view is that, from the jingoism that emerged in the two decades before the First World War, it has managed by and large incubate excess British nationalism.
British nationalism relies on intolerance, a sense of shared superiority and sometimes a sense of shared victimisation (the EU). All of these are chimera when placed in the context of people who, culturally, are very distinguishable.
In this respect I'm more comfortable with Scottish Nationalism and equally comfortable with the emerging English nationalism which, believe me will do them some good if it ever takes root.
My favouring the discontinuance of the UK as a country is firstly my understanding that there is no real "Balkanisation threat", only the fear of it. Secondly, in a rough world, a course of action that relies on Britain being ever strong (it's not now) and Scotland just plain weak is simply playing into the hands of those, at home and abroad, who are...shall we say "indifferent to the health, wealth or happiness of the people of these islands".
Can you recognise what I'm saying :-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#43 Neil_Small147
"Alex Salmond should ditch Mathewson. He is potentially politically lethal now for the SNP. Why? Because it gives Labour (Westminster spin machine, not the Holyrood tumble drier) some ammunition to use come a general election."
But, Neil, IF they ditch him (maybe they will, it won't be because of spin) they are as open to allegations of being guilty by association, as ditching is laying guilt. They make it known they knew he was guilty, they are guilty.
So they are no better off, rather slightly worse off, because it looks as though they've tried to dance to the tune of spin themselves.
Better not to....as you usually advise actually!....and instead act with the best of intentions. If you're going to be damned, better that way than not.
Complain about this comment
#45 - "Neither Brown nor Darling have any economic or accountancy qualifications and if they best they can do now is claim they knew nothing about the RBS's company pension scheme arrangements then it is probably symptomatic of their inability to control the entire UK financial debacle which is unfolding before our eyes."
I think it's fair to say that Brown knows nothing about company pension scheme arrangements full stop. Just one reason why so many schemes collapsed or were devalued since he became chancellor.
Complain about this comment
Interesting suggestion in the Herald editorial -
"If the government cannot at the very least claw back the discretionary element, it should refuse to pay it and dare Sir Fred to take it to court. "
Complain about this comment
I actually like the fact that, as objectionable Goodwin and his pension are, he is actually taking a stand against Brown and Darling on this. In principle he is right and if that was what was agreed at the time then why should he return a penny and therefore agree to become their scapegoat. He's probably been advised to ride it out just as Brown and Darling are.
Complain about this comment
This Friday's exam question is "Compare and Contrast the following news items"
"Ministers Sacked in SNP Reshuffle"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7880931.stm
with
"Shock Changes in Tory Reshuffle"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/wales/7913572.stm
'Nuff said
Chiefy
Complain about this comment
Interesting to note this morning that JFM (One of my "ones to watch" for shuffling around the hemicycle) has now broken ranks and is calling for a simple Yes/No referendum
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/highlands_and_islands/7914197.stm
Now, cynically (not that we are ever cynical here on BwB), you could view it that there is a section of the Liberals who fear their complete disappearance as a party at the next election and who want their places enshrined in history as Defenders of The Union.
Or you could argue that there is an outbreak of Realism in the Liberals and they they now realise that their only hope for survival is to return to their historic roots and actually ask the people what they want.
(As opposed to The Mars Misson/Loch Ness Monster policies of late)
Although odds on JFM doing the shuffle have just dropped slightly, lets see if any of the other hiders poke their heads up above the parapet.
(Sorry, keep forgetting)
"Post or reactive moderation for all except Cbeebies please"
Complain about this comment
#56 derekbarker
"The time has come for labour MP's to demand that Mandelson goes, no more protectionism for labour unless they return
the party to it's core believers."
I'm glad that you're beginning to see the light, Derek, but getting rid of Lord Mandy would be too little, too late. If a leadership election could be forced and Duff Gordon replaced with someone like Field or Cruddas there would be just a chance of returning to the core beliefs of the old Labour Party, but I'm afraid that all the other probable contenders have no core beliefs left after more than a decade of "New" Labour, and they seem to have nobody left at Holyrood fit to clean Dewar's shoes.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov! You forgot John McDonnell!
He's a man who has a socialist heart, (recently declaring himself a Marxist) God alone knows what he's still doing in Labour.
Derek! Thoughts on the relative merits of Cruddas and McDonnell? (Also, are you a Labour Party member? I won't bite you, some of my nearest and dearest are...)
Complain about this comment
#59 ScotInNotts
"End of the UK on two fronts?"
Thanks for the heads up on this website's Majority back law-making assembly. The full details aren't on ICM's website yet, but apart from the 52% yes vote, the most interesting thing is that polling was done between 20-24th February 2009 - two days before the latest revelation of NuLab's competence.
If the competence to manage the economy issue [see my #53] is enough to tip the balance for their core support in Scotland [see derekbarker's #56], then how much of their core support in Wales - strong enough to keep Labour in coalition in 2007 - will feel the same now?
Independence is further away, but with their FM, Morgan, taking much the same view as Salmond over the meeting with Duff Gordon [see my #145 on the last thread], they're definitely en route to demanding fiscal autonomy PDQ.
Some real headaches ahead for both the NuLab and Tory wings of the unionist party, methinks.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re Brians post
Ian Gray may have indavertently hit on what is a real problem. Fred the flop is a wee bit unlucky, he was the one holding the bomb when it went off.
There are a great many others who should be taking a bit of the blame. HBOS and RBS didn't get into the mess they are in a 2 or 3 years. The roots of a move to reckless practice go back further. So probably Sir George is not squealy clean. But the real issue is we need a proper investigation to fully understand who was involved and how this all went so badly wrong.
However Sir George now has a role in government! Surely irrespective of party allegiances we should be chasing bankers from every corner of government. They got things so badly wrong and now they are being asked to advise on how to put it right at god knows what cost to us.
Only politicians could think that was fine. But then Politicians are displaying the most appalling double standards. They too have played a big part in the mess and absolutely none saw it coming, none even saint vince.
What the crisis shows is that we have a deep seated culture in the UK, (definately including Scotland) of not taking responsibility when things go wrong but taking full credit for anything that can be spun as a sucess. Never take responsibility, no matter how bad blame someone else.
So Fred should keep his pension, if he has to give up any of it then so should all our politicians, of every party.
That will never happen because none of then ever take blame, they just play petty politics.
Complain about this comment
#67 Chiefy1724
Thanks for the link to this website's Lib Dem MSP calls for referendum. While agreeing with Munro that asking the people is no bad thing, if the LibDems still support STV then I fail to understand any objection to a multi-choice question. If Scott is a NuLab mole, he couldn't be doing a better job as leader of the Scottish LibDems.
I also fail to understand why nobody at Holyrood is pushing for a first question asking for democratic reaffirmation of the sovereignty of the Scottish people in a renewal of Arbroath. All the parties there claim to be democratic, so who could object if the question was put fairly, and how much leverage would it give Holyrood in future negotiations with the Westmidden "sovereignty of parliament" crowd?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#64 - "If the government cannot at the very least claw back the discretionary element, it should refuse to pay it and dare Sir Fred to take it to court. "
The only problem with taking that stance, oldnat, is that the government would surely lose any legal action and probably wouldn't want the open the can of worms that was Freddie's compromise agreement to get him to leave.
According to commentary yesterday, Sir Fred and Lord Myers worked together (at RBS?) some years ago. If that is indeed the case, it may turn out that the old friends / colleagues factor played some part in this. Freddie has already fingered Myers and Myers' excuse about (lack of) knowledge on the legality of the agreement (since he was part of the agreement process, surely it was his job to check how legal the terms he was agreeing to actually were) doesn't hold much water. While Labour might be jumping up and down about Mathewson in a blatant smoke and mirrors attempt to divert attention away from the source of the true blame for this fiasco, at the end of the day most people know exactly who should carry the can, and since the government / Labour can't sack Lord Myers, Gordie and Darling are where the buck ultimately stops. Cue lots of government noise about its outrage and how unacceptable this deal is. Don't, however, expect any constructive action.
Complain about this comment
#69 fourstrikes
"Brownedov! You forgot John McDonnell!"
It's a fair cop, guv, and I couldn't agree more with your: "God alone knows what he's still doing in Labour"
Off out now, but back tonight, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
There is a logical way of handling Sir Fred's pension pot. RBS should back-track all payments into the pot and calculate the payments as RBS shares at their then value.
To recognise the successful elents of Sir Fred's tenure, notional value of dividends should be added.
The pension pot should now be revalued at the current price of RBS shares.
That way contractual obligations of payments to Sir Fred's pension pot are seen to be made. He then takes the same % hit as all those who suffered from his management decisions.
Can anyone say that this isn't fair?
If he doesn't like it - suggest he sues. That would make for an interesting court hearing!
Complain about this comment
Interesting to hear John Prescott (who could've used some anger management at times) proclaiming about all those years of "sustainable growth" while standing in the wreckage of said growth......morons and oxymorons..., but, as an American I'm of course immune to irony...
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Pity help the politicians if the right to pensions becomes performance-related!!!
Can anyone remind me - how much will Tony Blair get from the taxpayer???
Complain about this comment
#72 Brownedov
Totally agree with you on the need for a referendum question that asks for agreement/disagreement on sovereignty.
Article 1 of the Irish Constitution might be a good place to start when defining the wording -
"The Irish nation hereby affirms its inalienable, indefeasible, and sovereign right to choose its own form of Government, to determine its relations with other nations, and to develop its life, political, economic and cultural, in accordance with its own genius and traditions."
Complain about this comment
No 57
Only partly right, you'd forgotten Wendy Richards!
Complain about this comment
42 FranklyFrancophone plus all your other monikers
Have you ever seen a famous behavioural experiment known as "Dr Fox". In it a basic scientific experiment was written up in three different manners, ranging from a short paper stating the observations in plain English, up to a 20 pager of florid, nested prose, acronyms and obscure descriptors. A panel of scientists were asked to rate the quality of the science in each each experiment (not the writing!). The panel rated the florid piece as by far the best piece of scientific work despite the fact that it reported the identical experiment to the simple one-pager. The moral...you can get away with a lot when you rely upon endless convolution of straightforward facts.
I don't think that I could have cut-it on that panel as I remain puzzled by your essays. In the first, you mention that a naughty Quebec bank, despite your love and admiration of the francophone business model had mysteriously fallen amidst chaos and fraud. The government refuse to take responsibility which by some oblique sleight of hand makes Alex Salmond a pillar of probity???
The various Scottish Banks are then described as not being intended to be the vehicle around which an independent economy would be formed. This contradicts just about everything you and every other nationalist have ever said in the past. The Edinburgh financial sector is/was the ace up the nationalist sleeve for as long as I have bothered to read this stuff. Now suddenly they are institutions peverted by the English and their uniquely evil way of doing business. You should check your old posts before taking so much time to write your essays.
It's all rather reminiscent of the days when Gerry Adams, dubbed by an actor would appear on the news standing next to the latest pile of smoking rubble saying that "a Republican analysis of the sichaayshun would be that while this outrage may be the work of republicans, it is firmly the responsibility of the British Government!"
It's good to see that events can still be viewed through the same type of convoluted prism in which day is night and black is white. Keep it up but keep it short;-)
Complain about this comment
Re the Welsh. What would their independent economy be based on? They don't have oil, so I would suggest a lot of borrowing would be required. (I might be wrong of course).
#62 aye_right
Re Mathewson. The long the current affair with Pension Pol Pot goes on, the greater the chance of potential damage.
Bankers are now everyone's pet hate (must be a few traffic wardens and estate agents relieved), so the Scottish Government tied in with a banker is not a good idea.
I take your point it would be damaging to ditch him now, but the flak would be short lived. If he remains, then any finance-type scheme proposed which is unsuitable could be blamed on the "advice".
Remember, Labour have now turned on Sir Fred, so I am now wondering if part of that is damage limitation and ammunition to be used against political opponents who are either bankers (Tories anyone?) or use them as advisors.
Complain about this comment
Much ado about nothing!
So what if a banking Fat-cat 'retires' on a £squillion package? It's our fault, we're all the culprits as it was 'us' who were happy to accept 125% mortgages, extended cheap credit to buy our 'luxury' goods, 0% interest credit cards, credit card surfing etc etc.
The obscene amount being paid to Sir Fred is simply the manifestation and consequence of a situation perpetuated and fueled by and of our own self-greed. We've known for years what people like Sir Fred have been raking in in salaries, bonuses and share options, what did we do? .... Diddly squat, because they made sure the little-man was thrown enough scraps to keep him (or her) at bay.
I bet of all the commentators on this subject, there's not one of us who would welcome a similar package for similar failings!
Complain about this comment
#76 - "Interesting to hear John Prescott "
Ed, I think we've just seen the government's next "strategy" for deflecting blame on this. As two jags says, it doesn't matter who knew what, it's still no right.
We'll see how well that one flies.
Complain about this comment
#66 Chiefy1724
The best example of BBC Scotland's anti-SNP bias I have ever seen and irrefutable proof that they slant stories using subtle word selections and/or omission of facts in order to put the SNP in as bad a light as possible.
I wonder if any of them have the guts to come onto their blogs (as BBC writers do on other blogs) and explain the reason for the example you've given. If they dont it just further exposes their passive aggressive anti-SNP agenda.
They smugly think, because of their sneaky, Machiavellian, cloak-and-dagger tehniques, that they cannot be exposed, but you have done just that. Well done.
Complain about this comment
#35 greenockboy
The "fat cat that got the cream" photos of Sir Fred are all over the Scottish papers (take your pick) just as I predicted. The only difference is that their headlines aren't as succinct (or apt) as the one I suggested. They aren't as good at it as they were in my day I suppose.
Complain about this comment
60 Aye-Write
You seem to be having a go at something that I didn't even write in the first place. That's an old debating trick;-)
"I'm very uncomfortable with British nationalism. It's a panacea for frustrated egos and a vehicle by which aspirant politicians can galvanise support to meet selfish ends. Nothing works better than noisily pointing out the enemy."
Just read your first paragraph above substituting the word Scottish for British. It sounds like the other side of the same coin.
By contrast to your comments, I would have said that British Nationalism was at a comparatively low ebb compared to the first half of the 20th Century. I'm not talking about right wing nutters, rather the general population. The sense of "natural superiority" that supposedly infests us has been in steady decline since the 1950s with any residual "well at least we won the war" dying out in the 70s in the face of marked economic underperformance. There have been a few little jingioistic blips such as the "Falklands Bounce" but in my own experience, people do not express any noisy nationalism...in fact patriotic displays are often viewed with mild embarrassment.
This probably has a lot to do with the growth of the middle-class, gentrification, the spread of education, the increased level of personal travel etc. Add into this the influence of the "liberal elite" and the conspicuous downplaying of British History and achievement in education and you have a population whose sense of national identity is at such a low ebb that the government has belatedly tried to reverse the decline.
The occasional political sniping at the EU simply raises individual poiltical profiles and sells newspapers. I can see absolutely no difference between moaning about Brussels and moaning about Westminster. All nationalism is created by stoking grievances, promoting a sense of victimisation and, as you so rightly say "pointing out the enemy". Can you really look me in the eye...alright monitor...and tell me that Scottish Nationalism doesn't rely on this toxic triumvirate to garner support from people who would otherwise be politically disinterested?
The sad conclusion of this line of thought is that the SNP is basically a sort of McUKIP. Now that is embarrassing!
I'm no fan of nationalism in any guise and I worry about the emergence of English nationalism. If I were a Scot I would also worry about English nationalism as on balance, Scots have more to lose from such schism.
Complain about this comment
#79 Gaelstorm
You're forgotting that we were discussing the SCOTTISH newspapers - not ENGLISH ones or Scottish Editions of English ones.
Look at the Scotsman website or the Herald website and you will see the exact smug grin I predicted.
And if the BBC is thinking of censoring me for using the words "fat cat" in my previous posts they should remember where I got it - the Daily Record!
Complain about this comment
What we are seeing with Sir Fred is the exact "couldn't care less" attitude that created the near-collapse of RBS, the "couldn't care less" attitude about the loss of perhaps 20,000 banking jobs, and the blase "couldn't care less" attitude about unprecedented public funding being needed to rescue it. So an end to all the hypocritical prattle. This is the true face of banking in all it's glory and, frankly, in all its grotesque ugliness.
Complain about this comment
#43 - "Alex Salmond should ditch Mathewson. He is potentially politically lethal now for the SNP. Why? Because it gives Labour (Westminster spin machine, not the Holyrood tumble drier) some ammunition to use come a general election."
It's interesting contrasting the Labour party's attitude to Mathewson in comparison to Lord Myners. They reckon Mathewson should go because of his connections to RBS (and, by association, Freddie's pension pot). On the other hand, Lord Myners has already stated he will not resign and the government appear to support him in that stance, even though he is far more culpable in this whole fiasco than Mathewson.
Complain about this comment
#81 Neil_Small147
I take your point - it's how to ditch him then! ;-)
"Re the Welsh. What would their independent economy be based on? They don't have oil, so I would suggest a lot of borrowing would be required. (I might be wrong of course)."
Neil, I'm not saying you yourself are saying this, but others might take it that way, you do not need oil to be independent!
What of the Welsh economy. I also admit ignorance, so that's quite a good question!
Complain about this comment
#78 oldnat
"Totally agree with you on the need for a referendum question that asks for agreement/disagreement on sovereignty."
Thanks. Whether independent or no, that's the issue Scotland needs to confirm before meaningful negotiation with the UK government can begin.
"Article 1 of the Irish Constitution might be a good place to start when defining the wording"
Absolutely, but it would be a pity not to get a reference to Abroath somewhere in the "final" question, if only to make absolutely certain that the English, Welsh and Northern Irish peoples understand their very different and inferior status in relation to the monarchy. A few more revolting [in a non-violent sense] serfs outwith Scotland could do no harm at all to democracy within the UK.
If the LibDems won't come onside, perhaps the agreed version should be the only question proposed in the Referendum bill. Even Aunty A would have few arrows in her quiver against it, yet it would give Holyrood all the ammunition it needs to negotiate fiscal autonomy, while leaving the full independence for a future SP to debate.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#81 Neil_Small147
"They don't have oil, so I would suggest a lot of borrowing would be required."
Initially certainly so, but they have a large coastline quite suitable for renewables [presumably they'd get 50% of RE's Severn Barrage scheme] and a mountainous landmass suitable for traditional wind and hydro renewables. For the future, like Scotland, they also have coal reserves unexploited along with slate and metallic mineral reserves. All of those should be "nice little earners" for the long-term.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re liberty, sovereighnty, et al, there's an interesting article in the Thunderer's Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms by Philip Pullman. To say the least, he's somewhat confused about who had what freedoms when, but he's on the money with:
"The nation [I think he means the UK but he admits his own confusion] dreams it is a democratic state where the laws were made by freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people. It used to be such a nation once, it dreams, so it must be that nation still. It is a sweet dream."
Just passing by between meetings, but back tonight, en'shallah.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#74 Brownedov
Indeed. There are still socialists in the Labour Party, amazingly. I want to rescue these comrades from the choppy seas of newLab and bring them back to the safe harbour of socialism (perhaps a new workers' party is waiting there to be formed and we will need their talent and devotion).
I read an article a while back by a newLabourite who was shocked - shocked! by the fact that a handful of people in Labour still use the term "comrade". (Imagine addressing Mandy that way if you want a laugh. I reckon he'd look as if you just spat in his soup.)
Yes, heaven forbid that anyone use a word like that, showing a close bond between people in a common struggle, when they could use businesslike words like "colleague" or "acquaintance" perhaps.
Though I found it rather touching that Johann Lamont referred to Jackie Baillie as "our sister" in the debate on the disabled parking spaces. I'm assuming that Labour MSPs aren't actually all related to each other, so I was pleased.
Could it be? Does someone remember "brothers and sisters" and "fraternally yours"? Is a small red flag flying in the midst of NewLab (they better hope none of the loyalists spot it) and are memories of a better time springing now and again to the surface?
(I rather like both Ms Lamont and Ms Baillie, not necessarily politically, but this is neither here nor there.)
Complain about this comment
Riddoch Questions, 27th February - BBC Radio Scotland 1.15-2pm
"Lesley’s guests on Riddoch Questions this week include the editor of the Herald, Donald Martin and the leader of Glasgow Council , Steven Purcell."
Any questions anyone?
Capitalism in order of control:
Bankers - non elected
Government - elected
The chaff - Us
The government can do nothing about this pension without bringing the economy to its knees and subsequently the government culminating in anarchy.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Part of the problem with pensions is that they are governed by "English" trusts. Their trust law came about so the gentry could take the latest thing in packaged holidays - a few years out on a Crusade. It has been mangled ever since to cover the sick, the ignorant, tax dodgers and pensions with dire results not only on the "law" but also on the beneficiaries. It is now almost impenetrable and anyone with the slightest knowledge of pensions would know to reach for a lawyer. Global Brown evidently has not been told of the results of his first stealth tax wheeze on the poor people who expected pensions from their firms but why would he worry, we are here to serve him.
Standing back from this government fiasco, what I see are
1) government not accounting for public pensions is so, so dangerous in as much as they have no idea how pensions "work" or how much they "cost" and
2) directors may earn big bucks but that should be it. No "company" planes, expenses, pensions, private offices, hair-dos, etc., if they want them they should pay. If they need more salary they should ask so what you see is what you get. No more give up a year's salary and get ten times as much through the pension back door.
Complain about this comment
#86 Anglophone, you said
"I'm no fan of nationalism in any guise and I worry about the emergence of English nationalism"
Absolutely agree with both of these. This is a position again which confuses people but what can one do.
If anyone here has ever read a magazine called This England, there's yer English nationalism for you. It is not very pretty. (Pay close attention to the letters pages, the op ed and the ads at the back). Being of relatively recent coinage it's not even had a chance to go through the "mellowing stage" Scottish nationalism has had which allows for more diversity of views (and, dare I say it, backgrounds.)
Having said that there are still very unhealthy views about "purity" and "true Scots" and dodgy people with opinions about "white settlers" and immigrants of non Celtic hue lurking about on the fringes of Scottish nationalism. I don't at all believe that represents the mainstream of the party - quite the reverse from my experiences with "mainstream thinking" Nats like the folk on this board and especially the SNP in government who have worked to be open and inclusive. But it's there and unfortunately nationalism as a political ideology rather lends itself to this.
It's a spectrum of opinion from the Nat mainstream where we see people who are just convinced independence would be better and disagree politically with Westminster, to the nutters on the far right who basically hate everyone who doesn't conform to their idea of "a true Scot". I had the "pleasure" of talking to a drunken Nat in a pub the other week who opined that "the English would be happier in their own country and not living in Scotland". I pointed out I have one English parent who lives in Scotland and has become very fond of it and is becoming gradually converted to the SNP cause. His response "Well it's nobody's fault but culturally they're just incapable of fitting in and I don't mean this personally but that means you're only a half Scot...."
