Fundamental battle lines
Quite a bit more today anent Holyrood's financial powers.
Firstly, John Swinney has published a Scottish Government review of the options for change.
And the conclusion? That independence is the berries.
That it far outpaces the sundry proposed reforms of devolution in terms of enhancing the economy.
I would imagine that you are less than shocked at that disclosure, given that Mr Swinney's driving ambition is to secure independence for Scotland.
However, to be fair, the document does not simply jump to the conclusion. It steers there elegantly via a pretty comprehensive analysis of the alternatives.
We have here, in outline, the submission Scottish Ministers are now pledged to send to the Calman Commission.
Supremely relaxed
Which brings us to today's second development. Labour in Scotland has published its response to the self-same commission.
They're relaxed about borrowing powers for Holyrood. Indeed, Andy Kerr, their finance spokesman, appears supremely relaxed on that topic. (Some MPs muscles may be a little more rigid.)
They believe, in short, that Calman should now look seriously at borrowing: including how the money would be repaid.
On powers, they're largely content with the 1999 settlement. (Author: the Labour Party.)
But they believe Calman might care to look at an enhanced role for Holyrood in the operation of the Health and Safety Executive plus Gaelic broadcasting.
Contrary to some internal prompting, they do not want any powers returned to Westminster - including re energy.
Instead, they want enhanced co-operation between Edinburgh and London. Indeed, that is a core theme.
To return to the Swinney document. Remember this is a government, not party, publication.
Indepedence argument
Self-evidently, it is driven by ministerial aims: aka, independence.
But it also contains fascinating analysis of the alternative options. Perhaps, in addition to ministerial control, one can detect evidence of civil service input here, with an eye to that wider debate.
One can see issues here being drawn to the attention of London, quite distinct from the over-reaching indepedence argument.
So we have a warning re the possible impact of a needs review of Barnett: this could lead, we are told, to "potential real cuts in funding" for Scotland. Translation: Scotland is ready to fight in any Treasury-led review.
On assigned revenues - the concept of collecting taxation in Scotland without the power to vary it - the document is notably cool.
The document doesn't discern any evidence that this would create an economic growth incentive. To the contrary, it's described as "Barnett with greater uncertainty and volatility".
So that would be a no, then.
'Significant step'
By contrast, there is a notable warmth shown to the concept of "devolution max" - whereby Scotland would raise and control most taxation, while sending a subvention to London for shared services like defence.
Barnett in reverse, if you like.
This, says the document, would be a "significant step forward". It concludes: "Short of independence, this option would create the maximum policy discretion for the Scottish Government to increase sustainable economic growth."
In interviews, Mr Swinney has, of course, stressed the value of independence - while noting the emergence of a tentative consensus on issues such as borrowing powers.
Just possibly, he is gearing up to bank what he can.
Let's not kid ourselves. Nationalists and Unionists remain fundamentally at odds. They do not agree. However, there is now an intriguing territory upon which to stage a debate, aside from those fundamental battle lines.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~19~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
"Contrary to some internal prompting, [Labour] do not want any powers returned to Westminster - including re energy."
Surprise, surprise.
A party which is looking at Westminster oblivion doesn't want to give powers to a putative Tory administration.
Complain about this comment
SNP suggests, Labour opposes ! This is another document which could be described as a waste of time and public money. Not because it has no substance, but because whatever it says will be opposed by the other parties and by the Calman cabal. Until the unionists and the SNP get together and discuss Scotland's future without the constraints of Westminster HQ, Scotland will continue to be poorly served by it's politicians, and will never get beyond being a vassal state to England, which was what Scotland became with the parliamentary union.
Complain about this comment
I don't mind whether we get independence - although it is my preferred option - provided that we move to a position where substantially all decisions affecting the quality of Scottish life are determined by politicians answerable only to [some part of] the Scottish electorate, i.e. Holyrood working in conjunction with local authorities.
The single greatest achievement of the SNP administration has been effectively to eliminate the age-old antipathy between local and national government (when the parties in power differ); who would have though that Labour-controlled councils would be speaking up for SNP policy opposed by Labour's MSPs?
"Devolution max" has long been my own espoused preference, inasmuch as it can be seen to be achievable, provided that it amounts to de facto 'independence within the United Kingdom'(!).
Complain about this comment
If there is still anyone who thinks Scottish politics is parochial and of no real substance, stick around.
The 2011 Holyrood election is going to be hot, hot, hot...
.. and some of our most prominent MSPs are going to get burned!
Complain about this comment
In interviews, Mr Swinney has, of course, stressed the value of independence -
---
Sorry, but the majority of Scots not longer want independence, nor has there ever been a majority for independence:
opinion poll Jan 27-30th 2009:
Yes (seperation): 29%
No: (together): 55%
Don't Know: 16%
The Calman Comission therefore ought not to ever even consider Independence option, as this option fails to carry even 30% of the Scottish public. It simply lacks any substantive support- 29% and falling remember, this is what the trend shows.
Mr Swinney is simply attempting to stir up trouble in the hope Westminster will offend enough Scots so as to manufacture enough support for seperation.
Brian, when you say its "To return to the Swinney document. Remember this is a government, not party, publication." you know fine well its party rubbish, the SNP are consumed by party political issues in everything they do, and every chance they get to stir up discord they take. We unionists ought not let these seperatists ruin Scotland becuase of their mere 'emotional' ideologies!
Complain about this comment
4. At 2:53pm on 24 Feb 2009, Older than the Pyramids
"The 2011 Holyrood election is going to be hot, hot, hot..."
Yes and it will be the SNP, as they are slowly loosing ground in the all important regional list, down to 34%, from a previous 36% in November.
If this trend continues the SNP will not be the largest party in Holyrood next time round.
Complain about this comment
By contrast, there is a notable warmth shown to the concept of "devolution max" - whereby Scotland would raise and control most taxation, while sending a subvention to London for shared services like defence.
---
Fiscal devolution, but no further political devolution. And personally any Calman proposals ought to consider it as a 'two way street', energy must be reserved again, otherwise the SNP will use it as a means to an end- to force seperation not matter the cost.
For the stability and energy security of Scotland the energy powers must be reserved back to Westminster to keep such important powers such as energy security from the grasping hands of seperatists.
Complain about this comment
Unionists not letting the SNP "ruin" Scotland? Who says the Tories don't have a sense of humour...
Complain about this comment
Barnett or Barnett in revese, who cares Brian? I think that the debate has moved on. There is such an air of financial unreality around these days that debates about finance cease to make any impact on the public. Especially when made by Labour, who seem to specialise in looking cheap when it comes to money, withness McLeish,McConnell, Alexander.
Can you credit that Alistair Darling is holding down one of the great offices to State. A Chancellor to boot dossing down in a grimy flat share when he is already a London landlord so that he can have extra bunce to run his £1.2 million gaff in Merchiston.
I've made a formal complaint to John Lyons office. They are looking into it and soon enough we will know if he is going to be investigated like his colleague Jaqui Smith.
In the meantime I think that the Scottish people are tired of being UK subjects of HM The Queen and just want to be citizens of their own country whatever the financial picture looks like. At least we won't be dragged into illegal wars in Iraq or live with the lowest common demominator health service laid down by the likes of the truly ghastly Alan Johnson.
I had a letter from Alan Johnson via Alistair Darling (my MP) just the other day. Effectively he was saying that he knows that the provision of eye testing in this country is deeply flawed and great suffering to children learning to read is a direct result of this. But there are absolutely no plans to change the current policy. Well while we are tied to the provision of 50 million or so south of the border nothing good can happen up here and we have to put up with such third rate individuals. It is not something that a Scottish Health Secretary could get away with in Holyrood and I can't wait for an Independent Scotland to come.
Complain about this comment
"And the conclusion? That independence is the berries...We have here, in outline, the submission Scottish Ministers are now pledged to send to the Calman Commission."
And under the Calman Commission remit the Calman Commission are legally obliged to ignore that conclusion.
The remit of the Calman Commission is:
"To review the provisions of the Scotland Act 1998 in the light of experience and to recommend any changes to the present constitutional arrangements that would enable the Scottish Parliament to serve the people of Scotland better, improve the financial accountability of the Scottish Parliament, and continue to secure the position of Scotland within the United Kingdom."
It's the last point which is important in the remit. The Calman Commission can recommend any changes to the constitution as long as these changes don't threaten the Union. It's a commission to ensure the continuity of the Union not to recommend what's best for Scots.
It's understandable why the SNP wanted nothing to do with it as it is diametrically opposed to the aims of the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Why must energy become reserved? Scots don't want nuclear and neither do most Unionist MPs.
We can only know what the Scots want regarding independence by putting it to a referendum. Polls are not enough.
Complain about this comment
Dean – your poll is highly biased as is your word, "separation", for self determination. Why not ask the people the question proposed?! Oh, that’s right – you don’t like the answer.
The TNS System Three poll was conducted from 28 January to 3 February. It asks the independence question using the wording in the Scottish Government's National Conversation White Paper,
Agree that Scotland should negotiate independence:
February 2009 Yes: 38 per cent No: 40 per cent
*As opposed to past result such as,
August 2007 Yes: 35 per cent No: 50 per cent
November 2008 Yes: 35 per cent No: 43 per cent
From the Sunday Herald on the figures,
"SUPPORT FOR independence has hardened in the face of the global recession, despite Labour predictions that the crisis would see more Scots turning to the Union for protection.
The latest TNS System Three survey for the Sunday Herald found support for leaving the union rose three points during the last quarter, while opposition to a separate Scottish state fell to its lowest level since the poll began 18 months ago."
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2487786.0.scotland_on_a_knifeedge.php
As for taking back energy powers - you would certainly have to have a referendum on that!
Complain about this comment
What exactly do you mean by 'the berries'??
And come on Brian - anything published by the SG at the moment is an SNP document - it's hardly going to be neutral, is it?
Complain about this comment
Actually the grimy gaff that Darling Alistair used to doss down on was when he was Transport Secretary. Number 11 is obviously a much more salubrious address. But even so the idea that the taxpayer is honour bound to give his luxury home in Merchiston second home status so that he (and to be fair other MPs) the chance to make some extra bunce is just so obnoxious an idea as to be untrue. What with the bankers can we really afford for the idea to take route that all our MPs want to do is to take us for suckers.
Complain about this comment
I just can't understand why everyone goes on about independence,surely we all know that from the beginning that was always the goal of SNP nothing new in that,but what about Lab.no big headlines about borrowing powers for the Government is this not a u-turn from them,when Kerr was asked about funding the new bridge nothing from him,McCabe 25% cut in Council Tax not saying how they were going to fund that.Its about time you Brian,Glen and the rest started asking them serious questions not let them off the hook by slagging off the SNP as their answers.
Complain about this comment
Does it really matter what the SNP, Labour, Tories, Greens and Independents do in Holyrood?
Take a look at how much they're raking in via expenses and allowances and you'll find out why they want to outdo each other (and it's not politics!!).
For some reason, every time I read or hear about the shenanigans at Holyrood, I can't get one of William (Billy) Conolly's observations out my mind viz; "Scotlands a weel balanced country .... it's goat a chip oan baith shooders"!
Complain about this comment
Dean,
What is the margin of error in the data to which you refer . and in which you detect a "trend"?Slainte
ed
P.S. I second most of the thrust of the Ancient One (OttP)
Complain about this comment
#5, 6, 7 deanthetory
Item- For the stability and energy security of Scotland the energy powers must be reserved back to Westminster to keep such important powers such as energy security from the grasping hands of seperatists. -x7
Item- If this trend continues the SNP will not be the largest party in Holyrood next time round. -x6
Item- Yes (seperation): 29%
No: (together): 55%
Don't Know: 16% -x5
Together with the SNP holding only 47 seats and there being 82 "non-seperatists" in Holyrood, why, in the light of your views expressed in Items 2 + 3, do you have the worry in Item 1?
Is this "logic" symptomatic of tory thinking?
Complain about this comment
First and foremost, I suppose, those interested might want to read the document in question -
If I've managed this HTML gubbims correctly then the Scottish Government's paper ought to be accessible from here
Complain about this comment
So a report in favour of more devolution for Scots.
Independence even!
Scotland has as much chance of independence or substantially increased devolution from the Westminster, as the UK has of even partial withdrawal from Europe.
Complain about this comment
#4 - Older than the Pyramids (I bet you're not though, really) - I agree wholeheartedly.
In many ways, the 2011 Holyrood election promises to be vastly more interesting (And of greater, long-term, historic significance) than smarmy Dave's greasy but inevitable clamber to the top of the Westminster pole in 2010. (If not sooner)
Complain about this comment
Connolly actually said that it was Australia and Australians who were a well balanced people because they had a chip on both shoulders.
Yes, what are the berries?
Complain about this comment
re Brian's "shopping list"
It won't work.
No devolution, max or otherwise, is sensible, is it.
It's a mess, it's a guddle and all for the struggle of power for some political party's elite in Westminster.
Nothing really to do with "the people of Scotland" at all. We are just there to be bickered over, as we have no real say as a nation.
It serves as a distraction (a non-question) to the real struggle for power.
dean has obviously succumbed to that, learning to emulate all the others that have gone before him (I do not wish him luck).
The only NORMAL situation for nations is independence.
All else is playing at fitting a square peg into a round hole. Waste of time (except for said distraction).
Sooner or later the futility of it will be realised. There are no benefits from it, only troubles.
The only answer you need Scotland is to be a normal nation.
Complain about this comment
#7 - Deanthetory - [S]uch important powers such as energy security from the grasping hands of separatists
Interesting choice of words -
Energy security is an important power. By security I'm assuming you mean the ability (Or "power") to protect the energy supply.
Quick question - who does your Unionist government want to protect the energy supply from?
"Protecting" the energy supply, presumably also means protecting the price of energy - i.e. keeping supply high and costs low.
Why would a Unionist UK be able to do this any better than an independent Scotland?
An Independent Scotland will have a significantly greater interest in maximising oil supply because proportionately more of its economy will depend on oil production. (Scotland, for example won't have the magical, all-powerful wealth generating powers of the City of London to fall back on, when times are hard)
Scotland will also have an interest in competitive pricing because, if allowed to trade freely, it will have to compete with, for example Russian and former Soviet bloc gas suppliers to English customers. Whatever prices are set, Scotland will have to match in order to sell to its nearest and largest market.
Independence for Scotland would, therefore increase energy security in the (Former) UK not decrease it - no anti-devolutionary, revisionist claw back of power required.
Lastly - grasping hands Excuse my pedantry (And I'm aware of the negative connotations you're implying - grasping = needy etc. ) but, honestly, whose hands don't grasp? Surely grasping is what hands are supposed to do?
Unionist hands - at least, those of the more evolved amongst their number - grasp just as nationalists do.
Complain about this comment
Bandages_For_Konjic:
I've had a look at the options for financial reform on your link to the Government submission. Thanks for that.
The options are:
1. current framework;
2. assigned revenues;
3. enhanced devolution;
4. devolution max; and
5. independence.
Going in reverse order, number 5 is out because the Calman Commission is not allowed to consider independence.
Number 4 is out because the Calman Commission has already slapped down the Lib-Dems wet dream of full financial autonomy.
Number 3 is a problem because, "enhanced devolution", could mean Scotland collecting and taking large percentage of the taxes raised in Scotland. Oil and Whisky revenue fears will put a stop to that.
That leaves number one the, "current framework", and number two, "assigned revenues", which the submission claims will leave Scotland worse off than it is now.
What a mindnumbing waste of time the Calman Commission has been, though I suppose it's been worth it to see the Lib-Dems out-manoeuvered and given the stiletto by Labour in the Commission.
Complain about this comment
Brian: -
"Let's not kid ourselves. Nationalists and Unionists remain fundamentally at odds. They do not agree. However, there is now an intriguing territory upon which to stage a debate, aside from those fundamental battle lines."
It's disappointing to see you use the Unionist monicker again. 'Unionists' scarcely exist in Scottish politics, it's primarily an outgroup expression used by nationalists.
I would not even say Scottish independence is a fundamental battle line. Compared to other, deeper political differences (some of which are emerging as a result of the recession), it's at best second tier.
Complain about this comment
The 'Berries' are the 'dangle' variety of which Dean speaks!
Which part of the concept of either sovereignity/independence/separtism do you not understand? It's the only way for any self respecting Scottish person or anyone wishing to reside here to want. It is pretty straight forward. There isn't even need for a debate as it's a natural conclusion imho. Why can't you Unionists never make a case for the status quo, never!
Did you see AS give wee Glen a good talking to on Newstripe last night.
Complain about this comment
26 now why do unionists take umbrage at being called unionists?
I remember a couple of years ago Ruth Wishart taking offence when a commenter on one of her articles in The Herald referred to her as a unionist.
Is there a better word to describe people who wish to see the union with England retained? If so what is it?
Complain about this comment
Scottish regional labour are the chameleons of Scottish politics.
When the tories are in power, they are Scottish through and through. Look what these dastardly home counties tories are doing to our beloved Scotland they cry. They are anti nuclear, anti war, tax the rich, more benefits, pro Europe and pro Scottish.
Once in power they become a bunch of brits, bulldogs through and through.
Trust Scottish regional labour, no thanks!
Complain about this comment
28: -
It's a bizarre way of categorising people. Please, tell me what I have in common with a right-wing Daily Mail-reading Scot whose politics I scarcely agree with. We might agree on a few things, like the Union, or a less restrictive school curriculum, but on many things, we'd not agree.
A fundamentalist Muslim might insist we were both infidels, despite me being atheist and my counterpart being a devout Christian. He might be 'correct' but only in his own world, and it would be futile to engage with someone who thinks like that.
Complain about this comment
GK - 28
We could not print the real words as they would be moderated so that's the most unpleasant one and I don't think they like it. I was also wondering that too. I don't mind being called a separatist.
Complain about this comment
#13 GlasgowGooner
So anything published by the Westminster Government is a Labour document? WMD?
Complain about this comment
#30 Anaxim
"It's a bizarre way of categorising people. Please, tell me what I have in common with a right-wing Daily Mail-reading Scot whose politics I scarcely agree with. We might agree on a few things, like the Union, or a less restrictive school curriculum, but on many things, we'd not agree."
You answer your own question, you like (are in favour of) the Union i.e. are unionist.
"A fundamentalist Muslim might insist we were both infidels, despite me being atheist and my counterpart being a devout Christian. He might be 'correct' but only in his own world, and it would be futile to engage with someone who thinks like that."
The difference is the fundamentalist calls you for not believing in something. You do believe in the Union and so fit the rather more narow and rational criteria for "unionist".
God, the level of debate is poor on here tonight!
Complain about this comment
30
You answered your own question. 'We might agree on a few things like the Union'. Therefore a Unionist. Unionsim has many factors as has any state/country. America is a prime example - different laws in different states, North/South divide etc. but still all Americans. Hope you catch my drift?
Complain about this comment
#30 Anaxim
So why are you "engaging" on this blog? Purely selfishly, to see your deathless prose in print or, altruistically,to support any of your like-minds, who are wavering in their belief, by letting them see that they are not alone?
Complain about this comment
Aye_write
You are on here quite a lot. Not bad for mum. Keep up the good work. I'm not patronising you as i'm a father so I know about slavery lol!
Complain about this comment
deanthetory @ comment number 5:
OK dean, time for you and others who try to push the same line to be taken to task.
dean wrote:
"Sorry, but the majority of Scots not longer want independence, nor has there ever been a majority for independence:"
dean, like the rest of us, does not know the support or otherwise for independence. Furthermore he does not know if there was ever a majority or otherwise for independence.
Only dean can explain why he has posted this misinformation and what his motives are for doing so,
The opinion poll posted by dean is utterly meaningless as are opinion polls that show independence and status quo as neck and neck.
Moreover, no election result is an indicator of independence support. This is due to the verifiable fact that there are supporters of independence who vote for so called Unionist parties at both the Westminster election and the Holyrood election.
Finally, referendums always attract those amongst us who NEVER take part in elections, these people are attracted by the radical nature of referenda. An increase in turnout of at least 15% can be expected for an independence referendum.
This extra 15% are not accounted for in polling, they are effectively sleeping voters. Now, which option do you suppose the radical sleeping voter will opt for?
So, please dean, do not present subjective conjecture as fact.
Only a referendum will provide the answer.
Complain about this comment
#36. SchoolTieColours
Yes, "Up" for fathers too!
Complain about this comment
DeantheTory:
You should choose your words carefully.
"Sorry, but the majority of Scots no longer want independence, nor has there ever been a majority for independence."
There has been no clear support for the continuation for the Union, your poll is heavily biased, seperatists? That's not the correct term. How can the SNP's motives for independence be reffered as seperatism when their objective is to have the political Union between Scotland and England reversed?
Britain is not a country, keep that in mind because it's all politcal.
"The Calman Comission therefore ought not to ever even consider Independence option, as this option fails to carry even 30% of the Scottish public. It simply lacks any substantive support- 29% and falling remember, this is what the trend shows."
Polls are not referendums. Referendums turn out differently, Ireland anyone? If you believed in democracy then you would allow independence to be considered, even in a referendum! Besides according to your poll independence would not win a referendum, what are you afraid of? Or have the Conservatives finally grown some? And to hell with democracy?
"Mr Swinney is simply attempting to stir up trouble in the hope Westminster will offend enough Scots so as to manufacture enough support for seperation."
Mr Swinney and the Scottish National Party have been incredibly mature over this issue. They have made plently of suggestions, and are not afraid to include their own views/opinions with independence.
It's more then what Calman has accomplished. By ignoring the nationalists they will never create a system that could be accepted by both sides and if this attitude then my children may continue the good fight ;-)
"Brian, when you say its "To return to the Swinney document. Remember this is a government, not party, publication." you know fine well its party rubbish, the SNP are consumed by party political issues in everything they do, and every chance they get to stir up discord they take."
Simply because the SNP are pro-independence supporters and pointing out flaws in the system, then that's wrong, how?
It's their job, and many polls have suggested that the Parliament should receive greater powers in order for the Government to function better.
"We unionists ought not let these seperatists ruin Scotland becuase of their mere 'emotional' ideologies!"
To Nationalists,
In order for our children to see a brighter future we should ensure that we halt the Union altogether, no more wars, no more nuclear weapons rather then using funds to help end poverty.
The British Empire is over, the European Union is the future. Let us leave behind the backwards unionists and join the rest of the world.
Dean, I believe you have lost all credibility. It was interesting to have a Conservative amougst us, but your unrpovoked attack on Scottish indpendence and nationalists is disgusting.
Emotional ideology? To be honest, more people find themselves Scottish rather then British! Perhaps even unionists are emotionally attached to Scotland?
Fascism is an ideology, communism is another. However believing in Scottish independece is simply that - A belief that your country can do much more by being equal to all other country's in the world.
Perhaps you should let go? You appear rather emotional over this issue.
I wonder if you miss Ireland?
Complain about this comment
#33 AW
It's exciting to have new posts from BT again, innit? ;)
I know we've danced this dance before, but "unionist" is less annoying than "nationalist." Because I think independence is a good idea, am I therefore become a Nat? *cue howling and tearing of hair*
Complain about this comment
33: -
"You answer your own question, you like (are in favour of) the Union i.e. are unionist."
That just confirms that you have a relentlessly narrow view of politics. Unfair too. Scottish nationalists (rightly) get irritated when grouped with certain other nationalists, yet you won't extend this same courtesy to people who happen to disagree with you. No, we're all 'Unionists', defined entirely by how we stand in your eyes. A Liberal and a BNP member? Both Unionists!
"The difference is the fundamentalist calls you for not believing in something. You do believe in the Union and so fit the rather more narow and rational criteria for "unionist"."
There's no difference: I don't believe in nationalism. I happen to support the Union for pragmatic reasons. I've said I'd support Scottish independence if the civil liberties situation in the UK becomes unsalvageable, and I'm closer to that now. If I did, my ideology wouldn't have changed at all, and I'd still be utterly indifferent to the demands of nationalism.
Complain about this comment
I think the berries signify that independence is "tasty". ;)
#5 (perhaps) dean, Mr Taylor is actually making a sharpish point and applying it. Naturally what political parties do is "party political". However, what political parties set forth when in power has a very large amount of what's missing when they're out of power - civil service input and resources, as BT says.
The argument he is making is that this document isn't a simple wish list like that of a wee girl who wants a pony and all of the Bratz dolls. It's laying the foundations of future negotiating positions. The SNP didn't write the document in one of the endless and sometimes bizarre meetings I've been in in my time while arguing about if the word "and" or "but" might be seen to support the imperialist hegemony. Mr Swinney's lot had a plan, and said "Go forth and take a look at this, see what you reckon like" to the civil servants. They did, they discussed, and what came out of it will be intent tempered by caution.
So seasoned Bute House watchers will naturally examine this document carefully to see what the future holds. All parties in power come in with a vision and tell the civil servants "Make it so." Those suited men and women then tell them if it can or can't be done.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Do you ever get the impression that noone ever reads what you say? That the arguments on here would go on even if you wrote about applehood and mother pie?
I want Brownie points, I followed your link to the BBC article and read that too. Which is why I'm surprised that nobody has picked up that Iain Gray is reported to have said that Calman "rejected fiscal autonomy as not in the best interests of Scotland." when the Commisssion rejected it as not in the best interests of the Union.
Complain about this comment
# 27 naw, School Tie (I like your name, though, depending on the school...)
I don't agree that "any self respecting Scot" has to believe one way. That's setting us up for the scary US style nationalism of "love it or leave it". Walk lockstep with us every step you take, or you're not a *proper* Scot...
You can love Scotland and want it to remain in the union. I don't agree with that position but it's not evil of itself. They might feel strong cultural and personal ties with the idea of the UK, or perhaps they worry about losing a connection with the working class in other countries, or perhaps they think we work best as part of a larger nation.
Looking at the political I think they are mistaken, but on some blogs people start getting into the "quislings and traitors" thing which does no one any good. It's sane here, let's retain that sanity.
Complain about this comment
#32 - Handclapping - you might say so, but I cannot possibly comment. ;-)
Complain about this comment
#39 Thomas
I can't believe I'm defending a Tory. Surely I will go to socialist hell for this. (There's a joke about that....)
However, what else did you think a Conservative would believe than what Dean does? It's like being amazed that a Lib Dem doesn't believe in the wholesale extermination of the kulaks ;)
The whole point of differing opinions on boards is that they differ. If Dean loved the ideals of the SNP, he'd join. He doesn't, so he won't. Instead he brings his Tory opinion which I disagree with 100 percent of the time and will never hesitate to tell him so. It's still more fun than an echo chamber where we all chant the same thing and hear it repeated back at us.
Complain about this comment
If you support the Union then you are a Nationalist. An English nationalist who supports the interests of England in Scotland. I think Unionists should desist on this one. Being called a Unionist is no doubt better for you than being called an EngNat or traitor.
Complain about this comment
Och, wee laddie Dean, almost feel sorry for you. I've been following your posts (along with the rest) recently, and thought you were starting to talk some sense. For a member of the blue brigade, at least. But then you leap in with such a volley of empty rhetoric and all your efforts go to waste.
Note, if you may, that even the poll you quote suggests around one in three support "separation". I could mention one or two parties which have consistently garnered significantly less support than that in actual Scottish elections over the past decade or so, but I doubt you'll be arguing that means they should be wiped from the ballot paper.
Complain about this comment
Respect to all involved in the previous mammoth thread, by the way. Dunno where you lot find the time -- I could barely even keep up with the backlog of comments!
Complain about this comment
Independence would no doubt give us the will to deal seriously with inadequate supervision and security at elections.
In the terms of the carefully worded nature of Electoral Commission reports the report on the running of the Glenrothes by-election is damning.
This one is not going away.
I note the Labour Party web-site promotes the lie that the SNP is trying to sell Scotland's forests. This is a huge lie - no more, no less and the LibDems are telling it as well.
Desperation indeed.
,
Complain about this comment
#45 GlasgowGooner
Ah; we know where you live?
Complain about this comment
#41 Anaxim
"A Liberal and a BNP member? Both Unionists!"
Whatever you think of the Liberal Party, they are not unionists. The word was invented by the odious Jo Chamberlain, who split the party by creating the oxymoronic "Liberal Unionists" over Irish home rule and subsequently merged with the "official" Tories. Granted the injection of SDP ideas into the LibDems has made them much less fervent decentralisers than the old Liberal party, but they are still home rulers and want fiscal autonomy - not that they're making much of a fist about getting it.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
FourStrikes:
The main issue I have with comments from people like Dean, are that they are almost extreme.
Let us ignore those who support independence because they appear in the minority?
And Dean was using a poll that showed support for the Union over 50 percent by 1 percent!
It's disgraceful, undemoncratic and only the desperate shout such nonesense.
Let us hope that Dean and others who support their extreme views are never trapped in a country who does not listen to them.
Complain about this comment
#41 Anaxim
"A Liberal and a BNP member? Both Unionists!"
Yes, if they support the Union. (Could there not be a spectrum of "good" and "bad" unionists?)
It's not meant to be a derogatory term. It's supposed to lump all people, who support the Union, together because it IS a collective term. I don't understand your indignation. Seriously, Anaxim, did you think it was something to be ashamed of, as I didn't.
"The difference is the fundamentalist calls you for not believing in something. You do believe in the Union and so fit the rather more narrow and rational criteria for "unionist"."
"There's no difference: I don't believe in nationalism."
OK but that's not why I'd label you a unionist.
"I happen to support the Union for pragmatic reasons."
If you don't mind my asking (baffled but interested), what are they?
"I've said I'd support Scottish independence if the civil liberties situation in the UK becomes unsalvageable, and I'm closer to that now."
What do you mean? (42 days?)
Is that because in a normal independent Scotland we would be able to improve the situation?
"If I did, my ideology wouldn't have changed at all, and I'd still be utterly indifferent to the demands of nationalism."
I'm kind of indifferent to them myself. It's a bad choice of term for the SNP to be honest. It's not to do with the raving "my country is better than all others" thing at all. But I want my country to be normal like others. Nationalism is an annoying label I'll give you. But you do not have to bow to it to support independence though.
Independence is just a correction of a strange set of circumstances, that were only meant to be temporary
(when you look at the Treaty of Union).
It isn't beneficial as the power split is so unbalanced.