Hmmm.
Complain about this comment
#88 bighullabaloo
I don't have anything to add except to say you are entirely correct.
Complain about this comment
#86 Anglophone
"You seem to be having a go at something that I didn't even write in the first place. That's an old debating trick;-)"
Anglophone!
At long last I can prove you wrong ;-)
An odd debating trick? I needed one, needed some brilliant amunition, which I don't have do I, to tackle you, so I stole....yours.
Why do you think my post was so beautifully well written, using words I don't even know?
It was YOUR POST from last November, I just swapped Scottish for British.
Fascinatingly, you have argued against your own post, albeit from the other angle(ophone ;-)
I remember it took me a long time to get you to admit your pro-Union reasoning. But (thank you) you were honest when you did. For motives of greater self-protection in a hostile world, it is selfishly better. I can actually respect that.
Whether or not it is the case...
My point is therefore that your effective British nationalism (I hate the word too) and my Scottish nationalism are the same and equally valid choices, a preference.
As you say,
"Just read your first paragraph above substituting the word Scottish for British. It sounds like the other side of the same coin."
Exactly :-)
"Can you really look me in the eye...alright monitor...and tell me that Scottish Nationalism doesn't rely on this toxic triumvirate to garner support from people who would otherwise be politically disinterested?"
Yes, I can. I would convince you aswell. Their disinterest does not eliminate the sublime effects of not being in the normal state of national self governance. (Forgive my wordy clap-trap style.) Because they don't mind doesn't make it right, doesn't excuse actively seeking to compound their position.
Would you not feel something if your British (if you prefer) voting influence, by way of elected representatives, was so in the minority that it was really no influence at all?
Complain about this comment
#80 Anglophone
It is gratifying to find that someone has been intrigued by the financial crisis in Quebec, which, like such crises elsewhere in the world, results largely from exposure to the collapse of anglo-American cowboy capitalism.
I thought you would rise to the bait in my #42, as you have previously objected to my particular form of non-anglocentric perspective in this forum, as you have done again in the first line of your post. I cannot tell you how pleased I am that you object to my occasional posts here, even though you appear to be somewhat confused. England is not the centre of the universe, dear boy, as any francophone will tell you. To present another perspective is a reasonable proceeding despite your huffing and puffing. A non-English perspective may seem to you to be a "convoluted prism", but I do not see why we need concern ourselves with that.
As for your traducing of my posts in this thread, I cannot seriously be expected to be either surprised by that or to take it seriously. The points that I have raised can be responded to reasonably or they can be truduced. Your previously displayed attitude makes it unsurprising that you have chosen to respond in this way. What else would one expect? Certainly not courtesy.
As for the continuing CDPQ controversy, which you have been so kind as to refer to, although in a somewhat unenlightening manner, the leader of the Parti Quebecois, Pauline Marois, to which the Caisse issue is a gift, has been saying that, if the Liberal PM of Quebec, Jean Charest, is trying to dissociate himself from the affair, it is because he has "something to hide". Referring to the opinion poll that I mentioned in an earlier post, she has observed that the people of Quebec are anxious and incensed:
"People are incensed at the bank's losses, incensed that their government [the government of Quebec] was not informed, as it claims, and incensed that their government took no action to intervene."
According to the Leger Marketing poll, 77 per cent of Quebeckers want an inquiry to shed light on the "financial disaster" of the Caisse, while the Liberals are cutting no ice with them by desperately repeating that the Parti Quebecois is seeking to "politicize the debate" by demanding explanations from the embattled and distraught provincial finance minister, Monique Jerome-Forget and Mr Charest, who are accused of both negligence and misleading the electorate in the recent Quebec National Assembly elections, as Mrs Jerome-Forget has let it slip in a television interview that she had been informed prior to those elections that the CDPQ had already suffered losses of 18 per cent, which mounted to 25 per cent the following month. At that time there was an election campaign in progress, in the course of which Mr Charest assured the electorate that he knew nothing of any losses at the Caisse. All of this makes for a huge political as well as financial scandal with a constitutional dimension, which the PQ will exploit fully, of course.
What people in Scotland may care to consider noting in all of this is that here is a bank which was founded by the provincial legislature to perform a particular function for the people of Quebec, something which cannot happen in Scotland under existing constitutional arrangements, although it would arguably be desirable. This is not, of course, to say that there should necessarily be no important role for existing banks in a more self-governing or even independent Scotland.
The CDPQ's operations are supposed to be subject to constraints imposed upon it by the provincial government through established procedures. The current administration, however, is formed by a branch of the mainly anglophone federalist Liberal Party, whose political approach to these matters it will have to account for to the electorate, who appear, according to the latest opinion-poll findings, to favour the francophone independentist Parti Quebecois' more interventionist approach. Increased support for the PQ may lead to a further Quebec referendum on independence, which will raise issues of a type known to be of interest in Scotland, which, as we are acutely aware, may be going to have such a referendum itself.
The point is worth making, it seems to me, that the recession has impacted upon politics and constitutional debate and has altered perceptions of the role of government and of the powers that have been devolved in both Quebec and Scotland. The recession is a traumatic event of historic proportions, as events in both territories reveal, but not, apparently, to you.
Complain about this comment
#86, Anglophone
Nice soundbyte ! "McUKIP".
Whilst initially tempted to ask you to sally forth and place your cerebral extremities in a container for cooking food filled with dihydrogen oxide (natural isotope) at a temperature of 373.15K, I feel that I must take a contrary viewpoint.
Scottish Nationalism, at least that part of which I am a member, is not based on " stoking grievances, promoting a sense of victimisation and pointing out the enemy"
The English are not our enemies. They are literally our Grannies or Grandads, Mothers or Fathers, Aunts or Uncles, Nieces and Nephews. You don't war on your own.
You can argue with them. You can have different ways of doing things. You can appreciate their thoughts and wants and needs and tell them that they are radically different from yours.
UKIP IS a grievance party. A hang-over from that part of right-wing toryism that was never happy with Heath taking the UK into Europe. They rely on small concentrated areas of support in the South-West of England where the universally acknowledged perfidies of the CAP have devastated the farming and fishing industries.
The SNP is a broad church. We have commented many times on this blog about the inevitable breakup of the SNP following a few terms of Independence. There are right and left, pro-and anti-Europe factions to name but a few.
If we are a grievance party, our grievance is that we are denied the opportunity as a nation to forge our own path. Our greivance is that without Independence, the Scottish people are not served.
If we "are victimised", what else do you call a large section of the population that do not and have never agreed with the policies of a succession of Westminister Governments ? Malcontents to be surpressed ?
And anyway, remember that Robert Kilroy-Silk was elected as a UKIP MEP. I don't think that we have anyone that Orange in the SNP :}
Your big words were nice.
Your wee soundbyte was awfy good.
Given your divorcement from reality, Are You Tavish Scott in Disguise ?
Complain about this comment
Neil Small
Re. Welsh independence. You're parroting the same drivel ScotsNats have had to put up with for years. It's as if no-one in Wales or Scotland pays tax in EngNat eyes. When are people going to ask what England survives on?
Anglophone
Why would Scots lose out in the "schism" of a resurgent English nationalism? You say you disdain nationalism and then clearly make an Imperialistic EngNat threat. Tell me, what exactly does Scotland have to fear?
Good work chiefly and Greenockboy. Keep on them. You treatment of the media is illuminating.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile.... there seems to be a certain deficit of confidence. In classical Economics 101 this shortage of supply should lead to an increase in price, but how does that jibe with zero interest rates?
Isn't credit a synonym for belief? If it's in short supply, shouldn't it be expensive?
Puzzled ed
Complain about this comment
#86 Anglophone
"You seem to be having a go at something that I didn't even write in the first place. That's an old debating trick;-)"
Anglophone! :-)
At long last I can prove you wrong ;-)
An odd debating trick? I needed one, needed some brilliant ammunition, which I don't naturally have do I, to tackle you, so I stole....yours.
Why do you think my post was so beautifully well written, using words I don't even know?
It was YOUR POST from last November, I just swapped Scottish for British.
Fascinatingly, you have argued against your own post, albeit from the other angle(ophone ;-)
I remember it took me a long time to get you to part with your pro-Union reasoning. But (thank you) you were honest when you did. For motives of greater self-protection in a hostile world, it is for you (selfishly) better. (Backed up by a contradicting distaste for nationalism!) I can actually respect that.
Whether or not it is the case...
My point is therefore that your effective British nationalism (I hate the word too) and my effective Scottish nationalism are the same and equally valid choices, a preference.
As you say:
"Just read your first paragraph above substituting the word Scottish for British. It sounds like the other side of the same coin."
Exactly :-)
"Can you really look me in the eye...alright monitor...and tell me that Scottish Nationalism doesn't rely on this toxic triumvirate to garner support from people who would otherwise be politically disinterested?"
Yes, I honestly can. I would convince you aswell. It's not nationalism as you perceive it, it's mere identity.
Their disinterest does not eliminate the subtle effects of not being in the normal state of national self governance. (Forgive my wordy, crappy style.) Because they don't mind doesn't make it OK, doesn't excuse actively seeking to compound their position.
Would you not feel something if your British (if you prefer, pick any identity...) voting influence, by way of elected representatives, was so in the minority that it was really no influence at all?
Westminster governs us. Given my identity, I of course look at the Scottish voice. It counts for nothing. What if that were the British voice in for example Holyrood, which counted for nothing. It doesn't matter about the correctness of the analogy, only that there are two identities, one of which has no say when compared to the other.
How would that make me feel? Would you bother voting? When you did, what would it feel like if your national representatives overwhelmingly voted one way and yet because they were outnumbered, the outcome was the opposite of what they wanted?
Would you (as interested in I assume news and politics) think that was OK?
Maybe your not concerned with your own self importance (neither me). Say someone you think a lot of was in that circumstance. Would you think it unfair or OK for them. (e.g. only women can vote, so your mother/sister/wife's vote means nothing.) Can you look me in the monitor now and say you couldn't care?
You may perhaps tell me you are wholly unconcerned with identity and that I seem obsessed. How can I deny having one? (If I ignore Scotland and look to Britain, am I not to feel, even a bit, British?)
It's just liking things about yourself. There's nothing scary in it. Like anyone, a significant part of me has ended up the way I am because of where I come from. It's pure luck, but can we not celebrate it. We celebrate the same things in others whom we like highly as it is a part of them. In denial are we not missing out on all that. Life is less?
You might rightly say people (apart from me - I really do) don't care. And no doubt you're right. I think it's probably a shame.
But that is not the end of the story.
The message here is that we are shown to be less important, to have been afforded less status, don't matter, at home and internationally. If we accept our Scottish identity, as 80% of Scots said they do, we must accept this.
Nationalism, for it is only wanting independence, is just seeking what others have already got and take for granted. It's not the zealous desire for extra power seducing, but only the wish for the same power status as others.
I don't care about power, power, power. I am only concerned with my (unusual) lack of any. It is not from the reference point that we have equal power and hubristically (your favouraite word? ;-) desire more. It is from the reference point that we have no power and only want the corrective balance of having some like others.
Otherwise I would not bother to engage in independence arguments. Where is the joy in being informed I am wrong all day. Now, I'm sure you are going to rip me to shreds.
PS ignore my previous post as I think it's maybe a worse version of this.
Complain about this comment
Pullman via Brownedov
I feel compelled to remind readers that, until quite recently, voting (and thus those "freely elected representatives who were answerable to the people") was restricted to landowning males In Burns' time, there were around 2500 folk eligible to vote in the whole of Scotland...Just for perspective.
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
I sometimes think you are talking to yourself. What do you stand for?
Neil Small
Same for you.
Cheers
Have a nice day!
Complain about this comment
#99 aye_write
"It was YOUR POST from last November, I just swapped Scottish for British. Fascinatingly, you have argued against your own post, albeit from the other angle(ophone ;-)
Ha ha! Good one.
Really exposes the typical twisting of facts we get from pro-Unionists on here.
You can even use their own words, switch "Scottish" for "British", and they will rush to argue against themselves.
Brilliant!
Complain about this comment
All I can say is that I wish that RBS would "think" about treating their clients better and make a more focussed effort to pay back the immense loan from tax payers that enables their shambolic company to stumble on.
Unfortunately, past attempts to regulate the pay, perks and pensions of fat cats have lead nowhere and it has taken the current financial crisis to make more people wake up to obscene "rewards" of senior financial executives. Unfortunately, again, few people frankly gave damn about these pay outs when economy appeared to be trundling along happily.
We have been told, largely by the Tories, that if the Nabobs' pay was controlled there would be an irreplacable "brain drain" of talent overseas.....
I think there wouldn't exactly be a huge demand for their "talents"!
Complain about this comment
Why was Sir Fred not sacked last year, instead of being allowed to "step down"?
If you're sacked you've probably been grossly negligent or undertaken unsuitable activity.
A sacked employee would hardly receive a multi-million golden goodbye.
However Sir Fred was not sacked, and accepted a very generous package to go. To this he is now legally and fully entitled.
As usual the politicians are squawking in hindsight, because they did not have the grumption to include the sacking of Sir Fred in their bailout conditions for RBS.
Complain about this comment
I get a wee bit fed up with some people on here that think if some of us support independence we are slightly anti English or bigotted(which i'm not). I dislike some of my fellow countrymen(Scots) as I feel they're the enemy of what I believe in. They use democracy(lack of it) as a tool against their own country. Brown,Murphy,Gray,Scott etc. I cannot believe I was born in the same country as them. We have different ideals but not at the expense of your own country. Why can't we work together to create what's best for all Scots. I also think the English people should have their independence as this would stop all the issues regarding blame, subsidy etc.
Anglophone and Neil Small
Can I have your opinions on Kelvin Mackenzie or even Ken Livingstone?
Complain about this comment
Brian's spleen-venting episode ends with:
"However, sometimes the ventilation of public anger is entirely justified. This is one such case."
As is the question of how much of a pension - and indeed salary - is currently being squandered (and will in the future be squandered) upon a certain Glenn Campbell.
Let the public - who are paying for him - see his tax return!!!
Complain about this comment
Since this saga is becoming ever more surreal - and I am not refering to the lone French-Canadain (frankly_francophone) 'voice of reason' here ... pity we don't pay more attention to the activities of Mr. Harper CanPM, who could teach Flasher Gordon a thing or three.
My fathers family ran a successful engineering business for over 100 years, and paid HUGE 'super-tax' on 'unearned income' - even after my father retired to Jersey (where he was born). We nolonger have super-tax, which I blame on globalisation (sic) .
Hence my assertion that Sir Fred Goodwin should be allowed to KEEP his pension, in fact I insist on it; however it should be taxed at a 'super-tax' rate - for 'unearned income' with a small HMRC compliance team assigned to monitor his financial affairs.
Sir Fred is simply playing an excellent Kim's Game, Gordon Brown PM is plate-spinning like fury, Alastair Darling is taking 'the shell game' to new levels, the banks have all been buying and selling the financial version of 'pigs in a poke', while the public are stuck with 'Groundhog Day' ...
Paraphrasing Leo Tolstoy I offer a clear vision of our situation ...
The banks sit upon Britannias back, choking her, and making her carry them everywhere, and yet assure themselves and others that they are SORRY for her and wish to ease her lot by any means possible, except getting off her back.
Many commentators both here, on Mr. Pestons' column/blogg and many others have expressed a desire to prevent this ever happening again - usually by some fundamental reformation of the banking system (welcomed and yet opposed by the banks), increasing regulation (a variety of mechanisms have FAILED as spectacularly as the banks), others want trials and punishment (horribly expensive, frustratingly time consumming and usually futile unless your a solicitor/Queens Council) ...
Every new revelation simply demonstrates that, in reality, the whole banking system is too big, too badly damaged and way 'too complex' to 'fix' ... we have a small window of opportunity to dismantle this banking Chernobyl before it reaches 'critical mass' and 'implodes' due our talk-about-everything while 'doing nothing' stratgey.
Wee Eck doesn't need to wreck the Union, it is easily finishing as it started, a load of bad money, an old war chest full of badly written promises and an assurance of 'Jam tomorrow' (tomorrow being 2010) ... and a raft load of lairds and absentee land owners esconsed in London. While the SLP is rudderless Mr Salmond can afford to continue with his present policies, without even uttering 'ah telt you so'.
Just like one of those email 'phishing' scams we all scoff at, the govt. has sent off all the our money, our kids money, our grandparents pensions, ... and they are back hammering on the door demanding the house ... declaring we've 'won the international banking lottery'.
It's a pity we learned nothing from Canadian history, and their citizens experience of the Social-Credit movement, otherwise we'd know what was ahead of us ...
Those who forget the lessons of the past ... and all that.
Complain about this comment
100 Frankly Incomprehensible
You really have got me now. I just don't understand your post...must be something about my "cowboy" anglocentric mind. You seem to be trying to make about three points at the same time.
What I do know is that having actually lived in Canada for a while, around the time of the most recent big constitutional referendum, I don't have boundless respect for Quebec. Canada has tied itself into cultural and legal knots trying to accommodate a vociferous minority who cannot be satisfied by any concession yet don't have the courage of their convictions to actually vote for secession. It has got the nation precisely nowhere. Your comparison with Scotland may be more accurate than you intended.
So the CDPQ was set up to serve the "provincial" (your words not mine;_)) interests of Quebec? So what? I thought that Scotland was originally well served by banks, many created before the union that, you would think had made the financing of Scottish business and people their priority. Sadly, they were not content with that modest ambition and undertook ever greater expansion into global markets. Many traditional, if dull English banks have been hoovered up by these expansionist monsters who have eventually sucked us down into the deep, deep hole of their own hubris. Something for which English taxpayers will be funding for a generation.
The kicking and screaming on this page that accompanied the shotgun wedding of HBOS and Lloyds was farcical...as I mentioned earlier in this thread, senior bankers were wheeled out to take a nationalistic line incompatible with their careers as leaders of major British banks to denounce the merger and what...HBOS was a total stinker and could very easily drag Lloyds down with it. Thanks Gordon and Alastair but what about the people who said that the merger was unnecessary or even that HBOS was saving Lloyds (you know who you are!!). Have they no shame at all?
I'm still looking around for examples of how French business and banking is riding serenely above all this self-inflicted Anglo-Saxon brouhaha. I'm sure you can put me straight at very great length.
You seem to be putting over the now partially redundant nationalist argument that none of this could of happened in an independent Scotland because....well we're better than that. Lucky for you that only the English can be arrogant;_). Your moniker seems to suggest an affection for the Auld Alliance...perhaps you should have a hard think about this arrangement. I don't think that the French have cozied up to Scots historically out of admiration for your food or culture.
Complain about this comment
When o when are the Government going to realise that we all know that Sir Fred was just as greedy as a Westmidden New Labour MP at the trough.......I think its hilarious that a proven thief like Darling is accusing a banker of being greedy...Isnt he the one who is renting his home and claiming expenses....
Gordon Brown and Tony Blair are the only culpable characters in this mess......As much as they try they wont create another Kelly driven to suicide by these two murderers.....
When Brown is forced from Government, both he,Tony Blair and every member of the Westmidden Cabinet should be tried for crimes against humanity here under Scottish Law......Why are there nobody demanding he gives up his multi million gifts from rich American Businessmen who made their fortune ripping off the American People, and using the war as a moneymaker......
After Independence the Scottish BBC should be investigated for proof that they were openly biased against the SNP Political Party, and sought to undermine the Scottish Nation by being no more than a mouthpiece for Westmidden and the Union....
Complain about this comment
102 Bluelaw
Actually found myself agreeing with on of your earlier posts...I must be getting old.
I made the point about schism in good faith as, I hope, a non-nationalist (off the rugby field). The truth is that English people by and large don't think about Scotland much. That's not meant to be an insult...it's just not on the radar. The majority of English people will live their lives without ever visiting once. I'm a bit different in that I used to live there, visit often (I'l be at the Edinburgh Festival if anyone wants to have a beer) etc etc, so I take an interest.
My concern is that if the nationalist bandwagon really gets going next year, Alec's more prozaic supporters start giving vent to their errr...natural prejudices and this starts to make the news in large quantities then you run the risk of wakening mass English public opinion. This would of course have no bearing on the independence vote as the English will have no say. The risk is that politicians will inevitably sense the mood and play to the gallery. Whip up anti-Scottish sentiment, even if its mildly expressed and you have a real problem, both in negotiating an independence settlement (shall just forget the trillion pound bank guarantees?), and in the behaviour of English consumers and businesses.
I used to work for a large UK software company. It was a standing joke that it was not worth trying to sell products or services North of the Border because the chances of being selected, as an English rep of an English based company, were remote. I argued that this was wrong and prejudicial and spent many agonizing mornings on the red-eye visiting potential customers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Guess how much I sold....precisely nothing. This wasn't really a problem as we were already serving a much bigger market elsewhere, it just made me look foolish.
The point that I'm getting to is...what happens if this start process starts to be reciprocated? That's what I mean by "schism hurting the Scots more than the English". It's a pure numbers game...I'm sorry but there are more of us than you. That's not meant to be a threat, I would hate it to happen but I think that it could.
As my francophone friend would doubtless recognise, I am simply being pragmatique! Though in the English sense of the word this means just being frank rather than the original meaning of surrendering, changing sides, shafting former allies etc etc ;_)
Complain about this comment
John Munro MSP has today called for a referendum on Scotlands Independence. He has broken ranks with Tavish Scott and the rest of the Scottish Lib/Dem MSP's......It was always on the cards if one considers the LibDem Constitution.......Check it out on Wikpedia and then ask why they ever felt their core principles do not suit the current crop of wannabees.........A Sample of their documentation retrieved from the information available makes them to be seen as no more than hypocrits......................."The phrase tyranny of the majority, used in discussing systems of democracy and majority rule, is a criticism of the scenario in which decisions made by a majority under that system would place that majority's interests so far above a minority's interest as to be comparable to "tyrannical" despots"
The Tyranical Desots would be the Three London Controlled Political Parties. We can never beat the population of England and the subsequent amount of Non Scottish MP's........Make no mistake though, Westmidden will never have a single bit of involvement in Scotlands Referendum........Scotland joined the Union, and can leave that disgusting out of date institution called Westmidden anytime it cares to after the Scottish Nation get the chance to voice their opinion. .......Have the Vote and call in the UN to provide observors for all negotiations with the occupying force.....
Complain about this comment
Brian
And of course just to add insult to injury this is the same Myners who reported for the Government in 2001 that pension trustees should know more about what they are doing! Now should he have known to reach for a lawyer or not?
Complain about this comment
#110 SchoolTieColours
(liked your explanation of your nick from the other thread!)
In favour of independence meself so I understand how you feel to an extent. I'd certainly never think that a preference for independence meant automatic antiEnglish feeling though I'm less connected to the ideal of "country" than most of you so our inclination to independence comes from different roots.