Independence is not to do with pitting anyone against anyone else. It's not crazy. It's the ordinary state of affairs for countries in Europe and round the globe. Why should we not have what they take for granted?
Complain about this comment
"By contrast, there is a notable warmth shown to the concept of "devolution max" - whereby Scotland would raise and control most taxation, while sending a subvention to London for shared services like defence."
Oh dear, Scotland may possibly raise MOST taxation, then be asked to send a sum to Westminister?
I suspect oil will not be handed over to Holyrood, what other taxes would be held back at the Treasury?
Why should the Scottish Government send the British Treasury money, when the Government has no say over how the funds are spent?
Westminister could be crazy over spending then expect Scotland to foot the bill.
Complain about this comment
#49 uilleam_beag
To be fair, I don't work so I can juggle a wee post here and another there around my schedule to suit myself :-)
Complain about this comment
I see the Calman commission as a bit like a couple going to a marriage guidance counsellor but with the stipulation that separation or divorce would not be discussed as an option, no matter how bad the marriage was for either party.
This is not a healthy way to look at improving a relationship, many people end up treating each other better when separated than when married.
The Calman commission should have had Independence in it's remit and should not have been phrased as for the benefit of the Union, but the benefit of Scotland and the rest of the UK.
In response to the the Lib-Dem asking for the national conversation to stop, gagging orders are not the answer, get on the conversation and persuade people of your point of views, all options are being considered, unlike the Calman commission.
As for Mr Grey and his assertion that the SNP are stuck in a time warp, the electorate have seen the time warp of Labour in Scotland for 50 years, maybe a bit of a change was in order.
Just a note to state that I am not a member of any political party and I am not rabid in any political way.
Jimmy the Pict
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
I'd also like to point out something.
It shows you have no idea what you are talking about, and well... I doubt you will gain support from even those who share your opinion now!
"For the stability and energy security of Scotland the energy powers must be reserved back to Westminster to keep such important powers such as energy security from the grasping hands of seperatists."
The Scottish Government has no control over energy policy.
How embarressing Dean!
Do you actually know what the Scottish Parliament is capable of doing?
Do you even live in Scotland...? Perhaps you are simply another Conservative from the south, here to spell a but of fun with the Scots?
I believe it's planning powers that the Scottish Government has control over that threatens your nuclear power stations.
Please. In future, if you want a dig at someone at least know the background beforehand.
Complain about this comment
#50 sneckedagain
Thanks for the heads-up on the report, missed until this evening as busy all day. Currently the full PDF is on on the Electoral Commission's home page, but if it's gone by the time anyone goes there, the press release should stay where it is and has links to search for the PDF.
The comment on p19 of the PDF [Management of the count - para 9.5] is certainly disturbing: "We do have some concerns that the count was not as transparent as it could have been due to the layout of tables in the hall. One table where votes were being counted was not clearly within the view of candidates, agents or other observers. Also, the central tables where the votes for each candidate were collated were situated behind the Returning Officer’s platform and obscured from view."
But the really dammning thing is what the report does not say. Although the report mentions various concerns with the process for Glenrothes, it makes no attempt to suggest that the count and inspection of the postal ballots produced a fair result. The final words "Democracy matters" [apparently an EC slogan] don't seem to be important enough for the EC to give an opinion other than to welcome "the statement by the Scottish Courts Service that they will appoint an external investigator to conduct an inquiry". If Roy is indeed an honourable man, he should be more concerned about this than anyone.
The BBC seems equally unconcerned, and I note that this website's feeble By-election transparency concern is already close to moving off the Scotland Politics page and rapidly moving down the main Politics page, presumably soon to be replaced by yet another NuLab press release.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Is this the latest tired desperate Unionist ruse to keep Scotland's oil reserves in English possession? Devolution max? How hip and trendy. Lol.
The only halfway house between devolution and independence that the EngNat Quislings might and I emphasise might get is full fiscal autonomy. Within 5 years our oil reserves and economy will be back in full control of Holyrood and the Scottish people whether Scotland remains a part of the UK or not. That's something you *can* bank on in Brown's busted Britain.
Complain about this comment
#55, Thomas_Porter wrote:
"Westminister could be crazy over spending then expect Scotland to foot the bill."
No change there, then.
Particularly not if you take the view that it's SCOTTISH oil revenues which have financed the claimed largesse of successive UK Governments.
Complain about this comment
"Devolution max" or "independence lite"?
Complain about this comment
#50. At 7:15pm on 24 Feb 2009, sneckedagain
-----------------------
First, the Glenrothes issue. If security is a problem here then the local council are partly at fault. SNP needs to tread carefully in any communication they make, so as not to allow Labour to bounce the ball back over.
Re the forests, it is not totally wrong. The Scottish Government want to lease out some (seven percent?) of the forests to raise money. How much is debatable but I think 200 million is close. However, whatever private company gets the lease now has a guaranteed income for 75 years (correct me if I am wrong about the timescale). And the first year provides a huge profit, since the trees have already been planted at public expense.
Private Eye - which favours no one - ran the article over a month ago. I trust their details far more than Labour or Lib Dems.
What will be of interest is once the lease has been tendered, what sort of profits the successful company earns. I'd prefer everything to be kept in-house.
Complain about this comment
From the BBC website - "Holyrood ministers aim to hold an independence referendum in 2010, although they currently lack enough parliamentary support for such a move.
" . Who do these people think they represent ? Should we not be given the choice ?
Complain about this comment
#62
Older, you're pretty damn funny!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Sorry about the previous post mods, but I was having trouble getting the system to accept my posts.
Complain about this comment
Nationalism has no place in the European Union, least of all for separtists mocking the ideal of an 'ever closer political union' by trying to create an ever more divided one.
Independence within Europe is meaningless. There can only be interdependence within Europe.
One Britain-hater claims 'Britain is not a country.' The act of union did not create Britain. Britain existed as a cultural reality long before the Scots invaded. Britain has as much historic right to be counted among Europe's members as Scotland.
I am old enough to remember when Scots did not hate being British. No one oppressed me and I never regarded the English as 'thieves.' Given how much English tax-payers have just doled out to rescue Scotland's banks, that claim is especially ugly.
I believe in a united Britain within a united Europe. You can hate that if you like, and try to erase Britain from the European map. But more than a million British servivemen died to save Britain and the SNP's campaign to destroy her is both an insult to their memory as well as an insult to the ideals of the EU.
Good riddance to all nationalists, including the BNP and the SNP. Europe has no place for you.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#65.
Neil,
The forests issue is interesting. I presume the private company will turn the trees into lumber for comercial reasons.
However what state the forests are returned to the Scottish Government is more important.
Hopefully the private company will have to re-plant and properly ensure that the forests will be fine again - considering it takes many decades for a tree to be useful commercially.
Also I hope the Scottish Government will re-invest the funds gained through the lease back into Scotland.
I am not suggesting health or education, but something more useful that may provide the state with extra funds.
Perhaps buy into renewable energy?
Complain about this comment
#5 deanthetory
As you're a politics student here's a few lessons from history.
http://www.alba.org.uk/timeline/1967to1979.html
Some interesting parallels there with current events.
I wouldn't say there has never been a majority wishing independence and I also do not believe that given the choice i.e. the referendum, that there will not be a majority wishing independence now.
The SNP will be judged on their record of governance, in doing so they will prove that Scots and Scotland are capable of governing themselves.
I agree wholeheartedly with aye-write:
"Independence is not to do with pitting anyone against anyone else. It's not crazy. It's the ordinary state of affairs for countries in Europe and round the globe. Why should we not have what they take for granted?"
It's beyond me why we have to prove we're ready to look after ourselves, however if we have to jump through the hoops to get there then its worht doing.
I think you're also in the minority regarding giving back powers to Westminster, the present mood would tend to suggest the opposite is desired.
Complain about this comment
9th May 1968
Declaration of Perth. Edward Heath, leader of the Conservative & Unionist party, proposes a directly elected Scottish Assembly.
15th April 1969
Constitutional commission set up under the chair of Lord Crowther, who is succeeded by Lord Kilbrandon in 1970.
20th June 1969
The discovery of oil in the North Sea is announced.
28th October 1971
The House of Commons votes to join the EEC by 356 votes to 244.
11 th April 1972
The Rt Hon Roy Jenkins, later Lord Jenkins of Hillhead, resigns as deputy leader of the Labour party over plans for a referendum on EEC membership.
1st January 1973
Britain joins the EEC along with Ireland.
31st October 1973
Kilbrandon committee reports. The options of independence and federalism are rejected in favour of a directly elected Scottish Assembly
28th February 1974
General election. Labour government under Harold Wilson, later Lord Wilson of Rievaulx. MPs elected in Scotland: Labour 40, Conservative 21, SNP 7, Liberals 3. % of vote: Labour 36.6 %, Conservative 32.9 %, SNP 21.9 %, Liberals 7.9 %, others 0.6 %.
May 1975
The SNP's conference agrees to participate fully in any directly elected assembly 'to make a constructive contribution in those limited areas of responsibility likely to be given to the assembly by the present Westminster government and to work vigorously to extend the assembly powers until it becomes a real Scottish parliament.'
5th June 1975
EEC referendum. The Scottish people vote to stay in the EEC. For 1,332,286 votes (58 %), against 948,039 votes (42 %). Shetland and the Western Isles votes No. Note that the turnout was 62 % therefore only 36 % of the electorate voted Yes. However, unlike the Devolution Referendum of 1979, no 40 % rule is imposed, and Scotland remains in the EEC.
11th June 1975
The first oil is pumped from the Scottish sector of the North Sea to Sullom Voe in Shetland.
May 1976
The SNP's National Assembly declares that the assembly is only a stepping stone to independence and that 'Nothing short of independence will meet the needs of the Scottish people in whom alone the sovereign power of Scotland resides.
25th January 1978
Cunningham amendment to Scotland Bill. Labour backbench rebellion allows a wrecking amendment to be passed by 298 votes to 243. 40 % of electorate must vote Yes - this includes those who have died or who are on the register but cannot yet vote, double registered students etc. George Cunningham later goes down in history as the first backbench MP since Cromwell to bring down his own govenment. This event ushers in 18 years of Tory rule.
26th July 1978
The government loses a vote in House of Lords concerning Scottish MPs voting in non-Scottish legislation by 276 votes to 275.
14th February 1979
The former Tory Prime Minister, Lord Home of the Hirsel, makes a notorious appeal to Scots to vote No in the referendum, claiming that Mrs Thatcher and the Conservatives will produce a better devolution package. The claim proves to be false.
February 1979
The Secretary of the Labour Party in Scotland, Helen Liddell, refuses to campaign for a Yes vote alongside other parties, declaring 'We will not be soiling our hands by joining any umberella 'Yes' group!'
1st March 1979
Devolution referendum. The Scottish people voted in a referendum to set up a Scottish Assembly. For a Scottish Assembly 1,230,937 votes (51.6 %), against 1,153,502 votes (48.4 %). However, London Labour, later SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers as No voters. 32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes. Had the same conditions been imposed on the 1975 EEC referendum, Scotland would have left the EEC.
Due to the 40 % rule, abstainers counted as No voters in the 1979 referendum.
March 1979
The Scotland Act is repealed. Despite Scottish MPs voting 43 to 19 against repeal, the vote is carried by the vast majority of non-Scottish MPs who vote 282 to 163 for repeal. Devolution disappears from the statute books until 1997.
26th April 1979
ORC opinion poll for the Scotsman reveals that only 26 % of voters believe the plans for a Scottish Assembly should be scrapped.
Complain about this comment
#63 Neil leasing out the forestry is not as bad as it seems. Privatising it would be a lot worse. Squirrel Nutkin is still worried though.
Complain about this comment
#64, ubinworryinmasheep wrote:
"Who do these people think they represent ? Should we not be given the choice ?"
I hope you remember the sense of indignation in 2011, when you will have a chance to express a verdict upon the democratic deficit at the ballotbox.
Complain about this comment
So, the Referendum Campaign begins!!
Good. Let the people have the facts, let them hear the arguments, let them decide on November 30th 2010.
By September 2010 London will agree to anything to stave off what by then will be the inevitable choice of the people:
Total Independence.
Complain about this comment
aye_write
Let's hope most fathers and mothers eventually see the light. The tunnel is shortning as we dig.
4strikes
Sorry if I sounded a bit rabid but I didn't meant to be. My thoughts were it seems a natural choice to be sovereign/independent.
I cannot understand the purpose of the Union as it now stands nor could I understand it in the first place and historically neither could our fellow Scots but they never got the chance/choice! I want a Scotland that accepts everyone of all political hues. A Scotland without barriers. A free, natural, independent country . A chance to make our own choices right and wrong.
Complain about this comment
4strikes
I forgot to mention that my old primary school in Edinburgh is now sadly no more. I thought of its colours and they match the party I support. I'll let you work it out.
Complain about this comment
68. VforVictory
"Good riddance to all nationalists, including the BNP and the SNP. Europe has no place for you."
Wrong side of the bed day. Eh!
Prehistoric Britain
Complain about this comment
68
What!!!
I don't hate anybody. I have English family and friends. I also have Italian/Irish blood so I do feel European. I totally respect war heroes of all nations against whatever the enemy although I detest the politics of Iraq etc.
It's not English money it's borrowed money and any mug could run a country by doing that!
Scotland is in fiscal surplus and we didn't squander our money!
The only person with deluded hatred is yourself.
V FOR VILIFICATION!
Complain about this comment
#68. VforVictory
Hilarious.
You may feel that way and that is your choice, but you have no need to feel threatened by nationalism. Rather it is Britishness that has been the consistent threat to Scottishness.
For hundreds of years pre Union and during it, until the latter half of last century, Scotland ran along much as any other country. Only since the global media age have perceptions of Scottishness been challenged by it, i.e. it represents us as British.
However the contrast is self-evident. It contrasts with the 750 years of Scottish existence that preceded it.
Even during the Empire Scottishness was never replaced by Britishness. The Scots noticeably stuck together and worked for Scotland. It is well known they were disliked for that, for "not playing for the British team".
Scotland retained its separate legal, educational and religious systems as these three were deliberately negotiated into the Treaty of Union, showing how it was meant to be TEMPORARY.
It is in no way a "vision of nationalistic grandeur" to want the normalcy of self governance as taken for granted by independent nations across Europe and beyond.
That is the normal situation for any NATION.
Rather is unacceptable to not have it. THAT is an insult.
The Union is unworkable - unless Britain itself becomes a nation.
And can you see the English and Welsh agreeing to that?
Why not if we are so British. It is because the English are English and the Welsh are Welsh. If that could be denied then Britain may have a chance.
As it is, to accept any of those or Scottish AND British is to consign the former to be of lesser status, as seen internally and internationally.
And for you to have your way that is what I must do.
Well, I don't think it is deserving of it, nor fair.
Being part of a British Union then also part of the EU is unnecessary bureaucratic nonsense. Choosing one would be sensible. I think being a normal independent nation in Europe gives Scots back their international voice. Being in the Britain mutes it.
You see being British "doing it for me" just isn't enough.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Also 68
I think you are Unionist/British nationalist(not the bnp sort)/European nationalist if there is such a thing. You are an ist of some sort. Freedom of speech is a wonderful thing just don't tell some folk as they might not like it!
Complain about this comment
#68 "Given how much English tax payers have just doled out to rescue Scotlands banks" ..what the banks that are bankrolling a lot of the PFI schemes that will fail if the banks do.
#73 Id vote for independence tomorrow if i had the choice.
Complain about this comment
School Tie,
It's a terrible idea. If there's a profit opportunity for private enterprise, there is the same opportunity under public ownership.The only way privatee enterprise can make more of our forests (8% of Scotland is public forest) than we can is if standards of care are lowered for them. This proposal is an opportunity for yet another ripoff. Otherwise, no sensible private entity would touch it.
GRRRRR!
ed
(and my squirrels agree)
Complain about this comment
Thought I'd just put oldnat's interesting posts from the previous thread on the new thread
(Got to them is you want his links.)
#146
Dinwoodie in the Herald has a better take on the SNP submission to Calman.
He also comments on Labour's limited ideas - "That lack of clarity of vision contrasted with Mr Swinney's determination that only full independence offered the ability of the Scottish Government to manage its way out of the crisis currently afflicting the country."
I can't find these on the Calman site yet, but these gems from Brian Donohoe (Labour MP for aye-write's in-laws I believe).
"There is no doubt that the UK (if the union is retained) should not allow deviation in any form, otherwise you WILL create a separate nation."
"Under no circumstances should there be any more talk of a separately-staffed 'Scottish Six' (Scottish version of the BBC national news). Is it not the case that Gaelic is spoken by barely 30,000 Scots? Certainly in Ayrshire I never hear it being spoken on a day-to-day basis."
"In the last ten years I have never met a group of MSPs on a formal basis on any subject."
"Health and Safety. Surely we should be looking for increased centralisation in H and S laws. I believe it would be in everyone's best interests to work towards commonality; after all, these are life and death issues."
"Energy. There is a clear case for decision-making powers on energy issues to be removed from the Scottish Executive (sic). As an illustration of why this is important, look no further than the fact that the Scottish Executive can prevent any nuclear power station being built in Scotland."
-------
#147
Has the Herald changed tack?
Dinwoodie again -
"It looks increasingly as if Labour built a bus called Calman and then managed to miss it. Be clear. If the LibDems go back to their roots and support genuine federalism (remember the Reverse Block Grant?) then they are going to get into bed very soon with "devolution max" - a term bandied about so freely yesterday that you might have thought it was Mr Swinney's preferred option.
But it's clever stuff. If the SNP succeed in framing a multi-question referendum in such a way that the options are the status quo, devolution max or full independence then they win even if they lose. devo-max becomes the next status quo and enough Tories or LibDems might come on board to make it happen.
At the last referendum the Tories were left as a forlorn voice asking for the status quo at a time when everyone else had accepted the need for change.
By pushing devo-max as the only alternative between no change and full-blooded independence Alex Salmond has sought to create a win-win position in which loss of an independence vote at least brings him the next step towards his goal."
Complain about this comment
#68 - I see equating the SNP with fascists is allowed again by the mysterious BBC mods. How strange.
Complain about this comment
We all know this anyway, but in terms of "nations": the Scots are amongst the first touted as having emerged in Europe along with the likes of the Basques and Danes.
This idea of any meaningful "Britishness" before the "Scottish Invasion" is absurd - in national terms anyway.
Perhaps an idea more akin to Scandanavian or Iberian identities, but nothing else. Also, you have to consider how far people actually travelled from their "tribal" centre at this time.
Frankly this defunct idea of a "prehistoric Britishness" owes much to old textbooks in classrooms in past decades; that should have been thrown out with the Empire.
Complain about this comment
ON TOPIC,
Labour in Scotland are "relaxed about" ... I can only assume this is BBC jargon for "awaiting orders".
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/7908799.stm
Complain about this comment
#84 - ayewrite, the Herald article on Swinney's submission is interesting in the questions it throws up:
1 - Other than "being relaxed" about borrowing powers, Labour suggest largely keeping the status quo, with some fiddling round the edges on issues like control of Gaelic broadcasting (does it even make sense to have this controlled from outwith Scotland anyway?) and health 'n safety. What, then, will the Calman commission achieve if it rejects borrowing powers for Holyrood? Will it simply serve as justification (albeit poor justification) for a Westminster power grab in terms of planning control (nucleur power's coming to a site near you) and other areas where Holyrood is an inconvenience?
2 - Can somebody, anybody, please explain to me the point of the Lib Dums, and Tavis Scott in particular. As part of the budget agreement, the Lib Dums demanded that the Scottish Government engage with the Calman Commission, in the best interests of Scotland. Yet, the minute they do, the Lib Dums then slaughter the government, while making even more sycophantic noises towards Labour. If the Lib Dums really believe that it's in Scotland's best interests that the Scottish Government engages with the commission, why criticise them when they do?
Complain about this comment
#56 aye_w
It wisnae meant as a criticism!
#57, Seumas the painted one ; )
re. Lib-Dems calling for an end to the national conversation: this touches on something I've been musing over a bit recently.
They've missed the point, as have all those other unionist politicians (from all sides of the political spectrum, Anaxim) and journalists harping on about the lack of traffic on the NC website.
The national conversation isn't a website, it's a broad dialogue involving everyone regardless of their political creed or attitude towards Westminister. Launching the website was merely a symbolic act to kick-start the process, get people thinking seriously about the constitutional relationship we have now and what we want to have in the future.
This blether going on RIGHT HERE is the national conversation. The same goes for all the banter on any political blog in Scots cyberspace -- take a peek and look at the one thing everybody's talking about. Whenever anyone brings up the Barnett formula or Holyrood powers in the pub or at the breakfast table, THAT'S the national conversation. Granted, it can't all be written down and collated as evidence (though this bit could), but that's not the point, either. It's a necessary process to allow people to make an informed decision come referendum time -- or how to react if they are denied that option.
And like it or not, Lib-Lab-Tor, the unionists are every bit as engaged in this as the rest of us (even though some of us might disagree with the flavour of their input). Even Calman is part of the national conversation. It would never have happened if that little white paper hadn't been published.
Complain about this comment
VforVictory:
#68.
"One Britain-hater claims 'Britain is not a country.' The act of union did not create Britain. Britain existed as a cultural reality long before the Scots invaded. Britain has as much historic right to be counted among Europe's members as Scotland."
I believe you deserve a reply, and I will, considering you are talking about me, 'the so-called Britain hater'.
It seems you are reffering to England as being Britain? In that sense it's a shame you are claiming some type of cultural ties to Britain while many Englanders are disappointed that their own cultural is not expressed enough.
"I am old enough to remember when Scots did not hate being British. No one oppressed me and I never regarded the English as 'thieves.' Given how much English tax-payers have just doled out to rescue Scotland's banks, that claim is especially ugly."
1. Who's called the English thieves?
2. There's no such thing as an English tax-payer, it's all British.
3. There's no such thing as a Scottish bank. Our banks were under British, or London's regulation and they failed under British regulations. Just like the many other 'English' Banks.
They may have been based in Scotland, and had Scotland in their title, but apart from that they were still a private business based in Britain operating under British regulations (which is why they failed).
"I believe in a united Britain within a united Europe. You can hate that if you like, and try to erase Britain from the European map. But more than a million British servivemen died to save Britain and the SNP's campaign to destroy her is both an insult to their memory as well as an insult to the ideals of the EU."
How many Scot's have died in the name for freedom for Scotland? Are there lives worthless or less important?
And also you are suspecting that all those British servicemen were not Scottish or English independent supporters and since they are no longer around to share their opinion, I consider it an insult you would speak for them when they can not speak for themselves.
You blacken their memory as hero's and are trying to use them for political purposes. That's not what they died for, they died for freedom, and unfortunatly for people like you to have their right to free speach.
"Good riddance to all nationalists, including the BNP and the SNP. Europe has no place for you."
And you speak for Europe too?
The British Empire is over, there's a new generation in Scotland, gramps.
This country has no place for backwards thinking individuals like yourself.
The European Union is the future, but why should Scotland sit in the backseat and allow Westminister to handle matters?
Complain about this comment
You may be interested to read the Scottish governments proposals for improving fiscal powers with a view to full autonomy as part of the national conversation.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/02/23092643/0
Complain about this comment
91. There is so much wrong with this post.....I just don't know where to start....I could spend ages highlighting the great many contradictions, immature silliness and just plain ignorance....must resist.....must....resist.....
(Ah, just go back to your homework, Master Porter! LOL!)
Complain about this comment
Brian.
Good to have you back - hope the grandweans didn't tweak those braces too much while you were minding them over the school break!! (devil smiley).
If you sit back and look at some of these matters that are current at the moment, this announcement yesterday and the Cabinet re-shuffle last week, make it very clear that the run-in to the next Scottish election has already started and the SNP have already moved ahead of the other parties in this regard.
The Cabinet team is now much stronger and far better capable of handling the rough and tumble of an election. The Budget for the year has been passed with recalcitrant parties now bound into the fold for the remaining two years. The SNP now embrace Calman to ensure ongoing support in Parliament. And quasi-federalism is now put firmly on the agenda by the SNP for the election!!
Who would have thought this could be achieved by a minority government in Holyrood??
Meantime, the 'greyteacher' scolds the First Minister every Thursday at 12 noon, as in: 'Now, (boy), have you learnt your lesson??' And the Dowager Duchess gives vent to her grumpy side as in: 'Now, now, FM, how often do I have to tell you that you must not talk about independence to strangers you meet!'
And the good old Beeb at least in its radio broadcasts (I gave up on TV years ago) and website never mentions the fact that our FM has met with the US Secretary of State!! Now if this had been weejake or weebendybringiton, normal broadcasting would have been suspended for live coverage.
Today's meeting with the PM should be quite revealing, what with Jim Murphy now confirming on GMS that the LPoWiS is now supportive of borrowing powers for the Scottish Parliament.
Political re-positioning has demonstrated a new momentum these past few weeks. The big question is will the PM back it or block it??
You will inform us later, Brian, no doubt!
Complain about this comment
I thought I smelt something rotten, now I know why, but are you hear to continue using your lovely statistics to show that Scotland will sink come independence?
I never gave much thought about what I wrote in my post #91. However I could not have gone wrong, 1st paragraph I never understood where VforVictory were getting their Britain culture from, I presumed they are reffering to Britain as England and I am waiting for their reply. In my 2nd paragraph concerning banks, well, that's all old news and I do not have to go into detail to explain myself there. The banks are private businesses, and are operating under Brown's regulation, which is partly why they managed to dig themselves a hole. In my 3rd I felt VforVictory have contradicted themselves. Is the lives who fought for Scotland worth less then those who fought for Britain? They fought for freedom, but hey, I must have missed something. But perhaps because it does not fit unionists well they will never accept to hear about the Scot's who have fought for Scottish freedom.
But why are we looking in the past? The past is irrelevent. We should be looking forward, the European Union will be important for us, Scotland and Britain and Europe as a whole.
Scotland should be taking up her place as an equal member of the Union, and we should be allow to support our interests without Westminister dictating what our interests should be, we all know how difference attitudes are, espcailly over simple issues like energy...
I am proud to be apart of the new generation of Scot's. I can't wait till the dead weight finally disappears and we are finally leading the way of the future.
Complain about this comment
93 Expat
Welcome back. Long time no venomous bile...
Actually, I agree, there is quite a lot of contradictions in Thomas's post but he does, quite rightly, poit out just as many contradictions in Vfor Victory's original post.
I may well be miscalling him but from the tone of V's post, he/she seems to be another one of those confused individuals who sees Britain as a political whole in some instances and as a greater England in others depending on how this best fits the particular viewpoint being espoused.
Those who want to see Scotland as an independant nation in its own right are just as entitled to their views as those who belive that it's future prosperity would be more secure as part of continaution of the Great British Whole.
Calling pro-union supporters quislings and traitors and independece supporters, fundamentalists and zealots is nothing more than the language of the playground and does nothing to further either side's argument.
Sorry, rant over but can we please try to stick to discussing the merits of the various arguments rather than immediately rushing in to try and rubish the other side's point of view. I could watch a paliamentary debate if I wanted that sort of 'entertainment'.
Disagreement is fine and to be encouraged if it produces better answers but could we please do so with a little more respect and without the name-calling, the half truths and spurious rhetoric?
Complain about this comment
Putting political differences and everything else aside for a moment, I think some condolences are appropriate.
Ivan Cameron
Complain about this comment
The right response to the present situation is to deliver a substantial, immediate and well targeted fiscal stimulus, supporting growth, jobs and confidence throughout the economy. But, within the current framework, Scotland?s Government is tied to a fixed budget determined by Westminster. The Scottish Government has no scope to borrow prudently or to boost spending, and it has very limited scope to cut taxes to spur growth. In short, at the time of Scotland?s greatest economic need, its Government does not have all the powers to properly protect its citizens and businesses. This cannot be in the best interests of the Scottish economy; not now and not for the long-term. That is why this debate on Scottish fiscal autonomy is important.
Complain about this comment
#63 Neil_Small
First of to Private Eye (to which I subscribe). it has of recent years sadly printed regularly Scottish Labour Party spin almost verbatim and its piece on Scotland's forests is no exception to this. It obviously doesn't understand Scotland.
As it takes even a "fast growing" Sitka spruce 40 years to be harvestable and double that to be mature there is no point in leasng forestry areas for less than 75 years. Why would anybody plant without being able to harvest?
Your point about the lessees cutting trees planted at public expense is a strange one. They will have to pay labour to harvest and they are paying us for the lease for the benefits of doing so in the same way you can do any sort of business on a lease basis. The fact is they then have to replant after harvest. You don't imagine they will pay a lease for empty acres do you.
Ther Labour spin on this (being aped by the LibDems ) is total nonsense and at no point of this consultation document does the SNP suggest "selling" any of Scotland's forests. It merely is putting forward a proposal to increase the acreage of forest, increase the harvests, increase the numbers employed and stop the Forestry Commission losing money (while retaining control over the industry).
Complain about this comment
91. I never left, dropping by most days to read the latest selection of nationalist conspiracy and myth. I stopped contributing following a series of conversations with the Holyrood crowd during last Chrimbo's party circuit, when the absurdity and delusion of the debates on here were highlighted in full technicolour.
Let's be honest for a second, if you applied Ockham's Razor to the nationalist argument, especially the economic side, it would quickly be reduced to thin air, wouldn't it.
All of Holyrood certainly knows that and it will become clear to the rest of us as the SNP's new Minister for Independence unveils an argument based heavily on historic grievance, political conflict, vague theory, dubious possibility, selective statistics, ambiguous comparison and considerable flag-waving.
In other words, 'more of the same'.
Complain about this comment
54: -
"Yes, if they support the Union. (Could there not be a spectrum of "good" and "bad" unionists?)
It's not meant to be a derogatory term. It's supposed to lump all people, who support the Union, together because it IS a collective term. I don't understand your indignation. Seriously, Anaxim, did you think it was something to be ashamed of, as I didn't."
Imagine a blind person listening to the traffic. They naturally group together the vehicles as 'loud' or 'quiet', without distinguishing between a lorry, a bus or a fire engine. Now imagine they're talking about traffic regulation or road planning, and they insist on using these idiosyncratic concepts. Logically correct they may be, but in the grand scheme of things, it makes almost no sense whatsoever.
"If you don't mind my asking (baffled but interested), what are they?"