However when it comes to Brown, Grey and their likes the thing which irks me about them is not that they're Scots betraying the nation (nebulous concepts) but that they're politicos who slavishly defend the status quo even when it's all going horribly wrong (ie now). That's what's causing the fault.
Like Alistair Darling trying to harpoon the FM over our cutbacks not being the same as their cutbacks. Basically what he was saying wasn't "reduce expense accounts, save money" or he'd start with himself. It was "you aren't getting rid of your public sector at the same rate we're sacking ours." Yes, the public sector, that root of all evil. Much better to leave the fate of the nation to bankers instead. They've done such a good job...
Complain about this comment
104 Aye-Write
You naughty...person...you. You've caught me out by using my own stuff :-)
Game to you...but I don't see how it changes my views on Nationalism as expressed in November. I still think it's the preserve of the malcontent, the scoundrel and the rabble rouser. It doesn't matter if you use the word Scottish, British or anything else it tends to end up ugly.
I think that you're mixing up identity and nationalism. So most Scots are proud of their identity. Good, that's great. I have no problems with honestly expressed positive patriotism. I'm proud to be English...and British. I have no problem with this. It's about basic pride in identity and culture. What is unpleasant and insidious are claims to superiority. That's where nationalism (small "n") creeps in...the feeling that what you represent is in all ways better than something else. Mix in a few grievances, real or imagined and the mood changes. There has been quite a lot of this on these threads...usually based around the idea that Scots are in some vague way nicer, more communitarian, less aggressive, more humorous, more generous and...well just about everything, than their thuggish neighbours. These contributors should really have a long hard look at themselves in the mirror.
I would have more sympathy with the view that Scottish votes don't count or that Scotland has no voice if there weren't quite so many of you at every turn in political, business and media circles. What, besides independence, is it that you want that is not already enshrined in one of the national parties. How is this desire not being heard. Would it be heard any better or differently in Holyrood after independence?
Perhaps you are articulating the common complaint that none of the main parties represent what you want, therefore there is no point in voting. This is leading to a decline in electoral turnout in many Western democracies. This is a very dangerous path. You either plump for your least worse choice and try to have a say, or you recreate the type of chaotic situation seen in fledgling democracies where there might be upwards of fifty different political parties representing some particular group or viewpoint or other. I don't think this would help anyone.
Have a nice weekend ;-)
Complain about this comment
Neil Small
Does the Rep of Ireland have oil? Do you think their citizens would like to become part of the UK again?
Wakey, wakey!
Complain about this comment
101 Chiefy1724
Thanks for the kind words. I do think sometimes that well turned sound bite can crystalize the argument.
Loved the head boiling quip. In the spirit of this new thread and to paraphrase an old Scottish saying.."I must request that retain the main portion of your exhalations as a means of heat exchange to cool your liquid broth meal to a palatable temperature" ;-)
Complain about this comment
107 Bighullaballoo
Now take a deep breath and read it again.
Complain about this comment
106 Schooltiecolours
This is a political blog! Why should I suddenly have to start standing for something? Most of our politicians base entire careers on standing for nothing;-)
Complain about this comment
110 Schooltiecolours
Ahhh, I get it. You want me to compose some upper middle class diatribe about Kelvin Mackenzie and Ken Livingstone so that you can expose me as a crashing snob who has no feelings for the suffering of the common people.
Are you a new class warrior or a retread from the 70s?
Complain about this comment
#113 Anglophone
A little below your usual high standard I think (I normally like your posts).
"I don't think that the French have cozied up to Scots historically out of admiration for your food or culture."
I've posted similarily before on occasions. Regretted it after I pressed the Post button. Regretted it even more when others chastised it for a "cheap shot" - especially when they were right!.
Complain about this comment
#113 - "The kicking and screaming on this page that accompanied the shotgun wedding of HBOS and Lloyds was farcical...as I mentioned earlier in this thread, senior bankers were wheeled out to take a nationalistic line incompatible with their careers as leaders of major British banks to denounce the merger and what...HBOS was a total stinker and could very easily drag Lloyds down with it. "
Anglopheobe, hindsight's a great thing, always gives 20/20 vision and can make visionaries out of people. Except, nobody, not Gordie, not Darling, not Lloyds, not HBOS and not even you knew how bad a state HBOS was in. Everybody was operating with the best information available to them. If the true extent of HBOS's problems were known, the merger with Lloyds would probably not have happened but, at the time, it looked like they were getting a great deal so you can hardly blame people for saying so at that time.
Although, if the true extent of HBOS's problems was (publicly) known, it would have been interesting to see if Gordie & Darling would have pushed ahead with the merger, or attempted some sort of rescue package for HBOS as a stand alone entity.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Some rejoinders as this thread progresses.
I listened, as I always do, to the lovely La Riddoch at lunchtime and one of her guests, a freelance journalist, offered the opinion that behind all this current FredtheShred malarky lay the not so subtle hand of Lord Mandy.
The penny dropped!!
For example, just why would the 'weegreyteachermannie' waste his slot at FMQ's yesterday trying to corner the Eckmeister on Sir George Matthewson?? Well, now we know - he was telt!!
And again, just why is there so much fulmination in the media about FredtheShred's obscene pension?? Pa Broon and his wee Darling passed the buck to the wrong guy who got his due diligence WRONG!!
Have these media hacks got no understanding of contract law or pension law?? If everyone had listened to this morning's GMS they would have got a bit of elucidation from the redoutable Bill Jamieson of The Scotsman. He so rightly pointed that all Fred's pension details were correctly published in the RBS's Annual Report for 2007 (around maybe April 2008?) where the exact numbers quited today are defined.
These were contractual numbers agreed before the downfall and, because they are pension entitlements, would be vested in a pension company rather than RBS itself.
Forget the numbers for a minute, and let every pension member ask themselves the question would they be willing to have their agreed pension arrangements torn up after they left their employment?? I think not!!
Then, on top of that, why would anyone, especially institutional investors, ever want to invest in Treasury Bills again, if the Government came along and said, 'sorry we were misled along the way and will now only pay you 1% interest instead of 5% and redeem only 50% of the principal value??
Some people need to get a grip on reality! including Fred, who is 100% right to give the v-sign to the Government, BUT, and he'd be a hero if he did this, should now set up the FredtheShred Charitable Trust and donate at least 50% of his pension to that cause!!
Then all the fleecing politicians of our time might think twice about their 'housing benefit' deals and all the incredible gains they have made from 'working' the expenses systems!!
Complain about this comment
116 Scottishrepublic
Thanks for so eloquently proving my point about Alec's "more prozaic supporters" in 115.
You weren't hoping for a tip though were you?
Complain about this comment
Has Fred ever donated to the labour party?
TDBs
Complain about this comment
Anglophone,
You are supposed to answer ME first! (tatrums ;-)
My, you are popular :-)
I am pleased my post has brought you back ;-)
That of course was it's alterior motive (hmm, now you'll go?).
And as others have suggested, wrongly, but it's up to them so not a problem, it was in no way meant to ridicule. (If it did I hadn't thought of that!)
I just purely wanted your reaction. Thank you, and others, you have obliged. For now I am overdosing on your posts....
Oh, and as for a beer, what a good idea. My sisters are in Edinburgh and always swanning off to the festival, so it must be my turn.
Which act are you in.....? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#115 Anglophone
Might take you up on that offer of having a beer!
It'll be difficult for you to get a sense of it, at the Festival with so many visitors, but I think devolution has brought about a change in attitude in Scotland. I do detect an alteration in mood with much less of the "grievance" that used to dominate Scottish thinking - across the political spectrum.
A lot of the nasty anti-English stuff that was often heard in the 70s has gone, and a lot of what you do hear now tends to be loose terminology by people who say "England" when they actually mean the power elite in the South East. And yes, we still have our bigots and idiots!
England appears to be going through a similar phase to what we went through. Much of the anti-Scots stuff is the bad side of grievance politics. Remove the "stranger" (whom it is always easy to blame) from the equation, and peoples are forced to come to terms with their own failings.
So yes, in the short term (while we are in the UK Union), we are likely to see Tory politicians taking stances to placate English grievance. The obvious one, which can be implemented immediately after the next GE, is to remove the West Lothian Question.
But you yourself fall into the grievance policy trap - "shall just forget the trillion pound bank guarantees?".
The reality, as you well know, is that these were multi-national banks headquartered in Scotland, and the public debt and assets should be appropriately divided at independence. The "English taxpayer paying for Scotland" argument is hardly an accurate picture - but it plays well at a time when one of the most disliked Governments in UK history is run by Brown and Darling.
Complain about this comment
116 Scottishrepublic
Bring it on...so you get an aye vote by whatever is the necessary majority. You then demand that the UN intervene to negotiate with who exactly? Would that be the UK? The security council member with veto rights. Plain dumb!
As far as negotiations are concerned you would probably be playing into the hands of English nationalists who would be able to hard ball with NU negotiators rather than wasting money on goodwill gestures in face to face negotiations where sentiment might play a part.
Let's try to be sensible now.
Complain about this comment
#119 Anglophone
"What is unpleasant and insidious are claims to superiority. That's where nationalism (small "n") creeps in...the feeling that what you represent is in all ways better than something else"
I think few here would disagree with that.
In different countries, different types of nationalism develop (as they do with any other kind of "ism" relating to politics), but if you take away the other dimensions (anarchy v totalitarianism) then it comes to those forms which want to exert their superiority over others, and those who want to be treated as equals.
Fortunately, small countries tend not to have dreams of world domination (excluding the embarassment of Ally's Army that is!), because it would just be silly.
Complain about this comment
119 - "I would have more sympathy with the view that Scottish votes don't count or that Scotland has no voice if there weren't quite so many of you at every turn in political, business and media circles. "
Except, it's it arguable that you are simply noticing someone's nationality when they are Scots simply because there is still something 'novel' about a high-profile Scot. After all, an English person in a similar role is simply par for the course, nothing of note.
At the end of the day, when you break your assertion down, it doesn't hold much water and is more to do with latent phobias against the non-English than with any reflection of reality.
Complain about this comment
4strikes
What gets me is Broon/Darling bailing out private banks with borrowed money. Scotland is a country for goodness sake and should at least have borrowing powers until things change. It's ok to use money for private companies but not for our country and moreso it's people.
Did you guess the colours and if so please give an eloquent description?
Anglophone
What do you stand for? Is it the staus quo, indy England or whatever. What do you think I meant? Your entitled to vote/support whoever you want and I would respect that but you've not really clarified your intentions. I would like to respond to certain areas of your threads but they're a trifle long and not particularly informative, sorry.
Complain about this comment
#94 fourstrikes
"Imagine addressing Mandy that way if you want a laugh. I reckon he'd look as if you just spat in his soup."
Or poured soup on his spats, perhaps?
I'm a lefty Liberal - not a socialist and I found the old Labour party, and their righties who formed the SDP and now control the LimDems, much too centralising for my tastes. OTOH, the lack of a mainstream party in their place and right-wing, authoritarian NuLab pretending to, is clearly a situation which must be replaced, sooner or later.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
"I don't think that the French have cozied up to Scots historically out of admiration for your food or culture."
Scotland and France had special trading relations.
Scotland's elite were given the opportunity to buy the best wine of France before England and other neighbours were allowed too.
I am sure whisky was then offered to France in return but I could be wrong.
It's only from an English point of view that France cozied up to Scotland because they were the lesser of two evils.
But then again, England was never always Scotland's cup of tea, can you blame us?
At least I have shared with you some knowledge. Trades were done between Scotland and France. Special deals so each country could get the best of both worlds.
Complain about this comment
Anglophone dear fellow
I wish you well you are decent fellow. Class is irrelevent to me. Humanity,humility is best just ask your new pal aye_write who's also a decent dear mummy. I'm afraid Kelvin is as bad as some rabid Maggie loony rightwinger which are hidden in the depths of the Tory party. I dislike more fellow Scots but not for their views but for what they are doing to my country. Regardless of which political hue we should be working for what's best for us all. Fed up with Gray/Scott. They are a couple of first class fools and as for the media we have Glen Campbell and Bernie Ponsonby et al plus our informative press!
Complain about this comment
#105 Ed Iglehart
Too true, which is precisely why I think a C21 version of Arbroath is appropriate. My reference to Pullman's article was not meant to signify my agreement with every word he wrote, though many of them were quite true, especially about the encroachment of the NuLab government on what many thought were their fundamental freedoms.
It seems that even the Thunderer has now taken "frit" and pulled the article. It still pops up as only hit if you paste "Malevolent voices that despise our freedoms" into the search field at http://www.timesonline.co.uk/ but clicking on it now gives an Error 404. Google also gives a number of hits on the same search string, but the Times one is the 404 one, and unfortunately the article wasn't available for long enough to get cached.
So much for our freedoms, I suppose.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Mod que already 90 mins again and apparently rising so no point waiting.
Will pop back later. TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone:
"You then demand that the UN intervene to negotiate with who exactly? Would that be the UK? The security council member with veto rights. Plain dumb!
As far as negotiations are concerned you would probably be playing into the hands of English nationalists who would be able to hard ball with NU negotiators rather than wasting money on goodwill gestures in face to face negotiations where sentiment might play a part.
Let's try to be sensible now."
A sensible person would look at the wider picture. Scotland leaving England would be international news, and Britain was never popular, were we?
England would have to be quick on her feet, you'll have to protect that security council position, possibly your amount of representatives at the EU Parliament and quickly fill in the gaps that Scotland has taken, including military-wise.
Politically England would be damaged by following your steps.
You should be looking to minimise the fuss and bother and lie low personally.
Complain about this comment
Now I don't think it has much to do with votes, but that reminds me of similar observations regarding another "ethnic group", or rather several of them. Perhaps it's due to sharing similar (old-fashioned?)"family values", like valuing education, thrift, hard work, and with possibly even a wee bit of judicious nepotism thrown in...?Salaam/Shalom/Shanthi/Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
"You then demand that the UN intervene to negotiate with who exactly? Would that be the UK? The security council member with veto rights. Plain dumb!"
Whilst I too disagree with the most of the language used by #116 scottishrepublic, in particular the phrase "occupying force" (?!?!), some form of mediation would be required, either by the EU (probably not a good move regarding that institutions current perception within England) or the UN.
Just a small point and hypothetical in the extreme, but the UN would be negotiating with England, Wales and Northern Ireland. The UK as an international body would cease to exist and therefore couldn't be negotiated with, nor perhaps would you still have a permanent security council seat or even a veto.
You may possibly have to reapply to join, as would Scotland, the UN, NATO and the EU if membership of these institutions was indeed desired?
Something to think about though..................
Complain about this comment
#136 Brownedov
Soup on his spats would be more to my taste. My original post was more graphic than that but I wasn't sure if Mods wd approve ;)
I know you don't share my political persuasion but I took the opportunity of replying to your post to go on a wee rant - sorry! I think even people who don't share my views would agree with you that a multiplicity of views is better. You can't slide a cigarette paper between Tory and Labour on a UK wide scale sometimes and when you can the Tories appear to their left. Scary business.
Complain about this comment
#135 STC,
I gave long thought to your colours and brooded on school ties of my acquaintance. Black and red was out as I suspect you are no anarchosyndicalist. Green, possibly or possibly not (colours was plural though.) Discounted all ties with white in them.
I came to the conclusion it may have been yellow and black. Was I right? ;)
As for using money to bail banks out, I agree 100 percent Scotland should have borrowing powers and don't quite see why we don't already. However the simplest solution of all is to go for the Big One (independence) and work from there.
Complain about this comment
#70 Brownedov
Re Welsh parliament and Labour supporters, you should take a look at grandantidote's post #1490 at the end of NR's 'Language of the Downturn' thread, I can only believe in response to my posting of the same link regarding the opinion poll.
Complain about this comment
Please can we have your pension back.....Aye Right Said Fred
Complain about this comment
#133
A common trick of the anti-nationalist brigade is to deliberately confuse innocent nationalism with aggressive imperialism. I had this converasation with an ex soldier last night who insisted he could not vote SNP "because nationalism started wars". He was Labour, of course, and evidently with an irony by-pass.
I told him that his argument was similar to suggesting that having household possessions caused burglary but that flew over his head.
Complain about this comment
#144 fourstrikes
"I think even people who don't share my views would agree with you that a multiplicity of views is better."
I certainly hope you're right - I do think that the significantly more democratic system in Scotland allows that to flourish in a way impossible in England.
"You can't slide a cigarette paper between Tory and Labour on a UK wide scale sometimes and when you can the Tories appear to their left."
Agreed, and the really worrying result of that is the apparent rise in England of the BNP. The really sad result of the Westmidden plurality system is that although it sets high hurdles to prevent new parties emerging, when they do the effect is like a dam bursting. In the first half of C20 it allowed the Labour party to replace the Liberal party. In C21 it could be that NuLab is replaced by the BNP. Only if/when that happens will it be self-evident that giving them fair representation and a platform for their odious views would have been a very small price for society to have paid.
A "Scary business" indeed.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#119. Anglophone
"104 Aye-Write
You naughty...person...you. You've caught me out by using my own stuff :-)"
Yes! It was good "stuff" (I'm jealous ;-)
How many people have you accepted have outwitted you on this blog? I am awarding myself a medal.
And now for my next trick. I am going to convince you on independence :-)
If I do, you buy me a beer. If I don't, I buy you one.....What's that? You have a life? Like me, you have at least one young son so by definition you don't have a life! This all OK with you so far :-)
Make yourself some kind of snack and light refreshment....
The trouble with your argument against independence unfortunately is that you are nice, but worse, you are reasonable. This can be terribly unusual with "anti-independence-ers". ("Unionists" offends Anaxim).
But you are nearly there!
"I don't see how it changes my views on Nationalism as expressed in November. I still think it's the preserve of the malcontent, the scoundrel and the rabble rouser. It doesn't matter if you use the word Scottish, British or anything else it tends to end up ugly."
As oldnat says these views of nationalism are very corny now and out of date. As you say you have been out of Scotland for a while, so you are of course forgiven!
You will see from my correct (2nd) post, that you, not me, are confusing nationalism with national identity, in my...
"It's not nationalism as you perceive it, it's mere identity."
You:
"So most Scots are proud of their identity. Good, that's great. I have no problems with honestly expressed positive patriotism. I'm proud to be English...and British. I have no problem with this. It's about basic pride in identity and culture."
Good, keep wearing those Union Flag boxers, Anglophone ;-)
"What is unpleasant and insidious are claims to superiority"
Perhaps I wasn't clear when I said, "It's not the zealous desire for extra power". I ought to also have pointed out neither is it the belief in some sort of superiority.
It's not to assume we are of normal status and the seeking of superior status. It is the recognition that we have a lesser status and the wish for ordinary status, as taken for granted by other independent states.
I have no delusions of superiority - I realise my comparative uselessness to you in the ability to debate for example. I wish I was as good but I am realistic and accept that I'm not and never likely will be, whereas you have that talent.
And so it is not about superiority.
I repeat:
It is not to assume that we have equal power and we conceitedly desire more. It is to realise that we have little power and only want the corrective balance of having some, as like others.
And so it is not about power.
"That's where nationalism (small "n") creeps in...the feeling that what you represent is in all ways better than something else."
Well, I'M certainly not that stupid, and I think it stupid to assume advocates of Scottish independence inherently suffer from the great levels of delusion that to do so would command.
We Scots would have told them to wise up way before you English would get the chance.
But there are always some numpties.
"Mix in a few grievances, real or imagined and the mood changes. There has been quite a lot of this on these threads...usually based around the idea that Scots are in some vague way nicer, more communitarian, less aggressive, more humorous, more generous and...well just about everything, than their thuggish neighbours. These contributors should really have a long hard look at themselves in the mirror."
If those things were said, and they weren't said in jest, then perhaps were they said in the context of not "better" but "different"? And pointed out as merely opinion? If not, then you have my wholehearted agreement.
Independence supporters don't want sweeping statement spinners to ruin their, and so all Scots, credibility!
So, I apologise.
"I would have more sympathy with the view that Scottish votes don't count or that Scotland has no voice if there weren't quite so many of you at every turn in political, business and media circles."
Anglophone, I see where you are coming from, but you mistake the influence these people and the reality of self governance. The two are very much not the same.
You don't want to echo, if you don't mind my saying so, the Imperial English view (xenophobic as was, but I won't tar you with that brush) that a "Flight of Scotchmen" have descended upon the Empire/England and, in it for themselves, have with bare-faced greed, sought to better themselves and climb the greasy pole in England for the acquisition of power and influence. (I incorporated the last bit!).
Scots in these positions don't represent the political will as representative of Scots as a nation do they, as elected representatives in the parliaments of other independent nations. I'm repetitive, but please don't let that sour my point. In that sense they are not a substitute for that system. They are not in government, don't bring forward bills for legislation etc. etc.
Neither did they arrive where they are through the parliamentary election process, which is at least a fairly more open scrutinous process.
Except for Westminster MPs. Although elected in Scottish seats, they work for the Union as a whole, not Scotland, so therefore where there is a conflict of interests between those two, Scotland is not, cannot be represented.
You understand my point that
where 87% of MPs are not from Scottish seats, the balance of power overwhelmingly does not lie with Scotland. Rather it's quite the opposite.
It's not to do with a fair proportion of MPs coming from Scotland, but that they are so easily outnumbered, as representatives of a nation, as to make their voice meaningless.
It is that simple flaw, and really nothing else, that is the reason why I, from age 5 (in 1979), have understood that this situation leaves Scotland with a major representational deficit, and that the Union is therefore biased heavily in against the wishes of the Scottish nation i.e. me (no grudge borne).
For it not to be you have to ignore Scotland as a nation. And you have already said you support that feeling of national identity and welcome it.
So, you see my problem.
"What, besides independence, is it that you want that is not already enshrined in one of the national parties."
That is an odd question but I really appreciate your honest curiosity in bothering to ask. It is not about any ideals enshrined in any of the political parties. It is about, were these to be enacted, the system in which that would occur, as described above, and its unsuitability in Scotland, as I explained.
It is with independence that Scots can debate then enact issues, in a way that represents and caters for Scotland. (I don't see Utopia, just improvement.)
"How is this desire not being heard."
What Scotland wants cannot be heard in the Westminster system.
(Holyrood is better, but has too many embarrassing limitations.)
"Would it be heard any better or differently in Holyrood after independence?"
Yes. As in Holyrood now, it would be representative of the consensus of opinion of Scots. But Scotland would have something other European countries take for granted - sovereign status, their own international voice. Imagine if your country were denied that.
So you see it is not the merits of power in the EU, or the projected strength of the economy, the size of the influence of the international voice, or any other issue that independent nations deal with all the time. It is the restoration of our nation to sovereign, to the normalcy of self governance.