A weak identity and a federal state is good for personal freedom. Also, defence and economies of scale.
"Independence is not to do with pitting anyone against anyone else. It's not crazy. It's the ordinary state of affairs for countries in Europe and round the globe. Why should we not have what they take for granted?"
There are thousands of ethnic groups somehow packed into a couple of hundred states. It's not ordinary at all.
Your view appears to be that nations have existed for millennia. There is an alternate view, which is that nations are the product of the Industrial Revolution. Before then, people were ruled by kings, emperors and popes, who as often as not spoke a different language. Without literacy, newspapers, roads, etc, no nation could exist.
Complain about this comment
@94 "And the good old Beeb at least in its radio broadcasts (I gave up on TV years ago) and website never mentions the fact that our FM has met with the US Secretary of State!! Now if this had been weejake or weebendybringiton, normal broadcasting would have been suspended for live coverage."
freedjmac that is funny and so true. Glen Campbell would almost certainly be in the USA with a Labour First Minister joyously reporting on their every move.
Jackie Bird's SNP frown would be redundant as she beamed the good news from the U S of A.
Calman was hobbled from the start as it had the big British paws of Crash Gordon all over it. "Let's set up a commission with a remit of keeping Scots firmly locked into the union, then we can denounce the nats for failing to co-operate and and cunningly do nothing at the same time"
Masterful Crash, like everything you touch.
Complain about this comment
#100 reluctant expat
"I stopped contributing", but now you've decided to start again, with informed and inciteful arguements debating the issues of the day. No empty rhetoric here then, eh?
Any new conspiracies for us all to peruse?
Complain about this comment
Reluctant_Expat:
#100.
"Let's be honest for a second, if you applied Ockham's Razor to the nationalist argument, especially the economic side, it would quickly be reduced to thin air, wouldn't it."
I disagree, and I believe your view is becoming more a minority view after each passing day.
The Scottish Government, along with Opposition are becoming more willing to look into tax raising/borrowing powers.
Scotland could become more efficient by creating a system based on her needs, and instead of a system which has to take into account 6 or 7 different parts of the United Kingdom which have different needs and are under different circumstances.
If the economic side to the pro-independence supporters arguement were such a no no, then what's changed in the pro-union groups attitudes to almost accepting further tax powers and borrowing powers?
It's quite a difference. First no, then we are being told, "We're thinking aboot it".
You are against Scottish independence, but do you not agree that having her own powers to raise taxes etc would be better overall for the economy, and country?
England would be happier. No longer are 'English taxpayers' going to be funding Scottish projects.
The overall number of Scot's supporting the Scottish Parliament receiving more powers would appreciate the new powers.
You may even stop some nationalists for wanting independence!
Complain about this comment
#92
Scot in Knots - I'm a wee bit busy - could you perhaps point out the interesting bits in this National CONversation (wee chit chat at public expense) publication?
Complain about this comment
#101 - Anaxim - There are thousands of ethnic groups somehow packed into a couple of hundred states
Isn't Scotland a country with historically agreed('ish) borders and rather than an "ethnic group"?
I don't think anybody's tried to make a case for independence based on notional differences in 'ethnicity.' Nor are they liekly to.
And, as far as nation's being the "product of the Industrial Revolution" - can I refer you to Liutprand; Bishop of Cremona's words to Nicephorous II -
The land...which you say belongs to your empire belongs, as the nationality and language of the people proves, to the kingdom of Italy
Replace Italy with Scotland and you have my point. That idea of "nationality" or 'national identity' dates back to 968.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#90 uilleam_beag
"It wisnae meant as a criticism!"
Isn't it funny, the typed word. I hadn't taken it as one! I'm lucky was alls I was (apologetically) saying :-)
Complain about this comment
#105 salmondella a.k.a. RE
"I'm a wee bit busy - could you perhaps point out the interesting bits in this National CONversation (wee chit chat at public expense) publication?"
Eh..no, you can read it yourself like a big boy.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Unionists are now scared of calling themselves unionists, I see. How hilarious, might be worth asking Mr Gray how he would define himself (if Gordon let him, obviously)?!
Complain about this comment
As a father who has experieced the same tragic loss of a child, I would like to register my condolence to the Cameron Family.
I have little doubt that the Camerons will be richer through the joy that young Ivan brought to them during his six years.
Political differences become irrelevant at this time. I certainly hope that both Unionists and Scottish Nationals on this forum join together and send their thoughts to the Cameron Family at this very sad time.
Saor Alba
Complain about this comment
Scotland faces 'severe' recession
We are stronger together (joke)? but would be far better apart.
"It predicts a 2.6 % contraction this year and 1.2% in 2010, but said it will fare better than the rest of the UK."
#101. Anaxim
"Your view appears to be that nations have existed for millennia. There is an alternate view, which is that nations are the product of the Industrial Revolution. Before then, people were ruled by kings, emperors and popes, who as often as not spoke a different language. Without literacy, newspapers, roads, etc, no nation could exist."
Some blinkered view just remember that there are 10 people waiting to jump into the space you occupy so please remember to take your shoes with you.
Complain about this comment
I just want to state FTR. Alex Salmond has my full support to represent Scotland and pursue Scottish interests as vigourously as he sees fit.
Complain about this comment
I hope everyone will take advantage of the opportunity to put their Questions to the 'Scottish Labour leader' (sic)?
At least it will be our very own Brian Taylor putting the questions; had it been Glenn Campbell, and his oft-undisguised bias, such a love-in might well have tuerned X-rated!!!
Roll on next Friday....
Complain about this comment
Brian
I think this is one from the you could not make it up department.
A Holyrood committee has asked the Scottish Government to cut out the use of jargon.
It went on to call on the government to publish an "assessment matrix of candidate national developments against the national development criteria".
So a really good start from the committee that wants less jargon. Do we really pay them for this?
Complain about this comment
Is it me here?
We have learned the tragin news about David Cameron's young son passing away.
So why the hell is Mandelson putting forward the Royal Mail bill a day earlier than expected, and today of all days?
I'm not usually into conspiracy theories. But please tell me he is not doing this to bury bad news.
Surely the man can't stoop this low?
Complain about this comment
#105 salmondella
- I'm a wee bit busy -
If it is your job to go round after R-E with the bucket and spade, then of course you are. I wouldn't advise you to the Nat CON, it's only your future and it doesn't even have the pretty pictures of the Saltires any more.
I bet you are in line for the top prize at the "left leaning" roses show but do remember that they grow better with a little bit of grounding; if you feed them too much of what you are giving them they grow weedy and die. Hopefully 8-)
Complain about this comment
#19 Bandages_For_Konjic
Apologies, didn't read as far as that into the blog and therefore didn't realise the link had already been posted before I put up my #92
I also appear to have created a blog mod traffic jam with my #109?!
Does this document pave the way for a multiple option referendum in 2010?
As far as increasing economic growth in Scotland, regeneration of industries etc., is it likely Scotland will be in receipt of EU subsidies like Ireland in the wake of independence?
With everything having been dragged down to the SE and Midlands of England in recent decades, what is the best approach to investment in new and existing industries?
My response to deanthetory #498 on NR's Language of the Downturn thread:
"The sad fact is that many educated people leave these shores for not only higher paid work but also because the industries themselves are so undermined within this country.
Look at the UK and your own nation, its been happening for decades, if a scientist or entrepreneur needed funding for an idea more often than not they had to find this overseas, predominantly in the US.
I myself will probably have to move to the US or Japan in the near future where these emerging industries are being nurtured more readily. I can only hope that the UK (or the Scottish parliament when it has financial autnonomy) can begin to catch up and invest in these areas as I have no wish to leave, but you have to go where the work is.
Having moved from a manufacturing and industrial economy to a financial and service industry based economy, it is now time to diversify and start to produce goods in this country again. Not heavy industry as before, but the 'emerging' industires such as the bio and nano tech sectors, renewable energy technologies, as well as the electronics sector. I am more than definitely biased as both an engineer and scientist, but I believe science is a key component of our future industries.
Create the industries, invest in them and you invest in our future by retaining your educated populace, as opposed to funding their education then watch them ply their trade overseas."
Complain about this comment
114 bluelaw
Funnily enough, I'd have been extremely surprised if you'd said anything different.
Complain about this comment
A thought.
IMHO, Once we have "Full fiscal Autonomy",(which I would take to be the ability to collect and spend all taxes raised within the borders of the motherland, as well as to borrow), we would be effectively "functionally" independent and it would be Barnett in reverse - How much would we have to pay to remain part of the United Kingdom ?
There then just remains the "reserved matters" for us to assume control over.
By that stage, surely that's all the referendum would have to say is the Reverse West Lothian Question -
"Do you wish the Scottish Exchequer to continue to contribute to United Kingdom Defence, Foreign Relations, etc.
without the ability to change those policies in the face of a possibly inimical, intransigent UK government with no mandate from Scotland that enacts legislation directly opposed to the expressed will of the Scottish People ?"
(Lets say, purely as an example, the coming Tory Government with a UK majority of 150+ but fewer than 5 of the Scottish Seats posting Son of Trident at Faslane and turning Torness into a Nuclear Dumping Facility "for the UK")
A bit wordy, I know, but you get the drift.
(Actually, now rewrite that question with the word UK replaced by Europe and see how you like that ! Anyone for a North Sea Free Trade Zone ?)
Incidentally
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserved_matters#List_of_reserved_matters
Makes interesting reading as to what Scotland has No Control over.
PS: Sympathies to the Camerons.
Complain about this comment
Trying since last night to add a post. Any suggestions why the Post Comment button is/was not working for me? Maybe I've been found out.
Complain about this comment
116 dubbieside
No doubt the committee expects that a course of action will leverage potential synergies while facilitating greater efficiencies to expidite the outward transference of unnecessary complexities...
Complain about this comment
Can't help feeling that last night's Horizon programme about the body clock should have had a section on the optimal time of day for moderating BBC blog posts.
Quite clearly it isn't between 2pm and 5pm.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory,
I don't think this should overly concern you...
;-D
Complain about this comment
In commencing upon the path to inevitable Royal Mail privatisation, I'm disappointed thst the Government hasn't seen fit first to separate out that part operating in Scotland as a defined business unit.
Water would have been a privatisation too far for Scotland, and wasn't attempted.
Given the spread of the Scottish population, esp. Highlands and Islands, anything which is good for England (on a costcutting basis) is unlikely to be so for Scots.
Complain about this comment
I am lost at the latest political moves recently.
I thought that the Calman Commission reported that seperate tax raising powers for Scotland was impractical.
Then why, why are Opposition warming to the very idea?
If we all take alook at Labour's recent moves for efficiency savings. The Welsh, Irish and Scottish leaders are prepared to resist against the cuts in our services.
It may appear that Labour realise it will be incredibly unpopular, and are now giving the public what we want - a Scottish Parliament with more responsibilites.
I suspect we will be have borrowing powers, and then perhaps some form of taxation in order to pay back our borrowings.
However Labour have dug themselves into a hole, and I doubt they are keen on handing over more powers to nationalists from all over the United Kingdom.
It'll be another half baked idea at our expence.
Complain about this comment
For anyone with a particular interest in Scottish economic matters, you could do worse than drop in on Douglas Fraser's Ledger.
He really is an interesting chap, and I'm sure he'd be pleased to hear from you.
Of his ten most-recent blogs, only four have garnered more than TWO comments.
Complain about this comment
#122 brigadierjohn
I've had the same problem, and it's usually been an HTML error - like using the ampersand, which seems to be giving problems again.
Unfortunately, they've stopped giving the error messages.
My guess would be the ampersand
Or maybe they've found us both out!
Complain about this comment
#122 brigadierjohn
I had the same problem too. I ended up posting "testing" and then asked the mods to remove it, hence my #66 and #67.
I ended up breaking up my post #70 and #71 (which had a link in it also). As to why it happened, I'm still none the wiser. Maybe you could try breaking up uor post too?
Complain about this comment
#122 brig
The BBC use several automatic filters for "naughty" words, bad HTML, etc.. If you have "transgressed" the system rejects the post automatically and it looks as if your Post Comment has stopped working. If you break your Deathless Prose up into bite-sized chunks you can send it bit by bit till you get to the offending portion.
Fancy, you using naughty words; I'm shocked!
8-)
Complain about this comment
Fit Like? 123
I think that you are made for this committee. But what are the expenses like.
Complain about this comment
#119 ScotinNotts
I think that there are probably a lot of us here who have or will face the necessity to move abroad to forward our careers. I think most of us had to do our period of Missionary Work Amongst The Heathen in The Smoke at sometime in our lives ?
I also am a scientist, and firmly believe that our future independent Scottish economy must have a strong science, technology and engineering base.
But we face an education system that was once the envy of the world now in tatters, at the worst turning out the illiterate and the innumerate, fascinated only with fitba, celebrity and hedonism.
At the best, we can still turn out the best in the world but they are forced abroad as all we face here is merging into a self-perpetuating academic environment or struggling in the Public Sector under the weight of monolithic and incompetent management.
[No Names, No Pack Drill. I work in the NHS and it's a nightmare. A good deal more than half of the people in positions of "Executive Management" just wouldn't survive in the real world and more worryingly, seem boorish, ill-educated and lockstepped into Business Management techniques and concepts learned and applied by rote through sheepskin MBAs that Just Don't Work in a Public Service but that ticks "the boxes".
Ever See "The machine that goes Ping" Sketch from "The Meaning of Life" ? It's No Joke, it's here in Scotland's NHS Today]
A knowledge economy requires Knowledge and an Economy. IMHO, We're not doing very well on either score at the moment.
Will Independence change that ? Who Knows ? Can we try please ?
Will the best and brightest find their way back
home ? Maybe.
As a closing thought, look at New Zealand. Last time I was on an Air NZ flight (a few years ago to be fair) , their "in-flight collection" for loose foreign change was for a fund to assist NZs wandering talent to return home and contribute to their country and not to Europe and America.
So a thousand curses on GBP 50 Million to the Sutherlands for some damned canvas that 0.01% of the population care about or will ever even see in its rare appearances in Northern Britain.
Use the cash to bring Scotland's Best back Home to work for Scotland's future. Actually, let's stop them going in the first place.
Complain about this comment
#122 brigadierjohn
"Trying since last night to add a post. Any suggestions why the Post Comment button is/was not working for me? Maybe I've been found out."
Brig, I am laughing! :-D
I'm sorry, the image of you in battle against your "Post Comment" key (and it ignoring you) is really funny.
(I mean that in a loving way :-)
Complain about this comment
#101 Anaxim
Anaxim, Anaxim, Anaxim! :-)
I see you like a debate, well let me help ;-)
"Imagine a blind person listening to the traffic. They naturally group together the vehicles as 'loud' or 'quiet', without distinguishing between a lorry, a bus or a fire engine. Now imagine they're talking about traffic regulation or road planning, and they insist on using these idiosyncratic concepts. Logically correct they may be, but in the grand scheme of things, it makes almost no sense whatsoever."
I like it...but.....
.....if that blind person was asked to categorise things that were partial to (support) travelling on the road (you started it!), they would use the correct collective term "traffic". Now if that person were indeed talking of town planning etc. then they Could still use that word in context. Other more specific terms could also be used if the context were such that a distinction was indeed required.
Now (I hope you are enjoying this...!), in politics, the same applies, depending on the context, a collective word for those who support the Union could be correctly and legitimately used without necessarily causing offence.
Would the cars (if they had feelings!) necessarily be offended at being termed "traffic" under ALL circumstances. Would there be none where a collective term would suffice? Your rules are a bit strict Anaxim!
You assume that those using unionist (nationalists?) always do so in the wrong context. It may simply be enough to establish that the group they are referring to supports the Union. It may not be a point of debate to all arguments, the differing perspectives of those in that group.
It might not be pertinent to every discussion. It might only be necessary to know that they support the Union.
""If you don't mind my asking (baffled but interested), what are they?"
A weak identity and a federal state is good for personal freedom. Also, defence and economies of scale."
You are noteably concise.
I am going to have to guess. I'm lost. Do you mean a weak national identity or just identity? I can see that you could say being non-aligned to such things means you must only align then to yourself, which is freer from biased influence? A less limited and so more accurate view of the world? Am I getting anywhere near?
I'm not sure that you have to let one cloud the other... You will need to help!
"There are thousands of ethnic groups somehow packed into a couple of hundred states. It's not ordinary at all."
But it's nothing, I repeat nothing to do with ethnic groups. It's to do with the geographic demarcation of a nation and what that means. Move over the border pre-independence and get your passport upon it!
If there weren't nations already out there who have the rights and responsibilities we normally associate with that, I would surely be less bothered. But as there are and I too live in the same area by term (a nation), then of course I notice that I'm missing that.
I could live with it however if it weren't for the resulting consequences that mean Scotland is disadvantaged in affairs at home or abroad. Are we all motivated by power? The "realist" argument says yes, but I decline to comment ;-)
"Your view appears to be that nations have existed for millennia."
No, not at all, I know when their recent evolution into their recognisable status happened.
"There is an alternate view, which is that nations are the product of the Industrial Revolution. Before then, people were ruled by kings, emperors and popes, who as often as not spoke a different language. Without literacy, newspapers, roads, etc, no nation could exist."
Well, you've got the components of the right argument there but let me sort the jigsaw.
Och, I'm loosing the zest for this now, so lets skip to the birth of international relations as we know it, after the Peace of Westphalia, 1648. Resulting from the first modern diplomatic congress, it initiated a new order in central Europe based on the concept of state sovereignty.
The map of states doesn't look that different now. Scotland was in about it then.
So there! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#63
To refer again to an earlier post the local Council doesn't run elections, it merely supplies the staff . The Electoral Returning Officer is a separate legal position (usually employed in administrative or legal capacity in local government who is entirely free (in theory) of political connection).
It is close to impossible to lose the marked -up registers at a parliamentary election as this vast mound of paper could weigh up to two hundredweight.
This one will run and run
Complain about this comment
Interesting article on Douglas Fraser's Ledger about the prospects for the future of the Scottish Budget.
Complain about this comment
#122 brig
If the moderation was faster, you wouldn't get responses in triplicate eg #129-131 which in themselves slow the system down even further.
(Or maybe you would? Luv The Rotweilers.)
Complain about this comment
Looks like a good week for the independence movement with Salmond meeting Hilary Clinton and Labour's massive 'U' on the constitution.
Both stories of course were deliberately played down by the media in Scotland, I wonder though if they will still insist that delaying LIT is still the biggest 'U' turn in Holyrood history?
Brown is currently plummeting in the polls down South, the Post Office bill promises to sink him further and Iraq is back on the agenda.
The Scottish media have already started with the 'balancers'. Newsnight decided that the biggest story in Scotland last night was class sizes.
Meanwhile The Scotsman continues with it's hilariously funny anti SNP headlines. Their best was yesterday when they headlined Labour's 'U' turn as 'Party in policy change' - honest!
Equally bad was the 'scoop' on a book written by Mike Russell in 1998, they squeezed two headlines from that.
Watch out for a return of the 1000 police officers story, it is due a recycle. They'll also probably run a campaign against SFT if brown refuses the SNP's funding option for the Forth bridge.
Finally there's Jim Murphy who has had three typical 'Murphy Muttering's' headlined this last few days. Labour are surely now abusing the position of Secretary of State.
Yes, as I said, the independence movement is making progress - the tell tale signs are there.
Complain about this comment
It's beyond my comprehension why some Scots unionists still support Gordy boy. The uk is totally bankrupt and couldn't get much worse but they save their bile for the SNP. They didn't create this mess but are supposed to help to clean it up. Utterly astonishing that not one unionist can think for themselves as they cannot provide one reason for keeping the status quo. RE,brig,anaxim,v,deano please discuss good reasons for keeping sq. Ta and hurry up it's late and i'm up early!
Complain about this comment
136. At 9:05pm on 25 Feb 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
#63
To refer again to an earlier post the local Council doesn't run elections, it merely supplies the staff . The Electoral Returning Officer is a separate legal position (usually employed in administrative or legal capacity in local government who is entirely free (in theory) of political connection).
It is close to impossible to lose the marked -up registers at a parliamentary election as this vast mound of paper could weigh up to two hundredweight.
This one will run and run
---------------------
I still suggest you call the police then.
However, my colleague at my current work spent about 15 years involved in the confidential side of elections - general, bye, EU and council - and he (not a Labour lackey I must add) has made it clear too many people would have to be involved.
The fact Alex Salmond (or more realistically a junior MP/MSP) has not made a formal complaint shows itis basically an accident. Fixing that bye-election is political suicide if found out. And these days it is more difficult to keep such matters secret.
--------------
139. At 9:43pm on 25 Feb 2009, greenockboy wrote:
Looks like a good week for the independence movement with Salmond meeting Hilary Clinton and Labour's massive 'U' on the constitution.
Point 2 I agree with, but not point 1.
Hilary is doing what all new US administrations do and that is to meet up with as many people as possible. Alex is simply someone else in line.
An independent Scotland is of no use to the USA, considering the SNP want Faslane shut, no nuclear reactors and no part of NATO.
And Texas has rather more oil than we do.
And why do you keep reading the Scotsman? (apart from the comic value). You are giving them free advertising here. Someone may experience a moment of weakness and actually buy it.
Complain about this comment
#140 SchoolTieColours
"they save their bile for the SNP. They didn't create this mess but are supposed to help to clean it up."
And see the Herald editorial on thr trams fiasco
"The SNP was not originally in favour of a tram link from Newhaven via Princes Street to Edinburgh airport, but its first lesson in the difficulty of being a minority government was when all the opposition parties combined to support the continuation of the project, which is 90% funded by the Scottish Government. That makes it essential that the contract is managed as tightly and professionally as possible. If Tie is not up to the job, the Scottish Government should step in to protect the interests of the taxpayer: the current stand-off must not lead to the further expense and delay of court action."
Now I would doubt that the primary responsibility for any difficulties lie with the 4 councillors on the tie Board. However, people may make assumptions that because Edinburgh is run by a Lib-Dem/SNP coalition, that somehow the SNP now has some responsibility (note the use of the term "originally not in favour" in the Herald piece).
The 4 Councillors on the tie Board are
Cllr Phil Wheeler (Lib-Dem)
Cllr Allan Jackson (Conservative)
Cllr Ian Perry(Labour)
Cllr Gordon Mackenzie (Lib-Dem)
Complain about this comment
#141 Neil_Small147
"And why do you keep reading the Scotsman? (apart from the comic value). You are giving them free advertising here. Someone may experience a moment of weakness and actually buy it."
And if people follow your advice, and don't buy the Scotsman, then a whole lot of people will be out of work - and you're making a joke of it !!
(Of course, I don't think that was what you were saying - but it's awfully like the situation when you were being po-faced about patty a couple of threads ago!)
Biter bit, I think :-)
Complain about this comment
143. oldnat
141. Neil_Small147
"And why do you keep reading the Scotsman? (apart from the comic value). You are giving them free advertising here. Someone may experience a moment of weakness and actually buy it."
9. pattymkiekwood (prevous blog)
"Good to see Scotland's leading rag is in trouble!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7906469.stm"
So you equate 141. to 9.
Are you being serious?
Would you have taught children under your care this type of logic?
Complain about this comment
Busy day yesterday, so no time to post, but there's not a great deal to add on what's already been said.
One area Brian might explore more thoroughly is why the "cuts" issue is being presented as an SNP vs NuLab issue in Scotland and a Cardiff vs Westmidden one in Wales.
The obvious answer is that the Welsh First Minister and Finance Minister are both NuLab, but it will be interesting to see whether Gray in today's FMQs grows up a little and echos Rhodri Morgan's not wanting anything in Chancellor Alistair Darling's budget on 22 April to hit his own public spending programmes, and therefore risk "imperilling" any economic recovery "before it gets going", as reported in this website's No agreement with Brown on cuts, which has a slightly different spin from this website's First ministers face PM on 'cuts'.
The reminder at the end of both articles quoted that keeping the Celts and Gaels in their place is now a Murphy family business prompted me to wonder about the re-emergence of our Reluctant Expatratiate, only to discover that although the style is very similar, the new Reluctant_underscore_Expat [userid=7327016] is not the old Reluctant-dash-Expat [userid=7972880]. A family of spinners, perhaps?
Busy again today, but back tonight, I hope, after watching FMQs on holyrood.tv.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#139 greenockboy:
Watch out for a return of the 1000 police officers story, it is due a recycle.
If they've any sense (that's a big if I know!) they'll keep quiet about police numbers in the light of this Times article: Thousands of police to lose jobs as forces feel the pinch.
#143 oldnat: well spotted! ;o)
Complain about this comment
#141
I said
"It is close to impossible to lose the marked - up registers at a parliamentary election as this vast mound of paper could weigh up to two hundredweight"
The Elecoral Commission's damning report on the running of the Glenrothes by-election not surprisingly got virtually no coverage in our press. In particular their serious concerns expressed about the organisation of the postal vote received no mainline media coverage at all. It is, I repeat, almost impossible to "lose" the marked up registers. It would take a man with a van to remove them.
The stench from Glenrothes gets steadily stronger.
Complain about this comment
Re the headline in The Herald “Darling threatens legal action if Sir Fred Goodwin doesn't give up pension” - I listened to the new boss of RBS being quizzed about Fred's annual £650,000)pension pot on Radio Scotland this morning. Interestingly, while being reluctant to comment he did say the figure now causing so much outrage was agreed and signed up to by the Government. No wonder Alistair Darling is saying Fred should 'volunteer' to give it up. Knows fine it was all signed and sealed probably with his approval, and getting the lawyers to look at it is window dressing. Unless some kind of illegality comes into it I reckon Fred’s laughing all the way to the bank (sic)
Complain about this comment
What is the point of making such a submission? The Lib Dems must be feeling really stupid right now. The SNP, rather than proposing a list of sensible alternatives, that actually have public support, to the status quo for discussion have used this opportunity for political point scoring, and thus ensured that nobody at Calman will pay any attention to them.
We could make serious progress on having proper devolution of financial powers, not because it would be fairer, or more representative, just because it would benefit all branches of our government and enable them all to provide the best services possible.
As for this energy point, I don't understand why on earth Labour aren't advocating a change to the system.
Lets be clear about how it works just now, Energy policy is decided by our MPs, and the SNP government has found a loophole through which they can block any decision, planning permission.
I think that when I elected my MP I knew that he would represent me on issues x,y and z (which include energy). Similarly when I voted for my MSP I knew that they represented me on issues which did not include energy. As such it is entirely possible that I voted for a pro-nuclear power MP, but an anti nuclear MSP (on the basis of their other policies knowing his views on this subject did not matter as it wasn't his responsibility).
So.
1. For people who were not elected by the electorate to deal with this issue to block the decision of our democratically elected representatives is disgracefully wrong.
If we don't like Nuclear policy, then we can vote for an anti nuclear MP. I'm fairly sure you'll find that there have never been Nuclear plants built in constituencies where the local MP was opposed.
2. The Scottish Parliament is no more representative on this issue than the Government. A nuclear plant built in the borders does not affect anyone in the highlands. It could quite easily affect people in Newcastle though. I don't understand why this is a "Scottish Issue" as it is not something which affects all the people of Scotland.
3. If anything, I elected my MP directly, most of my MSPs are list MSPs that are far less representative of me and far more representative of their party line. Why do they have more right to a say on an issue that I believed they had no power over during the elections?
4. This lack of clarity over powers leads to the Scottish Parliament pointlessly wasting time having debates on Nuclear Power or the Iraq War on which they do not know if they are representative of the Scottish Public. Clear rules baout who is in charge of what will help the electorate to make informed votes, and help our representatives to focus on the right issues, thus resulting in the highest level of service provision.
Complain about this comment
Mistake by the Scottish Government here.
Banning cigarette machines?
I'm an ex-smoker, and am against advertising/sponsorship etc. I am also in favour of the ban in public places.
But this has gone too far, and will have a detrimental effect on business. A relative of mine works in a bingo hall, and they have suffered from the smoking ban already. Removing the machines will not help, and the plans to change the displays will not help either.
I strongly believe in anti-smoking education, but a balance is needed.
Perhaps the Scottish Government could focus on alcohol issues, which cause the NHS far more problems.
Education has more impact. Prohibition does not.
Complain about this comment
143 I totally agree.
Honestly Neil Small, Making mock of unemployment? The fact you are implying that they "deserve" this due to their political allegiances is very, very worrying. Despite media bias, we do not want a one party state up here.
Unionisms blackest three hours on the internet, appalling yadda yadda yadda.
Sorry Neil couldn't resist but as allegedly the only kind of nationalist the brigadier can engage with you're well capable of defending yourself against the rest of us.
And Sheneval will help you as he's not voting SNP now after the LIT postponement so like yourself, may SEEM hostile to the cause but only wants them to "raise their game" I'm sure :O)
Complain about this comment
Sneckedagain.
I think not, sadly. The amount of income suggested is tiny, and I can't see how it works to increase either area or planting any better than approaching the same goals through grants. As to employment, don't make me laugh! The main intent of commercial forestry is mechanisation and the minimisation of employment.Every tree on the lands proposed for leasing has been subsidised from seed to its present state, and as noted above, will only be attractive to a private entity if it is worth more than the price of entry.
As to the Forestry Commission "losing money", this is a load of bovine excreta. On paper, the Forestry Commission, complete with grants for private planting, etc, costs us less than 70 million p.a. or slightly more than a ten pound note per Scot. For that we get the management of 8% of Scotland's land area, together with its annual increase in value, including growth of timber, environmental services (oxygenation, water retention, amenity, etc.) and that unquantifiable satisfaction of public ownership - It is our forest, our land. The "loss" excluding the capital investment of grant aid, is around five pounds per Scot, and destined to reduce as the price of timber rises (the only reason any private entity would be interested).
This 8% of Scotland is our "Family Treasure", and only fools would take it to the pawn shop. And, to continue the metaphor, we might remind ourselves of the sort of price typically offered by pawnbrokers relative to the true value of what we put into hock....
Peace is in the Forest.
ed
Complain about this comment
Correction to my #145
Too true, and it's the same "bunker mentality" we see from the NuLab UK government and the Record, Herald & Scotsman.Just popped in between meetings to check my post and it seems I made an inadvertent slip. For Reluctant Expatratiate read Reluctant Expatriate. OTOH, if the cap fits .....