Anything else is a botched job, for Scotland. The Union in 1707, as I'm sure you know, was cobbled together to stave off a threat to England from a Scottish alliance with France, and Scots agreed to it because of pressing financial difficulty through long term border warfare, famine in the 1690s and the (yes, I'm going to mention it, just for you!) failed/sabotaged Darien Scheme (stop laughing).
That they negotiated the retention of our legal, educational and most important for national identity arguably, until more recently (owing to its looming influence on administering law and other day to day areas of life), religious systems, indicates that the Union was not meant to signify the end of sovereign Scotland, but on the contrary, was meant to be only temporary.
You may disagree with my last point. You may not have the will left after reading this "ramble on" to care.
It's a mere aside, so it doesn't matter.
I am sure you will focus on the practical administration and its benefits or otherwise for independence versus the status quo.
I'd say that's a red herring as it ignores the basis of the anomaly. And it cannot but help but argue that self governance can be traded away for some conceivable tangible benefits. It's not just ours to trade Anglophone. It would feel like selling our rights and freedoms as set out in the Declaration of Arbroath.
You may find me sentimental, but most things precious and dear to us are treated in exactly this way, are they not?
Thank you.
Complain about this comment
#113 Anglophone
Good evening. The "voice of reason" here (#112, sniffthehedgehog). Frankly Incomprehensible I may be to you, but my dog likes me. So there.
My dear anglo-chap, forgive me for not replying to your post in full. I am afraid that it simply contains too many wild misrepresentations, unsupported sweeping statements and irrationally jumped-to conclusions for me to be able to face on a Friday evening. In any case, oldnat says it is below your usual standard, and that is good enough for me. No offence intended and none taken, I am sure.
One point, though. What is comprehensible about "could of happened" in your last paragraph? On reflection, do not answer that, as I am accustomed to making allowances for that kind of thing, which is all too common in England nowadays. As a matter of passing interest, I may say that, in all honesty, without seeking to mock the afflicted, how that sort of mistake can be made will for ever remain a mystery to me, I fear. Frankly incomprehensible.
Yours floridly but truly,
your francophone friend.
#125 oldnat
As far as I am aware, the French "cozied up" to the Scots - in the 16th century, at least - because, among other reasons, not including the cuisine, admittedly, they noticed that it would be strategically in their interests to do so. By this I mean, principally, I think, that it was calculated that a force of 30,000 armed men introduced into Scotland, on the basis of an alliance, would have no difficulty in crossing the border and "pulverizing" England. I derive this intelligence from Etienne Perlin's Description of the Kingdoms of England and Scotland (1558), with which, as an historian, you are probably familiar.
Why anyone would want to pulverize England is beyond me, however. Any ideas? Can the English really be that annoying? Surely not!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov:
Have you been a member of the BNP?
Complain about this comment
4strikes
;)
I couldn't be green as it is polar opposite of my teams colours and I don't mean the Glesga mob!
Complain about this comment
#149 Brownedov
A very pertinent post. This is a major problem.
The BNP activities are very worrying right now. They're spreading their activities into Scotland and that should be a concern for every decent person here who wants a multicultural inclusive Scotland and not a 19th Century fantasy.
I will fight the fash to my last breath and it horrifies me that some English workers are being taken in by their lies. But Labour acknowledges their "power" and that's grist to their mill. They need to be vigorously opposed where ever they show their faces and Labour are doing nothing to stand in their way except the odd press release.
Complain about this comment
152 Thomas_Porter
Why on earth would Brownedov need an account with BNP Paribas, with all those excellent Swiss banks around?
And what business is it of yours who he has banked with?
Complain about this comment
#154 fourstrikes
While we will disagree on many aspects of politics - I'm on the line with you on this one brother! (and that's not said ironically)
Complain about this comment
#152 STC
I get where you're coming from now ;)
Complain about this comment
#107 bighullabaloo
"Ha ha! Good one.
Brilliant!"
Re Anglophone
Thank you.
I really admire Anglophone. But I want him to see through his argument. He's entitled to his views of course. He feels the Union serves him better. It probably does! But at the expense of my equally legitimate wants. There's the problem.
But he should also be able to accept my opinion without the associated doom and gloom scenario - it's only backing up a "worse case than the present" scenario to legitimise his view that the present as better, I think :-)
Arguing his brain with mine is a rare opportunity though. I hope he doesn't get too bored.
Complain about this comment
4stirkes
I hope so or i'll have to explain. I'm like you I want an inclusive Scotland with varied colours.
Complain about this comment
#156 oldnat
You're right, we will disagree on many things but I knew from your posts here you would never favour fash! No Scot who believes we're a' Jock Tamson's bairns would ever fall for the lies of the BNP, and you're far too smart to do so anyway.
What worries me is that I know they're trying to expand into Scotland, which has historically been resistant...
Complain about this comment
159
I mean 'strikes' lol. I've had a wee wine and a wee cider.
Is there anybody alive out there?
Complain about this comment
OldNat:
#155.
I meant political party-wise, and you know I meant that too ;-)
The problem with democracy is that the party that you do not like may eventually become Government.
Brownedov highlighted the worrying BNP situation, considering the BNP are a legal organisation then what is wrong with the political advancements?
I understand that the BNP are not everyones favourite, I am not defending them either, but I accept that people have the right to vote and support the party of their choice.
People will vote BNP, and the BNP may win elections, but we canvnot turn our back on the BNP and cast them aside as some sort of outsiders.
I've always seen the BNP scraping along the racism mark, and recently they have begun to tone down and many more average members of society have became members.
We'll all agree that these members are not going to be "skin heads". But if we all continue to see the BNP as some type of threat, a disgusting organisation that encourages racism, then will we not risk hardening the views of the non-racists and potentially encourage many more under the BNP because it'll end up being a situation where members see it as, BNP and me against the world.
I am young, but I still see the stigma from being a member of the SNP creates. Being a member and I am suddenly anti-English or even anti-British.
I don't want to allow the BNP members to have that type of stigma, and I do believe over time if we allow party politics to continue then eventually the BNP will be a new party, supported by many of the newer members who have the power to change BNP policy.
But create some type of stigma, then these oridinary folks may never wish to change BNP policy in face of a hostile world of politics.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat and 4s
BNP have no chance of survival in Scotland. Their only breeding ground would be a certain football team and neds or am I wrong?
Complain about this comment
#161 SchoolTieColours
Thanks for the clarification. I couldn't really see our Socialist friend as an Ayrshire farmer taking 4 stirks to the mart!
(but on this blog, you never know!)
Complain about this comment
The Scotsman are at the moment printing a few insipid anti SNP articles. So bad that they aren't really worth bothering about.
However, there is an interesting little piece about Lloyd's banning them from their financial results announcement.
I read the piece with a bit of a smirk until I read the following from Dan Macdonald, chief executive of Scots property company Macdonald Estates.
Desperate Dan reportedly said:
"We're not talking about some left wing, lunatic newspaper. We're talking about The Scotsman, the main newspaper in Scotland."
It's hilarious, truly hilarious.
Complain about this comment
#146 ScotInNotts
"Re Welsh parliament and Labour supporters"
Having sparred with grandantidote before, and read his #1490 on NR's "Language of the downturn" thread, I fully accept that he's one of the 39% who would vote against. But I believe he's increasingly less representative of Wales as a whole. The fact that he has admitted [and also regretted] voting for Thatcher's Tories as well as NuLab is at least different. I have two families of cousins in Wales. One, in mid-Wales farming country are entirely anglophone and "apolitical" Liberals who nowadays vote LibDem as a matter of course. The other, in the South near Bridgend were traditional Labour until the closures at the end of the '70s, when they switched To Plaid Cymru and have sent their children to Welsh-speaking schools in a previously anglophone area.
I'm doubtless too close to my Welsh relations to have a genuinely independent opinion, but from visits I believe they're closer to the current norm than grandantidote, who seems only to post on the NR threads and not on the Betsan Powys ones.
But there I go, displaying my soggy Liberal roots again - I'd be much happier if the Welsh had a vote on it and decided for themselves, even if they vote for the status quo or, worse, for a return to direct rule. To me, a democratic outcome is the right one, even if it's one I disagree with. That is a concept grandantidote was unable to understand when I debated with him the ratting of NuLab and the LibDems over their referendum promises. He seemed to think I should be happy that the outcome was the one I would have voted for, given the chance - an especially NuLab view, I felt.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#162 Thomas_Porter
Sorry. I'm in a wicked mood tonight!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat
Our 4s chap is a good fellow and very reasonable. He's the intellectual side of socialism, maybe!
Complain about this comment
The net closes in on Global Gordon
Blame shifts to Brown's City minister in RBS uproar
Yet more bad news for Global
Speaker Michael Martin took wife on taxpayer-funded trips to Hawaii and Bahamas
Meanwhile Brian Wilson continues with Iain Gray’s utterly shameless attempt at trying to use the Fred Goodwin debacle to attack the SNP. The contortions he pulls are indicative of the hollowness of his words, Labour are indeed in big trouble.
Click here
Complain about this comment
150 Aye Write , I thought that was a very well written and thoughtful post but I fear you're wasting your time with your Anglophone friend.
When he wrote this,
"You then demand that the UN intervene to negotiate with who exactly? Would that be the UK? The security council member with veto rights. Plain dumb!"
I realised that he viewed Scotland becoming independent, not as a partner in the union choosing to leave but took the view shared by many in England that a province was breaking away leaving the UK intact.
It's not an uncommon view in England and more intriguingly he stated further up the thread "The truth is that English people by and large don't think about Scotland much. That's not meant to be an insult...it's just not on the radar. "
I think this is indeed the truth although a lot of them despite how disinterested they are in Scotland and Scots seem to be very hostile to the idea of Scottish independence.
Again ,I think it's because for many, Scotland is viewed as a province of a Greater England.
I make an exception of course for English Nationalists who actually want independence from Scotland.
They are a very small number though and many more people in England want Federalism or an English Parliament but are very firm unionists.
The only possible reason to be hostile to Scottish independence whilst professing to being totally indifferent to Scots and Scotland is the fear of a loss of what such people regard as essentially their landmass and resources.
For a great many people in England Scotland won't become "real" until the independence referundum.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
Sometimes your old Lib thoughts need to be purged. We need you on the other side of your split personality. Oldnat would agree. ;)
Complain about this comment
#152 Thomas_Porter
In the immortal words of the great American mathematician, Tom Lehrer: I am not now and have never been... a member of the Boy Scouts of America, er, sorry, the BNP.
However, much as I despise their policies, so long as they remain with the law I will defend their right to espouse them to the best of my ability.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#172 Brownedov
I'd just like the law to be a little more thoroughly prosecuted in their case.
I hope that the security services are giving as close attention to them, as the SNP got in the 1970s.
Complain about this comment
#154 fourstrikes
Fair point, but the danger is less in Scotland than in England, I believe. Obviously it's a concern for all so long as the UK polity festers in its smug complacency, but even an independent Scotland would have to be concerned if an England unprepared for its own independence resulted in the far right gaining power there.
Before NuLab, I would have thought it impossible. Now I still think it improbable but the possibility should not be ignored.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
158 Aye-Write
Once again I appreciate your comments but I recall when I was young(er) admiring the sagacity of a (much) older associate. He laughed and simply said that exposure to Oxford in 60s had taught him that he was a "third-rate intellect". He completely destroyed me so I must rank among the 4th or 5th raters.
I don't suppose that we will ever convince one another on the independence issue and I hate repeating myself. I would have replied earlier but I ended up dancing with my children to James Brown and eating birthday cake by candlelight. It tends to put all this sound and fury into perspective.
PS: Thomas Porter...you're very young so I'll let you off, but a surprising fact that I have learned following 20 years on the road is that Britain is quite well-liked about the world. There are always issues...Iraq being a rather unfortunate one at the moment, but I have always been treated with friendliness and respect wherever I have gone...even by tribal gunmen in Pakistan. It's paradoxical that the most anti-British people that I have ever met have been its own citizens but as I've mentioned before...the juiciest apple is always the one that contains a few maggots!
Complain about this comment
170 GrassyKnollington
You're putting words into my mouth again. I try to gently state some facts and you're twisting away...no doubt like you did last summer and the one before.
I responded to the words of ScottishRepublic in the way that I did because they were worse than crass and if you can't see that well.....
Yours truly
BookDepositoryMan
Complain about this comment
#155 oldnat
"Why on earth would Brownedov need an account with BNP Paribas, with all those excellent Swiss banks around?"
Thanks for injecting some levity in a sub-plot that seems to being heading way off-topic. FWIW, my local earnings go into UBS - also bailed out by the government [the Swiss one in this case] - with any savings finding their way into the UK's largest remaining mutual - which has [touch wood] to date needed no bail out.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
116. At 3:23pm on 27 Feb 2009, scottishrepublic:
You are one of the very people who are giving the SNP problems.
Occupying force?
Get real.
Your argument is that Scotland should just go go independent like that. There is no problem, everything will be fine. The UN will protect our interests.
That is the sort of argument that makes a lot of voters ignore the SNP.
The UN? The UN has difficulty managing its own affairs. Whatever gives you the impression that the UN will need to send in troops? Is England going to invade?
If you want to drum up support, then use solid arguments and above all be realistic.
While support for the SNP and independence is growing, it is partly due to the unpopularity of Labour. We do not have hordes of demonstrators on the streets demanding independence. (well, not yet anyway).
---------------
On the subject of the BNP, they are gaining a lot of support in certain areas in England. People who would not normally give them the time of day are seriously considering voting for them. I suppose a fair comparison could be the Scottish Socialists first election into the Scottish Parliament. I think there is a fair chance of a BNP MP being elected.
Complain about this comment
#162 Thomas_Porter
"People will vote BNP, and the BNP may win elections, but we cannot turn our back on the BNP and cast them aside as some sort of outsiders."
Exactly so, but it's precisely the Westmidden plurality system beloved of Tories and [after '97] NuLab which makes them so dangerous.
If a party can be represented and given a platform with a reasonable share of the vote, it will be listened to by the electorate but, crucially, any extremist views it holds will be in the public domain and subject to counter-argument by responsible opponents.
In the Westmidden system, their views are effectively ignored until they make a "breakthrough", when they are invited into the club and the system moves almost imperceptibly in their favour.
Elect one or two BNP list members to Holyrood and even Gray and Scott would manage to ridicule their positions, let alone Salmond and Goldie.
At Westmidden it's much more all or nothing: A share of the vote that would get two list members at Holyrood could mean zero MPs [and growing resentment] or a bloc of 20 [and membership of the "club"]. That might be enough to put them into power - after all in 2005 NuLab got the votes of less than a quarter of the electorate.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#175 Anglophone
"It's paradoxical that the most anti-British people that I have ever met have been its own citizens"
I don't see that as a paradox. A large proportion of the world are ex-British citizens (cancel that last word). Why would they see "you" as a problem, when "you" no longer control their affairs, and they are independent nations? (except for the large parts of the world like Africa, Kashmir, the Middle East, Afghanistan/Pakistan etc) where the states are artificial constructs of the British and other Empires done in their own interests, and not of their peoples, and we'll have to deal with the mess of that for a very long time.)
(Wasn't that a long parenthesis)
Meantime, it's only the earliest acquisitions for the Empire left.
What on earth did you expect?
Complain about this comment
#175 Anglophone
Anglophone,
- I decided you are good.
Shut up and take the compliment :-)
- Wimp :-(
You'll talk to everyone else....
I knew you would decline.
(What IS your reason?)
I only had maybe 2 posts!
I don't get it, your argument was not absolutely definitive. Yet I cannot come back a little bit more, yet you can come back as many times as you like to all your other posters.
PS Imagine receiving your own post.....
Oh, well.
Fair enough!
Hassled too much.
Stupid me!
If it was your birthday, happy birthday.
Seeing as I won't get the chance:
Angletangle
Dingdongdangle
Megafanspangle
(aye_write, you don't care....... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#169 greenockboy
Thanks - some interesting in those links. Not sure cui bono from the Brian Wilson story in the Torygraph, though. Good breakfast reading for a Tory squire in Barsetshire, I suppose, but I doubt the invective will reach any in Scotland with minds capable of change.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#175 Anglophone
Anglophone, you're right. All this is daft really.
Well, whenever, if, you want some "sound" to your "fury", I'll probably oblige!
Maybe, if we want to agree, we should do Labour List ;-)
Enjoy your wild party.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#181 aye_write
Anglophone's response to you on the subject of your estimation of his intellect are worth taking seriously. You are embarrassing the fellow.
Complain about this comment
#173 oldnat
"I'd just like the law to be a little more thoroughly prosecuted in their case."
Absolutely, but we're straying on to dangerous ground here, oldnat. Unlike the BNP, the SNP represents a genuine threat to the UK state.
If the BNP come to power, NR might have to post criticism even more obliquely than currently, but the civil service and the Westminster village would have to make virtually no changes to accommodate them and the police and security services none at all apart from a recruitment drive. The people would suffer, of course, but as in 1930's Germany the changes would largely be too subtle to notice until too late.
OTOH, If the SNP come to majority power with a mandate for independence, the "home" civil service would [heaven forfend!] have to contract [or think up many new arguments why it should not], the Navy could potentially lose its nuclear toys and the security services would be under pressure to contract. Add to that the loss of oil revenues to the city and oil taxes to the exchequer.
Which would Whitehall prefer?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#184 Maxanim
Alright. Sorry.
Complain about this comment
Tories and Fiberals fail to submit to Calman,
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2492380.0.LibDems_miss_deadline_for_Calman_review_submissions.php
I suppose they were just too "intensely relaxed" about it?!
Complain about this comment
#185 Brownedov
I don't imagine you'll disagree with the following.
Virtually everyone here was in the Libertarian Left quadrant (and yes I know it's an American survey etc). Frankly, I'm not concerned where people lie on the left/right spectrum. The threat to democracy comes from the authoritarian tendency (Left, Right or Centre - Cromwell is a classic example of a central authoritarian).
It's why I'm so virulently opposed to authoritarian NuLab as well as the BNP (with additional reasons in their case).
English Constitutional Law makes it so easy for authoritarians to capture the whole system - get a bare majority in the Commons with a tiny percentage of the vote, and total power is available to the new Government - and most of us would be in jail (maybe better being in Switzerland. I'd head to family in the USA if it seemed likely).
Yes you are right the apparatus of state would have to make minimal adjustments to accommodate forced repatriation ........
Complain about this comment
#187 pattymkirkwood
I bet Brownedov is even more glad that he decided not to join that bunch of incompetents!
Never mind. Anaxim will be along to tell us that the Lib-Dems don't believe in "identity politics", so they don't care about submitting to Calman anyway.
Can't say I'm surprised about the non-appearance of a Tory submission. I think Auntie Annabel will continue to steer a course which avoids any rocks of principle, and will allow the Scottish tories to survive whatever happens (they've been burnt once by opposing power to Scotland. I don't think they want to be doing it twice.)
Complain about this comment
#187 pattymkirkwood
Thanks for raising a smile before bedtime. I've castigated Duff Gordon before now for being the Yasser Arafat of UK politics in never missing an opportunity to miss an opportunity, but the Herald link you provide indicates that Scott covets the Scottish version of that role for himself.
For once, Dinwoodie indulges in masterly understatement with his: "It may also be very bad politics. Party leader Tavish Scott this week restated his view that it would be wrong to have a referendum on independence, a view not universally shared within his party."
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#188 oldnat
"Frankly, I'm not concerned where people lie on the left/right spectrum. The threat to democracy comes from the authoritarian tendency"
I agree with you 100% that the Y [libertarian/authoritarian] axis is an order of magnitude more important than the X [communal/individual] axis. At least if we reach a point of consensus somewhere below 0 on the Y axis, we'll be able to enter meaningful discussions over what point on the X axis optimises the common weal.
"English Constitutional Law makes it so easy for authoritarians to capture the whole system"
We share that concern, and I do not see how it can change before a major jolt to the system. A Scottish declaration of sovereignty might just act as a defibrillator in providing that jolt, but if it fails then at least Scotland need not be dragged down with the corpse.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Miaow! But you're not wrong. I suppose you have it right re the Tories also, but you'd think they could say something if only to justify their "investment" in Calman, but I suppose their existing position in Holyrood is as good as they can realistically hope for, with more effective influence than NuLab and LibDems combined on a fraction of the vote.
Too late for constructive thought - blanket bay beckons - Goodnight all.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#191 Brownedov
Before I head off to bed - a thought. Even if the opposition parties vote down a referendum, would it not be within the executive powers of the Scottish Government to require a massive increase in the statistical sample of the Scottish Social Attitudes Survey (to as near 100% of the electorate as possible) on the referendum question and the one you have proposed on Scottish sovereignty?
Complain about this comment
fourstrikes
As someone well to the left on the X axis, I'd really appreciate your comments on the late night discussion Brownedov and I (both towards the left-centre on that axis) have had on the dangers of authoritarianism.
Complain about this comment
Since I find myself awake at an unusual time...
#164 oldnat and STC, I laughed at the stirks ;) I have country relatives but I'm a city kid. Also STC thanks for the compliment, I have a long way to go before I'm the intellectual side of anything but maybe I'll get there some day and match the standards of this blog!
oldnat, I would like to address the BNP separately as I found some of Thomas's comments a bit worrying. So setting them aside, I agree 100 percent with your point. The most disturbing thing is a central gov't which holds ultimate power.
You might think this sounds strange coming from an admitted Trot ;) but the original system wasn't set up that way and the circs were very different. In an independent Scotland the conditions would hardly be the same as they were in Russia in 1917. There isn't a one size fits all solution to this.
I've seen what newLabour has been up to when in power and it's been scary to say the least. A tabloid driven agenda with a hollow core where principle should be has led to the creation of a state where we're "managed" wisely by our overlords and new laws appear on a constant basis. Some newLabour and other apparatchiks have praised the "managerial" approach as contrasted with the old "ideology based" model. I find it creepy.
Complain about this comment
#162 Thomas
I disagree with you strongly on how BNP members should be handled. They're nothing like you in the SNP. If one joins the BNP it means signing up to a radically racist agenda. Playing nice with these guys means you'll get kicked around.
I've dealt with that lot IRL. They are hardened racists. Look into the background of the BNP and see if it can ever become a "non racist organisation". Not happening.
It's the core belief of their party! It would be like expecting to convince a Green that concerns about the environment are a load of nonsense and that they should convert their party to believe that.
Complain about this comment
Few points on this:
If it was you, joe public, would you hand it back?
Will the Treasury get 40% of this back in tax?
Did you hear any politician/shareholder/commentator complain when the profits were billions pa?
As somepne commented yesterday, is this s diversion from the real mess of the econony and the Brown/Darling part in it?
Is anyone else really and truly sick of the sight of Brown every day blaming everyone else?
Roll on next year, we can then consign this rubbish to the bin, and hopefully it wont be recycled.....
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
If the English are so uninterested in Scotland why would they react to her more "prosaic" advocates and seek to punish her financially. I think Scotland is punished enough staying in this union so we'll take our chances even though I actually believe the vast majority of English people will respect our decison and will very quickly return to obsessing over thir own affairs once we're independent.
I am not surprised by the rise of the far-right in England. I think the English masses have a point when they say that mass immigration has done nothing for them. They have had to compete with huge numbers of non-Britons for ever-worsening wages and conditions in an already insecure job market with the consequent strain on the NHS, housing, schools etc. All so employers get cheap labour and a section of the middle class assuage their guilt over being English or British. And not only this whenever they complain they are labelled as racists who are too 'lazy' to do these jobs in the first place. I think the BNP are repulsive but because they have confronted this issue and the main parties haven't explains much about their increasing popularity.
Scotland simply hasn't been economically attractive enough for the same scenario to play out though no doubt this is changing and will change. I'll be honest with you. I love diversity but I wouldn't want Scotland to become as densely populated as the South East and London. I am not opposed to multi-culturalism either but I would prefer that we followed the French path of insisting upon loyalty to the host country, its language and as importantly its secularist and liberal traditions before anything else.
Complain about this comment
So, FTR we aren't allowed to discuss accusations made in national newspapers about the conduct of BBC journalists. ok then.
Complain about this comment
#200 bluelaw
Felicitations upon defying the anglo-chap by referring to "the French path".
The approach to the matters to which you refer, while not absolutely beyond criticism in every detail, as nothing is in France, is historically and currently intended, of course, to provide a level playing field for all citizens of the republic regardless of ethnic or religious background, as one would expect from a state which is founded upon the principles of liberty, equality and fraternity.
Complain about this comment
Merci mon ami.
I am a great admirer of many things French - even those things that infuriate me about them ;-)
I would never idealise French race relations. I know there are huge problems there but I think the principle of laicite should hold for Scotland too. And if that means amongst other things we seek an end to religious based schooling then I am all for it. But if, unlike in France, we allow for discreet expressions of religious affinity in public settings then as inconsistent as that is I am not against that it if indeed it means we have a good inter-relations with religious minorities.
What I am against is the passive-aggressive approach to multi-culturalism where one half of a country is embarrassed at their nationality and therefore deifies (sorry ;-) every other culture to the point where the other half, who are proud, feel very alienated in what is their own country. And of course this doesn't take into account the nefarious elements within immigrant or ethnic communities who wish to exploit every liberal tendency we have in order to maintain control over their own community whether they like it or not and who conspire to promulgate the 'otherness' in extremis of a community whose majority wishes to integrate and assimilate.
Complain about this comment
...I forgot to add. My view is that loyalty to country and its liberal traditions is paramount and then diffuse from that we can genuinely enjoy the contributions of all our cultures and languages. I also believe in controlled immigration and not a free-for-all which leads to endless recriminations and resentments right across the spectrum as can be seen IMO throughout England. But the country and its ideals must be defended vigorously and by all IMO.
Complain about this comment
Lots of interesting posts here :)
#185 Brownedov
There is one way where the UK and especially the Scottish civil service would take a major hit should the BNP come to power - diversity.
Presently the service is set up with diversity as a main aim. Staff are required to set diversity objectives and many talented staff are from ethnic minority backgrounds. I imagine their experience in post would be a bit similar to that of the Jews in Nazi Germany. (I don't mean being carted off to concentration camps but something more like Arthur Miller's "Focus")
Public sector TUs are unanimously opposed to fascism and fascists have no place in the union. What about working for fascists? There would be an upheaval.
I imagine the NHS would take a *massive* hit from a party which still believes in repatriation. Gone, all our GPs, surgeons, consultants, nurses and cleaners who don't have white skin....tell me there wouldn't be a huge impact there!
Having said this I do basically agree with your argument that the SNP would always be perceived as the more direct threat. It's just some ways where the civil service would struggle to adjust.
Complain about this comment
I found an interesting blog, Longrider Just Google and you will find him, he has an interesting take on the topic.
Complain about this comment
Should have added the pullman to that!
Complain about this comment
#200 bluelaw
I don't think Scotland would become that populated. By my own flawed maths I reckon that would mean tripling the population!
However the immigration thing is something of a red herring. Check out the Registrar General's figures for Scotland and you'll see that births and deaths are roughly equal. We need fresh talent and we need immigration.
There's also the question of an independent Scotland in the EU. If we remained in there we would naturally give EU citizens the right of moving freely between countries. (Personally I think they add a lot to our culture as people originally from other countries did before them.)
In England, people are being encouraged to blame "immigrants" for a lot of things which have nothing to do with them, to listen to stories about people getting council houses before them because they have a Polish accent or a brown skin and to believe that the reason they can't get a job is because the "immigrants" have taken them all. We should do everything we can in Scotland to combat these myths.
Complain about this comment
I assume Sir Fred still has a bank account with the RBS, as all RBS employees are required to have an RBS account.
Why can the bank not just close his accounts? The bank would have the right to terminate their relationship with any other customer provided 1 months notice is given.
He has broken a major clause of holding an account with the RBS, he has damaged the good name of the bank, so has breached his terms and conditions with the bank.
I am sure the government can ensure no other bank give him an account elsewhere.
Surely someone can make this happen?
Complain about this comment
#206.DisgustedDorothy
Longrider
Complain about this comment
4strikes
For a start government stats are notoriously inaccurate on immigration and are massaged for political purposes. I don't trust the UK figure on this or anything else; GERS, WMDs, you name it.
The reason Scotland needs immigration is because we are unable to retain home-grown Scottish talent. Lets confront the reasons why we have a brain-drain before using other countries for cheap skilled labour which is morally dubious in itself. And where we do need skilled immigration lets set about formulating policy sensibly and transparently and without recourse to cheap sloganeering and falsely self-righteous moral sentiment which sadly IMO colours the debate in England on these issues.
It's an issue an independent Scotland must confront openly and honestly. We must not be harangued into believing we have no control over who resides in our country.
As for Scotland and the EU. Mass immigration is not necessarily a policy of the EU. In the UK's case most recently it was Blair acting as America's trojan horse in wanting to dilute EU power in general and Franco-German power in particular who insisted on eastwards EU expansion. This is why the French and the Germans, beset by high unemployment, refused to allow the Polish et al access to their labour makets for 7 years from their joining in 2004. It's also why Blair begged them to rethink this policy in 2006 at Nice I believe because the pressure on UK labour markets was so huge. They understandably refused to accomodate Blair even though others such as Spain and Finland did and others promised in the short term to review their policy. Just because the UK is a member of the EU doesn't necessarily mean that the EU imposes mass immigration. To say otherwise is simply not in accordance with the facts.
Immigration is not a red-herring issue as such. Immigration has been used in the post-war era to undermine the demands of the British working class. Successive UK governments have deliberately done this in league with employers and the collusion of a media keen to portray the Working class as feckless and lazy etc so as to ensure a ready supply of cheap labour so that pay and conditions can be kept to a minimum. The reality of this is all to see with the Scottish and English working classes enduring the worst avg incomes, conditions, job security and living standards of any comparable country in the EU.
Now, I am not against immigration per se as I stated above. I have nothing against immigrants of whatever culture or colour or religion. But the reality is is that they are here not out of some profound humanity on our part. They are here to keep inflation in the labour market down and to maintain an illusion for the left that we are attoning for Empire or IMO their nonsensical belief that we have achieved some post-national state.
And yes most definitely FTR immigrants are very welcome in Scotland and every group from the Poles to Pakistanis must be praised for for their hard working decency and contribution to Scotland.
Complain about this comment
'209. At 12:34pm on 28 Feb 2009, mindthecuriousorange wrote:
I assume Sir Fred still has a bank account with the RBS, as all RBS employees are required to have an RBS account.
Why can the bank not just close his accounts? The bank would have the right to terminate their relationship with any other customer provided 1 months notice is given.
He has broken a major clause of holding an account with the RBS, he has damaged the good name of the bank, so has breached his terms and conditions with the bank.'
And your evidence for this assertion is precisely what??...
Complain about this comment
On the matter of self-identity, I commend this blog, and the author's book, which I have just finished reading. Simply brilliant!
He now lives in Scotland. Check out the blog.Slainte!
ed
Complain about this comment
#210 cynicalHighlander
Now, I like that.
Complain about this comment
#208 fourstrikes
It's a momentous occasion....(fanfare)....
** I agree with you on something! **
We have a different set of needs re immigration than does England.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#193 oldnat
It might just work, but I wouldn't quite rule out the LibDems just yet - after all they may have tried another two or three "leaders" by then! Today's Rebel MSP told to toe party line on referendum in the Press & Journal makes quite an interesting read, and especially Rumbles': "I am the chief whip and will expect that when it comes to a vote every one of the 16 of us will respect that we do things the correct and democratic way. We have a party position and it is agreed by everyone in the parliamentary party. John gave his word and we expect him to stand by it."
About the only thing they've inherited from the old Liberal Party is the old adage about organising them being rather like herding cats. I bet their conference will be fun for outsiders if not the participants.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#205 fourstrikes
You make some very good points that I should have considered about the BNP's potential impact on the public sector as a whole, but I stand by my view that the Westminster village itself would have little to fear, or at any event would have much less at stake personally than a further rise of the SNP. We're certainly not poles apart over this.
I hadn't seen it when discussing the issue with oldnat last night, but there's a good read in the Indy's new take on the BNP: Is the BNP becoming Cumbria's cup of tea?.
Not very much new, but a chilling warning in the first comment: "I believe you actually may have the honour of writing the first unbiased piece about the BNP in any mainstream media."
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
government stooge?
If we're clawing back pensions, let's start with Gordon's
"Quantitative easing
A former World War II prison camp inmate forced by the Nazis to forge £3billion in a plot to bring down the British economy arrived in London this week to inspect one of his counterfeit notes at the Bank of England.
Are we absolutely sure he wasn't invited to London to advise Gordon Brown on printing money - sorry 'quantitative easing'?."
Complain about this comment
An exceedingly interesting article by Michael White in the Grauniad yesterday mid-morning doesn't seem to have received the attention it deserves. Astonishing stuff from someone who until very recently was second only to St. Polly Toynbee in the ranks of NuLab sycophancy.
As a taster: "The government, chiefly in the shape of the then chancellor Gordon Brown and Tony Blair, who wouldn't stand up to him sufficiently, made a number of serious macro-errors, knowing that tax revenues would fund its expensive social programmes."
Rats leaving the sinking ship springs strangely to mind.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I think I should take lessons in how to do that cynicalhighlander.
Hopefully , now that you've made it easy ,other folk will enjoy the article.
Complain about this comment
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
#220. DisgustedDorothy
Highlight above, right click, click view selection source, result in highlights. Bob's your uncle.
Complain about this comment
I think GB is moderating this blog now as they are becoming very petty. I only linked "The Shred's" payslip signed by the dictator himself at no 10.
Complain about this comment
I see my comment 198 was referred to the moderators.
Why?
Does someone here think I am a closet facist?
All I said was that a certain political party has a well written website, and that in itself should be a warning sign.
Complain about this comment
#86 Anglophone
Noticing your posts in particular.
"All nationalism is created by stoking grievances, promoting a sense of victimisation and, as you so rightly say "pointing out the enemy".
So if to have a grievance with the constitutional set up and to say it, is akin to being a nationalist, with all the victim-obsessed euphoria that goes with it? Come on Anglophone, that's a pretty big political gag is it not!
"Scots have more to lose from such schism."
What exactly, Anglophone?
How do other independent countries manage to survive (without orders from English companies - imagine!)
Do you mean Britain has much to loose and so through that, the Scots have? It's a bit like taking off your pants before your trousers.
"Canada has tied itself into cultural and legal knots trying to accommodate a vociferous minority who cannot be satisfied by any concession yet don't have the courage of their convictions to actually vote for secession."
So, not to have the courage to vote for "secession" here is failure, but Scots having that same courage....would be a failure!
You can't have it both ways Anglophoney.
What's the difference? Ah, that the Scots going it alone would affect you! Tut, tut, you do want to keep all your toys.
"I thought that Scotland was originally well served by banks, many created before the union that, you would think had made the financing of Scottish business and people their priority. Sadly, they were not content with that modest ambition and undertook ever greater expansion into global markets. Many traditional, if dull English banks have been hoovered up by these expansionist monsters who have eventually sucked us down into the deep, deep hole of their own hubris. Something for which English taxpayers will be funding for a generation."
You're right, Scottish banks weren't working for their own country. What a lot of benefits the Union has! British tax payers are only cleaning up a British mess. Moan to Gordon. (He's British, not Scottish, he says it himself...)
If Scotland were already independent we wouldn't be using "cloth GB" (not a reference to Gordon, it could be) up here, but ours. Did other independent countries have to be bailed out by you? You've got delusions about the size of your cloth old boy.
"I used to work for a large UK software company. It was a standing joke that it was not worth trying to sell products or services North of the Border because the chances of being selected, as an English rep of an English based company, were remote. I argued that this was wrong and prejudicial and spent many agonizing mornings on the red-eye visiting potential customers in Glasgow and Edinburgh. Guess how much I sold....precisely nothing. This wasn't really a problem as we were already serving a much bigger market elsewhere, it just made me look foolish."
Is this the root of it? Scots didn't buy your software? I'm glad you didn't go as far as the death of a salesman, but wanting to saddle Scotland to the Union, I assume until they buy some is taking it a bit far!
"I still think it's the preserve of the malcontent, the scoundrel and the rabble rouser"
But you don't get, "I'm happy with the way things are, so I'll seek nationalism." I hope you don't only eat when you are full up!
"Let's try to be sensible now."
Back at you, Mr A.
Complain about this comment
#81
What are you on about? Does Denmark have oil? Does Finland? Does Ireland? Does Latvia? Does New Zealand? Does Slovakia?
Does Austria? Does Estonia? Does Portugal? Does Cyprus?
Perhaps they are all more able than the Welsh - but don't try that line with a large Welshman
You are falling into the trap set by unionists for the unwary that don't think things through.
For the last forty years the unionists have been trying to tell Scotland that its economy is reliant on oil while at the same time telling the Scots that the oil isn't actually worth a lot and is running out anyway. Surprisingly some Scots swallow this guff.
George Bush might have been pretty daft but he was not completely so. He said
" You can fool some of the people all of the time. Those are the ones we must concentrate on"
#86
"The sad conclusion of this line of thought is that the SNP is basically a sort of McUKIP"
What rubbish!
The SNP is fundamentally in favour of the EU
Complain about this comment
#220.DisgustedDorothy
Try highlighting link below, right click, click view page source this will show how its done.
Realm of Scotland
Complain about this comment
#220 DisgustedDorothy
Our friend ed also has a page showing how to do these clever things (That's where I learned).
Complain about this comment
#224 2-D-Bate
Welcome. Nice to have your contribution.
Complain about this comment
225. At 8:06pm on 28 Feb 2009, sneckedagain:
What I was trying to point out is that Wales is tied into the Union as well, more so since they do not have oil to help fund their escape.
All the other countries mentioned are different cases, since the majority of them went independent before oil drove the global economies. Slovakia is different, but do they (and I honestly dont know) have a free health service and benefits setup like the UK has?
Northern Ireland is an even worse case economically, and to be honest the political history makes independence for them a nightmare.
Complain about this comment
#228 oldnat
Thank you. I'm quite shy!
Complain about this comment
#229 Neil_Small147
"What I was trying to point out is that Wales is tied into the Union as well, more so since they do not have oil to help fund their escape."
Neil, what are you talking about??
Wales does not have to physically pour petrol into an engine and chug off out into the sea!
Scaremongerer!
PS - The only economy that has been "funded" by oil is the UK's!
Complain about this comment
#224 2-D-Bate
Nice of you to take the trouble to respond to the author of #86, whose posts collectively seem to confirm that (i) he has a bee in his bonnet about the Scots for various reasons too tedious to be gone into and (ii) he doesn't care much what he says here so long as it seems to stand some chance of offending the 'chippy jocks'.
Worth bantering with, perhaps, nevertheless, so long as you don't expect him to take you seriously.
Complain about this comment
#231 2-D-Bate
Of course Wales will escape - they've been digging the tunnels long enough!
Complain about this comment
231. At 10:10pm on 28 Feb 2009, 2-D-Bate wrote:
#229 Neil_Small147
"What I was trying to point out is that Wales is tied into the Union as well, more so since they do not have oil to help fund their escape."
Neil, what are you talking about??
Wales does not have to physically pour petrol into an engine and chug off out into the sea!
Scaremongerer!
PS - The only economy that has been "funded" by oil is the UK's!
-------------------
I'm not scaremongering, but trying to ask legitimate questions.
I support the SNP, but not full independence just yet, since no-one has been able to give sound answers - either for or against - independence.
What people will want to know is this: What will change for me and my family if my country goes fully independent.
So, what happens for Wales for these things:
Student Finance, including Assembly Grants specific to Wales, EMA payments, NHS, council tax, income tax, VAT, defence, fire, police, coastguard, business taxes, NI payments, currency, child tax credits, child benefit, unemployment benefit...........
It's no use talking about the utopia of independence if you cannot give a certain level of confidence that your life will not be overly affected by the change.
This is not scaremongering, but questions that WILL be asked by the voters. And those in opposition to independence WILL play on these fears. You cannot shoot down anyone who questions if independence or staying in the union will work. That is either ignorance or arrogance.
Devolution gives the opportunity for those in favour of independence to prove themselves. The issue is of course gaining more responsibility from Westminster.
I'll be honest and admit I do not know much about the Welsh economy. Not wanting to sound saracastic, but someone please indicate the state of the Welsh economy and whether they are capable of surviving in their present form without any subsidy from England.
But remember, any Government borrowing must be repaid at some point in the future, and that is through tax. Something the current Westminster government is getting twitchy about.
On immigration, someone said we need immigrants for the skills that are missing. I agree to a point, but why are people not asking WHY we are lacking these skills?
Complain about this comment
Some delightfully expressive comment on "Fred the Shredded" by Ian Bell in the Sunday Herald's Sir Fred feels like a scapegoat. He is.
Well-aimed criticism of Duff Gordon, too, with gems like: "Yet still Brown talks of 'models' going wrong, as though finance is a giant Airfix kit that has merely come unglued."
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#224 2-D-Bate
Well said.
Complain about this comment
No news section yet, but does anyone know what's happened to the Herald opinion team tonight? No manning of the barricades for the old order in Muriel Gray's It’s amazing that we’re still amazed when our politicians betray us. Could they have been taken over by aliens? Snippets like: "Straw has banged the last nail into the coffin of moribund, corrupt and morally bankrupt New Labour" tend to suggest so.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
Never mind, you can always claim that your defeat was caused by your opponents drawing players from two different countries.
So you must have been at a disadvantage.
(When we get beaten, on the other hand, it's usually because we were rubbish - today was quite unusual!)
Complain about this comment
Not quite a Damascene conversion - there are still the expected digs at the SNP, Tories and LibDems - but the Herald's news articles now coming on stream continue the trend I've just reported.
For good, old fashioned reporting, see their: Senior Scottish MP in forged letters mystery about faked letters praising Adam Ingram, MP for East Kilbride, Strathaven & Lesmahagow.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Neil Small writes:
"I support the SNP, but not full independence just yet, since no-one has been able to give sound answers - either for or against - independence."
Neil, please do not insult our intelligence with this nonsense.
Complain about this comment
#234 Neil_Small147
I've tried to follow some of the Welsh debate about their future - but it seldom gets off the language issue! They seem to be a much more riven society than ours.
I don't disagree with your main thesis that nations need to make choices, and that these issues need to be informed.
Wales has even worse economic indicators than the North of England - doesn't matter whose "fault" it is. They need to deal with the reality that they have.
They only just voted for an Assembly. That's allowed them to move on to the position where a small majority are in favour of moving further.
However, the Welsh experience is so different from ours that their decisions are not really relevant to ours.
Complain about this comment
Many who read these blogs will by now appreciate that I, and others, hold the so called Scottish media in utter contempt.
Yesterday I provided a link from The Telegraph of an article written by ex Labour minister Brian Wilson. The article had twisted and contorted the Fred Goodwin saga in a laughable attempt at attacking Alex Salmond.
Now, unsurprisingly, we see this Labour tactic being embraced North of the border with not one, but two articles in The Sunday Herald attacking Salmond through one of the economic advisors Sir George Mathewson.
This from The Sunday Herald:
ALEX SALMOND'S CHIEF ECONOMIC adviser is at the centre of a tax avoidance row after it emerged that his investment group's hedge fund is running businesses from a tax haven.
Now, aside from the fact that there is no row, we have the ridiculous attempt at attacking Salmond, not second hand through Mathewson at all, nor indeed third hand through Mathewson's investment group - but FOURTH HAND through businesses associated with Methewson's hedge fund.
So, Alex Salmond is associated with a man who has a business that is associated with businesses that are run from a tax haven.
This is not journalism, this is blatant smearing.
For goodness sake, one only need utter the words Gordon Brown for there to be a plethora of names, businesses, short selling, tax avoidance etc, etc to write a novel.
I have said before that we do not have a balanced press or media in Scotland. We have a system akin to the old Eastern Bloc where news was manipulated and shaped in accordance with state requirements.
Sadly, Iain Macwhirter's article is based on the same Labour 'Scottish Output'.
Sad, but utterly, utterly predictable.
Complain about this comment
#234 Neil_Small147
"no-one has been able to give sound answers - either for or against - independence."
I think you are wrong there. There are "sound answers" on both sides of the debate.
What neither side can ever give you are certainties.
Complain about this comment
Held my nose and looked at the Mail on Sunday for this article -
"REVEALED: 'There was no Cabinet debate in run-up to war,' says Short as Government refuses to release minutes"
"At the last Cabinet meeting, no debate on the legality of the war was allowed and Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, said brusquely: 'That's it.'"
Even those who might prefer to stick with the UK Union, must see that there is a desperate need to get out from under a system which allows one person to have such power - with no checks and balances.
Now imagine a BNP Prime Minister ........
Complain about this comment
The comment of mine, number 242, has been referred to the moderators.
It containes no abusive language, no attacks on any other posters - but does include references to two articles in todays Sunday Herald.
Both articles use Sir George Mathewson in order to attack Alex Salmond (fact)
One of the articles uses a fourth party association in order to attack Salmond. (fact)
Salmond is attacked because he is associated with Sir George Mathewson who is associated with a hedge fund that is associated with businesses that use the Cayman Islands for tax purposes.
Ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
"Brown counts on Obama to lift his fortunes"
GORDON Brown will fly to America this week to escape from his domestic travails in the hope that some of Barack Obama's magic rubs off on him.
Are we going to see a Michael Jackson in reverse (or in negative)?
Complain about this comment
#234 Neil_Small147
Neil, if I may but in.
All that you talk about has nothing to do with independence!
It's a red herring (and often used as a ploy to talk down independence).
I have to say I am slightly dissappointed that when pushed, you so readily fall back to the "we don't know anything/can't see the future!" furrow.
You mention nothing that isn't dealt with on an ordinary basis by independent countries a plenty.
"What people will want to know is this: What will change for me and my family if my country goes fully independent."
Virtually nothing! The change will actually be that we will get to decide parts of our future ourselves. Those decisions when implimented will affect us progressively on a change by change basis, and we will get a debate beforehand and a referendum on big issues like retaining the monarchy, when decisions are made. Just like any other normal government actually!
As I say the main difference to notice will be that it is our government, elected by us, for us the Scottish people.
That is the only certainty from independence.
And it hinges around whether you want to put your future in the hands of another country or your own.
"It's no use talking about the utopia of independence"
Don't be daft, no one says independence is supposed to be utopia. (If I did, I'd be promising free chocolate and a self-cleaning house.)
"You cannot shoot down anyone who questions if independence or staying in the union will work."
How could it not work?
"Devolution gives the opportunity for those in favour of independence to prove themselves."
No, it's nothing to with whether we are impressesd by the few politicians around today or not. Are you suggesting it's like they're in a job interview for being able to take control of our affairs?
If some poor politicians are a good enough reason to deny us self governance, then it must then translate that we are inferior - because we cannot produce any decent ones. What a way to decide (deny) my children's future. I'm sorry, pathetic.
This assumption that we (they) are not good enough and must prove otherwise is embarrassing. Do you think that every country that has a not so good bunch of politicians at any point should hand control over to Britain. Have you seen theirs by the way!
I've noticed you, in all good faith, project the all considered approach. But, some advice. If all you are doing is standing right up close to the telly to get a good view of every bit enlarged, then you are not seeing the big picture.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#245, wasn't it Brown that insisted on having old Fred the Shred knighted? Don't expect to hear that anywhere soon in the Scottish press!
Also, expect the full onslaught of the red-tops when Mr Macavity goes to Washington.
Complain about this comment
#190, Brownedov
There is just something about Tavish Scott, on paper he looked like a good leader (mainly because he was already doing the job for Nicol), but what happened?!
Who would have thought that the Liberal's future could look so bleak in Scotland just 3 or so years ago?
I see the Fib Dems are still stuck on this idea that asking the people of Scotland (who are sovereign, remember) if they want Scotland to be independent is: "independence by the back door"!
I couldn't believe it when Nicol Stephen embarrassed himself on Question Time by saying such a thing prior to the May 2007 election, and I can't believe they are still happily repeating this piece of nonsense today.
The Lib Dems do indeed look like the Lemming-tendency has taken hold of the leadership; north and south of the border.
Complain about this comment
i don't know where else to post this but here goes, you are guaranteed an audience here and with that in mind lets rip! i'm sensing a change in the tide, it's starting, people are begining to accept that for a whole host of reasons whether you believe them or not that it is our right to be governed by scots, either born here or from further climes but scottish none the less, with the interest of the people who live in scotland as their core reason to govern. This has to be a good thing. anyway:
You think the past has been good to us
we're in for better days
when the time comes two thousand ten
Lets go our seperate ways
You think the pasts been good to us
we now start to realise
for 50 years our votes gone missing
their rule we now despise
You think the pasts been good to us
lets not keep the status quo
being free and being true
isn't just for show
You think the pasts been good to us
we're in for better days
when the time comes two thousand ten
lets go our seperate ways.
2009 steven stewart.
Complain about this comment
work in progress, i've worded a new version that flows better haha
Complain about this comment
This story about Fred Goodwin's pension is just a smokescreen to deflect people away from the real atrocity; that this government presided over the total collapse of this country's banking system. As usual, if things get bad in government, find a scapegoat. The media have been encouraged to see Fred as the scapegoat. Don't be fooled by these stories about this amount of pension money; it's a smokescreen. I'm confident that even Brian is aware of this.
Complain about this comment
Size matters - smaller is better
"Grandiose ideas, big projects. Thinking big always seems so attractive, but it can be a crucial mistake. The vast projects built after the war to relieve the dismal slums of the past are the lawless sink estates of today; in many ways they don't work as well as the old insanitary huddled cottages."
Complain about this comment
#245 greenockboy
Could the problem be the House Rule on quoting extracts?
That says: "Short extracts of copyright works can be used without consent as long as they are 'insubstantial' - There is no hard and fast definition of what is or isn't substantial as it depends on the work and the importance of the extract you want to use."
Different mods do treat it in different ways, but - at the risk of having my #235, #237 and #239 share the same fate -
usually they see a link and a snippet as reasonable.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#246 oldnat
You're bad, man, and on dangerous ground. It's not all black and white.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown made this mess. He is fooling no-one with his hypocritical rhetoric.
Complain about this comment
#249 pattymkirkwood
"I see the Fib Dems are still stuck on this idea that asking the people of Scotland (who are sovereign, remember) if they want Scotland to be independent is: "independence by the back door"!"
I do remember - See my #91 above - but it seems the LibDems don't. At the time of their leadership contest I felt that Rumbles had the best chance of getting them out of their rut. He now seems ultra-loyalist to Scott, but I don't believe he would have done a worse job than the victor.
I don't think it's serious yet, but the beginnings of a rift between the democratic instincts of the [democratic] liberals and the [centralising] social democrats could be forming. We saw it at Westmidden over the Lisbon referendum and are seeing it again here over the independence one. The very point of being a Liberal is to give the people a democratic choice on an issue where your own mind is made up - admittedly a rare occurrence.
Maybe the social democrats feel that they'll scoop the pool when NuLab implodes, but they're certainly playing a dangerous game and the polls are not proving them right.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#252 gedguy2
"This story about Fred Goodwin's pension is just a smokescreen to deflect people away from the real atrocity; that this government presided over the total collapse of this country's banking system."
True, and I think the print media is starting to report just that - even the Herald [see my #235] - but there's precious little evidence of that on the BBC website.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
A look at the English qualities today shows that the Fred Goodwin smokescreen has cleared up, there is nary a mention of it anywhere.
The English qualities ran just as prominently with the revelations that Labour ministers agreed to the severance package as they did with the Labour 'anger' at the pension.
They have moved on now and the main topic seems to be Brown's meeting with President Obama. This isn't surprising as the media of any nation will go overboard with any meeting with the new president.
Although it is telling that the Scottish media seemed reluctant to crow when Scotland's First Minister had his meeting with the new Secretary of State, Hilary Clinton last week.
Anyway, Scottish Labour clearly tried on Thursday to use their new bogeymen 'The Bankers' as a means of attacking Alex Salmond.
The approach adopted by Iain Gray was widely derided as Salmond pointed out to him that all the levers of power and the authority to control these bankers lay with Labour at Westminster.
Indeed, the very pension that Labour were complaining bitterly about had been agreed to - BY LABOUR MINISTERS.
So, it is sad to see today's Sunday Herald, not one but two of Scotland's leading journalists attempting to use the self same discredited line of attack used by Iain Gray.
This is not the first time that we have seen the Scottish press try to attack Salmond through Sir George Mathewson, but it is probably the most contrived.
Iain Macwhirter describes Salmond as having 'sold his soul' to the bankers. Iain however refuses to explain what he means by this emotive phrase. Unlike Gordon Brown, Salmond has nothing to offer any of his advisors, furthermore they can offer nothing but advice.
This looks like an attempt at balancing bad news for Labour by trying to convince the Scottish electorate that whilst Labour may have 'unhealthy relationships' with these now tainted bankers - 'Look !! the SNP are just as bad'.
Take a read through Macwhirters article, it is badly drafted and lacks conviction. Like a 'sexed up dossier' fixed around the policy, it resembles an article fixed around an agenda.
Complain about this comment
#245 greenockboy
PS to my #258
On looking again at the Sunday Herald, I do agree that they're going OTT on the Mathewson story, with three articles apparently determined to undo the good work I praise them for in my #235, #237 and #239.
I presume you were mainly referring to Iain Macwhirter's Just one of a generation of politicians in bed with bankers. That one strikes me as particularly scurrilous, given that it's Duff Gordon and Capn. Darling who have supposedly been "in charge" for the last decade. But it does at least chip in with "The trouble is that the charge rebounds on Labour. It was Gordon Brown, after all, who gave the vilified Fred 'the Shred' Goodwin his knighthood."
On a lighter note with reference to the article's tired "Athens of the north", those who haven't visited Athens in winter should note that it can be pretty cold and wet. I've had that "pleasure" on a few occasions and usually refer to that place as "the Edinburgh of the South".
The two INVESTIGATION pieces by Paul Hutcheon:
Salmond adviser's links to Cayman Islands tax haven and Salmond's top economic adviser uses Cayman Islands tax haven are entirely without redeeming features and read like NuLab press releases. Presumably for legal reasons, both contain a caveat - the first buried in the middle and the second ending with "There is no suggestion that Mathewson is involved in any wrongdoing." Aye, right!
Old habits die hard, I suppose.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#259 greenockboy
Your post hadn't cleared when I submitted my #260 and I agree with you 100%. There's still the odd attempt in the Grauniad to link bankers in the public mind with the "official" Tories, but nothing on the scale of the rearguard action of Gray's admirers in the Scottish media. It will end in tears, I'm sure, but for NuLab and their acolytes.
On a cheerier note, the Sunday Thunderer gets in a welcome bit of Murphy bashing with their Murphy's Pope invitation 'just political stunt'. Worth reading, but the first sentence says it all, really: "Scottish secretary accused of electioneering after inviting Pope Benedict XVI and President Barack Obama to Scotland". I have to agree with SNP MSP Gibson's quoted: "This is a childish attempt at one-upmanship".
The feebleness of Gray [trying to build the political equivalent of brand-new Morris Marinas], Murphy [his foreman], Capn. Darling [the wages clerk] and prop. Duff Gordon is demonstrated by the guff they come up with in a hopeless attempt to make us forget who was the orchestrator of the bankers' version of a demolition derby.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
More fiddling the figures by NuLab, it seems, according to the Thunderer's Ministers 'ignored' Heathrow dissent:
"The [Tory] analysis suggests up to 86% of the people who responded to the government's call for comments were strongly opposed to the runway. The government, however, said only 37% of those who contributed were clearly opposed."
There's a shock.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov:
Yes, that was indeed the article(s) I was referring to, and yes again they are blatant extensions og Gray's discredited line of attack on Thursday.
The BBC are continuing to run with the Goodwin pension story, demonstrating their complete inability to think for themselves, the story is yesterday's (non) news.
Interesting remark right at the end of Muriel Gray's piece in The Sunday Herald.
This little paragraph:
"And promising as some of the SNP's governance might have been so far, Salmond's readiness to be bought by dubious opportunists and the increasing activity of nationalist online cyber-thugs make this newly floating voter far too nervous to commit."
The two parts in bold are quite revealing. Gray doesn't eleborate on these 'dubious opportunists' nor in what way Salmond has been bought.
However, it is the second 'bold' part that makes me uneasy. Gray appears to be trying to conflate the benign word used in Scotland to describe SNP or independence supporters (nationalist) with the other more extreme version of the word (Nationalist).
Much like 'gay' (happy) and 'Gay' (homosexual) the two words are miles apart in their meaning.
The conflation of 'nationalist' with 'thugs' is deliberate and, shall we say, mischevious.
Gray suggests that there is no alternative to the floating voter, how she can say that in todays Scotland simply beggars belief.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC's own front page
"Harriet Harman has said former Royal Bank of Scotland (RBS) chief Sir Fred Goodwin should not "count on" keeping his full £650,000 a year pension.
The deputy Labour leader described the pension settlement - agreed by the RBS board - as "money for nothing".
The sum was unacceptable in "the court of public opinion," she told the BBC, and the government "would step in". "
I think its a bit rich of Mrs Harman telling us this after her own financial situation was brought to light. In the court of public opinion i would say claiming expenses for 2 houses is not any worse than the financial settlement the Fred Goodwin haggled. Both parties are playing withing the rules even tho the rules are flawed and obscene to most hard working folks. She should have kept her gob shut !!!
Complain about this comment
If every employee who turned out to be rubbish at his job had to forego their pension, their would a lot of poverty stricken retired council plumbers, teachers, and come to that Labour cabinet minsiters.
But hey, lets not let a mans legal contractual rights get in the way of a spiteful attack. Until of course its your own legal contractual rights.
Complain about this comment
#259 greenockboy
"Well thank goodness Fred the Shred has blown over. It was a bit nasty at times, got too close to home."
"Nice bit in the Times though, new deal with Obama. Yes we can stuff. I'd better get the Beeb onto it."
Can you think of any other reason for the BBC to be reporting Global Brown's article in the Sunday Times as one of their main "news" items up to midday? His meeting with other EU heads in Brussels today gets a throwaway line in the middle. and yet the headline is "Brown seeks 'new deal' with Obama" which is not news, it's propaganda but we are the impartial BBC and cannot show a charity appeal for Gaza.
Is there something rotten in the State?
Complain about this comment
Could Elaine C. Smith's brief Scotland is not a paradise in the Sunday Mail be construed as an apology? Without mentioning which learned journal stirred up the "stooshie" over Mike Russell's 1998 book, she reminds us that Jack McConnell commented on "bits of Motherwell being a bit of a pigsty".
Would it be too much to hope that her advice to "grow up" will be taken on board by the Sunday Mail's management?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#266
It is no longer "News"; it's now in "UK Politics".
Complain about this comment
Cleaning up the act? Perhaps we can expect "clean NuLab" to commission some similar ads? I sometimes think the major task of a large part of Govmint is support for the advertising "industry", which thought prompts a wry observation on the number of things now called industry...
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Further to my #264
"She said the payout was a reward for failure. "I can't see how it is a pension because he is not retired. It is money for nothing, it is a severance payment, and to get a severance payment when you have led a bank to the brink of collapse with record losses and thousands of people fearing for their jobs and requiring the public to step in with loans to back up the bank, that is a matter of public interest"
Tell me whats the difference between somebody doing his job badly and being payed off and PPP/PFI companies screwing up and being payed millions to bu##er off. It seems the goverment are happy for the PFI stuff to be buried. This is all a witch hunt to try and make Labour look like the are doing something. It will all end in tears .. the only winners will be the lawyers. Labour will have egg on their faces .
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#259 greenockboy
Scotland on Sunday was giving ASP errors earlier today, but they have a rather better article than Macwhirter's diatribe with Gerald Warner's: Our cult of the amateur has let Brown destroy Britain.
No diatribes at Salmond or Goodwin, just a withering attack on Duff Gordon. Beginning with "Gordon has turned feral and it is not a pretty sight. As with all control freaks heading for downfall, he has adopted a scorched-earth policy. Britain has proved itself unworthy of its great Leader, so must take the consequences" it goes on to catalogue and explain his failures before closing with "'No return to boom and bust'. Your great-grandchildren may enjoy the humour of that – the intervening generations will be preoccupied with paying for it."
Definitely a good read.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#263 greenockboy
Good post, and I agree that Ms Gray's "nationalist online cyber-thugs" was unwarranted and, to say the least, mischevious.
All in all, though, it's a reasonably balanced "plague on all your houses" article which is certainly a step forward from printing NuLab press releases vertbatim. If that's the worst she can come up with, I doubt Salmond will be losing much sleep over it.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#259, #263 greenockboy
I've never trusted MacWhirter or his judgement and I can remember enthusiastic pieces in the Sunday Herald from him about Brown when Brown became PM. I'm neither a journalist nor a political wonk but even I heard the alarm bells ringing, joyously in my case, when Brown disappeared for a week down a rabbit hole and left Blair to face the cameras after the SNP took over as the largest party in Holyrood in 2007.
As far as Muriel Gray goes I have no time for her. If you go back to a Sunday Herald article from the first of May 2007 just before the Scottish Parliamentary elections you'll find that she said,
"All these dark secret forces hope for independence so that they can have unelected, undemocratic power. What a future Scotland that's going to be. Hello, banana republic!",
combining paranoia, pessimism and cringe in one go.
Now that even the Labour Luvvies like Gray and MacWhirter have realised that Brown has feet of clay it is apparent that they are lost in a political wilderness.
They have lost faith in Labour but they can't face supporting the Conservatives and the Lib-Dems are an irrelevance.
They could choose the SNP but they are to hardline unionist ever to face life without mummy Westminster.
Anyway her comments about, "increasing activity of nationalist online cyber-thugs", doesn't apply to me. I don't post as much as I used to and if you check the comments in the referenced Sunday Herald article you'll find that I was much more thuggish to her then than I am here.
I'll reproduce it here for the lazy.
Muriel Gray:
"All these dark secret forces hope for independence so that they can have unelected, undemocratic power..."
Ha Ha Ha Ha! For the SNP not vote, dark side they are. She even looks a bit like Yoda. Or maybe it's the Illuminati or David Icke's lizards she's worried about.
My favourite little gallus numpty. If the electorate vote for the SNP then how's that undemocratic?
"What a future Scotland that's going to be. Hello, banana republic!"
The old song. We're too stupid to run ourselves without turning into some kailyard facist state. What a cringy wee turnip.
I take it she's encouraging us to vote for the party which willingly took part in the war which has killed over 650,000 civilians in Iraq and wants to base new WMD on the Clyde.
Complain about this comment
Excellent analysis of the timeline of NuLab's sorry timeline over coming clean over torture in the Indy's: Guilty: Britain admits collusion, new torture claims emerge.
Starting with the Department of Transport's "No one told us (20 November, 2005)" and going point by point through to Hutton's "Yes, we were involved. And we shouldn't have been (27 February, 2009)", it amply explains Staw's FOI veto and Duff Gordon's refusal to hold a proper enquiry while he's still in office.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The politics show (Scotland) are STILL running with the Labour spin re: Goodwin's 'good win', this isn't surprising given Scottish media's compliance when it comes to Labour.
Douglas Fraser and Campbell was reduced to highlighting the fact that Goodwin's security is payed for by RBS. The fact that Goodwins pension was agreed by Labour ministers was made by shadow chancellor George Osbourne and was completely ignored by our Glen.
Wee Glen's interview with Osbourne also highlighted his (subconcious) Labour leanings by his use of the phrase 'efficiency savings' when using them in a Labour context yet reverting to 'cuts' when asking Osbourne if the Tories would carry the same policy through.
Osbourne then touched on how a future Tory government would work with any Scottish government, even the SNP. This brought quite a bitter wee aside from Glen "some people would call it an unholy alliance", Glen again demonstrating his complete lack of professionalism.
The pension, as has been explained, is yesterday's news. Calling it news is being generous to what is clearly a Labour attempt at creating a diversion from Brown's economic woes.
They (Scottish BBC) are also at it again with regards to any utterances from Jim Murphy. Murphy contributes vitually nothing to the good governance of Scotland, he openly abuses the position of Secretary of State for Scotland using it not as was intended, arguing Scotland's case in cabinet but uses it as a blatant party political propaganda forum for the Labour party against the democratically elected Scottish government.
It is not in Murphy's remit to call for visits to Scotland of any world leader, no matter how worthy. As I have stated, his role is to argue Scotland's interests at cabinet, 'fighting for Scotland' if you like. Although, something tells me that he won't be accused of 'picking a fight', that - whilst not a reserved matter is certainly a reserved headline.
Murphy, as usual, is given an uncontested platform by the media here for his every utterence.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see Glenn Campbell showing his political bias on the Politics Show.
When George Osborne suggested that a Westminster Tory government would be keen to work with an SNP government in Scotland, he commented that 'some people would call that an unholy alliance'
Oh dear Glenn, nice to see quality broadcasting, or at least it would be......
Given the nature of this type show, do others think it would be appropriate for BBC political talk show hosts, commentators etc. to declare their political allegiances at the start of each show to allow people to expect / understand the slant they would give to the interviews and comments
Complain about this comment
Just watched Mike Russell 'kebab' wee Glen. Glen reduced to misquoting from Russell's book from 1998.
Breathtaking from Russell, simply breathtaking.
Complain about this comment
#264 - "The sum was unacceptable in "the court of public opinion," she told the BBC, and the government "would step in". "
Harriet isn't the first Labour bigwig to use the term "the court of public opinion" and I doubt she'll be the last.
It sounds tough talking but, at the end of the day, everybody knows the court of public opinion is powerless (if weren't how many times would Phony B.Liar and crash gordie have been hung?) and the only court that counts is a court of law. And there it the problem for Labour. Any court of law is going to chuck this out before it even starts.
Complain about this comment
#274 DougtheDug
Excellent post, and thanks for the link to the Herald of times past. It must have been your "cringy wee turnip" that stung the fragrant lady, you naughty nationalist online cyber-thug you.
Your more modern "Now that even the Labour Luvvies like Gray and MacWhirter have realised that Brown has feet of clay it is apparent that they are lost in a political wilderness." is bang on the money and it forebodes "interesting times" as we watch them squirm in their forlorn hope of discovering a unionist life-boat.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
"nationalist online cyber - thugs", hey thanks Muriel, another one for the unionist lexicon.
If Muriel in common with certain posters on here, no names no pack drill (... OK Neil Small)
is threatening to withhold her vote for the SNP as there are things she doesn't like about them we may just have to live with it.
I feel they'd both be much happier with a unionist party in any case.
MacWhirter, Hutcheon, Dinwoodie and Bell were feted as the great new hopes for Scottish journalism simply for not being Labour lackeys. When no-one was holding Labour to account they bucked the trend.
I don't know if that much needed balance necessarily made them friends or even fans of the SNP.
I mean Brian goes out of his way to try and be fair and reasonable and yet as regards being part of what might be termed the "Scottish media establishment" he's close to royalty.
At least with the ranters like Jenny Hjul, Alan Cochrane, Brain Wilson, Muriel Gray and Angus MacLeod, you know where you are.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#243 oldnat: I haven't noticed any "sound answers" on either side. I agree there are no certainties. Maybe somebody could suggest a "strong possibility?" (No funnies, please!)
#247 ayewrite: You said it! A paid-up Nat actually said it! What will change..... Virtually nothing.
What's it all about then? So that after enormous cost, upheaval, internecine strife, a new King-Emperor enthroned for life... we do the things that are already done in much the same way?
ps: I sulk only for comic effect. What's to sulk about here?
#274: DougtheDug: If you're going to deny an epithet, (cyber thugs), it's probably wise not to confirm it in the next few paragraphs. :-)
Complain about this comment
I seldom agree with the Torygraph, but Jeff Randall's Sir Fred Goodwin is stealing the show from the real culprits represents the mood of what's being said here, but not on auntie's news pages.
Worth a read, but one sentence says it all, really: "By casting Sir Fred as the pantomime villain - the credit crunch's Dick Dastardly - the unholy trinity of Gordon Brown, Alistair Darling and Lord Mandelson has been able to deflect attention from Labour's calamitous stewardship."
Off out now but back tonight, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#262 browndov
You may have missed Sir (Are we still allowed to use that three letter word or is it now a term of abuse?) Christopher Mayer's interesting historical piece in the Thunderer's guest pages on "A return to 1815 is the way forward for Europe."
It is worthwhile to substitute England and Scotland for Britain and Russia. I particularly liked the following quote "It is useless to say that nationalism and ethnic tribalism have no place in the international relations of the 21st century. If anything the spread of Western-style democracy has amplified their appeal and resonance. The supreme fallacy in foreign policy is to take the world as we would wish it to be and not as it actually is." I am sure aye_write could use it in her love ins on NR blog.
But yes it is interesting how when the response to Fred got too close to home, Global was off to the USA and the Harperson got lumbered with the "prosecution". "Court of public opinion", what a laugh; would Labour like to stand in their "Court" now? Would they accept the result as fair?
Complain about this comment
#284 brigadier
Hopefully your Post Comment is now fully functional and you can join the rest of us "online cyber-thugs" in trying to persuade each other that all is for the best in this best of all possible worlds, which it must be as it has come about through the applicaton of free, or "lightly regulated", markets.
Complain about this comment
#284 brigadierjohn
Virtually nothing might include a smaller trough for greedy snouts and it might be worth it for that alone. There is / was a rather informative blog for Tory wannabes where they reached the conclusion it would cost 48000GBP to get to stand in a reasonably winnable Westminster seat. Now how do we expect them to recoup that expenditure and the interest foregone and the cost of their time in doing all the things they have had to do to become a MP?
Complain about this comment
#288 handclapping: And a smaller everything else? I don't know. Once I really understand the "why" of it, I'll think about the "how." So far, all the answers to "why" have been "them and us" arguments, which I find disturbing.
Complain about this comment
Scottish Secretary Jim Murphy suggested Mr Russell's job title should be "minister for breaking up Britain".
Well, nice to see our Secretary of State is prepared to engage in the constitutional debate in adult fashion.
Murphy's dry, monotonous delivery coupled with his clear charisma bypass could prove to be an asset to the independence cause in the long run.
Let's get him into a debate live on TV with Russell, I have yet to see Murphy scrutinised by anyone over anything.
Complain about this comment
#272 Brownedov: Just noticed your reference to Gerald Warner. He's a competent polemicist, but not, surely, a man to hold up as an example, far less quote to support a view. He believes in nothing.
Sometimes he'll have you nodding furiously, at other times you'll want to rip the paper. That's his job - to wind you up. He can argue the opposite next week without a twinge of conscience. Journalists do that. Sometimes. Any reaction is better than none. It's a wee game. Tomorrow you'll be outraged by someone else. He/she will be just as happy as Warner.
Complain about this comment
282. At 1:44pm on 01 Mar 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:
"nationalist online cyber - thugs", hey thanks Muriel, another one for the unionist lexicon.
If Muriel in common with certain posters on here, no names no pack drill (... OK Neil Small)
is threatening to withhold her vote for the SNP as there are things she doesn't like about them we may just have to live with it.
----------------------
Who said I was going to withold my vote? Please show me where I said that.
Just because I'm not convinced on independence doesn't mean I won't vote for the SNP. There is a subtle difference.
243. At 00:21am on 01 Mar 2009, oldnat:
I think that is a better way of what I was trying to say. The arguments are in place, but there are no certainties.
------------
245. At 00:45am on 01 Mar 2009, greenockboy wrote:
The comment of mine, number 242, has been referred to the moderators.
It containes no abusive language, no attacks on any other posters - but does include references to two articles in todays Sunday Herald.
Both articles use Sir George Mathewson in order to attack Alex Salmond (fact)
One of the articles uses a fourth party association in order to attack Salmond. (fact)
Salmond is attacked because he is associated with Sir George Mathewson who is associated with a hedge fund that is associated with businesses that use the Cayman Islands for tax purposes.
Ridiculous.
------------------------------
And that is why I have said Alex Salmond needs to (quietly) remove Sir George. It gives plenty of ammunition for Labour, although I didn't expect an attack this early.
It may be coming from a friend-of-a-friend -of-someone-down-the-pub's-third-wife's- second-cousin sources, but it is still potentially damaging.
Safest bet is to get someone else in.
Good intentions by Alex in hiring him, but perhaps a little bit naive in retrospect considering the ongoing issues with banks and fund managers.
Complain about this comment
#289 brigadier
How about an us and us.
We have built from this Union a Titanic. We have hit an iceberg and the boilers have been extinguished. The Captain, who is all powerful aboard, is throwing pound notes at the "engine room" and crying "Full steam ahead!".
Would you
a) rearrange the deck chairs and listen to the band or
b) look at using the, rather smaller, lifeboats?
Is b) in any way unsporting?
Is the whole analogy so preposterous you couldn't recognise any correspondence with our present situation?
Complain about this comment
#284 brigadierjohn
Brig-a-dear (ee-me),
Thank you for waving in my face - I shall turn my attention to you!
"You said it! A paid-up Nat actually said it! What will change..... Virtually nothing."
I'm very glad I said it then if it prompted you from your comic (it was!) sulk. If I took sulks seriously in my house (four small boys, and one big one!), well, life would grind to a steady halt!
Now, what were you expecting to happen?
Lets see, "enormous cost, upheaval, internecine strife, a new King-Emperor enthroned for life".
Enormous cost.
An overreaction (whole post!). Which particular costs were you scared of? You mean normal costs that other independent countries deal with?
Some would say we already pay enormous costs to the UK treasury (whisky, tourism, oil), and we don't get to decide how to spend it! If there are costs to be met, I'd rather my government was deciding in what way to meet them rather than another's. Why is that strange to you. (Maybe your wife sorts out all the important stuff?? ;-)
Upheaval.
Hardly. Perhaps some errant behaviour on account of being intoxicated at a big celebration party (probably in my case) and the necessary tidying up!
Do you mean upheaval in some votes in parliament, and debates, and some resulting changing administration? Gasp! It goes on all the time!
Step by step we'll reorganise matters as necessary, in the due democratic (unlike Westminster) process. Is it that you are scared of that?
Internecine strife.
We don't have to be hot iron branded as Scots! Learn the bagpipes or recite Scotland the What to become indoctrinated in "the club".
Do you think on independence we will all take to our claymores? The "fight" will be won.
Won't it just be cooperation and debate (as demonstrated already by Holyrood)? Having already a minority administration we are used to differences of opinion and can, in an adult way, deal with it. It's not winner says all (and the rest can huff) like at Westminster.
Life won't go crazy. You sound like someone who was really worried about the Y2K problem.
(You'd better point out your fears then so I can calm you....)
"What's it all about then? So that after ... we do the things that are already done in much the same way?"
At last! You said it! A paid-up sceptic actually said it! You actually don't know what independence is about and yet you are so sure it won't work!!
As I said, in my post #247:
"the main difference to notice will be that it is our government, elected by us, for us the Scottish people."
Did you deliberately ignore that then?
All the normal things will still stay normal. Except WE will get to decide on them, not another parliament in Westminster. We won't be mute any more. (No cheek!)
The difference will be that this governance will be carried out for the Scottish people. We will be an ordinary nation (again).
Is that meaningless?
Yes, only if the following means nothing.
You are a grown man (retired now?). You cannot take decisions for yourself. You cannot sort out your own incomings and outgoings, you cannot decide who to form relationships with, cannot talk to anyone else, cannot show your face in public. You can just stand there and have all of this done for you.
Would other people look at you and think, "That's a bit pathetic, what's wrong with him! He mustn't be able to look after himself."
"Or he's plain lazy!" says another.
Either way, what is this doing to your reputation in the perception of others, your self perception and your self respect.
If you accept the "help" you are getting, you are trading self respect for it.
That you may feel comfortable to do. But it is beyond the pale to trade our next generation's - before they have even had a chance to warrant it.
It's a presumption. And I do not accept that you make it for mine.
For that is what staying with Union is. Denying our lot to decide for ourselves.
Noting the Declaration of Arbroath:
"It is in truth not for glory, nor riches, nor honours that we are fighting, but for freedom — for that alone, which no honest man gives up but with life itself."
It's in the UN Charter:
"to reaffirm faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person, in the equal rights of men and women and of nations large and small
To develop friendly relations among nations based on respect for the principle of equal rights and self-determination of peoples, and to take other appropriate measures to strengthen universal peace
Members of the United Nations which have or assume responsibilities for the administration of territories whose peoples have not yet attained a full measure of self-government recognize the principle that the interests of the inhabitants of these territories are paramount [not their own], and accept as a sacred trust the obligation to promote to the utmost, within the system of international peace and security established by the present Charter, the well-being of the inhabitants of these territories, and, to this end:
to ensure, with due respect for the culture of the peoples concerned, their political, economic, social, and educational advancement, their just treatment, and their protection against abuses;
to develop self-government, to take due account of the political aspirations of the peoples, and to assist them in the progressive development of their free political institutions, according to the particular circumstances of each territory and its peoples and their varying stages of advancement
Independence is fundamentally concerned with what will happen if we don't move on from the Union.
It's a dying, undemocratic, immoral, elite-driven, broke sinking ship.
There's another one sailing by. It's smaller but run by the crew as well as the fat captain. I am Scottish so I get to decide whether to go aboard. I think I'll head off to the lifeboats and paddle over in that direction - and take my family.
Complain about this comment
#290 Why not throw Alex Salmond and Andy Gray into that TV debate. Would be good to see how Mr Grey behaves in front of Jim Murphy. Also would be good to see them gettin mashed by AS.
Also good to see Aunti Annabell putting the boot in. 'Scottish Conservative leader Annabel Goldie added: "The SNP needs to stop chuntering on about its obsession with independence and concentrate on dealing with Labour's recession' ... note Labour's recession lol
Complain about this comment
Sir Fred Goodwin IS being used as a scapegoat (which is not the same thing as saying he is innocent). Meanwhile "quantitative easing" is taking place in the background ... that is: Britain is just printing money ... like Zimbabwe!
Notice Macavity is nowhere to be found again.
Britain didn't have to take such desperate measures in the 1930s.
Thank you Gordon Brown. Thank you Union Dividend.
Meanwhile: "Peace Envoy" Tony Blair is "appalled" by the destruction in Gaza. Hilarious. Presumably he has decided (all of a sudden) that the lives of Gazans are worth more than those of Iraqis or Lebanese.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Neil_Small writes:
"And that is why I have said Alex Salmond needs to (quietly) remove Sir George. It gives plenty of ammunition for Labour, although I didn't expect an attack this early."
I know you've said this (remove Mathewson), however it would be a bad move. The press would have a field day headlining another SNP 'U Turn'.
Mathewson provides no particular ammunition, the Scottish press will print or contrive stories of this nature regardless of who advises the SNP. Will you also advise the SNP to rid themselves of Mike Russell as he has also been subject to the propaganda attacks from our media (Wee Glen at it today).
Anyone associated with the SNP has/will be used by our media. Think of any high profile SNP supporter and you will find articles attacking them.
The press actually attacked Salmond months ago using Mathewson, so your prediction of an imminent/future attack was far from impressive.
Your suggestions that the SNP work or react to an agenda set by the compliant Scottish media with their penchant for propaganda is one I find unconvincing.
Incidently:
The Sunday Herald have censored both my comments on todays articles on Mathewson and the Cayman islands.
Complain about this comment
#293 handclapping: To extend your analogy, we are all aboard this Union vessel but I'm not sure it's the Titanic. Check your ticket. The captain's no weel, the engine may be faltering, but there's still hope we'll get past the iceberg and limp into port. It's not a perfect ship, but the lifeboats might be dodgy too!
Complain about this comment
#289 brigadierjohn
"Once I really understand the "why" of it, I'll think about the "how.""
re my #294
Hope you understand the why a bit more now brig.
If you don't, ask me more. I'll try my best to at least get you to see my perspective. You don't have to agree, like Anglophone with me (though admittedly he's not interested), but it's fascinating, I think, how we can have such widely opposing views.
:-)
"So far, all the answers to "why" have been "them and us" arguments, which I find disturbing."
It's not them at all, JUST us. To have our national identity represented. It's pretty much as simple as that.
Complain about this comment
292 Neil_Small147
"I think that is a better way of what I was trying to say. The arguments are in place, but there are no certainties."
That's true Neil, but will you accept you can never get any?
Complain about this comment
Has anyone noticed that The Herald comment section has suddenly started allowing troll like comments?
As I stated earlier, I posted a comment to each of it's Mathewson stories yet not one appeared.
I have had a look at some of the comments that have and have come to the conclusion that it is not pre-moderation that they are employing, it is pre-censorship.
Complain about this comment
#293 -
I think (b) is quickly becoming the elephant in the room, handclapping. Everybody knows it's there but no one want to talk about it. As a way of avoiding the worst of the deepening economic disaster hitting the UK, there is this feeling that although it's viable, it does seem like running away from our responsibilities - we got in this mess together, we should see it out together.
You can argue that it's not our mess, Crash made every effort to rescind his Scottishness in a, untimately, futile attempt to appeal to Middle England. But then, it's difficult to argue we didn't, at least notionally, benefit from the good times along with the rest of the UK.
This recession will be a double-edged sword for the SNP. On the one hand, some potential supporters will be put off independence due to the fear factor, others because they feel the timing is wrong. On the other hand, handled correctly it could be the magic ticket that many grasp as a quick and easy(ier) solution to end the pain of the economic depression we're suffering from.
Complain about this comment
Is Jim Murphy aware that the Vatican describes Scotland as a "special sister in Christ" and affords it independent nation status?
Strictly speaking any visit of the Pope to Scotland should not involve Westminster but Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
Real anger management......
watching that preposterous charlatan Blair on television this evening pontificating on Gaza.
The truth about the sequence of events in which this jackanapes took us to war in Iraq are gradually surfacing.
Claire Short in the Mail on Sunday
"At the last Cabinet meeting, no debate on the legality of the war was allowed and Tony Blair, then Prime Minister, said brusquely: ‘That’s it.’
The official records would also put an end to claims by Gordon Brown’s supporters that, in private, he had grave doubts about the war, said Ms Short. In fact, he led the Cabinet campaign to accuse France of sabotaging British and American attempts to win United Nations support for the attack on Saddam Hussein.
‘It is extraordinary when you hear people like Jack Straw say that the Cabinet minutes cannot be published because you have to preserve Cabinet confidentiality and robust decision-making,’ said Ms Short, who resigned as International Development Secretary after the war.
‘The bitter irony is that what they are doing is concealing the fact there was no robust decision-making. The minutes will reveal there was no real Cabinet discussion about the Iraq War. That is the real scandal.’
Complain about this comment
It's 6.40pm. I'm stuck in a queue of 12. Looking at the names, I'm not holding my breath for congratulations.
Complain about this comment
Re Muriel Gray
Before I go on to pass comment on Muriels's latest effort in the Sunday Herald, let me just cast some light on her dilemma. A confident sage she hasn't been.
This from her piece in the Sunday Herald on November 18th 2006:
"However, it’s odds on that nothing too earth-shattering will happen in the May elections. The grave concerns currently uniting us with our fellow Brits are considerably greater than those dividing us."
No, Muriel, were you right........
Apart from general belittling of her country, compatriots and reserving particular zeal for nationalists, her main argument then consisted of...
"Religious leaders of all kinds are almost always in favour of independence, for the simple reason that they imagine they will have more power and authority. Yikes! If nothing else there’s a darn good reason to stay in the United Kingdom."
Eh? Westminster has a whole bunch of unelected bishops of one English church in the house of Lords!
OK, perhaps all her articles include such gems. But I do not seek to ridicule, so I'll plough on.
More crucially, she says this:
"I used to want independence. Desperately and passionately in fact. It was during Thatcher’s reign, when many of us saw a grim future where the left leaning government that the majority of Scottish voters demonstrated they desired, by voting for such at every election, would never be a reality unless we separated. I supported, though never joined the SNP, because I believed it was the only tactical way to work towards winning the representation and power denied us during those dark political days. But thankfully we were wrong. The English eventually came to their senses, Labour got in, and devolution delivered a level of representation we only ever dreamt of, with an executive now currently creating and passing bills that would previously have gone straight into the Westminster pedal bin.
Having been granted what I desired, nothing currently convinces me that independence would be a useful or positive thing."
Now from her latest article:
"Straw has banged the last nail into the coffin of moribund, corrupt and morally bankrupt New Labour"
Yes, what a waste of a vote they've been. I don't get why people voted for them (I didn't) only that plenty did and I believe did with good heart.
So, of Muriel, I would not want her to feel let down, as it is not a nice feeling. But then she goes on to feel prematurely let down by the SNP as well.
("Salmond's readiness to be bought by dubious opportunists and the increasing activity of nationalist online cyber-thugs make this newly floating voter far too nervous to commit.")
That though, Muriel (for I can offer you some hope), is like comparing pears with apples - they aren't the same. Let me show you.
Your Labour party got in with 35.3% of the vote. However, with First Past the Post, on gaining a clear majority. The UK constitution sets out that sovereignty lies with the parliament, not with the people, and so there are no checks and balances for the politicians once in power.
Therefore they can do, and have done, what they like. And Muriel doesn't like, and in that by far she is not alone.
Next time will be the same however, because with the same FPTP system the Tories will get in, but probably with a bigger share of the vote, and therefore a bigger majority and an even greater provision for unchecked power. Do you seriously think anyone won't be as pi$$ed off with them, as we are just now with Labour, in four or five years time? You will be.
The fact of the matter is your vote does not count for change unless you are floating voter in a marginal constituency. Even then it's just the next lot's turn and no democracy in action.
Muriel is understandably disillusioned. But what to do?
The SNP, although they are the party in government, are not like any mainstream party as you or I know it. They are a concoction of all representation in the political spectrum, who have one thing in common. They don't like the current UK set up. They want it changed.
They seek to correct the democratic deficit, as described.
Their way is to have a Scottish parliament, in line with their draft constitution, which points out, like as now,that the people of Scotland are sovereign - the difference would be a necessity to call referenda on such important matters affecting the population.
Government would be further representative because of the Proportional Representation system at Holyrood. Parties get the number of seats more in line with the votes cast, and if they just win, can govern in the minority, making for a consensus led, fairer government.
Not like at Westminster.
In so doing, setting up this more iniquitous system of government, they don't want to keep excess baggage from Westminster.
They want this government to be normal in that it doesn't have to answer to another one, like those of other European nations don't have to.
But the SNP is just the vehicle to take us to that point.
After independence it is possible it will splinter, or at least some of its body will farm out to join or form other parties of varying political persuasions, thus creating the normal range political spectrum present in any country, from which we will then get to choose.
That is the great difference with the SNP. Far from being a restrictive "main" party, they are the doorway to greater political choice, through us first becoming like any normal independent country.
Far away from the UK constitutional set up that is, as there will finally be democracy.
From one of Muriel's famed "nationalist online cyber-thugs" - for did that include me?
(To Muriel, remembering how you tore strips off mouthy Ben Elton, and others on telly, I liked that people would think you represented us Scots. How cool. I thought you were.
I used to think you were funny........
...........................now I think you're funny :-)
Complain about this comment
#299 brigadier
I'll agree the captain's under the weather but when I checked my ticket it read *xx** Valdez. That cost the shareholders dear for many years too.
So nice to dandle the grandchildren on your knee and tell them you've left them a "remembrance" for after you're gone. Must stop now or you'll think I'm another of aye_write's avatars
Complain about this comment
#286 handclapping
As a republican, I'll not enter the debate on the three-letter word you use, but thanks for the pointer to Mayer's "A return to 1815 is the way forward for Europe." An interesting read, and your quote is particularly apposite.
I agree with you entirely re the "Court of public opinion". What fascinates me today is that both the print media and our auntie Beeb are pushing the Supreme Leader's US "jolly" much more than his attendance at today's EU summit. Neither this website's EU 'consensus' to tackle crisis or Brown: EU is united over economy actually tell us anything meaningful. More interesting is the Czech presidency's Family photo, which tells us that Duff Gordon couldn't be bothered to turn up on time - perhaps fearing being seen a la Lisbon. The cynically or technically minded can click on the picture for a larger version and then download the actual picture from the site to confirm for themselves that it was taken at 13:20 [CET=GMT+1] today on a Nikon D3.
Whatever actually happened behind closed doors, the NuLab spinning machine will doubtless echo, as usual, the advertising campaign of Homer Simpson's favourite beverage: "The world can't get enough of that wonderful Duff".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#291 brigadierjohn
Point taken - maybe next week it'll be a diatribe against Salmond, but I did only claim it to be a good read and I'll stand by that. A hack's a hack, and I've worked with a fair few in my time, but some are more readable than others.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#294 aye_write: So that's what held up moderation for an hour? It's a masterclass in misrepresentation, an exemplar of character assassination, and you even managed to drag in 1320 and the UN! A classic nationalist post. With bells on.
Just a few points. Cost: the actual cost of, eg., transferring UK-centric public records, removing bases, etc., etc.
Upheaval: Cross-border movement of people and businesses seeking tax benefits either way. The SAS soldier from Glasgow who doesn't fancy ceremonial posing. Which Army for him?
Internecine strife: There will be refusniks. Demos, arrests, court cases, all spreading poison in Scotland.
YK2? My ony worry was that I'd have to do the preparation every Millennium!
So, in short, anything goes as long as there's a wee Jock in charge. But I suppose it's okay to be an emotional Nationalist and let the practicalities await King Alex's pleasure.
Another incoherent rant, aye_write. Tip: drop the parentheses, real and virtual. You may have something to say in that jumble. I just haven't found it.
Complain about this comment
#300 aye_write: Just call me a sucker for punishment. Regarding the "why" question, when I read your stuff it becomes "why, oh why?" I understand even less now, and if I seek answers it won't be from you. No offence meant.
"Just us... our national identity." Sorry, you can't have that without a "them." Hardly a nationalist poster would have a word to say if it wasn't to vilify "them." You know, Brown, Darling, Gray, BBC, Scotsman, Muriel Gray (for god's sake), Unionists, zzzzzzzzzzzz................
Complain about this comment
301. At 5:59pm on 01 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
292 Neil_Small147
"I think that is a better way of what I was trying to say. The arguments are in place, but there are no certainties."
That's true Neil, but will you accept you can never get any?
-------------------------
I can accept that we should get SOME certainties, even if only the basic ones.
To me the critical one is oil. If Scotland does get 95% or whatever the figure is, then yes we are off to a good start.
The other critical ones (to me) are, and in no particular order:
EU
Currency
Energy
Defence
These MUST be given an absolute proposal prior to an independence referendum. OK, EU and currency might require a further vote.
As for everything else, yes I accept there cannot be any guarantees. But people will be interested in health and benefits in particular. Also of interest will be the public sector.
As for the Titantic analogy. The iceberg has got to be PFI.
298. At 5:51pm on 01 Mar 2009, greenockboy wrote:
Your suggestions that the SNP work or react to an agenda set by the compliant Scottish media with their penchant for propaganda is one I find unconvincing.
I'm not suggesting they react (apart from this case). They should be pro-active. That means prior to announcing a policy or bringing someone new on board, sitting dow and considering any potential fallout and what course of action is best. In the case of Mathewson, while he ramped up RBS some will argue that he was partly to blame for what happened. He only left 3 or 4 years ago.
Complain about this comment
Brian , do you think the splendidly vituperative Tavish Scott became so obsessed by the size of Sir Fred's package that he forgot his submission to the Calman commisssion?
Liking all The Titanic analogies by everyone else by the way.
I can see Broon The Great Helmsman (for it is he) steaming full speed ahead towards the iceberg with a helmeted Tavish and crew in a longboat being towed along in their wake Wet, doomed but insanely happy.
To the union and beyond!
Complain about this comment
#303 ForteanJo
"others because they feel the timing is wrong."
I understand the point you're making. What I'd ask these people is when is the right time?
I'd venture to say it's like deciding when to have kids.
You can worry about the financial implications and whether it's the right time careers wise, do you have enough space where you live, schools etc.
Then you realise, there is no right time, you can plan as best as you can, in the end if you want children you're just going to go ahead and have them.
Likewise if you want independence, you'll never really know when is the 'right' time, you have to go ahead and do it.
For some there will always be something in them that says it's not the right time. Does that mean we put off independence indefinitely because circumstances aren't as 'favourable' as they could be?
The economic crisis can be used twofold by unionists.
1. Now, you're too much in debt, can't afford it and we also have your point of helping out because we caused the mess too.
2. Once the recovery is in full swing, well there's no need to have independence because everything is great financially and you wouldn't want to leae when the goings good would you?
No, if independence is to become a reality then this type of arguement should not deter that goal. We can and should contribute to cleaning up the mess as part of the independence settlement, this should not determine whether independence is achieved or not.
Complain about this comment
#306 brigadierjohn
"It's 6.40pm. I'm stuck in a queue of 12. Looking at the names, I'm not holding my breath for congratulations."
Slap!
;->
Complain about this comment
#303 ForteanJo
"I think (b) is quickly becoming the elephant in the room, handclapping. Everybody knows it's there but no one want to talk about it. As a way of avoiding the worst of the deepening economic disaster hitting the UK, there is this feeling that although it's viable, it does seem like running away from our responsibilities - we got in this mess together, we should see it out together"
Fortean, there is a way of looking at this that sheds all of the strain of the version you recounted.
In gaining independence we do England a favour.
They (go on NR's) are fed up with the non-democracy of Westminster, but know for their MPs to vote for a change to the system that gives parliament (them) sovereignty is like waiting for Turkeys to vote for Christmas.
Plus they hate that we have devolution but they are stuck with Westminster.
Our independence forces them to deal with the democratic deficit therein, as they hopefully seize the chance and revise it. Many on NR's seek to restore democracy to the system but don't know how that could be achieved, and some already advocate straight English independence.
There is a massive debt to dealt with here. But as two separate nations we'd be stronger to deal with it. Our parliaments would represent us, unlike in the self-serving pseudo-autocratic runaway train UK example we have now.
Arguably if that had been the case in the first place, such outlandish decisions such as we've seen (Lloyds takes HBOS) might never have been enabled, and we might not be in such a mess as we are sure in now.
Complain about this comment
#304 -
I hope I'm wrong here, sneckedagain, but during the Politics Show snippet, I really got the impression that Murphy is trying to provoke some sort of negative reaction from the SNP. As if the one-upmanship of inviting the Pope to Scotland (esp. after Crash's invitation was 'rubbished' by the Vatican) isn't quite enough for Murphy. As if he just wants to use it as a club to slap Salmond around with.
Perhaps it's the fact that it appears his whole reason d'etre these days is to do down the SNP. After all, if his role is to stand up for Scotland (as claimed), how many times has he stood up to Crash and the rest of the Cabinet? If the answer is zero (and it appears to be), there's 2 possibilities:
1 - He is in dereliction of his duties, and therefore should stand down
2 - Crash and the Cabinet are completely in tune to Scotland's needs. As such, the SoS role is superflous and, as such, Murphy should stand down
Of course, somebody may think of a third possibility.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Can you imagine the feelings of the Harry Potter author, whose name escapes me at present? One measily million to the Labour Party for all they were to have done for child poverty and here they are blowing 16000000GBP on redundant bankers. I mean you could get 5 extra MPs for that money or 140 OAPs so what could you have done for child poverty?
But not to worry, child poverty is going to get a whole lot better, poverty being a relative concept. When all of us are on the dole then the level at which poverty starts is going to be so low that child allowances are going to put parents among the above average rich. Just wait for Global Brown to claim he "solved" child poverty!
Complain about this comment
Just read the Sunday Herald's INVESTIGATION by Paul Hutcheon: "Salmond’s top economic adviser uses Cayman Islands tax haven".
The article ends with the somewhat pathetic whimper: "There is no suggestion that Mathewson is involved in any wrongdoing."
I thought the point of investigative journalism was to investigate wrongdoing, uncover corruption, expose the perpetrators of hidden evil in our society.
Maybe one of the big Unionist brains on here can explain why the Scottish media are now wasting valuable time and effort "investigating" people where there is no suggestion they are "involved in any wrongdoing"?
I'm not holding my breath.
Complain about this comment
#284 brigadierjohn
"sound answers" was Neil's phrase of course, and appropriate in its context. I would have said "sound arguments" on both sides.
Many of the arguments are, in fact, the same - when they relate to primary political identity. British? Scottish?
For some, such as Anaxim, the question has no meaning. For others such as fourstrikes (and I imagine such as Mathewson at the other end of the "class" scale), the question is
important but class would end up as the dominant factor, were the two forms of identity to be in conflict.
For many of us, at both ends of the British/Scottish spectrum, it is the dominant question. My father used to describe how in the 1930s politics became polarised on the dominant Left/Right issue - the "excluded middle". The same process occurs regularly in human affairs. When a major decision need to be taken, those who believe passionately in a "middle way" (in this case Federalism etc) need to be as passionate in their beliefs, and as clear in their policy as the main opposing factions.
In this political conflict, the policy of the middle ground appears to have been abandoned except for
1. the self-interested bodge that Labour made of devolution - thus stoking the fires of resentment in England
2. the flaccidity of the Lib-Dems (not even able to get their own submission to Calman in on time)
3. the "wait and see" policy of the Tories (no submission to Calman)
4. A few "status quo"ists sitting sniping on the sidelines, but making no positive contribution.
Complain about this comment
#306 brigadierjohn
It's now 20:37 GMT, so the queue is approaching 2 hours again. With all 3 "featured" HYS forums having 100+ posts awaiting moderation, it looks like it will be a very sloooooooow evening. Anger management definitely required.
TTFN - will look back much later.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#306. brigadierjohn wrote:
"It's 6.40pm. I'm stuck in a queue of 12. Looking at the names, I'm not holding my breath for congratulations."
I thought that was standard "britishness" full of small shopkeepers and formal queues.
Complain about this comment
#306 brigadierjohn
Congratulations brig! Always nice to read the clear, concise wording in your posts (regardless of the content).
Complain about this comment
Call for free independence vote
Complain about this comment
#308 handclapping
"Must stop now or you'll think I'm another of aye_write's avatars"
I prefer "groupie"!
;-)
Complain about this comment
#307 aye_waffling: What's the point of another zillion words, this time directed at a wee lassie who doesn't give a monkey's what you think about anything and will never see them? Moderation is slow enough at times.
Now, I wouldn't wish to censor a single word in your wee heid, but don't you think this self-indulgent ranting is a bit overdone?
Another tip: bold typefaces, as you employ them, and the blog equivalent of green ink, so beloved of residents in locked wards. I think you can do better.
Complain about this comment
#306 Brownedov
No surprise; GB wasn't going to come back from Brussels with all the leaders proclaiming how he had single-handedly saved the world. He's hoping Obama hasn't the nous not to say something that can be spun to his advantage. His going first is only a sign that Obama is dealing with his biggest problems first. Good thinking when you are up the creek with no propulsion, but wasted on Global Brown, I fear.
Complain about this comment
If this government cannot get the details right on something as minor as a pension, how on earth can we trust them with something as large as the UK economy?.
The government has used this non story about Goodwin's pension as a decoy from the massive loss that RBS has just experienced, the governments handling in this whole sorry saga has been appalling, I can only hope that this dysfunctional group of amateurs get voted out at the next election.
Complain about this comment
#311 brigadier
That's interesting; why should Scotland want the UK records of your telephone calls, emails and the CCTV of you wiping your nose in Whitehall? Are you doing something subversive about which we should know? It's only if you've got something to hide that you need to be afraid, as we are continually told.
Complain about this comment
#311 brigadierjohn
And refusniks; I though you were going to Cyprus. Don't tell me that the pound's reaction to Global Brown's "management" of the economy has made it impossible for you. And they make such good "sherry" too.
Complain about this comment
#311 brigadierjohn
I think the congratulations have to be withdrawn.
Poorly structured post this time. (That's an example of a number of verbless sentences you used : useful as an occasional device, but inappropriate when you use them repeatedly.)
Additionally, I'd advise you to improve your spacing. Badly laid out text such as yours is much more difficult for the reader to comprehend.
You may have had something worthwhile to say in that post, but I found myself concentrating on the poverty of the layout, rather than the poverty of the argument.
Complain about this comment
Allies might come in different shades of green
Complain about this comment
#314 GrassyKnollington
If you don't know the story (and why brownedov frequently refers to "Duff" Gordon), here's the text of a post I sent him in July -
"No analogy with the Titanic would be complete, without including the fact that many men from 1st Class got into the lifeboats, leaving women and children in steerage to drown.
One of these was Sir Cosmo Duff Gordon (!) of Maryculter (played by Martin Jarvis in the film)."
Complain about this comment
These queues are getting ridiculous again.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/cartoon/
Complain about this comment
#321 oldnat: Thanks for such a considered and weighty response to what wasn't much more than a throwaway line. I caught the sting in the tail!
But consider: we "status quo-ists" although neither defending nor advocating a position, are making a positive contribution. If people stop and think about their own position, in terms of logic rather than dogma, than seek to defend it in other than abusive terms, surely that is positive? That is all I am seeking to do here.
Was your #324 an ironic respnse to my comments to aye_write? I'm always wary of "praise" from you. :-)
Complain about this comment
#315 -
For some reason, ScotInNotts, I was reminded of the film Idiocracy. The basic premise of the film is that the people who took time to weigh up the decision to have children eventually ran out of time and died out, whilst those who just went ahead went on to dominate the planet (we'll pass no comment on the fact that those people were, shall we say, possessed of a shorter attention span).
Yep, you're right. We can bounce figures about, play hypothetical against hypothetical and generally argue until the cows come home. There are too many unknowns, too many variables to come up with the concrete answers that some demand (honest, Neil, I'm not looking at you).
That's not to say we should run away from it. At the end of the day, self determination is the natural state of any country, any person. It's a freedom that countless people have died for throughout the ages.
Now, I'm not claiming that we Scots are oppressed, that we live in a dictatorship (although Crash is doing his best) that we are a colony of England, the last remnant of the Empire. However, Scotland is a seperate country from England and although you can rarely slide a credit card between our differences (in comparison to, say, France or Germany), it still would benefit Scotland to make its own decisions in areas where those differences manifest, e.g. fishing, farming, energy policy, etc.
Can this be achieved without full independence. Certainly not with the current Westminster setup and definately not with the current occupant of No 10. Once Crash goes and takes Minister for Propaganda Murphy with him, the devolution settlement can be revisited and Scotland's powers beefed up. Unfortunately, setting up a commission to look at this will not be an option, as the farcical Calman has totally soured the idea of this being resolved via that route. That leaves hard negotation between Westminter and Holyrood. As I've said, this won't happen whilst Crash is at the helm. Perhaps if Glen Campbell's unholy alliance comes to fruition, it would be a possibility.
But this brings us back to timescales. More and more people want change NOW. Crash, Darling & Murphy's delaying tactics are becoming less and less effective (who still gives serious consideration to anything Murphy regurgates these days?). We may end up with independence simply because the Unionists have made a complete hash of moving towards any other option.
Complain about this comment
#317 - "In gaining independence we do England a favour."
Aye, the only problem with that is that less and less Scots buy into the subsidy myths (we can actually thank MacKenzie's OTT £30 billion claims for that).
Complain about this comment
brigadier,
You're a meanie.
(Just in case you slope off before my actual response is shown.)
Complain about this comment
#332 old nat: Aw (pause while I cut my wrists) gee! I always claim common usage is acceptable in journalese, my profession's device when impact takes precedence over rectitude. Actually I think you're sweet on aye_write, and having a go at me on her behalf. She does okay herself! :-) Anyway, I think she secretly prefers me. :-) :-)
If Scott and Dickens could manage without double spacing, who am I....... But they didn't criticise aye_write's style!
Give me credit for resisting a reflexive verb! :-)
#331 handclapping: I can still go to Cyprus, despite the rate. Don't know about sherry, but the wine, my tipple, is terrible. Your #330 is very contrived and oblique.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
#321 4. Nice one! Ooops, the cap fits too!
#332 Poor one; no bite
aye_write #326
If you're thinking of a spot of Waco, count me out. 8-)
Sorry I can't stay and snipe; bin day tomorrow 0700 so it's early up the wooden steps to Bedfordshire.
Complain about this comment
#328 handclapping
"GB wasn't going to come back from Brussels with all the leaders proclaiming how he had single-handedly saved the world."
True, but the EU unity patter might have a veneer of plausibility had Duff Gordon been prepared to be seen publicly in the presence of his "chums" or, heaven forfend, shaking hands with Sarko. Perhaps he doesn't think it will go down well in the US to have been seen socialising with surrender monkeys.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#333 cynicalHighlander
The trouble with a lot of these proto-ENP groups, is that they are reminiscent of the Scottish Party and the National Party in their early days.
They still haven't developed an inclusive contemporary view of what it means to be "English", and consequently much of their thinking borders on racism - if not stepping into that mire.
Rigidity on race, combined with flaccid principles can be a dangerous combination.
However, at least they are less dangerous than the British version.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone submitted any questions to the great Labour leader Grey yet?
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7906174.stm
If so care to share them on here as I'm sure due to the BBC bias it is the only way many of them will ever see the light of day.
Here is one I sent.
Do you still live with your mum? how much pocket money does she give you? Is the thought of leaving home and having to fend for yourself too scary for you?
Complain about this comment
#338 ForteanJo
Maybe I misunderstood her, but I took aye-write's comment to mean that our departure gives the English the opportunity to rethink their appalling constitution, and recover from the elective dictatorship that the lack of a codified constitution creates for them (and currently us).
There's no reliable data to suggest who (if anyone) subsidises who. If she meant economic subsidy, then I largely agree with you.
Complain about this comment
#334 oldnat
A trip down memory lane indeed, to NR's What's said and what's not thread. That does seem to be the main originator of the Titanic analogies on the BBC political blogs. Apart from your Duff Gordon reference, Carrots' #385 has proved particularly prescient:
"Staying with the Titanic for a little while longer
The ship received information earlier regarding the presence of ice floes in the vicinity, yet continued at full speed towards tragedy
Never mind cos Captain Browns goin down."
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#340 brigadierjohn
If you think a young woman in her 30s would want to be involved with either of us, then I suggest your wife has a quiet word with your doctor!
However, you are clearly one of these people who likes to snipe at other styles, but dislikes being criticised for their own.
I've done the same "cheap shot" thing as you in the past - if I remember I had the grace to apologise.
Complain about this comment
#312,
the brigadier as a "good unionist" poster, has nothing but sweetness and light about Salmond, the SNP and "nationalists" in general.
To his credit, he hasn't started attacking George Mathewson as yet, as some others have begun to.
Complain about this comment
#341 handclapping
It's difficult always to live up to my own high standards! :-)
Complain about this comment
#312 brigadierjohn
So this (#312) is what's been holding the modding queue up for an hour!
You are a meanie.
I assume by "virtual parentheses", you meant the use of parenthetical clauses? Well, I didn't get that kind of grammar at school. No excuse. But I try my best. Don't be judging me as if I'm also an ex journo like you. Hilarious.
Is this the best you can do?
"Cost: the actual cost of, eg., transferring UK-centric public records, removing bases, etc., etc.
Vague, very vague.
Removing public records? You get your software company in. Aren't they electronic? Or get you brother in law in, and put them in a van.
Removing bases? What bases? (Pizza bases?) Might they not merely be transferred?
Or are you talking about setting up bases in the borders to fight that immanent war you were on about!
"Cross-border movement of people and businesses seeking tax benefits either way. The SAS soldier from Glasgow who doesn't fancy ceremonial posing. Which Army for him?"
Alarmist, alarmist...
What cross border movement of people - refugees? Won't they use the existing roads and their cars? People are crossing the border today aren't they? Is it a mass exodus you are expecting?
Why would SAS soldiers from Glasgow be ceremonial posers? What vision of independence have you got?
"There will be refusniks. Demos, arrests, court cases, all spreading poison in Scotland."
There will be fire brimstone and a plague of locusts!
Refusniks as in protesters? - is that you and Mrs Dear up in arms chaining yourself to the gates at Bute House? (Or probably just you! She told you to get your tea from the oven when you get in.)
We have arrests and courts cases "spreading poison across Scotland" already, every old firm game!??
"So, in short, anything goes as long as there's a wee Jock in charge."
You just want me to rise to the bait!
"But I suppose it's okay to be an emotional Nationalist
It is, brig!
No emotions, no love, no friends, no happiness. You're saying we should diss these things? (You keep up with the evolving language now.)
There's no point in having a nice rational national set up, if it makes us feel sh!t. We must incorporate how we feel into our plans. I don't feel like being ruled by another nation.
"and let the practicalities await King Alex's pleasure.
The practicalities have ALL been done before, are being done now. If we Scots can't do that, then we must be useless - mind you, your examples were a bit lame. Don't run for parliament!
I am taking your splurted back, rushed, spitting comment as a compliment - must be doing something right if I am annoying you so. (You enjoy it.)
Tip: Don't patronise, it's unbecoming!
#312 brigadierjohn
"Just call me a sucker for punishment."
You like abuse. I've sussed you.
"I understand even less now"
"At's cos yer de-in it deliberately!"
(Read like Scotland the What or Rikki Fulton)
""Just us... our national identity." Sorry, you can't have that without a "them.""
You don't say. But you can focus solely on the US and not on the them - the English manage it, according to Angledefangle.
"Hardly a nationalist poster would have a word to say if it wasn't to vilify "them." You know, Brown, Darling, Gray, BBC, Scotsman, Muriel Gray (for god's sake), Unionists, zzzzzzzzzzzz................ "
Yeah, yeah, yeah!
#327 brigadierjohn
"aye_waffling"
brigadope,
"What's the point of another zillion words, this time directed at a wee lassie who doesn't give a monkey's what you think about anything and will never see them?"
She's old enough to be my mother!
"Moderation is slow enough at times."
And you are very impatient at times!
"Now, I wouldn't wish to censor a single word in your wee heid, but don't you think this self-indulgent ranting is a bit overdone?"
How many posts have you made tonight - I see jealous!!
"Another tip:"
Y__'re bl**dy hilarious!
"bold typefaces, as you employ them, and the blog equivalent of green ink, so beloved of residents in locked wards. I think you can do better."
Thank you. I'd only just learned how to use them so I hadn't had the benefit of seeing many of my posts with them. I see now italics is better. But I'll know to go "oh so boldly" whenever I am replying to you!
Complain about this comment
#340 brigadierjohn
Briggie-diggie-doo,
"Actually I think you're sweet on aye_write, and having a go at me on her behalf. She does okay herself! :-) Anyway, I think she secretly prefers me. :-) :-)"
Well, I couldn't possibly choose without setting you both a test!
(Ah, like Blind Date...)
Contestant no. 1 (that's you brig!):
If I you needed my parliamentary backing, as a very influential MSP, to become FM of Scotland (your longstanding political ambition), how would you set about getting it?
Complain about this comment
And so to bed, distraught that I didn't wait up for aye_write's latest billet doux, she's probably on the 89th paragraph by now. Hope she's looking after the kids at this time in the morning. Amazing these young wives. My wife and I stayed home for 20 years because we didn't trust babysitters.
oldnat: sorry about the missing verb. Don't keep her up all night! :-)
#339: She doesn't mean it folks. She's anticipating my response before she's even finished the post! :-)
Complain about this comment
#333 cynicalHighlander and #343 oldnat
Cheers for the cynical, interesting reading,particulary the independence section on the website, remeniscent in part to some of the arguements put forward regarding Scottish independence on these threads (and in trying to explain it to Munich oldnat).
I agree oldnat that some of the statements, in particular those regarding the EU and immigration/asylum are verging on their 'British' counterparts tone. Do you think this is the party JohnConstable has been searching for, probably not.
Anyway, for better or worse, and hopefully without shopping myself, have a look at NR's later. Purely for entertainment value but I was interested if any of the usual suspects bite. If they do I'm sure there will be some 'interestng' responses.
Complain about this comment
#338 ForteanJo
#345 oldnat
"Maybe I misunderstood her, but I took aye-write's comment to mean that our departure gives the English the opportunity to rethink their appalling constitution, and recover from the elective dictatorship that the lack of a codified constitution creates for them (and currently us).
There's no reliable data to suggest who (if anyone) subsidises who. If she meant economic subsidy, then I largely agree with you."
Ah, thank you oldnat, I wondered what Fortean meant!
I was not at all thinking of subsidy.
I was thinking of a way of allowing the English to sort out their pants non-codified constitution.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#347 oldnat
"#340 brigadierjohn
If you think a young woman in her 30s would want to be involved with either of us, then I suggest your wife has a quiet word with your doctor!"
Well, I laughed at that! Especially if I were actually a 73 year old trannie living out fantasies of what could have been!
Sweet dreams ;-)
Complain about this comment
#341 handclapping
Re Waco - lets not!
Complain about this comment
Handclapping ,cynical and oldnat , thank you one and all for the links.
My question for Mr Gray was something along the lines of ,
" Do you intend ,at some point in the future to vote for an SNP proposal or are you intent on voting against any and every SNP proposal?"
Complain about this comment
Morning All,
My question for the Grey Man was " As leader of the Labour Group of MSPs at Holyrood, do you feel that the BBC, in persisting in calling you the Scottish Labour Leader, are actually detracting from the fact that you have limited "devolved" powers and are obliged to follow policy set by "National" Labour in defiance of the expressed wishes of the Scottish People ? "
Monday Morning. I reckon that it'll be about 10-30am before we get this week's "Murphy Muttering" Headlined on the website.
Complain about this comment