#144 Sheneval
"Are you being serious?"
Obviously I can't speak for oldnat, but I suspect he is and commend him for it. One can be sorry for most or even all of the staff of a failing enterprise without wishing the company itself well.
The key problem is that organisational willingness to change is least both when it is riding the crest of a wave [bankers paying obscene bonuses to the bitter end] or facing oblivion [British Leyland, Scottish print media, NuLab, unionism?]. I learnt this in the '70s during post-grad management training for a chemical company that forgot the lesson and is now a subsidiary of Akzo. Unsurprisingly, I can't find any trace of the agency that ran the course on the web but this awareness is prevalent in much material still commonly used. For example, p.218 of John Stark's "Product lifecycle management (PLM)", which includes:
Frankly, I can't think of too many cases of recovery from such dire straits, but perhaps all of them should take a look at the history of Pernod, the Pontarlier company whose main product, absinthe, contained the hallucinogen wormwood and was banned by law in 1915. By "going back to basics" and completely reformulating their product, it is still a major international player and includes Chivas Brothers in Scotland.
TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown inadvertently broke Commons rules by sub-letting his constituency office, the Standards and Privileges committee has ruled.
The MPs say the prime minister had made no financial gain from the arrangement and they believe there was "no intention to deceive".
But they say Mr Brown should have ensured he had consulted the Commons authorities to check the rules.
They say that Mr Brown had apologised and "no further action is necessary".
Umph?
1. inadvertently broke rules
2. no intention to deceive
3. Mr Brown should have ensured
4. check the rules
5. Mr Brown had apologised
6. no further action is necessary
Sounds like a microcosm of the credit crunch, only we have an apology.
Can you imagine the stouchy if our First Minister had inadvertently broke rules.
Wonder what the Daily Record will make of this story?
TDBs
Complain about this comment
No point in waiting for my #153 to clear the mods as the queue is already nearing 90 minutes and the lunchtime slooowdown in progress.
If you're waiting for a post to clear, you might look at this website's new [12:31] Brown rebuked over office sub-let with a link to the PDF report and the intriguing statement that Duff Gordon "had apologised". Wonder if it was like his famous 10p tax rate "apology"?
TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Many thanks to all who tried to help me with posting problems. Thanks for your "love" Aye Write, but I'm still in the huff with you over the dreadful post about the Record staff.
ScotInNotts: I did the same as you - "test test" and got referred! Now an email tellng me it broke the rules by being off topic!
oldnat: I have never used an ampersand.
handclapping: I've never used a naughty word here. But you can read my mind, eh? :-)
Complain about this comment
*********************************
The following comment is a parody, not intended to be taken seriously.
It is meant to demonstrate the kind of 'arguments' we saw from some non independence supporters on a recent thread.
*********************************
What a disgracefull comment to make Neil, do you not realise that by advocating people do not buy this newspaper you will in effect be causing people to lose their jobs?
Is that what you want Neil?
You also state that only those who experience weakness would buy the paper. Well, thankfully we do not yet live in the type of fascist state that you seem to hanker after. The 'weak' as you put it are free to purchase any newspaper they wish.
What's next on your list Neil? The closing down of such newspapers, the forcefull arrest of anyone you consider 'weak'?
I am simply appalled at the disgusting filth put forward by people like 'Neil Small'. Sadly, the cyberNots seem to post such comments on a regular basis.
I have family and friends who died in second world war for freedom, they died so that people like you Neil could enjoy the freedom to read newspapers, any newspaper.
********************************
End of parody.
This comment should, if it were genuine, never see the light of day. It twists and contorts another persons words into something they never intended, nor uttered.
It is lying, pure and simple.
I wonder how many posters will skim read the comment and take it seriously, let's hope the mods allow it - it will be interesting to see the responses.
Complain about this comment
From The Telegraph:
Gordon Brown 'broke rules' over office sub-let, says Westminster sleaze watchdog.
What kind of headlines will we see in Scotland?
If it were Salmond, what headlines would we see?
Complain about this comment
#149 NCA999:
You raise some interesting points and highlight what a hodge-podge the current system is. To further muddy the waters:
1. One could argue that the Scottish parliament is more representative of Scotland than the MPs from Scottish constituencies at Westminster - they were elected via PR after all.
2. What about the time element? The last Westminster election was in 2005, the last Holyrood election was in 2007. One could argue that the more recent crop of representatives is more likely to be in tune with public opinion.
3. You say when you voted for your MP you knew they would represent you on reserved issues. But equally a great many people vote for their MP because of the party that MP belongs to. How many vote for the person and how many vote for the party (or even tactically against another party)? One would have to factor this into any judgement of how representative our parliaments are.
4. What about a hypothetical situation in which the UK government seeks to impose something on Scotland that the people of Scotland are against? (I note in passing that of course this could never happen...ahem!) Is it "disgracefully wrong" for the Scottish parliament to speak out against it? It's not as black and white as you paint it I would suggest.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #155
As a public service to the next NuLab MSP or MP who finds an apology unavoidable, I recommend the "honourable" member to the PDF I mention therein, where Duff Gordon displays his usual mastery of Parkinsonian obfuscation and procrastination, taking six weeks (11 February 2008 to 25 March 2008) to respond to a letter from the Parliamentary Commissioner for Standards and delaying until 14 July 2008 his "wisnae me" meeting with that gentlemen before making the apologised if he had inadvertently breached the House's rules "apology" used from time immemorial by "honourable" members caught with their fingers in the till and elsewhere. Delaying publication of that for a further six months plainly demonstrates a politician at the top of his "game".
Between (boring) meetings again - TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#149.
"What is the point of making such a submission? The Lib Dems must be feeling really stupid right now. The SNP, rather than proposing a list of sensible alternatives, that actually have public support, to the status quo for discussion have used this opportunity for political point scoring, and thus ensured that nobody at Calman will pay any attention to them."
First of all, the SNP have been sensible by providing the submission that has many alternatives plans that unclude ideas that would allow Scotland to have much independence and some ideas would offer Scotland minor changes.
The SNP are looking at all angles here, the Calman was created and was created to defend the Union, it was not created for the benefit of the people. If that was so, then why are we not considering independence? You are denying the people their right to choose.
"As for this energy point, I don't understand why on earth Labour aren't advocating a change to the system.
Lets be clear about how it works just now, Energy policy is decided by our MPs, and the SNP government has found a loophole through which they can block any decision, planning permission.
I think that when I elected my MP I knew that he would represent me on issues x,y and z (which include energy). Similarly when I voted for my MSP I knew that they represented me on issues which did not include energy. As such it is entirely possible that I voted for a pro-nuclear power MP, but an anti nuclear MSP (on the basis of their other policies knowing his views on this subject did not matter as it wasn't his responsibility)."
Let's bare in mind, that even the Pro-nuclear lobby group came accross polls thats showed Scotland does not agree with nuclear power stations.
Is the Scottish Government and Parliament for that matter protecting what we want from Westminister?
You can't deny that Scotland is an anti-nuclear place. If it was not, then where are the protests and members of the public calling for the Scottish Government to resign for blocking the nuclear stations?
"So.
1. For people who were not elected by the electorate to deal with this issue to block the decision of our democratically elected representatives is disgracefully wrong.
If we don't like Nuclear policy, then we can vote for an anti nuclear MP. I'm fairly sure you'll find that there have never been Nuclear plants built in constituencies where the local MP was opposed."
As I wrote above, even the pro-nuclear lobby group have polls indicating that most of Scotland do not approve of new nuclear stations.
"2. The Scottish Parliament is no more representative on this issue than the Government. A nuclear plant built in the borders does not affect anyone in the highlands. It could quite easily affect people in Newcastle though. I don't understand why this is a "Scottish Issue" as it is not something which affects all the people of Scotland."
It's based on Scottish territory, no? In Scotland? Then of course it's a local issue because it's in our own country.
But same question, using your logic, why are we governed by Westminister when Westminister is based miles away?
Just because something is far away does not suggest that it can not still effect your very lives.
"3. If anything, I elected my MP directly, most of my MSPs are list MSPs that are far less representative of me and far more representative of their party line. Why do they have more right to a say on an issue that I believed they had no power over during the elections?"
If you elect a person, who are apart of a political party, then why is it strange for the people to represent the party line? It's what they are suppose to do.
"4. This lack of clarity over powers leads to the Scottish Parliament pointlessly wasting time having debates on Nuclear Power or the Iraq War on which they do not know if they are representative of the Scottish Public. Clear rules baout who is in charge of what will help the electorate to make informed votes, and help our representatives to focus on the right issues, thus resulting in the highest level of service provision."
Your views are a minority one. The public want to see the Parliament with greater responsibilities. They need to be allowed to speak their minds on important issues and having debates in Parliament is the best solution.
What's the harm at the end of the day?
Complain about this comment
#154 The_Dogs_B
"Wonder what the Daily Record will make of this story?"
Your wish is clearly their command. See the Record's Gordon Brown rapped by sleaze watchdogs
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#150 Neil_Small147:
The crackdown on cigarettes is an interesting topic. To what lengths should we go to protect jobs? Is it acceptable to make a living through the sale of tobacco? Or do we serve a "greater good" by putting barriers in the way of those who would harm their own health (and that of others)? Save x many lives or protect y many jobs? Tricky decision. (And of course, repeat the above with alcohol in place of tobacco!)
Perhaps the Scottish Government could focus on alcohol issues, which cause the NHS far more problems.
Is this the sort of focus you mean? Or perhaps this? And an interesting quote from this article from October 2006:
Did anyone say Union dividend?
Finally, this last article has an accompanying Yes/No vote on whether alcohol should be made more expensive. Of the 4065 votes cast, 33.65% said Yes, 66.35% said No. Make of that what you will.
Complain about this comment
153, Brownedov
"One can be sorry for most or even all of the staff of a failing enterprise without wishing the company itself well."
I don't disagree with this part of your comment, but the significant difference between the two postings is that one gave a link to a column that dealt in the main with jon losses, following investment and restructuring, with the drop in sales a relatively minor part of the content - had the link not been included then the post would have probably have passed without comment as being merely the grumblings of someone with a gripe against the Daily Record.
You can of course disregard the full content of the post, if you are aware of the mindset of the poster.
Neil S can speak for himself, but personally I see little comparison between the 2 posts and I suspect the Record workforce, and the media generally, would take a different view from that expressed by oldnat and yourself.
Thank you for the courtesy of your response - it is a refreshing change.
Complain about this comment
Brig,
How do you know what's rude? I lost a post to the profanity filter because it used the word a magician might use for a puff of smoke accompanying the magic appearance (or disappearance) of, say, money.....apparently, this word, along with others, now has derogatory associations....;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#156. brigadierjohn
Well, it's unfortunate but I actually like you more now you are huffing.
;->
PS Did you try splitting your post into smaller sections and posting them one after the other?
I don't know why but it has worked in the past.
PPS So you think I am pleased that some folks have lost their jobs.
Look at my #1654 on the LONG thread and shortstirling's before and after - if you can stomach to do so during your (rather endearing, you big tattie) sulk.
Complain about this comment
Obviously a busy day for the mods - mid-afternoon and the queue nearly TWO HOURS. Any predictions on what it will be this evening?
Complain about this comment
I see some of the pitch-fork wielders of past posts now think it is fine to encourage people to not buy the Scotsman, just so long as the Record remains untouched. What a complete lack of self-awareness.
Complain about this comment
Re the posts about Gordon Brown breaking the rules on sub letting office space.
Was this not what Henry McLeish resigned over? sub letting his Glenrothes office.
Complain about this comment
ForfarLoon
You suggest that the most recently elected govt is the most representative, the idea that we would grant absolute power to whichever was most recently elected is stupid and I'm pretty sure you won't be advocating the situation after the next G.Election.
Yes people do vote for parties and don't always make informed votes, but to claim it's ok to undermine our elected decision on that basis is dangerous.
As for your final point of "What if westminster decided to impose something on Scotland" I ask two questions.
Firstly If they decided to impose something on a constituency then I'm sure the MP would have something to say about it.
Secondly how is this any different from a situation where the people in Dumfries and Galloway want to build a nuclear power plant but are over-ruled by the Scottish Parliament. What relevance could it possibly be to the dozen or so Edinburgh, Fife or Highlands MSPs that would carry the over-riding vote.
All of these arguments people make about representation, equally apply to the situation they are advocating, which makes their argument null and void.
Thomas Porter
Maybe there are polls showing "Scotland" is against Nuclear. I refer you to my question above that you never answered. If we build a nuclear power plant in the borders it will affect people in Newcastle more than those in Inverness, so why should we base the decision on the views of the people of Inverness, but exclude those from Newcastle?
2. This is just a silly point, based upon arbitrary lines. As I said, who is actually affected, and who is affected in your makebelieve world where there are massive walls around nation states and everything is insularly enclosed within are two different things.
3. It's not strange for my MSP to stand up and say their views.
I don't think it's right for them to take parliamentary time on issues which they are not responsible for.
I don't think it's right for them to claim to be representative of their constituents on an issue, when the criteria for their job at the election did not include this => the people in the constituency voted for someone else to represent them on energy.
I don't think it's responsible for them to prevent the actions of our democratically elected representatives through use of a loophole.
4. Maybe devolving the whole thing would be a good idea, that's fine. But so long as it's a reserved issue MSPs who are un-elected on this issue should not be using their position to stonewall our elected representatives.
Complain about this comment
#164 Sheneval
"I suspect the Record workforce, and the media generally, would take a different view from that expressed by oldnat and yourself."
Fair enough, but I fear we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO, any venom should be directed at the owners and senior management for not learning to adapt with the times. I'm no lover of the tabloid media, but those in the industry had plenty of time to learn the lesson of Murdoch's Sun wot won it switch to [then] New Labour, and to move with the times. That they failed to do so is a tragedy for their employees, but an appropriate comeuppance for themselves.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#157 greenockboy: A parody is, of course, a grotesque take on a real situation, and yours meets that criterion. It is not a parallel, however.
I'm really glad you are taking this so seriously and to such lengths, in line with your previous posts, a few of which I took the trouble to read. Now, at the risk of being accused of gross and deliberate misinterpretation, you come across as the very parody of a Nationalist. You buy into the Salmond project 100 per cent, you see bias and falsehood around every corner, you not only see - but you anticipate and criticise in advance (!) - possible headlines that may never happen.
You seem to have developed a taste for censorship, a desire to shut down dissent among those you accuse of lies and distortion.
And yet in your own post, you seek (in parody of course) to mock and abuse your opponents, and indeed defame them as liars, with a self-righteousness that is breathtaking in its hypocrisy.
Do you not see the irony? The mods allowed the stuff you complain of, and they allow you to reply in kind. It's called freedom, a word you aspire to espouse.
Deal with it and spare us the hysteria.
Complain about this comment
#169 dubbieside
Absolutely right - and there is no better example of the higher moral standards being achieved (by all parties) at Holyrood, than at Westminster, and with Henry, it wasn't even a Holyrood office, but referred back to a Fife Labour Party money making scheme.
Looking at a number of significant politicians that we send down south, few of them are good examples to others.
Remember why we had a Glasgow East by-election? Darling's sharing a place in London?
Complain about this comment
#170 NCA999
"Firstly If they decided to impose something on a constituency then I'm sure the MP would have something to say about it.
Secondly how is this any different from a situation where the people in Dumfries and Galloway want to build a nuclear power plant but are over-ruled by the Scottish Parliament. What relevance could it possibly be to the dozen or so Edinburgh, Fife or Highlands MSPs that would carry the over-riding vote."
You are eloquentlypointing out the flaws in our current constitutional set up, which is why so many are advocating change.
However regarding your point, the constituency MP could voice concern and outrage but the decision would still be taken by the parliament as a whole. List MSP's based on PR i.e. % number of votes within a given region represent that region and have every right to voice concern on such issues as the constituency MP, they're all democratically elected under PR.
These decisions are not made by individual MP's or MSP's but usually along party lines. Therefore it is perfectly reasonable for the Scottish government to represent its electors in this manner, using "loopholes" or rather, the law, to determine issues within its remit, that taken to be the governance of Scotland.
Finally your analogy does not make sense regarding a nuclear power station built in the borders. I could use the same for any bordering nations. If France built a nuclear power station in Strasbourg it would effect people in Freiburg Germany much more than those in Paris. could the Germans raise objections, yes throught the EU, could they determine another nations right to build/not build such a power station, probably not.
You're quite right, states and nations don't have magical walls around their borders to prevent issues crossing them, however the people within those borders have the right to determine the decisions made within them and not have them foisted upon by external powers.
Complain about this comment
171. Brownedov
"Fair enough, but I fear we'll have to agree to disagree."
I have no problem with that - politics is all about opinion and counter opinion and disagreement between reasonable people should be able to take place without acrimony.
However, like most people I believe I am right and I think I'll send the 2 original posts to my brother and niece - both are Teachers and Heads of Dept., the former an SNP diehard of long standing.
In order not to unduly influence them, I'll send the 2 posts without any further comments, other than to say that I have seen these, followed by a further post by a teacher suggesting the two are comparable, and ask them for their views.
If they uphold your view, I will give you best and post accordingly.
Complain about this comment
#170 NCA999:
You suggest that the most recently elected govt is the most representative, the idea that we would grant absolute power to whichever was most recently elected is stupid and I'm pretty sure you won't be advocating the situation after the next G.Election.
Actually I didn't suggest the most recently elected government is most representative, I merely said one could argue for it.
I fully agree that the idea of us granting "absolute power" to the most recently elected representatives is stupid. I just wonder why you bring it up. It certainly didn't appear in my post. And you're right, I definitely won't be advocating this barmy notion after the next GE, nor indeed at any other time.
That said, after the next GE one could argue that the elected MPs will be more representative of public opinion than those MSPs we elected in 2007. If time were the only criterion I might even argue for this viewpoint myself. However, my preference for a PR system over FPTP is one reason I wouldn't take this overly simplistic view. As I say, the waters are muddy. How representative our two parliaments are will be a complex mix of these and other factors and is impossible to quantify.
Yes people do vote for parties and don't always make informed votes, but to claim it's ok to undermine our elected decision on that basis is dangerous.
Yep, good job nobody is making that claim isn't it?
To expand on your earlier example, an anti-nuclear MP will have been voted for by indeterminate numbers of: (a) voters for whom the anti-nuclear aspect was most important; (b) other "single-issue" voters; (c) voters who wanted the MP's party X to win (locally or nationally); (d) tactical voters who didn't want party Y to win (either locally or nationally); (e) the uninformed voters you mention.
We have no idea what proportion of (b)-(e) is anti-nuclear. So what was the "elected decision" of the constituency? Pro-nuclear or anti-nuclear? Short of a single-issue referendum we really don't know. How representative is the MP on the nuclear issue? The waters grow murkier still.
As for your final point of "What if westminster decided to impose something on Scotland" I ask two questions.
Firstly If they decided to impose something on a constituency then I'm sure the MP would have something to say about it.
Undoubtedly - they're paid to blether after all (if only us lot were!). Not sure the MP would be able to do much about it though.
Secondly how is this any different from a situation where the people in Dumfries and Galloway want to build a nuclear power plant but are over-ruled by the Scottish Parliament. What relevance could it possibly be to the dozen or so Edinburgh, Fife or Highlands MSPs that would carry the over-riding vote.
well, to play devil's advocate...if the funding was coming from the Scottish government then that would be directly relevant to these other constituencies you mention. Even if the good people of Dumfries and Galloway were funding the plant (over Ed Iglehart's dead body I would imagine!) there might well be justified interest from further afield: risk of harmful emissions contaminating a wider area; transport of potentially hazardous material through adjoining regions; security requirements and costs for said transport; impact on power generation elsewhere (would we still need all those other power plants?); possible new power lines being built through adjoining regions - just a few ideas off the top of my head.
But the real point here is where we, each of us, draw the border. For some of us it's Scotland, for others Britain, for others Dumfries and Galloway, for others Palnackie. A nimby defines their own back yard after all!
All of these arguments people make about representation, equally apply to the situation they are advocating, which makes their argument null and void.
You're right of course - those muddy waters I keep talking about. But given that we need some kind of system, how about the following? An independent Scotland with a PR system of government and decision making devolved to the most appropriate level. The least worst option in my opinion.
Complain about this comment
Loon,
You got that right! We just got rid of one, the heavy water factory at Chapelcross! Yup! Me too,Palnackie Rules!
ed
P.S. It seems NCA999 is verging on equating Dumfries and Galloway with "the borders" Heresy! I don't know who will be more offended, the good folk of the Borders or those here who already resent being lumped together and referred to with the shorthand term "Dumfries" by ignorant Central Belters in Glasburgh.
Complain about this comment
#177 Ed
"Palnackie Rules!"
Is that another variant of Football?
Complain about this comment
#175 - "I have no problem with that - politics is all about opinion and counter opinion and disagreement between reasonable people should be able to take place without acrimony."
If only these boards were populated with reasonable people! The whole "revelling in job losses" argument was brought back to me today on BBC News 24. The other day, I was watching a programme where an environmentalist was talking about how falling airline passenger numbers are at least helping the environment. Today, News 24 reports that Manchester Airport is making 70 - 80 staff redundant. Now, was that environmentalist from the other day revelling in job losses? Was it the darkest couple of hours for the Greenpeace movement? Of course not, only a fool would claim such. Unfortunately, thoses fools exist and they post on these blogs.
Complain about this comment
#177 ed
Did you watch the Chapelcross destruction? It was rather cool.
Having Doonhamers for relatives I endorse your comments. D and G may be at the border, but the Borders it is not. That's a place entirely different.
You're in Palnackie? That's a very nice part of the world. I've been passing through a couple of times, also Dalbeattie and CD.
Complain about this comment
Nat,
Nah! It's mair like trampin' flounders, y' ken?
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
179. Forteanjo
Here are the posts you are saying are comparable.
1. "an environmentalist was talking about how falling airline passenger numbers are at least helping the environment."
2. "Good to see Scotland's leading rag is in trouble!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/glasgow_and_west/7906469.stm"
3. "well it's always nice to have some good news. The Daily Rangers is in trouble. Heartbreaking :O)"
4. "Or on the other hand, let's take some comfort, and even rejoice, in the knowledge that Scots will no longer stand for blatant propaganda parading as news."
I'll leave it to Brownedov and oldnat to give their opinion on whether post 1 above is comparable with posts 2, 3 and 4.
Complain about this comment
#181 Ed Iglehart
As kids we used to tramp flounders (or flukes as we called them) in Munlochy Bay.
So, aye I ken fluking!
Complain about this comment
182 - "4. "Or on the other hand, let's take some comfort, and even rejoice, in the knowledge that Scots will no longer stand for blatant propaganda parading as news.""
Sheneval, you still haven't explained what you find so objectionable about this post. Are we to take it that you don't like the fact that Scots will no longer stand for blatant propaganda parading as news? That as a Unionist, would you prefer Scots lived in ignorant bliss and swallowed any old lies spouted by Westminster and the Labour party?
Complain about this comment
#182 Sheneval
I'm not taking part in games about comparability of posts.
My point to Neil (who first brought in the assumption that patty was talking about jobs - I hadn't taken it that way) was that a subsequent comment Neil made could be interpreted in a similar way.
Even verbal communication can be difficult without misunderstandings arising. It's even more difficult on a blog.
As I remember patty responded clearly, that he had not meant that at all. Certainly, there's been nothing in his other posts which have suggested that he was likely to.
Other than with a very few individuals, I tend to accept people's corrections of a misunderstanding.
Time for all to move on from this, I think.
Complain about this comment
#182 Sheneval,
Yes they are comparable, yes it is possible to be pleased that an institution is suffering without this "revelling in job losses" nonsense you made up!
Still awaiting your apology, btw.
Complain about this comment
184. Forteanjo
"4. "Or on the other hand, let's take some comfort, and even rejoice, in the knowledge that Scots will no longer stand for blatant propaganda parading as news.""
"you still haven't explained what you find so objectionable about this post."
Your post was in reponse to mine objecting to the original 2 posts, and as such has to be read in that context.
I don't remember whether I responded to it, but I would certainly have found it disquieting to see words like 'rejoice' used to support the stance of the two previous posts, even if putting, as it did, a slightly different slant on the matter.
"That as a Unionist, would you prefer Scots lived in ignorant bliss and swallowed any old lies spouted by Westminster and the Labour party?"
You are assuming that I am a Unionist because I object to 'the tone of many SNP supporters comments on this blog' - I would object to Unionists, or anyone else for that matter, posting in the same vein - politics is too important to be hijacked in this manner -denigrating your opponent does not prove you correct and personal abuse demeans the user.
As far as the Daily Record is concerned I stopped reading it many years ago as I thought it little better than a comic, but that does not mean I would welcome its demise, any more than any other newspaper - the Sun is a far worse newspaper but even it gives pleasure to many.
In any case I see little possibility that the Record will fold following its restructuring - indeed it may well emerge stronger than ever, following its reduction in staff costs, so poster 9.'s view is totally wrong on that count also.
As I mentioned before, Mike Russell does not agree that the Record's problems, or more correctly, the loss of jobs would be a good thing.
At the last election I voted SNP and up until now, I had fully intended to vote for Independence, but I must confess to having second thoughts. It is something I will have to give a great deal of thought.
Complain about this comment
185. oldnat
"I'm not taking part in games about comparability of posts."
Pity, I would have welcomed seeing your views.
As regards your iterpretation of Neil's comments, whilst I think it would take some leap of the imagination, to equate the two posts, Brownedov, in a very gentlemanly fashion. seems to agree with you.
I will reserve judgment until I can obtain an objective viewpoint from people who are not so closely involved, and as I said to Brownedov, if they agree with you, I will give you best.
But you are quite right - as Wendy Alexander was so fond of saying, let's move on - (In saying that I reserve the right to defend my viewpoint in the event any other postings being made.
Complain about this comment
#187 - "As I mentioned before, Mike Russell does not agree that the Record's problems, or more correctly, the loss of jobs would be a good thing."
So, we're back to your original position, namely you believe people were rejoicing in the loss of jobs. Even though the word rejoice wasn't uised to support any post, but rather an attempt to look for some silver lining (don't take that as an attempt to justify, rectify or clarify the statement, there seems little point).
"denigrating your opponent does not prove you correct and personal abuse demeans the user."
Yet you are quite willing to do so when it suits you, decrying those who you (albeit mistakenly) believe were rejoicing in job losses.
"At the last election I voted SNP and up until now, I had fully intended to vote for Independence, but I must confess to having second thoughts. It is something I will have to give a great deal of thought."
Oh, now we're back to the threats: 'Agree with me or I've vote for somebody other than the SNP'.
At the end of the day, oldnat's suggestion is probably for the best, let's move on.
Complain about this comment
#188 Sheneval
A courteous response. Thank you.
Complain about this comment
Sheneval
Please vote SNP as independence is about so much more and you know that. They are only a vehicle to get where we want.
Complain about this comment
189. Forteanjo
"So, we're back to your original position, namely you believe people were rejoicing in the loss of jobs."
I did not say that - I actually believe that the original post was done without any thought being given to the implications of accopanying link and I will leave it at that.
The 2nd post jumped on the bandwagon and this was followed by the 3rd post that tried to give an explanation in support of 1 and 2.
Thereafter followed a series of posts that, instead of recognising the original error, tried to justify the position, followed by abusive posts which have already been discussed.
"Oh, now we're back to the threats: 'Agree with me or I've vote for somebody other than the SNP'."
Your failure to recognise a genuine statement of fact and interpretate it as a threat, 2nd time around, is not worthy of further comment.
I agree - lets just close the subject.
Complain about this comment
#188 Sheneval
Sorry not to have come back on this before, but I've been drawn into the latest thread and simply forgot this one until now.
Language is important, and the are clear differences of fervour in the examples you quote in your #182. I would guess that we can all agree that No.1 is expressed in more measured terms than Nos.2 to 4, but which of us does not get carried away in support of causes we espouse? Certainly, Nos.2 to 4 could have expressed more humanity, but I recognise in myself an inability to describe things I despise in other than scathing terms and am unwilling to cast the first stone.
On balance I'm with oldnat's #185 and especially with his "Time for all to move on from this, I think".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re - "the subject"
If is now closed, will Big Brig come out of his sulk now?
:-)
Complain about this comment
Sheneval.
You can try and hold Scotland to ransom over independence but it won't wash.
I say to any Scot in possession of the facts about the treatment of Scotland and her people by Westminster that if they don't vote for independence then they are a traitor to Scotland. And if they're too frightened to then they're a coward. It's as simple as that and I don't care how beyond the pale that makes me in many eyes. I loathe the servility that comes with avoiding controversy because these matters are not trivial. They are about the very lifeblood of a nation. They are about our people being further damned or not. Indulge yourselves all you like but the choices are very simple.
Complain about this comment
Actually, please ignore 195. That's just anger on my part when I think of people like Murphy et al. Do as you wish. It's a democracy.
Complain about this comment
On self-identity
Peace
ed
Complain about this comment
#192 - "Your failure to recognise a genuine statement of fact and interpretate it as a threat, 2nd time around, is not worthy of further comment."
Some general definitions of the word threat:
- to utter intentions of injury or punishment against
- to be a menacing indication of something
- to portend, or give a warning
- the likelihood that a negative event will take place
- a potential cause of an unwanted incident or event
I could go on, I'm sure you can check your own sources for further definitions in a similar ilk.
You state consequences will occur because people have the audacity to disagree with you. That's a threat. A very childish one, since you concede that Mike Russell, as a representative of the SNP, "does not agree that the Record's problems, or more correctly, the loss of jobs would be a good thing", but a threat none the less.
But your right, it's well beyond time to move on.
Complain about this comment
196, bluelaw
"You can try and hold Scotland to ransom over independence but it won't wash."
I am afraid where this comes from completely escapes me.
"Do as you wish. It's a democracy."
Try telling that to a Forteanjo who states:
"You state consequences will occur because people have the audacity to disagree with you. That's a threat"
Where did I say that? Name the post!
Complain about this comment
#199 - ""Do as you wish. It's a democracy."
Try telling that to a Forteanjo who states:
"You state consequences will occur because people have the audacity to disagree with you. That's a threat""
--------------------
Sheneval, can you say non sequitur?
Complain about this comment
#51 - handclapping: worse, they know where I work! :-(
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS