'A good day for Mr Gray'
Iain Gray is given to literary quotation.
In his conference speech, he cited, without naming, his favourite author, Ernest Hemingway.
In A Farewell to Arms, Hemingway noted: "The world breaks everyone and afterward many are strong at the broken places."
Mr Gray offered this as an exhortation to resilience, to resistance against the economic crisis.
Equally, one might see it as featuring a note of resignation. After all, Hemingway goes on to say: "It kills the very good and the very gentle and the very brave impartially.
If you are none of these you can be sure it will kill you too but there will be no special hurry."
I confess that, to my shame, I did not immediately recognise the quotation, despite having read the book some years back.
However, I did recognise Iain Gray's wider strategy in the speech.
Without overt apology (such things are not commonly done), he was saying that Labour had got things wrong in Scotland.
Without criticising his predecessors (such things are still less common), he was saying that Labour had to work endlessly and re-engage in order to overcome the incumbent SNP at Holyrood - with the small matters of European Elections and a UK General Election in the by-going.
For a first conference speech as leader, this was a good performance, very warmly received in the hall.
There were apparently 35 ovations at sundry points. (Confession number two: I was not counting.)
To be blunt, some inside Labour had fretted more than a little about Mr Gray's delivery. Was he sufficiently animated? Would he come across as passionate?
They were content today. It was a thoughtful, well-presented, meticulous and personal speech.
Perhaps the speech patterns, as some commented, are still somewhat lacking in variety. But there was vigour, a sense of commitment and a couple of genuine funnies.
Is it enough, though? In itself, no. Labour in Scotland is still weak on policy detail.
For example, it is one thing to excoriate the SNP proposal (now deferred) for local income tax.
But what is Labour's alternative, how would they reform the council tax?
Team Gray insist that is a function of the electoral cycle, not vacillation. We are, they remind us, two years out from a Holyrood election.
They have a policy making process well under way, enhanced today by the recruitment of external advisers.
For another thing, though, there is the economic crisis. It does not look like getting radically better any time soon.
It is legitimate to pursue the SNP over policies at Holyrood. It is legitimate to argue that policies have been dropped - or have fallen short.
And it is legitimate for the SNP to offer rebuttals.
But I believe it will strike the voters as relatively misplaced to accuse the Scottish Government, as Iain Gray did, of adopting a "do nothing" attitude to the recession.
Alex Salmond would respond that he has done what he can - within the limits of devolution.
Plus, politically, is it not more likely that opprobrium over this issue of the economy will attack to the UK Government - and Labour?
Those are, of course, future verdicts for the voters. But, on balance, this was a good day for Iain Gray.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The Gray man speaketh (to a two thirds empty hall). Labour membership in Scotland now beneath 15,000.
He likes Hemmingway and speaks Portuguese, but he is fundamentally unqualified to be First Minister, and frankly neither of the previous two qualities will garner votes either.
Holyrood cannot have fiscal powers as it is "much like independence", but Mr Gray attacks the SNP for not using the fiscal powers his London-master wont let them have!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Brian
What a difference two years makes.
Two years into a SNP government - bad.
Two years away from an election - good.
And Labour, Ok, Harold Wilson, says a week is a long time in politics.
Any observation on the size of the "crowds" there? A good day for United or a bit sparse even for Gala Fairydean?
Complain about this comment
I've no time for the man nor indeed any Labour politicians anymore. They have been exposed as self servers who seek to maintain a disfunctional Union.
They put their own interests before the interests of Scotland and are openly hostile to anything that may bring them into conflict with that which provides them with their little bit of power and wealth - Westminster.
Their like will not be missed in the years to come.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
As your conclusion you say:
'But, on balance, this was a good day for Iain Gray.
If you add in the 'scores' from FMQ's since the 'weegreyteachermannie' took over, the result will now be something like WGTM 1; AS 17!!
You also suggest it is legitimate for the WGTM to pursue the SNP government on a range of matters (which indeed it is), but do you not pursue the WGTM on his party's policy of voting against the Scottish Budget and therefore putting every wage in local councils at risk!!??
Oh, and the presence of one Paw Broon apparently had all the impact of a damp squib!!
Aye, Labour's slow death in Scotland continues unhindered!.
Complain about this comment
Nice to see him bring his mum on stage at the end
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
It was a good speech but then Iain Gray shoots himself in the foot by going on tv and going for the cheap digs and appealing to the lowest common denominator.
I can't imagine that the Labour claim that the SNP are in favour of Thatcher's economics or their mock outrage that LIT and Dumping Student Debt policies have been dumped are going to find much traction with the public.
This is Minority Government and they need to accept the game has changed, ripping up manifestos won't win many favours.
Labour need to take the high road more often than the low road and not let their apparent hatred of the SNP blur the view of their path to redemption.
http://snptacticalvoting.blogspot.com/2009/03/scottish-labour-conference.html
Complain about this comment
Brian
If there ever was a party that can look two ways it is Labour.
I thought that this was a gem,
For example, it is one thing to excoriate the SNP proposal (now deferred) for local income tax.
But what is Labour's alternative, how would they reform the council tax?
Team Gray insist that is a function of the electoral cycle, not vacillation. We are, they remind us, two years out from a Holyrood election.
So it is ok for Labour to take the whole of the electoral cycle to come up with policies, but the SNP must fulfill their election pledges now, or they have failed in their manifesto commitments.
Do they think we are all as daft as them?
Complain about this comment
Scottish Labour in Scotland isn't working.They have become irrelevant as they try and try to defend a Union that is both an anachronism and meaningless for the future of the Scottish People.The more energy it puts into this outdated and outmoded imperfect machine the more waste is created.
You see, just like the Conservatives in the 1980s, Scottish Labour has lost its link to the Scottish People as it too chases what it thinks is the biggest prize in politics - ruling Westminster.This has left them being unable to read Scottish opinion for example when they joined up with other the Unionist Parties to vote down the Scottish Budget.It left The Gray Man red faced as he found out that the public saw them as the culprits for trying to bring down a democratically elected Scottish Government.
This was more than clear whilst watching their party political broadcast.How many times did they mention "Scottish" or "Scotland" as they tried to recover the ground that they have lost to the SNP.You see, people have realised that voting for the SNP isn't something that you should be ashamed of and hide but rather that it makes more and more sense as to what was perceived at the end of the 1980s and in the 1990s as Scotland's last chance was indeed the New Right.And the worse thing about it,that it was Twa Scots that led it and brought it about.
Complain about this comment
have been looking through the bbc country profiles & noticed you have missed out the area of scotland. couldn't find anywhere else to mention this.
Complain about this comment
If you suffer from insomnia, a recording of one of Iain Gray's sermons will soon put you away. I thought he was supposed to have been a Physics teacher , 'cos the quote about the lever was made by Archimedes, or did his branch of physics not include this fact. Anybody who can stand being cuddled by Murphy , must have a spite at himself or else he'll stoop to any level to keep his job. Maybe he should have joined in the mine clearance in Cambodia , preferably wearing tackety boots or did he just stat inside his Oxfam Range rover?
Complain about this comment
I've never met Iain Gray but have no reason to doubt that he's a personable, committed and sincere politician.
However, Iain Gray simply does not have what it takes to be the leader of a nation. He's typical of the Scottish Labour machine which chunders out managerialist charisma free party apparatchiks.
My main problem is not with Iain Gray but with a party that is too scared to call a government "a government" (Brown refers to the Scottish administration); to timid to elect a Scottish party leader (Gray simply leads the MSP group); and seeks approval from UK Labour for any meaningful decision.
All of that points to the Scots, if they vote Labour, voting for a regional branch, not a national party.
Iain, get some fibre man! Devolve the Scottish labour party, stop being a pretendy leader of part of a regional branch, get yourself some colour a backbone and while you're at it, a decent personality!
Complain about this comment
The scourge of the purple ties,
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/12/09/purple-ties-take-over-pol_n_149340.html
Incidentally, "Scottish Labour is back" - no Iain, "Scottish" Labour never existed (at least not after the demise of the ILP) which is why it is a complete swindle that Labour are allowed to use such a title at the ballot box!
At least with "Alex Salmond for First Minister" you knew what you were voting for. "Scottish Labour" by definition does not and cannot exist while Gordon runs the show (or rather, clings on for dear life) down south.
Wouldn't you just love to have seen Broon's face as Gray "Scottish"/"Scotland" count in his, and I use the term loosely "speech", soared toward the triple digits?!
As far as regional Labour is concerned it looks like "Britishness" is dead.
Complain about this comment
Somebody asked about online polling on a previous thread. As a public service I have established forfar-loon's brigadoon so that free and fair polls may be undertaken on the great events of the day (NB I'd avoid postal votes if I were you). The first one concerns Iain Gray's speech and is ready now at the bottom of the blog.
Do visit, cast your vote and add comments as you see fit. You'll be astounded to see your comments appear almost instantly, 24/7! Quite what devilry is employed to make this possible I don't know. Why, it almost makes one feel like a proper grown-up...
Complain about this comment
if the SNP are failing to deliver manifesto promises who's fault is that? The snp msp's who vote for them or the opposition msp's who vote against them? To use the failed delivery of manifesto promises as a positive means that you must have wanted to see them past and that you're not happy that they haven't been passed, is that not the case?
I may be completely wrong though
Complain about this comment
http://img.order-order.com.s3.amazonaws.com/not_into_you.jpg
The tragedy of unrequited love; Broon rejected (again) by America's new president.
Complain about this comment
forfar loon
You are having a mare mate!
up the station park.
Complain about this comment
#18 jediirnbru:
Slainte jedi! Not sure what has caused the issue with the mods as they never explain which word(s) are the problem. I'd be happy to rephrase if only I knew which bits needed attention. In an effort to steer clear of trouble I'll restrict myself to saying that Iain Gray gave a remarkable speech. The exact nature of my remarks must remain unspoken though.
Ironic that the BBC pays certain celebs vast amounts to curse and blaspheme to millions of viewers, yet we face censorship here without explanation.
Cracking win for the Loons today, onwards and upwards :o)
Complain about this comment
#19
it's scandalous, 1984 i fear sometimes
You'll be up with brechin soon enough, well as long as we dont hit the 1st division, AGAIN!!! haha
Complain about this comment
Brian,
A curate's egg-like post.
"But I believe it will strike the voters as relatively misplaced to accuse the Scottish Government, as Iain Gray did, of adopting a "do nothing" attitude to the recession."
Masterly understatement!
"But, on balance, this was a good day for Iain Gray."
In a purely physical sense of being tucked safely away in a hall surrounded by "chums", you may have a point but in any meaningful sense, who actually noticed?
Complain about this comment
A predictable, monosyllabic speech devoid of any spirit....... I fell asleep ... really!
Complain about this comment
#21, very good point Brownedov,
Other than those (like ourselves) who follow this sort of thing closely ... what impact does this have?
When the man is still having to answer genuine questions from voters in Labour held areas that amount to "who are you"? You have to wonder!
Strange choice of venue too ... from what I hear there is precisely zero chance of Labour making gains in Dundee (and James McGovern - their surviving MP in the city, would be as delighted to hang on to his seat as he would be surprised).
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
Good day for Mr Gray (Grey?) but not so for Ms a_w. Click my name to find your overdue apology.
Complain about this comment
Robert McNeil over at the Scotsman has Gray taped, he describes him as the Elmer Fudd of Scottish Politics......
Under 500 delegates, a worse turn out than even the Libdems managed, and the BBC says it was a success?
Labour 20% points behind in the UK polls, a Tory Government by May 2010 and you still try to pull the wool over folks' eyes that the Vichy Scot Labour Party has the support of the people of Scotland.
At what point will the media actually report the facts rather than yet another press release from John Smith House?
Gray's speech was an uninspiring, insipid rant, of no real substance except to extol the need for Scotland's Uncle Tom's to hate the SNP at all costs.
Complain about this comment
Anyone had their house valued recently?
Detroit's outlook falls along with home prices scary.
Gray! who?
Complain about this comment
Brian Gray might of had a good day today and I presume you will have suffer again tomorrow maybe this might brighten up the proceedings.
Complain about this comment
#23 pattymkirkwood
Point taken. Dundee West is NuLab's 10th least safe seat in Scotland, with the SNP needing a 7.28% swing to remove McGovern, J's snout from the Westmidden trough.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
It is functionally impossible for the Labour Party in Scotland to produce leaders of any stature because significant leaders can only emerge to serve significant or worthwhile causes.
As the function of the Scottish Branch of the British labour Party is to "lower the expectations of the Scottish people"
(copyright Martin- now Lord - O'Neill of Clackmannan) it can only produce second-rate party loyalists as "leaders" who freely choose to be confined to arguing for second rate status for Scotland.
They will be remembered in history - if remembered at all - as the political pygmies who stood in the way of Scottish advance. Nobody remembers the sorry unionist Irish MPS who stood against Irish independence.
The slow death of the Labour Party in Scotland gathers pace as the half empty hall in Dundee illustrates.
Get Tommy Sheridan out of the picture and allow the two socialist parties to merge to from a real Scottish labour Party again.
I think we all know now that Labour should have chosen Cathy Jamieson to lead them in Scotland
Complain about this comment
I wasn't able to watch it live, but now watching the PM session in WMP via this website's Labour conference coverage - 7 March PM.
27 mins in, Campbell actually starts asking Murphy the key questions about the Lloyds/HBOS merger. Murphy, of course, ignores the question and blames the shareholders, whilst Campbell 'forgets' to point out that Lord Mandy waived competition law to allow it.
Pathetic, toadying and scurrilous - but still better than I've seen before from Campbell.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I just watched the Labour Party conference, via your excellent website!
At times, I thought that Iain Gray was talking about the SNP. His, penultimate speech, about Cambodia, and how they were, inch by inch, clawing their country back - well! Isn't that just what the SNP are doing in Scotland?
Spouting on about the failed polices of the SNP was a no-no. How the hell does he expect a minority Govt to get its policies through?
He was harping on about the SNP not doing any re the present global financial problems Just what are they supposed to do when Westminster controls the purse strings?
Labour has been in power for over 12 years, what have they done to prevent the present financial problem hitting the UK?
Nah, Iain Gray didn't press any of my buttons.
Complain about this comment
I note that Graysuggested to the Scottish Labour Conference that "over the next year we will contact over over 750,000 voters on the door, online and using the virtual phonebank launched yesterday based on the Obama campaign."
Effective technique , if they can muster the volunteers. The question is can they build an enthusiasm for people to actively campaign?
In the 60s, the SNP piloted the techniques that were so successful in 1974 (based on how the Americans were campaigning). Neil_Small is probably right that the SNP need to sharpen up their campaign techniques.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7930614.stm
Am I reading the above right? Murphy - the chief thrower of insults at all our European neighbours (who, with the exception of Iceland, are in a hell of a lot better state than the UK financially) is telling us not to blame outsiders?
Again, why listen to (or, indeed, report) anything this laughing-stock figure has to say?!
REMEMBER ALL: Labour is NOT responsible for the financial disaster overtaking the UK, after the PM re-cast the monetary system and weakened oversight powers in relation to the banks.
In no way does being Chancellor for 10 years, and Prime Minister for one while the problem emerged, developed and grew link him to the current parlous state that UK plc is in right now!
Those to be blamed (after the Standard Showtrial by the Pravda-press),
Nameless Bankers - obviously not the ones who given campaign donations.
"Fred the Shred" - who Harman lied to the Commons about when she claimed: he got his knighthood for charity work with the Prince's Trust, and not "services to banking" as Gordon Brown DEMANDED from Bliar he was honored!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/3798421.stm
Anyone who opposes the constitutional status-quo: "wasn't it lucky we were here to mess it up for you; imagine we hadn't and you had done so yourselves!"
Those nasty Americans: you know the ones who snubbed Gordon when he was trying to cosy-up to them last week!
Complain about this comment
#32, oldnat - your probably right, but Labour is working from far behind ... in Glasgow East they didn't even have accurate street-maps, or contact names, as they hadn't campaigned since the eighties.
No reason for the SNP to get complacent (that is the greatest danger of all), but I think Gray may find his rhetoric is largely useless when faced with a dying party structure north of the border.
Complain about this comment
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Labour-moves-to--reclaim.5050076.jp
Sorry to sully these boards with the Hootsman,
but why are Labour now ashamed of the Union Jack?! & have they told Gordon? Or will this result in another smack-down from London HQ (as Wendy Alexander suffered over the "we want a referendum, honest" stage in SLab's "development")?
Complain about this comment
Labour had their chance in Government, along with the Lib Dems - and fluffed it. They did nothing for us. I see that the Scottish Secretary ( do we need one?), will to-day say that Westminster so loves Scotland that they need to cling on to it. Reminds me of the old song
" It's tough to be alone on the shelf.
It's worse to fall in love by yourself.
Complain about this comment
Just read an article from the BBC news website that focusses on what Jim Murphy might mutter in his speech.
He's trying the old Labour trick of addressing something that hasn't been said, namely that foreign workers are to blame for the state of the UK economy.
"This crisis wasn't caused by Polish plumbers or Bangladeshi shop workers - it was precipitated by international bankers, some of whom are very close to home.
"We should continue to make clear that it is irresponsible bankers on £1m bonuses, not the industrious migrant worker on the minimum wage, who are to blame for this financial calamity."
His suggestion that paying some bankers large bonuses caused the black hole in the UK economy is laughable.
Missing of course will be the years that Gordon Brown spent creating the environment that allowed, and encouraged, our banks to gamble in a cavalier fashion.
He then apparently is going to go on by suggesting that Scotland would be weakened if we left the Union. Of course he doesn't actually spell out in what ways he feels we will be weakened.
If this is indeed the basis of Murphy's speech then it is indicative of what the Labour party have become, a party without any honesty or principle left.
Rather than rely on what passes for the media in Scotland reporting this, I would rather it were broadcast in full on prime time TV. I am certain that a glimpse of this man spouting clear misinformation would drive many undecided's to opt for independence.
Complain about this comment
BBC Radio Scotland and the Shereen Nanjari programme trails with the 'biggest stories this week'.
Which one was missing?
The Referendum !!
Complain about this comment
#22 "A predictable, monosyllabic speech devoid of any spirit....... I fell asleep ... really! " ...
We are in agreement Scamp. Mr Gray has all the personality of a bread van, and I quite imagine he couldn't pull the skin from a custard either.
Quite possibly the most boring politician in Scotland. He can conjur quite the nuclear-winter of boredom can't he? I suspect he models his tonality on some theta-band sound designed to induce part of the human sleep cycle. His commentary appeals purely to partisan party loyalists also; there is absolutely nothing here for the swaying lay voter. Hyper critical of incumbent government policy, and yet spectacularly vacuous in its failure to provide some meaningful alternative. Still, I imagine if you're the everyday unthinking voter from the side streets of a large Scottish city, then this sort of meaningless drivel will persuade you in much the same way as lemmings driving off a cliff might persuade you to join them on a motoring holiday.
Complain about this comment
Off topic here, but something rather more important than Mr Graywhatsisname.
Following last night's tragic events in N Ireland, what now for them? Makes our problems rather insignificant in comparison.
Complain about this comment
#32 it should prove an interesting conversation if they contact me, as I attempt to convert them from Labour to SNP instead of them convert me.
Complain about this comment
Apparently Ms Harman needed an interpreter during questions time in the Caird, the poor helpless quine.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Pattymkirkwood
I followed your link to the Hootsman.
Looking down the reply's I found this cracker about the conference from Curley Bill.
As for the conference - it was Spud and Fudd talking to the duds.
Says it all really.
Complain about this comment
Not only has the referendum vote been ignored by BBC radio Scotland's topics for discussion but The Politics Show will also ignore it.
It seems that the BBC are on song as far as the call by Unionists to cease debating independence is concerned.
By ignoring this weeks vote the BBC have effectively ensured that the likes of Iain Gray will not have to answer any awkward questions.
Complain about this comment
Brian says "a good day for Ian Gray."
Well, if this was a good day I wouldn`t like to hear him on a bad day.
The message I got from this speech, was
that Ian Gray, and the labour party are mighty scared of Alex Salmond,and the SNP
Complain about this comment
Who actually gives a monkey what kind of day ian grey had, apart from the BBC and Brain of course.
Complain about this comment
#47 A_Scottish_Voice
Probably Mrs Gray, but for entirely selfish reasons :-P
Complain about this comment
Not one person on these boards gives a single hoot about Murray, Grey or the half empty caird hall so why oh why are the BBC continually covering it?
I'm sorry, i shouldn't have suggested that there are no people on here that don't care about it but you are hard to find.
I don't understand why they continue to be the lead story on the Scottish section of the BBC news when it would appear that your main readership doesn't want to know or even care what is happening.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I know it's very sticky stuff, this opprobrium, but is is also aggressive?;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#46, virtualpostie wrote:
"Brian says "a good day for Ian Gray."
Well, if this was a good day I wouldn`t like to hear him on a bad day"
Don't tune in to FMQs every Thursday at 12 noon, then...
Complain about this comment
This is the real reason behind England's feelings towards Scotland:
- tartanophobia (encorporating shortbread-o-fear).
No one seems to tackle this issue.
The combination, a tartan decked shortbread tin is like its kryptonite.
It's been a hard one to crack, as is shortbread, so what efforts there have been are to smother this icon of Scottish culture with....an even more gaudy pattern, the Union flag. And they've tried to deck everything with that, from planes to cars.
The covereage is there but England isn't quite managing to achieve the vital "cheese factor" - necessary in this one. The flag is still seen as serious by some. Scotland can cheese away, tartan often having its own musical accompaniment.
The music for the Union Flag on the other hand is dire. Where is the merriment in God Save the Queen? Not a party anthem. They left all the cheese out. The two certainly don't combine to make jollliness as Scotland's equivalents do. ("Whey-hey!")
No, Scotland has got this taped, and England knows. That is why England is sometimes a bit put out by Scotland. It needs to get back its cool ;-)
Complain about this comment
Aye, Would that be "Cool Englandia!"?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#9 dubbieside says: "If there ever was a party that can look two ways it is Labour."
Agreed, but the GEM for me was the attempt at reviving the Tartan Tory jibe.
Tartan Tories....New Labour....are we talking pots and kettles here?
Nu Labour is no more socialist than the Duke of Edinburgh. In many ways they are infinitely more right wing than David Cameron's Tories are ever likely to be.
I said in 1979 Labour would never be in Government again this century and of course it didn't.
Post 1997's Nu Labour is a completely different animal from pre 1979 Labour, it had to be to win in England, but its red rose approach doesn't suit Scotland which is why it lies mortally wounded up here.
Complain about this comment
#53 Ed Iglehart
Yes, "Cool Engerlandeeaa!"
I think they can achieve it. I hope so.
Further to my post #1688 on NR's
"What also seems to be forgotten is that independence, although of course concerning land boundaries, isn't for "countries" as such, but for people.
It's better for people.
People seem to forget that!"
I turned my mind to Anglophone's inference (accusation?) of jingoism as habitually accompanying nationalism. It prompted me to look it up, being unfamiliar with "jingo-ing" myself.
Oh, dear, I thought:
"extreme patriotism expressing itself especially in hostility towards other countries"
"belligerent nationalism"
.....which I further looked up:
"hostile, ready to start a fight, or ready to go to war"
I abhor such notions. Yet I am a nationalist.
I looked up nationalist:
"the desire to achieve political independence, especially by a country under foreign control or by a people with a separate identity and culture but no state of their own"
OK....
"proud loyalty and devotion to a nation"
Alright, maybe a bit irrational (the "devotion" bit)...
"excessive or fanatical devotion to a nation and its interests, often associated with a belief that one country is superior to all others"
Oh, dear.
There seems to be an accepted definition of "nationalism" which implies negative feelings towards others as a part of its core.
I of course totally disagree with that.
In fact my attempts at banter with those on NR, and (although failed) with Anglophone on here, should demonstrate that.
I don't see how seeking to correct a situation so that a national identity and a national constitution match, for the good of those of that nationality, is in any way affected or determined by feelings towards any other group, let alone desiring negative action against them!
Are the two not incompatible in fact, as if one, as it does, relies on compassion for those nationals, how can at the same time other nationals not be equally regarded?
I'm not sure how there would be a conflict there. It seems hypocritical to me.
In fact we Scottish nationalists (the word lies on my behalf!) should desist where guilty from treating English opposers with acrid remarks, purely for holding an opposing point of view - their view is understandable, it works for them.
Rather there is much to be gained from such conversations. (Opposites....etc.)
I wonder whether a sense of humour failure is involved! There is an art to banter that requests it. Even if a poster ribs us mercilessly for our nationalist stance, there's no real offence to be taken? That's my opinion :-)
We Scots should demonstrate the confidence we have, through having the upper had, as all we have to do is gather support for independence and deliver it through a referendum.
The obstacles are ourselves, not England, the English or anything or anybody else. What is the point in struggling with that which does not have the power to stop us?
For we have our destiny in our own hands, and it is the English who could say we are pushing them about. And that I'm sure will cheer up some jingoists.
But gloating over England's potential fate is not the face of nationalism I want to show. Bear in mind I suspect they are going to need us more than we need them (and anyway, do we?) in the coming months. I think we should act as though we know our position of strength and include graciousness where appropriate.
But if there is an attempt to screw us over (by Westminster politicians), play dirty.
;-)
Complain about this comment
Wahey, my #15 has miraculously cleared! oldnat, anglosaxophone and dubbieside - I suspect you might be particularly interested in it, given your views expressed on the previous thread. See you all in a better place I hope! Goodbye Brian!
Complain about this comment
#49
Do you really think that the contributors to this blog represent a fair cross-section of Scottish public opinion? I really doubt it somehow. I assume that you think that the BBC should cover only matters associated with the SNP. Wouldn't that be a little biased?
Complain about this comment
#52 aye_write
God Save the Queen? I know that one:
"Lord, grant that Marshal Wade,
May by thy mighty aid,
Victory bring.
May he sedition hush and like a torrent rush,
Rebellious Scots to crush,
God save the Queen."
You have to admit: it has a certain something.
According to BT, Iain Gray's strategy in his conference speech is to admit that Labour had got things wrong in Scotland. Not enough rebellious Scots crushed? Apparently.
Moderators please note: the anthem quoted from is free of copyright by virtue of having been published in the eighteenth century.
All comments under the username IM_Wright are the poster's freely-given opinions. No warranty is given or implied. The poster cannot undertake to reply personally to all responses. Other terms and conditions may apply.
Complain about this comment
A good day (so far)
Slainte!
ed
Complain about this comment
Forfar loon
That was me asking for a poll!! whoohoo people listen and care, thank you kindly.
I'm there.
Complain about this comment
The English Version
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#58. WaveSoarer
Not as biased as all your opinions appear to be.
Complain about this comment
58#
I have no way what so ever to think otherwise, there is no way to prove it one way or the other that it isn't a fair reflection of a cross section of scottish opinion but since this website and blog is open to the entire world who have access to the internet then i would like to think that it's fair. From the sheer lack of support on here for anything said in the caird hall along with the sparse turn out in the hall itself is a clear indication that the story itself isn't perhaps as important to the electorate and readers of this website as some would have us think. I'm all for fair and impartial reporting but to have the lead story on scottish BBC website continually about the Labour conference, i'm aware it's now changed, when there just doesn't seem to be public interest in it just seems a bit odd to me.
By all means cover it, it is an important issue to great swath of the country and i dare say a lot of people do want to read about it but as far as my gut feeling goes is that a lot of people just dont care anymore and would like to read about something else.
Perhaps not however, as i said, this is just a gut feeling from being here for the last 3 days and hearing peoples groans and moans and opinions and thoughts.
Complain about this comment
Just back from the Borders, actually about 300 yards on the English side of the Tweed. I also visited Berwick and Alnwick and districts. The former was a mystery to me, because the streets were free of litter and not a piece of chewing gum defiled any pavement! This despite much similarlity to my own county town - empty shops, charity shops pound shops, tacky tourist shops. They seemed to have no advantages over us, but managed to observe the strictures about messing your own nest.
Not an English nationalist in sight, I was warmly welcomed everywhere, never challenged about Scotland's alleged subsidies, in fact nobody seemed remotely interested in politics. The banking crisis exercised a few minds and lots of completed new homes were lying unsold in lovely small estates.
Still, I liked it, liked the English, and - damn me - the didn't care about my nationality.
Complain about this comment
WaveSoarer
Do you really think that the contributors to this blog represent a fair cross-section of Scottish public opinion?
Probable not, we do however represent the views of the vast majority of people who post on this blog. If the other parties have no message and no strategy apart from I hate the SNP, it is little wonder that their support, particularly Labours is diminishing week by week.
We get all the usual cybernat taunts, but the problem for the other parties is we care about our country and are willing to work for the SNP at elections etc. If we then spend some time on blogs like this it servers to underline our commitment. If Labour are so dispirited and do not care that is their problem.
Yesterday at the Caird Hall, I would estimate the attendance at about 200-250, based on the many times I have been to the Caird Hall. If that is the sum total of Labour activists it says more about their problems than anything anyone can write here.
I have never seen anybody say here or anyplace that the BBC should only cover SNP matters. What I want is that the BBC sticks to its charter of fairness and balance, something that it has failed to do in Scotland since the SNP formed the government. I for one grudge paying the TV tax for Browns propaganda machine.
Complain about this comment
I would like to thank the BBC in Scotland for showing actual footage of Jim Murphy giving his speech.
I'm not joking either, the more we see this man make his actual utterances the more people will turn from labour in Scotland.
On another note, I see that Gordon Brown threw a temper tantrum at 30,000 feet on route to the USA.
Click here
The comments that follow this article are worth a read.
I stand by my prediciton of an election in May/June - Brown is viewed as a liability and there is no way back. The May/June election will follow the G20 and allow Labour to minimise losses in England whilst ridding itself of Brown.
Complain about this comment
#59 IM_Wright: UR Wrong. I think my forebears, probably yours, like most Scots at the time would have joyfully endorsed Wade's mission against those particular rebels. The verse was dropped before the end of the 18th century and is only wheeled out by the truly desperate. If it wasn't for Wade we'd probably still be awaiting roads and bridges in the Highlands.
As for copyright, er, haven't you breached mine? :-)
Complain about this comment
I do not understand Mr Gray.
He says that the probable £500 000 000 cuts that the Scottish budget will have imposed on us by London are justified beacuse of the generous setlement.
Is he serious, is this the kind of man you would be confident in, when entering into budget negotiations with London?
Or is he just being loyal to his party at Scotland's expense? Would he say the same if the tories were in power in London?
Where would Mr Gray cut £500 000 000 from? Settlement to Glasgow city council, social work in Dundee or fight against knife crime?
TDBs
Complain about this comment
Mod queue now 3 hours+ with jediirnbru's #61 of 5:18pm not yet modded. These dalays make sensible debate impossible.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
4 hour queue for moderation? That is ridiculous. The BBC prides itself on being a world leader in communications? Well about time they sorted out the moderation.
A few tiny wee criticisms here, hopefully no one will get too upset.
Can people stop using words such as "oppressors" when discussing the UK government. All you are doing is giving the unionists ammunition.
eg
You talk about oppression, they will retort with "well, exactly how are you oppressed? You get the same benefits as the rest of the UK, and you are free to move around the UK as you will." etc etc
Language is tricky. Some of the comments here would never be uttered by Alex Salmond, although some of his lesser minions are known to slip up. Negativity doesn't always work - well, it may have in Glenrothes - but people have to be positive and stop harking on about 300 years of being under the iron boot and such nonsense. Prior to that, Scots spent more time fighting each other.
Teeny weeny bit worried. Glasgow City Council have announced a minimum wage of 7 pound per hour for all employees. That's fine, but do I detect the hint of a socialist group at work here?
Or is the first shots in the election campaign?
Complain about this comment
Iain "Giggidy" Gray should give it over to the Westminster Secretary of State for Scotland because you just need to put his name in YouTube and see how ridiculous he looks to a floater.
Trust me.
Complain about this comment
#65 brigadierjohn
And a shark's head is water proof. What on earth were you expecting??
You sound like a foreign correspondent back from an expedition or something.... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#58, well when many Labour MPs don't care enough to put in an appearance at the "wee pretendy" conference - what do you expect their opponents to say?
Complain about this comment
Brown cannot shirk the blame for Lloyds
"What the Prime Minister has done is to open his door to personal and political blame, the one thing he was determined to avoid. On his visit to the United States, he is reported to have suffered a spasm of anger or anxiety in front of some British journalists. “You want me to go on television and apologise, but I am not going to do it. I have nothing to apologise for. It is not my fault. Get in the real world.” In the real world, the disaster that has befallen Lloyds Bank is Gordon Brown's fault and his responsibility."
How much longer can this be allowed go on?
Complain about this comment
#68 bj
Just a little dig, Brig. I knew you wouldn't mind.
Complain about this comment
For the good of sensible debate Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#65 brigadierjohn
You can't go round pointing out differences betwen the Eng... people one side of the Tweed and the other. The SNP will be claiming that there are real differences between the nations any day now and then where will we be. It's the thin end of the wedge towards breaking up the Union. We ought to employ more scaffies; just as boring as a call centre job but at least you get a view of the sky. Uh, Uh. Can't do that, inefficient and there will be no money to pay for them after Westminster cuts the 500,000,000 or whatever from the block grant to the SNP. What is a girl to do?
Complain about this comment
#71 Neil_Small147
Not getting too upset. Neil, what are you on about? ;-)
"Can people stop using words such as "oppressors" when discussing the UK government. All you are doing is giving the unionists ammunition."
I had a skim read over all posts so far. Didn't see "oppressors" or similar. If I have missed one, please let me know. As I say, I just skimmed.
But if I'm right, is it just you having a poor understanding of the nationalist mindset?
We of course have the upper hand, as all we've got to do is motivate enought Scots to vote for independence.
So, I'm sorry, I'm not sure where you are coming from.
Complain about this comment
#70 Brownedov, #71 Neil_Small: You're right, a 4 hour queue is unacceptable and will be the death of this blog for many. That and the overzealous modding (post 6 was pulled at one point for goodness sake!).
So I suggest you no longer accept it. Other blogs are available out there if you look for them: I can think of at least #15 off the top of my head. You'll be able to debate virtually in real time on some of them.
Abandon ship!
Complain about this comment
Brian
We had a day of Brown and a day of Grey. Is Murphy so impossible even you can't make anything of him?
Complain about this comment
79. At 11:20pm on 08 Mar 2009, aye_write:
The word oppression and similar implications have appeared on a few recent topics/posts.
I think it was your post 52 talking about the Saltire being covered up by the union jack. Now I know the context of your post (including the shortbread!), but the one that DID annoy me was #59 and the reference to the now not-sung verse of God Save the Queen. I flickered through a few other topics/posts and there are a few signs of feeling oppressed by some.
I understand the annoyance of having a devolved government that has limited powers, and with a miniority as well.
But the Scottish people are not really oppressed. We are free to move, free to work where we want etc. Don't feel this is a defence of the union - its not.
True oppression is where you do not have any control of your life. There are certain restrictions due to common sense and law, but basically you are free to do what you want.
The main argument has to be economic. Harking back to history will not win independence. Neither will tales of oppression, simply because people will wonder where the hell the oppression is.
Anyway, time for bed says zebedee (aka Lord M).
Complain about this comment
The Official Reality,
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2494222.0.Gray_announces_experts_to_shape_Labour_policy.php
The Reality seen from the Backbenches,
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2494227.0.Hain_warns_of_disaster_for_Labour.php
& Hain doesn't exactly have an untarnished record. That he can now publicly berate Gordon Brown as a failure, shows where British/English (and, not incidentally, Scottish) politics is headed.
Complain about this comment
#82 Neil_Small147
My dear fellow, I am sorry if you are upset. Do consider the following.
It was, of course, not I who inserted a reference to "Rebellious Scots" in God Save the Queen. Nor did I offer an interpretation of it. The reference to "oppression" is yours.
The brigadier - God save him - and I are agreed, I believe, that the reference in the anthem to rebellious Scots historically applies to those Scots who actually did engage in rebellion in the eighteenth century rather than the population of Scotland as a whole, although the wording is rather unfortunate, to say the least, and may be, and indeed has been, deplored for that.
There are, in a sense, of course, rebellious Scots today, the number of whom the Labour Party is dedicated to reducing in order to crush the threat to the British Union. Support for the Scottish National Party and for Scottish independence, however, does not appear to be diminishing, which, is, presumably, why the leader of the Labour group in the Scottish Parliament delivered the message to the conference in Dundee that Labour had got things wrong in Scotland.
Many here would agree that Mr Gray is right to say that Labour has got things wrong in Scotland. If some of us add that we do not admire a certain verse of God Save the Queen very much, that appears to me to be fair comment. To be made to feel that one should not consider oneself to be free to make such comment might be argued to be a little oppressive, perhaps. Freedom of expression should reign, surely, whether a queen should reign or an inequitable Union should or should not be saved.
All comments under the username IM_Wright are the poster's freely-given opinions. No warranty is given or implied. The poster cannot undertake to reply personally to all responses. Other terms and conditions may apply. (Pat pending.)
Complain about this comment
#73 aye_write: You got it, you actually got it, for the first time! I wrote it as a foreign correspondent who had been conditioned to expect dangerous savages who would eat their neighbours.
Five out of ten for you, girl. Next time, try to see the joke as well. It's on you.
Complain about this comment
#82 Neil_Small147
Well, Neil,
There is an explanation for my daft post, but it wasn't meant to show, in any light that would be taken seriously anyway, anything to do with oppression. I think I meant Scottish culture is superseded, at home...or something!
There was a motive behind it, was not ego driven, it didn't work, all you need to know: it was a silly post. I noticed some other posters sometimes having the same habit. But never mind ;-)
To clarify, how can we feel oppressed now when all we have to do is gather enough support for independence.
No English person can stop us.
"The main argument has to be economic."
I might say, "NO, You're wrong!" but rather will say you raise a fascinating point ;-)
I one hundred per cent entirely disagree.
I'm glad I can mention this to you. What you say is that you can put a monetary value on sovereignty.
My post on another thread:
Munich,
Your risk assessment stuff was fascinating - I'd watch the documentary!
But it isn't the point. Your say and sovereignty isn't under question here. Mine and my family's is. People once risked their lives for it - kind of puts your risks into perspective.
I am sorry if you feel I am asking you to pay a price for regaining my national sovereignty. Who knows, perhaps I am, in which case I suppose you are entitled to resist.
But the same is true in reverse. You are asking me to put a price value on not having it. It's OK not to have sovereignty because...
Well, it isn't.
My children don't think about money like you or I. I mean they don't prioritise it above it above all else (you know what I mean). And rightly so. When we suffer a bereavement, all the money there is doesn't make up for it. That's not to be all hippy and deny that money and the economy are vital.
But it isn't OK to sell your national sovereignty for it.
Now, I'm sure you'll find my language scary, irrational and emotive. But most of the things that (I'd say) we need to make us happy are like that. Doesn't make them less virtuous than your logical skill?
--
If you say, "Can Scotland survive if independent?"
Snecked answered:
Nearly 150 countries have regained their independence in the last sixty years.
The majority of them are smaller or poorer than Scotland.
---
Is it, will be as well off? There's that trade off again. How well off do we have to be to make sovereignty legitimate? Can you put an actual figure on it?
I understand people have concerns. I see though that they have been focussed on by, guess who? Yes, those who want to persuade us away from independence.
The economic debate, in that context, is a red herring, something that can never be sufficiently proved to deflect scrutiny - as neither it should, and as no other country's can.
It's a trick.
Don't play their tune for them please, Neil :-)
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn gets a bit tiresome. He l keeps attacking others posters on things they didn't say and attitudes they don't appear to have.
Complain about this comment
#85 brigadierjohn
Brig, I'm 34, and stop underestimating me, it's getting boring.
I knew fine well what you were up to, insinuating we Scots are so nationalism-obsessed you would contrast it with normality to see the error of our nutty ways...etc.
I did not think it warranted a serious response.
So the joke was actually on you.
Hmm, if I'm a girl, then you are a boy! Sure you want to go there?
Complain about this comment
65. brigadierjohn
"Just back from the Borders, actually about 300 yards on the English side of the Tweed. I also visited Berwick and Alnwick and districts.
Not an English nationalist in sight, I was warmly welcomed everywhere, never challenged about Scotland's alleged subsidies, in fact nobody seemed remotely interested in politics. Still, I liked it, liked the English, and - damn me - they didn't care about my nationality."
Spot on - I have had similar experience for many years - we usually have at least one week in Berwick on Tweed every year! Of course the residents there voted to join us if we did away with Council tax - not stupid these people.
However, English people north of Watford are generally like that, just the same as us, and leaving aside the Independence issue, which is obviously important to a minority of Scots, with the same needs, desires and problems as ourselves.
Complain about this comment
sneckedagain gets a bit tiresome. Obsessive replays of the same worn-out recording make it sound worse every time. Perhaps he has only one?
Complain about this comment
#65,85 brigadier
Are you sure that standards of journalism have fallen since your day? I have in mind, of course, foreign reportage in particular and the likes of Alistair Cook, Kate Adie, John Simpson and of course the foreign reporting of the FT.
Complain about this comment
#88 aye_write: Underestimating you is an intellectual impossibility.
As you say in #86, "There is an explanation for my daft post...."
I know it, madam. I know.
Complain about this comment
Afternoon all,
Although by the time that you are reading this, it will most likely be early evening.
(ooh,ooh, little bit controversial there.)
(That probably just went straight over the heads of anybody under 30 :{ I'm feeling very middle-aged today. )
So The Grey Man "apologised" did he ?
Big of him.
And Johann Who is going to be "The Pensioners Champion".
She's going to have a lot of work in '11 as most of her colleagues will be picking up their cast-iron MSP pensions when they are tossed from Holyrood.
(There's a thought, how many pensions will his Lordship the List Member for the Lothians get as an Ex-MP, an Ex-MSP and a member of the House of Lords ?)
I also see that the latest "Murph Muttering" has been granted it's usual front page position on this website
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7930614.stm
Um, can anybody tell me what he was actually on about other than his usual "four legs good, two legs bad" regurgitating ?
"Nationalist" economics, eh ? Like, maybe, Norway ?
Can anybody really take him seriously that ANYBODY thinks that the NuLab Recession was caused by Polish Builders and not actually by Friends of NuLab fatcat bankers.
The unfortunate fact is that NuLab Economics is neither fantasy or fiction. They are Cold, Hard Realities.
The Cold, Hard Realities of NuLab Economics are
a) You can spend Billions on bailing out banks, but you can't build a Bridge as a Public Works Project to stimulate the economy. You've got to do it through Discredited PPP/PFI.
b) Unemployment is at its highest since 1997, but that's all right. The Grey Man and the cohorts "won" another 8000 apprenticeships from those Nasty Secessionists.
c) In England, GBP40m is being "immediately allocated" to help "executives and managers" who have "not been used to looking for work" to "find positions, assisted by Private Placement Agenices who will be paid to get them back to work".
(Can't find a link yet but I'm pretty sure that was the gist of it from GMS this morning.)
d) Bankers are Naughty. Very Naughty. Bad Bankers. Paw says. Smack wristies. Nae Sweeties. Go tae yer rooms.
e) The Royal Mail, viewed even by Maggie as " a privatisation too far", is (30%) up for sale.
f) We're broke. But that's OK, Scotland's oil will bail us out in a few years when its back to USD150 a barrel.
g) The SNP are Naughty Secessionists. Very Naughty. Bad Secessionists. Paw Says. Smack Wristies. Cut GBP 500 Million from Budget as "efficiency savings". Go tae yer pretendy wee parliament.
If it wasn't so sad it would be laughable.
Eck and the crew are doing well just now to keep their gobs shut and let NuLab write their own obituaries.
For the good of sensible debate, Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I'm quite tickled by the idea of the Labour group of MSPs at Holyrood coming over all Scottish.
Reclaiming the Saltire for starters although to the best of my knowledge they were always free to use it as plentifully as they liked but chose to cover themselves with the union flag and red rose of England instead.
Remember Angus council and their attempt to get rid of the saltire?
I recall this man who contacted the Montrose review in support of the council's action in Nov 2007
"The issue continues to divide opinion locally and the Review was also contacted by Robert Gorey who supported the introduction of the new flag, describing the Saltire as a "separatist symbol".
He said: "I have lived in Angus for many years but have felt alienated by this flag that has flown for more than 20 years. I moved up from the home counties in the 1960s and at one time the Union Jack flew over Angus. This flag represents everyone who lives here as it is the flag of our nation.
"I know with the present political climate this would not go down too well with some but the county flag is as good as any. This represents all who live here in Angus be they Scots, English or whatever."
Poor Iain Gray, it's a complicated issue . If I were him I'd take my lead from Gordon and stick to being British. They're both too old to change now :o)
Complain about this comment
#89 Sheneval
According to the most recent opinion poll on Scottish independence, only a minority of Scots expressed support for the Union (about 40 per cent), most of the remainder expressing support for independence.
That being so, it appears to be the case that the independence issue is important to a substantial proportion of the population of Scotland, to say the least.
How large that proportion is, of course, can only be accurately gauged if an independence referendum is held, which the Scottish branch of the political party which has just been meeting in Dundee appears now to be determined to prevent for some reason.
Complain about this comment
I have grown quite tired of the excessive and blinkered nationalism that dominates these posts recently.
But this thread is without doubt a new low. Does none of you have anything better to do than trade this rubbish?
This blog is becoming as irrelevant as NR's
Complain about this comment
#45 greenockboy
You're surely not suggesting (gasp!) a conspiracy!
I at last got time to watch "Diomhair" on iplayer - BBC Alba [as per #75 thatweec's link on the "Brown in Dundee" blog]
A fascinating 58 minutes - the last 10 minutes should be required viewing and taught in our schools!
http//:www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g8hg/Diomhair/
Complain about this comment
#92 brigadierjohn
Not proud, I am going to hand this to you on a plate.
Underestimating you is an intellectual impossibility.
I am reckoning that is an insult but I can't explain why. Because you would have to assume there was something there first before you could underestimate it? / You cannot underestimate what isn't there??
Not related, but, thing is I know exactly why you are against nationalism/independence. I don't think your stance on this is stupid, far from it. But I still however deliberatley choose to fly in the face of it. How crazy, some might think.
Complain about this comment
BBC staff could receive £46,000 pay sweetener to move to broadcaster's new home
"Those who qualify for the 'remote location allowance' will be eligible for expenses of up to £1,900 a month to cover costs of rent and bills for up to two years while they take up their new role in Salford."
"Remote location" Salford in Greater Manchester!
Outer Mongolia here calling anyone out there?
Complain about this comment
95. Briggen
"According to the most recent opinion poll on Scottish independence, only a minority of Scots expressed support for the Union (about 40 per cent), most of the remainder expressing support for independence."
Opinion polls vary but I agree that:
"How large that proportion is, of course, can only be accurately gauged if an independence referendum is held"
Presumably the 2011 elections will give us a reasonable idea of what the outcome would have been, had the referendum been held?
Complain about this comment
#96 northhighlander
I have not grown quite tired of the blinkered unionism that infiltrates these posts from time to time, tiresome though much of it may be.
Minority opinion should not be ignored.
Complain about this comment
#91 handclapping: The old foreign correspondents were like a gentleman's club, only on the move. If you wrote well, the substance didn't matter much. The only real difficulty (which some turned to advantage!) was keeping in touch with the office. The modern flak jacket version ("look at me, I nearly got shot there, that's more important than what's happening") are part danger-junkie and part pretend-danger-junkie.
Some are good, some are conning the public (and the producer/editor) that they know someting, and some - I've met them -couldn't report a bad smell in a lavatory.
But I'm slightly cynical. :-)
Complain about this comment
#100 Sheneval
Arguably, perhaps, but, welcome though the 2011 elections will be, the issues will, of course, be many and various. Consequently, various competing claims about support for independence and for an independence referendum will continue to be made, even if the independence party comes out on top again.
Even if the SNP were to win a majority in that election, the unionist opposition would doubtless claim that that merely reflected support for matters already within the competence of the Scottish Parliament.
The only way to gauge public opinion on the independence issue clearly and reliably would appear to be to separate it from other issues by holding a referendum. This is, I believe, why the SNP wants to do that and why unionist parties do not.
Complain about this comment
#98 aye_write: It was a cheap shot, unworthy of either of us. This is a parody of an apocryphal story about a newspaper editor who was warned not to underestimate the intelligence of his readers. His reply, now quoted by journalists everywhere, is "It is impossible to underestimate the intelligence of our readers."
You know why I'm against nationalism/independence? That's funny. I'm not. Convince me and I'll vote for it. But throw emotional fantasy at me, pickled with economic comedy, and I'll do my best to kick you (metaphorically of course) all over the place.
For what it's worth, I'm with northhighlander at #96. Sorry, nh, I wouldn't want you to be guilty by association with me. :-)
Complain about this comment
I see the Unionist side has started moaning rather than debating, again. Does them no credit, as they no doubt know.
Anyone want to talk "extreme nationalism" how about the favourite BNP/National Front slogan of Broon, which Murphy was covering him for yesterday: "British jobs for British Workers"?
Considering Gordon is responsible for the current state of the UK economy; is that not now the perfect example of "downturn racism"?
Or is it only acceptable to call it "downturn racism" when it is "the little people" that heard and believed HIS SPEECH protesting about the impossibility of competing with workers brought in by the company from Italy or Portugal? Lets face it, Murphy's comments were basically an attack on the right of several groups to strike; and completely ignored the role of his boss in introducing "downturn racism" to the mainstream political discourse.
Chiefy1724 #93,
"d) Bankers are Naughty. Very Naughty. Bad Bankers. Paw says. Smack wristies. Nae Sweeties. Go tae yer rooms.
e) The Royal Mail, viewed even by Maggie as 'a privatisation too far', is (30%) up for sale.
f) We're broke. But that's OK, Scotland's oil will bail us out in a few years when its back to USD150 a barrel.
g) The SNP are Naughty Secessionists. Very Naughty. Bad Secessionists. Paw Says. Smack Wristies. Cut GBP 500 Million from Budget as 'efficiency savings'. Go tae yer pretendy wee parliament."
Hilarious, until you actually step back and think this is what the people of Scotland (and the rest of the UK) are effectively being asked to believe! Why does the Labour Party always assume the public have such a limited capacity for thought?
Complain about this comment
As we are as free to voice our approval and support of the political party that we choose to follow you are equally as free to not read our posts. If the numbers of "blinkered" nationalists increase there must be a reason behind it. Care to take a stab in the dark as to why more people seem to be following the SNP and why people aren't turning up at the caird hall?
Complain about this comment
#100 Sheneval,
"Presumably the 2011 elections will give us a reasonable idea of what the outcome would have been, had the referendum been held?"
Unfortunately, the 2011 elections will be held on a range of issues, not just the constitutional issue. The only way to accurately gauge the mood of the Scottish people is to ask them directly in the form of a referendum. I believe that a clear majority of the population wish a referendum to be held, which is why I hold the opposition parties in contempt after their actions of recent days.
They are playing a dangerous game if they carry on the way that they are.
Complain about this comment
Re 101
I agree all opinion is worthwhile. However so few of these posts contain any opinion. Debate also requires repect for legitimate alternative views, that is scant on these pages.
Complain about this comment
#104 brigadierjohn
OK, I put it badly. Perhaps I ought to have said I see why you're not convinced. nh assumes we are taking everything oh, so seriously though. Nobody really get it actually!
:-)
Complain about this comment
Anglophone
In case you're "out there"...
When you strip the arguments right back to the barest bones, we agree.
(Apologies for confusing you with Anglosaxophone!!)
So don't give up on all of us mere mortals on this blog ;-)
Complain about this comment
http://img.order-order.com.s3.amazonaws.com/mad%20brown.jpg
Above, "the global conspiracy".
Complain about this comment
#105 pattymkirkwood
"Why does the Labour Party always assume the public have such a limited capacity for thought?"
Guess.
Complain about this comment
#104. brigadierjohn
"For what it's worth, I'm with northhighlander at #96. Sorry, nh, I wouldn't want you to be guilty by association with me. :-)"
Each to their own.
What you appear to miss is that an unquestionable argument has not been put forward that justifies the status of union, a bit like you tell me your secrets but I'm keeping mine to myself.
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
Poor you no one agrees with you so the whole blog is wrong.
Here are a few of my opinions for you to be going on with.
Labour used to be a socialist party but are now more right wing than Thatcher, because of,
1) privatisation
2) Trident
3) Nuclear Power
4) Doubling tax rate to 20p for lowest paid
5) ID cards
6)PFI/PPP
Labour have broken manifesto commitments,
1) Referendum on Europe
2) No privatization of Royal Mail
Labour are totally dominated by whats good for Westminster and have no policies for Scotland,
1) London olympics
2) Crossrail
Labour in Scotland can only moan about SNP initiatives but have no alternatives and no policies of their own,
1) Local income tax
2) Alcohol policy
It also my opinion that Labour have never had any policy for Scotland. If you look at the two policies that they say they are most proud of, smoking ban, proposed by SNP MSP and initially ridiculed by wee Jack. Free bus passed, pushed through by the Lib Dems.
Quite a few opinions there for you to start with.
Complain about this comment
103. Briggen
"The only way to gauge public opinion on the independence issue clearly and reliably would appear to be to separate it from other issues by holding a referendum."
Perhaps you are right, although I would have thought the 2011 election gives the SNP the opportunity to get the support they need to give them a clear mandate to hold a referendum, whereas the current situation is a bit of a halfway house - biggest party but not a sufficient majority to enforce their will.
Like many others who do not have Independence as the number one priority, I am willing to consider Indpendence as an option, with the proviso that it will result in Government that I feel comfortable with.
The SNP minority government have done reasonably well over the last couple of years, particularly with stopping Council tax increases, but have fallen down badly on some issues, including crime and punishment, which I regard as being of major importance.
I am not sure you can separate an Independence vote from day to day living. This type of issue will affect how many people vote on Independence as well as how they vote at the 2011 elections.
I think any Independence Bill would have to be coupled with a written Constitution that details clearly how this type of issue will be dealt with, and what protections will be in place for the innocents, as opposed to those currently in place for the guilty.
Complain about this comment
#100 Sheneval,
The 2011 election will quite rightly be about a whole range of issues, not least how well or otherwise the SNP has performed in government.
Any referendum is held on a specific issue of national importance. For example, Scottish independence or further EU powers that effect the UK. Can you spot the common denominator in stopping the people having their legitimate democratic right.
Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If the SNP were to win over half the Scottish seats at the next general election, and declared that that vote was a mandate for independence, would you agree that a referendum was no longer needed? Do you think that any of the three unionist parties would agree that a referendum was no longer needed?
Complain about this comment
107. Richard_the_Rogue
"I believe that a clear majority of the population wish a referendum to be held"
On what evidence do you base your belief?
Complain about this comment
#109 aye_write: Oh, I think we "get it" very well: when the SNP is criticised it is an "oh so serious" matter. If an SNP poster makes a silly remark, we shouldn't get "oh so serious" about it.
What is really "oh so serious" is the constant stream of bile and abuse directed at elected representatives of the people, in extremely personal terms, the endless conspiracy theories, the naked paranoia, the sneering tone (copied from AS?), the intolerance of the dissenting voice, and the failure and abandonment of policies portrayed as political acumen.
All from people who turn very precious and feign hurt when it's suggested they might be afflicted by, well.... several unpleasant "isms."
Now, I am no stranger to harsh words and cynicism. But I've never produced anything here (open to debate of course) that would prevent me from meeting any poster with a smile on my face and an outstretched hand.
I do fear, however, and this is my point, that some people here would, at best, like me to be censored, and at worst have me placed on a register for future, let's say bureaucratic harrassment.
Remember my disclaimer, and shun cheap imitations.
Complain about this comment
#86 Aye-right
No, no, no, no! I'm not using unionist economics. What I meant was that people in this country WILL want to know how they will be economically - ie how much money will they have as an individual - if Scotland becomes independent.
If for example I end up losing my job due to independence - a distinct possibility - and end up in a lower paid job - my mortgage (which is very reasonable btw) still remains the same. So I have less money spare to spend on non-essential items. I dont have a flat screen tv etc. Nor do I use credit having learned my lessons years ago.
People might be better off, but at present there is nothing to give a bit of comfort. Neither is there any concrete evidence to say we are better off in the union.
But economics IS important. What is the point of independence if people end up financially worse off?
This is an argument that will be used (and abused) by Labour in any debate about independence.
Complain about this comment
#96
So discussing giving the people of Scotland a referendum that will allow them to set up an independent Scottish state is rubbish.
Better we all get back to discussing Dancing on Ice and other important topics then.
Complain about this comment
#113 cynicalHighlander: Even the theories of evolution and relativity are not unquestionable. The only argument needed for the Union is: It Exists. It is a live parrot, however sick it may be. But please don't ask me to defend it beyond that simple basic.
Show me something better, or even the probability of something better. Tell me I'll look good in a kilt. Anything. It doesn't have to be unquestionable.
Can the Union be improved to satisfy everyone? No.
Will an Independent Scotland satisfy everyone? No.
Unquestionable. Unless you....
Complain about this comment
Sheneval,
Belief is not evidence-based. Ask any Cleric.;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
116. dubbieside
"Let me ask you a hypothetical question. If the SNP were to win over half the Scottish seats at the next general election, and declared that that vote was a mandate for independence, would you agree that a referendum was no longer needed? Do you think that any of the three unionist parties would agree that a referendum was no longer needed?"
Obviously the answer would depend on the SNP manifesto - if they had stated that were they elected with a majority they would declare Indpendence without holding a referendum then that would be good enough for me.
I can't speak for the other Poloitical parties.
Do you think that the SNP will take this position? Personally I doubt it.
If however, the commit to holding a referendum whatever the result, then they would have to do and I think this will be their stance.
Complain about this comment
#118 brigadierjohn
Really. You've got me wrong. I don't think I'm your enemy.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear. I have been a silent party for so long. enjoying the arguments from both sides and have more often than not regarded the Brigs views as passionate to his cause, enlightening and informative but in your post of 118 you do seem to have snapped. Lashing out in the same way in which you accuse others of doing. There may be the odd poster on here, maybe more than a few, who's views probably aren't as well articulated as your own and perhaps can cause offence or can seem cras but the vast majority from all corners seem well mannered and respectful. Best to remember you are no saint yourself.
Complain about this comment
122. Ed Iglehart
"Belief is not evidence-based. Ask any Cleric."
That's what I thought in this instance
:-)
Complain about this comment
#119 Neil_Small147
"No, no, no, no! I'm not using unionist economics."
Didn't say you were...
"If for example I end up losing my job due to independence - a distinct possibility - and end up in a lower paid job - my mortgage (which is very reasonable btw) still remains the same. "
And this could happen without independence.
"But economics IS important. What is the point of independence if people end up financially worse off?"
You really don't know?
The point of independence isn't because it is a short cut to being better off.
It is to govern ourselves.
The quality of governing will determine the level of prosperity.
I assume we will do better than Gordon Brown... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#124 aye_write: No, no, no. It wasn't a rant at you. More a sort of amalgam of my impressions of a significant group of Nat posters.
I've been cast in the role of a Lord Haw-Haw, and one poster called for me to be silenced by having my membership cancelled and another questioned the wisdom of mods in letting me voice an opinion. I wouldn't fancy my chances with either as Minister for Reconciliation and Retribution.
Complain about this comment
#128 brigadierjohn
Alright, sorry.
I missed those attacks on you. Probably just thought they were part of the discussions on here!
Do I get it right, do you just want a sure case that says life will be improved after independence?? To make it really worth all the perceived "hassle" maybe?
As regards nationalists and the stigma. Is it that you are saying that adults only have to be bothered by something if they let themselves be? So my not appreciating the 13% representation in the UK is my problem? I won't take offence if we use me as an example.
Complain about this comment
Sheneval
I never asked you to speak for other parties, I asked you what your opinion was on what other parties would do.
You asked me, Do you think that the SNP will take this position? Personally I doubt it.
I think that if the SNP won a majority of seats at the next general election they could quite legitimately declare that they had achieved their mandate for independence, particularly as they other parties had denied the people a vote on that specific point.
Altogether a win, win situation for the SNP. No mandate at the general election, bring it forward as planned. When it is voted down again, if they are so stupid, fight the Holyrood election on the people being denied a vote by the unionist parties.
Complain about this comment
For the Ongoing Brig/aye_write dialog
I am reminded of the very first Corries concert that I went to back in ancient History.
Ronnie stands up.
"Are there any English in the audience tonight ?"
(Silence)
"Don't be afraid, c'mon, shout it out. Are there any English in the audience tonight ?"
(Few wee feeble shouts followed by silence)
(more silence)
(laughter)
Ronnie
"Ach, naw, ye're very welcome".
(whispers)
"In spite of everything".
Briggy, old bean, ye're very welcome
(whispers)
"In spite of everything".
In answer to your #121
"Even Evolution and Relativity are not unquestionable"
Depends on your viewpoint. There are those who would say out of hand that they are not even worthy of question because they go against the written word of (insert deity of choice here). My Personal View is that they are Not Unquestionable, much as the Status Quo of Scotland remaining in the Union is Not Unquestionable.
"Show me something better".
If, by now, you haven't been able to glean from the many posters to this Blog, ranting cyber-nat or nay, that there is a different, viable, discussable path that does not involve continued Union, (one which is, admittedly, a left-of-centre, dare I say the S-word path) then pity you. Read these blogs over the last year even, and you will be able to write the new Scottish Constitution and outline the policies of an Independent Scotland that are not just "Nationalist", but put forth with the view of being in the best interests of the People of Scotland.
"Tell me I'll look good in a Kilt".
Steady ! There are, ahem, other websites for that sort of thing !
"Can the Union be improved to satisfy everyone? No."
Correct. 1 Scotch 10 Euro Note Featuring a suspension bridge across the Forth. Maybe.
"Will an Independent Scotland satisfy everyone? No."
Also correct. 1 further Scotch 10 Euro Note
Featuring a suspension bridge across the Forth. But you've got to rent it from a Bank for the next 40 years, pay an inflated maintenance and will never actually own it.
So what do we do. Can't improve the Union, no way forward.
Don't we even get the chance to have a say about it ?
I think that you have Unquestionably just given us an Unquestionable case for the Referendum.
Complain about this comment
Re 114
AS usual you are making wild assumptions about my opinions and getting most of them wrong.
But for the record I am not a labour party member nor have I ever been one. I have veted labour in the past and have voted SNP in the past. I try to look at teh arguments logically and will change my viewpoint when i think it is right. I have some principles I try to maintain.
Re your points:
Privitisation. Labour have not had a programme of privitisation. With regard to the Post office it seems a sensible way forward. I don't see many alternative positions being offered. No constructive opinions.
Meanwhile the SNP are pressing on with a blatant money grabbing privitisation of our forests.
Re Trident I agree we don't need it.
Nuclear power. As an Engineer I have looked at and understand the arguments and am convinced that renewables as they stand won't produce the power we require so for the medium term we will need to replace at least either Torness or Hunterston.
Re Income tax. I agree the abolition of the 10p rate was totally wrong, done for spin without thinking through the consequences. However if the SNP were in power with tax raising powers how would they carve the cake differently? Easy to criticise what about some positive suggestions?
ID cards I agree total waste of money.
PFI/ PPP Okay so whats the alternative? The SFT? Is it still alive? How much are the well paid party servants organising this fiasco trousering? Is it ever going to deliver anything or is going to the same place as LIT? Meanwhile my kids go to a victorian dump of a school that struggles to attract good teachers due to the state of the buildings. But we don't vote SNP in this part of the world.
As to breaking manifesto commitments ther is nothing to choose between labour and the SNP. Alec is racking up a fair list of broken promises.
Re alcohol, why pick on alcohol alone? Chocolate costs the NHS as much, education would be the way forward, not prohibition. But I agree at least they are trying, good on them. But don't increase the nanny state, educate, look what has happened to smoking.
Labour need to develop a policy on local taxation, but so do the SNP. LIT was a complete disaster that was poorly thought out and poorly presented. Won't happen because the majority of scots don't like it for a wide variety of reasons.
PLease don't try to pigeonhole everyone according to your stereotypes. I oppose independence for a variety of reasons. Mostly because the arguments presented are not about imporivng my life but about a vague ill-defined benefit of nationhood. I also detest the way the SNP phobes on this blog present everything done by the adminsitration no matter how bad as a roaring sucess. Wake up, look at the real world and realise that they get things wrong in roughly the same proportion as most governments.
Complain about this comment
Re 127
You make a lot of assumptions in your posts. Your arguments would stack up with more credibility if they were based on something more solid.
Also don't you understand, economics may be a nusiance but one that won't go away. Giving politicians a blank cheque to negotiate a new constitutional arrangement, or a divorce settlement if you prefer, is a high risk strategy given the holyrood experience.
Don't you think the argument would work a little better if you actually had worked out some indication of what the whole thing would cost, what it would look like?
The fact that the SNP will not talk about such things makes me think such details are unlikley to increase support so best bury them. keep the details from the voters, a policy learned form labour perhaps?
Complain about this comment
#118 brigadierjohn
I forgot to say you may have a point. Does Anglophone not say the same about some of the replies he gets.
I on the other hand have posted:
"56. At 3:20pm on 08 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote
There seems to be an accepted definition of "nationalism" which implies negative feelings towards others as a part of its core.
I of course totally disagree with that.
In fact my attempts at banter with those on NR, and (although failed) with Anglophone on here, should demonstrate that.
I don't see how seeking to correct a situation so that a national identity and a national constitution match, for the good of those of that nationality, is in any way affected or determined by feelings towards any other group, let alone desiring negative action against them!
Are the two not incompatible in fact, as if one, as it does, relies on compassion for those nationals, how can at the same time other nationals not be equally regarded?
I'm not sure how there would be a conflict there. It seems hypocritical to me.
In fact we Scottish nationalists (the word lies on my behalf!) should desist where guilty from treating English opposers with acrid remarks, purely for holding an opposing point of view - their view is understandable, it works for them.
Rather there is much to be gained from such conversations. (Opposites....etc.)
I wonder whether a sense of humour failure is involved! There is an art to banter that requests it. Even if a poster ribs us mercilessly for our nationalist stance, there's no real offence to be taken? That's my opinion :-)
We Scots should demonstrate the confidence we have, through having the upper had, as all we have to do is gather support for independence and deliver it through a referendum.
The obstacles are ourselves, not England, the English or anything or anybody else. What is the point in struggling with that which does not have the power to stop us?
For we have our destiny in our own hands, and it is the English who could say we are pushing them about. And that I'm sure will cheer up some jingoists.
But gloating over England's potential fate is not the face of nationalism I want to show. Bear in mind I suspect they are going to need us more than we need them (and anyway, do we?) in the coming months. I think we should act as though we know our position of strength and include graciousness where appropriate."
----
"I've never produced anything here (open to debate of course) that would prevent me from meeting any poster with a smile on my face and an outstretched hand."
Me neither. I'd add "open to ridicule", but if you can't laugh at yourself...
Complain about this comment
#121.brigadierjohn
"The only argument needed for the Union is: It Exists."
So anything created by a few people affecting the majority is reason to retain it, sorry I can't subscribe to that reasoning.
"Show me something better, or even the probability of something better."
Better than what? Promise to increase your pension, provide free energy, local bus service on demand or that by staying in this union much longer will make paupers of a large majority of its working inhabitants for generations.
No I think its for yourself to work things out by weighing up particular answers to particular questions giving your reasons one way or the other not vague opinions.
Complain about this comment
125 Triedmybest
"I have been a silent party for so long. enjoying the arguments from both sides and have more often than not regarded the Brigs views as passionate to his cause, enlightening and informative but in your post of 118 you do seem to have snapped. Lashing out in the same way in which you accuse others of doing. "
I think you should read Brig's post 118 again - at no time does he make a personal insulting attacks against any individual poster - his post contains many true facts that are easily verified by reading previous blogs.
This particular blog has been almost, if not totally, free of the types of postings he refers to, but if you care to go through many of Brian's back blogs, I believe you will be able to judge for yourself.
It may be that Muriel Gray's 'Cyber Thug' comments in last week's Sunday Herald have resulted in the SNP hierarchy telling their supporters to tone it down - if so, grateful thanks are due to Muriel!
Complain about this comment
#125 Triedmybest: Welcome. One or two gentle points: I am not here to promote or defend a cause. But people who want to drag me in a certain direction must have their arguments and motives questioned.
I am occasionally prone to rants, but would contend that every now and then the SNP posters' arguments have to be gathered up and listed just to concentrate minds on how negative they are. (Wait until you see the "positive" responses).
Non-SNP supporters are a tiny minority here, and can perhaps be allowed to shout a bit louder? I'm glad you noticed that I'm no saint.
Complain about this comment
130. At 6:02pm on 09 Mar 2009, dubbieside wrote:
I think that if the SNP won a majority of seats at the next general election they could quite legitimately declare that they had achieved their mandate for independence, particularly as they other parties had denied the people a vote on that specific point.
----------------
The SNP could only legitimately claim this if they won the greatest number of votes - not seats - in a general election, otherwise you have the same argument that is used against Labour - majority of Westminister seats despite only having a third of the votes.
So, while it is quite possible for them to win a majority of Scottish seats, unless they have the most votes overall then they must stay silent.
And I doubt it would be legal for them to declare independence. The legal challenges would drag out for years, and at great expense.
Complain about this comment
#129 aye_write: I don't need to be "sure," just pretty certain that it would be worthwhile, for the country and its people, collectively and individually. Not just another government to blame for everything.
It strikes me that many Nats seem to believe that a Salmond-led, independent Scottish Government would somehow be beyond blame or criticism. Terrible decisions will be made, rely on it. People will still find cause to march in protest. They will not be responsive to appeals that begin: "Settle down, were all Scots together..." We won't be.
I think it was young Thomas, months ago, who said he'd be happy in independence even if life was tougher. I'm sure there are many Nationalists who "guess and fear."
I honestly don't understand your second point about "stigma." Or what the 13% is. (Scots in the UK?) It's just a statistic, like the percentage of Catholics, Anglicans, Muslims, left-handers, nose-pickers - only relevant if you see the world in them-and-us terms.
There will still be minority factions in an independent Scotland. Like the people on this blog shouting "Our way or no way."
Maybe you'd want to divide the Catholics, for example, into nominal and devout groups? And the devout into English or Tridentine Mass?
Why not just try to improve what we've got?
Complain about this comment
#118,
Brigadier, I hope you know how ridiculous and paranoid this,
"I do fear, however, and this is my point, that some people here would, at best, like me to be censored, and at worst have me placed on a register for future, let's say bureaucratic harrassment."
sounded!
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
I made no "wild accusations about your post.
You said "however there are few posts that contain any opinion". I therefore gave you MY OPINION no opinion other than my I own.
I did not ask you if you agreed with me, I would have been surprised if you did.
You have offered a rebuttal which is fair enough. However that is your opinion. You will not be surprised that I do not agree with your opinion, but I have no problem with you expressing it either on this blog or anywhere you choose.
If no one on here wishes to express an opinion that is also their prerogative, again I have no problem with that.
Complain about this comment
#131 Chiefy 1724: Good post. I'll credit you with "Depends on your viewpoint" as being a summary of the Theory of Relativity, rather then just a comment.
Your "something better" frightens me a little. The S-word has degrees that would shame a masonic lodge. Save your pity, I do see the alternatives, and I'm happy to discuss. But viable? Not yet.
And I'm okay with a referendum, although I think Salmond, secretly, is quite glad it's not happening. I think he'd get skelped right now. Maybe not in three years, say.
Weren't The Corries great? Then predictable. Then boring, unless you'd had a few in the right atmosphere.
Still, I like your post. Do I detect a fellow sardonic cynic? Makes a change from hectoring bampots.
Complain about this comment
If anyone wants any information on the economics of Scotland they should Google Margret and Jim Cuthbert, Papers on the Scottish economy.
Quite a lot of answers there.
Complain about this comment
#117 Sheneval,
Ed is perceptive, I do indeed try to choose my words carefully.
Actually, I can't remember my original sources, but to quote the First Minister
"But one thing that has always been the case, in every single opinion poll I've ever seen, is that 80% of the people of Scotland say that this matter, this issue, the constitutional future of this nation, should be decided by the people in a referendum, and it is very difficult to resist that."
source http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7321304.stm
Far be it for me to disagree with him as Alec is always right ;)
Actually, I remember the figure as being more like 60 - 80%
As ever, I am willing to stand corrected.
Complain about this comment
#136 Sheneval
"It may be that Muriel Gray's 'Cyber Thug' comments in last week's Sunday Herald have resulted in the SNP hierarchy telling their supporters to tone it down - if so, grateful thanks are due to Muriel!"
Are you seriously suggesting...no, you can't be...!
If the SNP had a cyber-nat pack, I'd have hoped I'd have been invited, sniff ;-)
Complain about this comment
#135 cynicalHighlander: The union is a fact of life. I did not advocate its retention. I asked for something better.
An increased pension and free energy would be good, thank you. Wasn't oil meant to provide all that? At least.
I thought it was you (the Nats) who had all the answers. The SNP Manifesto is looking more and more like a false prospectus.
The nation holds its breath. What's next to be abandoned? Free school meals? Prescriptions?
Complain about this comment
#128 brigadierjohn
"I've been cast in the role of a Lord Haw-Haw"
If you take a trip down memory lane to Brian's Confident performance, but don't mention Iceland thread, I think you'll find that epithet being suggested for R-E in his original incarnation, inspired by oldnat's use of the term "Goebellian lies".
But if you think Brian's threads are uncomfortable for the unionist status quo, do have a peek at Nick Robinson's latest What am I bid? thread, where the comment linked to is one of the more sane.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
@136
"It may be that Muriel Gray's 'Cyber Thug' comments in last week's Sunday Herald have resulted in the SNP hierarchy telling their supporters to tone it down - if so, grateful thanks are due to Muriel!"
It's true I'm afraid. The wee peroxide turnip and her righteous love of all things British have shamed me into toning it right down.
Eck phoned me up personally and told me to lay off the gallus besom.
I said "ye cannae be serious guv? I live for the remorseless banter with the unionists."
"I said leave it Grassy" quoth he.
"Aye ok".
shuffles off into twilight......
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 138
I totally disagree with your take on this. The UK system is based on first past the post, which is why you have situations where a party can have about 35% of the vote and still have a huge majority in parliament.
When the decision is made at Westminster as to which party will form a government, they count the seats won, not the total votes cast.
I believe, though I am not sure as I have little interest in Westminster, apart from how soon we can leave it, that if your method was used the tories would have formed the current government.
Why do you think different rules should apply to Scotland, that do not apply to the rest of the UK?
I also think the legal challenges is a total red herring.
These of course are totally my opinion, in a blog with very little in the way of opinions!!!
P.S. If the SNP won a majority of the seats at the general election, would the three unionist parties suddenly think a referendum was a good idea after all?
P.P.S. The Daily Record today reports that at Murphys speech yesterday 150 people were in the hall. Not a lot for national conference.
Complain about this comment
132 -
Current estimates are that the world's uranium supplies will exhaust sometime in the next 100 years (some estimates even suggest it could be within the next 30). At a cost of many many billions to build, run and decommission nuclear plants, and with the prospect of drastically escalating fuel costs (falling uranium stocks vs increased uranium demand), the economics of building new nuclear plants is questionable. It becomes even more questionable when you factor in the fact that Scotland could well be independant within the life time of any new plant and Scotland doesn't need nuclear to fulfil its own energy needs. However, it would be lumbered with the decomissioning costs despite the fact that the plant would have been built to meet demand from south of the border.
Its a much better idea to take as many of those billions as we can afford and invest in renewable. Advances in wave/tidal power are very promising and with the miles of coast that Scotland has at its disposal, it could be a much better proposition than wind power.
Much of the SNPs opposition to nuclear power may be rooted in ideology or even, dare I say it, dogma, but there is sense behind it.
Complain about this comment
#140 pattymkirkwood: It is a fact, and if you have patience and inclination you can look through blogs to find them, two posters have sought to gag me, one by calling for me to be barred from the site, and one by questioning why the mods allow me to have an opinion.
As to the register, well - there are plenty of international precedents. Paranoid? You mean like thinking the BBC is really out to get you?
Complain about this comment
I'be been here too long today. (Every day, did I hear?) So with moderation so far behind I'm saying g'night.
Complain about this comment
#138
It has to be pointed out to Neil_Small that many countries have moved quickly to independence on the basis of a parliamentary majority which appears to be acceptable to any authority though I agree that a majority of those voting would be a better bet. This also has its problems as a majority of votes does not guarantee a majority of seats.
Referendum is the best bet. Bring it on.
#132 northhighlander
The SNP are NOT proposing any privatisation of our forests.
This is a Labour lie. As someone who insists on never being a member of the Labour Party you come up with a continuous stream of Labour claptrap (which dominates your last post).
Fo the benefit of other readers could you point out where in the consultation document on Forestry the SNP suggests any privatisation at all.
By the way the Westminster Government (Labour when I last looked) is proposing privatising lots of Forestry land in England.
I await with interest.
Complain about this comment
#139 brigadierjohn
brigadier,
I'm not sure if we've ever had a proper conversation on here, have we? But, first impressions all those months ago were quite good. Em, friendly and knowledgeable I think I thought you were. Then..... kidding! I suppose you could be as complimentary in return. (Aye, don't like!)
However, here it is. You are retired I believe and have lived and done stuff!! Therefore, you qualify as interesting, regardless of personal appeal (which I always run parallel, not touching, to your opinions), of you to me or me to you! I'm not saying there's none, but it's a separate point, ought not to spoil debate.
(There are occassionally posters to whom I apply this rule in reverse i.e. their personal appeal is my focus regrdless of debate, but these are extremely rare, and I am terribly goods at repelling them! Sigh. But that's my problem.)
So, let's talk.
"It strikes me that many Nats seem to believe that a Salmond-led, independent Scottish Government would somehow be beyond blame or criticism."
Really? Are you sure, because I see independence as a process, not a quick ticket to utopia! (You'll hate this) like changing gear in a car we slip from first (the UK!) into second (independent same as rest of EU countries!). It might be the other way around, but the numbers weren't the point. The point is Holyrood not Westminster is the sovereign government. That's all.
You needn't notice much at all actually! Just different folk doing the debate. Mistakes will be made? No doubt! I think there could be less though as government in Scotland will be held more to account, through soveregnty being with the people and Scottish PR (that may need tweeked, but that is possible.)
I'm not really under any perfection delusions you know. Why I'd be partying is because there would be representation for Scots at home and abroad.
Is any of this nutty so far?
Take a rest. I will tackle your point about seeing "them and us" in the next post. It seems pretty fundamental as to why I would bother with the stuff in this post!
Complain about this comment
#139 -
brig, at what point do you accept that it's impossible to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear, or even, to use the venacular, that you can't polish a turd.
Whilst the Union has served some sections of Britain well (some exceedingly well) it's hard to argue against the assertion that its day is done and we are standing witness to its death throws.
The irony of having a 16 year old spout the benefits of the Union at the Labour party conference, a 16 year old who currently lives with his parents but no doubt has plans to become independant from them in the foreseeable future, is obviously lost on the likes of Murphy and Gray of that listening party that has a deputy leader who needs a translator to talk to Scots.
Independance is a natural state that goes beyond economics. That doesn't, however, mean that there are no economic arguments for independence. The failed Thatcherite policy that what's good for one part of the nation is good for every part whilst claiming that there's no such thing as society has been pursued by Nu-lab whilst the basic message has been twisted to the point where generations of families have never worked and expect to be supported by a state that happily consigns entire regions to the scrapheap just to ensure that certain areas of the country are protected.
Whilst it's certainly possible in a country of 5 million for a government to concentrate support to the central belt of 2 million to the detriment of the other 3, it's less likely than in a nation of 60 million where a government concentrates help/policy in the south east to the detriment of 5 million in the north.
There's no denying that independence will largely be a step in the dark. There are no reliable figures about the current state of Scotland's finances, anymore than there are reliable figures about the state of the UK's finances. How then can anyone give you a definitive idea of where independence will leave us when we don't even know where we are starting from.
Complain about this comment
144. Richard_the_Rogue
"Actually, I remember the figure as being more like 60 - 80%
As ever, I am willing to stand corrected."
Afraid I can neither confirm nor refute - all I can say is that in the local clubs I attend, (1x30 members and 1x100 members), there seems to be little for either the SNP or Independence, not even among those who wish to see the end of council tax, as most of them did not believe the SNP would deliver.
Of course these people may not be representative of the Nation as a whole, as many of them are in the 60+ bracket, but the vast majority, if not all, can be relied upon to vote.
Complain about this comment
#139 brigadierjohn
All those groups you mentioned could be categorised by nationality. Why on earth should that matter? Well, because it's the way the world is sorted at this time. Sovereign states hold the control. You're not one, well there you go, you don't get to play!
So why don't I feel like I've got sovereignty. Well, because of that 13%. It's the number of Scottish MPs at Westminster. With nearly a one to ten minority, as Scots we have no meaningful national voice.
So why am I fixated about "national"? Could I not be happy as a UK voter? Well, yes if I had a UK national identity. I don't feel like I do! Is that petty of me? Am I creating divisions? Well, they were already "created" for me, for various reasons, social, cultural as a result of past decisions, so that when I grew up in Scotland I now feel Scottish.
There's not much I can do to make myself feel Scottish (indoctrination would be ineffective) and there's nothing I can do to cancel that feeling.
Perhaps I am being far too sensitive in not ignoring it. After all, I need only see something as mattering if I decide it does. Well, I think most Scots are sensible enough to subscribe to the "not so sad/full of self-importance to be bothered" view. I recognise it as the happy base reference point.
But, it isn't me who is pushing these feelings of Scottishness out from the benign (vaguely interesting) to the more slightly aroused (hey, but don't ignore them). For me, it's the being labelled as British by all who speak for me that is fuelling resistance to it. I'm not sure that's entirely irrational of me.
Normally, like Danes (sorry!) or Italians or French, I don't have to give my nationality a thought. But when I feel it is being wrongly defined I am a little bothered about it. And so I have to accept looking like a raging nationalist, as though I have an obsession with my nation. I don't. I am normal as you. Recognise me as Scottish, that's all.
Right, time for coffee and biscuits again. I will tackle your will it be worthwhile in the next post :-)
Complain about this comment
156
the 60%-80% isn't for the SNP or Independence but for the opportunity to decide for ourselves, I believe thats what the poster was referring to. I would like to think that people in the 60+ bracket along with everyone of any age would appreciate the opportunity to vote on a matter that will affect every single person who lives and works in scotland, whether that's to remain in the union or not.
Also they didn't want to see the end of the council tax only because they didn't think it'd be delivered? so if it could have been passed they'd have happily seen the back of it?
I hope this post doesn't come across as cheeky, i'm always concerned people read these as if i type with a sarcastic tone, i really dont.
Complain about this comment
In case any of you are champing at the bit to cast your vote in a multi-question constitutional referendum, I've added a poll over at Brigadoon - feel free to pop in and choose your preferred options at the bottom of the page. Comments would also be welcome!
The intention is to leave the poll there more or less permanently. If enough of you vote it might be an interesting barometer of opinion! I think you'll be able to change your vote in future, should the mood take you...
#brigadierjohn: to restore a wee bit of balance, you might recall that I for one stuck up for you and your right to an opinion in the dim and distant past. I'll do so again! Keep your dissenting voice coming, helps the rest of us sharpen our arguments.
Complain about this comment
157. At 10:02pm on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"With nearly a one to ten minority, as Scots we have no meaningful national voice."
Nonsense - Both PM Gordon Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling are Scottish MPs. You can hardly say you're not represented in Westminster.
Though it might help if some of the SNP candidates attended a little more
http://www.publicwhip.org.uk/mp.php?mpn=Alex_Salmond&mpc=Banff+%26amp%3B+Buchan
Is that what you mean by 'not represented'
Complain about this comment
#139 brigadierjohn
Will it be worthwhile bothering with nationalism?
Well, I suppose my view is why not? Not because I fancy the thrill of taking a risk, but because I don't see there are arguments against it, against self-determination.
It is the norm for nations up and down. Why not mine? What's wrong with ours! ;-)
To stay in the Union suggests valuing self determination as something traded for what we (allegedly) get out of the Union. I'm not sure I could explain that to my brood without feeling guilty. "You have no real vote in the governing parliament because..."
I couldn't do it!
"Why not just try to improve what we've got?"
I don't really have any influence in it, so how could I initiate any improving? Blog a lot? Maybe!
I think you want something more or superior to what we've got now. But is it you then who seeks the improved "nearer to utopia".
Independence offers normalcy. If it is going to be better, it will only be because we govern ourselves better. We will have to do it, to be certain. But that's life.
Risk assessment and the human condition aren't mutually cooperative, I don't think!
On the one hand we must accept that independence is not going to be significantly more wonderful, but on the other because it isn't going to be sufficiently more wonderful, you won't accept it.
Have I got this wrong??
PS You'll look fantastic in a kilt!
(Because all men do, of course.)
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brown his Darling as representing Scotland? Hilarious. Tell us another one.
#151, brig, people say nasty things about each other all the time on here, people have called for me to be banned ... doesn't mean there is the slightest prospect it will happen.
As to anyone on here becoming minister for anything ... what are the prospects of that, really?
Also, re BBC - the pro-Labour propaganda spewed out by the lazier elements of this organisation (just in the last couple weeks) is legion.
Complain about this comment
162. At 11:02pm on 09 Mar 2009, pattymkirkwood wrote:
Gordon Brown his Darling as representing Scotland? Hilarious. Tell us another one.
Didn't Scottish people vote for these two to represent them then?
Complain about this comment
#160 Sparklet
"Nonsense - Both PM Gordon Brown and Chancellor of the Exchequer Alistair Darling are Scottish MPs. You can hardly say you're not represented in Westminster."
Sparklet, why do you think those two are acting for Scotland? The notion is riseable!
They would and have "sold their Scottish grannies" to keep Scotland in the UK, to keep their power! (And Iraq, Trident Scots were against...)
Brown even calls Scotland North Britain for goodness sake.
These men are hated so much up here...
Brown tells us, Scotland could not have survived the banking crisis, is too poor to be independent, is too insignificant etc... Can you imagine an English PM saying the same stuff to England? You'd be well infuriated - and embarrassed!
They treat the Holyrood parliament with contempt. Brown despises Salmond and did not phone to congratulate him on winning in May '07 for days I believe. The banking thing was great Brown thinks as he gets rid of Scottish banks - more aiding his anti-SNP campaign with no thought for Scotland at all.
Eurrgghh, the thought of them representing us. Sorry, Sparklet!
Complain about this comment
#163 Sparklet
As MPs yes, unfortunatley! But not as chancellor or PM. You'll remember nobody voted for that!
Complain about this comment
164. At 11:07pm on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"They treat the Holyrood parliament with contempt. Brown despises Salmond and did not phone to congratulate him on winning in May '07 for days I believe. The banking thing was great Brown thinks as he gets rid of Scottish banks - more aiding his anti-SNP campaign with no thought for Scotland at all.
Eurrgghh, the thought of them representing us. Sorry, Sparklet!"
Ah - so it wasn't the Scots who voted for them then.
Wonder who did?
Complain about this comment
cynicalHighlander ~ 99
"BBC staff could receive GBP46,000 pay sweetener to move to broadcaster's new home .... for 'remote location allowance' ... to Salford in Greater Manchester!
Outer Mongolia here calling anyone out there?"
The term "remote" is, by its very nature, relative. Most people have a TV remote control - does that mean it's in Mongolia?
If my job in Glasgow was transferred to say, London (no fear!), then I too would receive a 'remote relocation allowance' - it's based on distance! However, a move to Edinburgh would only warrant a 'relocation allowance'.
You really shouldn't get so sensitive and up-tight about these 21st Century Lowlands employment terms!
Complain about this comment
#118 brigadierjohn
I do love it when you do angry.
- the constant stream of bile and abuse directed at elected representatives of the people, in extremely personal terms, -
I'm a conservative here, we were doing it to them in England and in Scotland before the Union and in Britain ever since. My GGGgrandfather made a fortune out of selling extremely graphic prints of Regency politicians. Long may this tradition continue.
- the endless conspiracy theories, the naked paranoia, the sneering tone (copied from AS?), the intolerance of the dissenting voice, and the failure and abandonment of policies portrayed as political acumen. -
Now that sounds like Global Brown to me.
Any facts in the above are entirely inadvertent and should not be relied upon. If you wish to use any of the above in any argument you should first consult a mental health professional.
Long life and happiness to you.
Complain about this comment
165. At 11:18pm on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"As MPs yes, unfortunatley! But not as chancellor or PM. You'll remember nobody voted for that!"
So you don't actually want your MPs in govt. then - well I can certainly agree with that sentiment as far as these two go!!!
Complain about this comment
A few things on independence that need sorted.
First of all, if there is to be a referendum then it must be simple as possible. However, before such a vote, then all parties for/against/in between must provide facts, figures and policies. They must also give information on safeguards.
Before asking someone to decide on such a critical issue, they must be - correctly - informed.
Get away from the history and emotion. Get away from the scaremongering from all sides as well.
Certain key points must be addressed. In my own opinion these are the important ones:
Economy
Energy
Health and Public Services
Defence
Currency
EU status
Taxation
Benefits
Crime and Punishment
Economy - oil, whisky and tourism major assets. But what about other industries?
Energy - no nuclear, no coal. Renewables technology not sufficient to provide all power yet.
Health - how will the Scottish NHS be affected?
Defence - you will need a defence force of some kind. But what about the thousands of Scots currently serving in the Armed Forces?
Currency - sterling or Euro?
EU Status - are we guaranteed full status, or do we want to go alone to protect the fishing grounds?
Taxation - stuck with VAT if we stay in the EU. What about other taxes? Will we have sufficient private industry? What about business taxes?
Benefits - will the current level be maintained?
Crime - the SNPs possible folly, since McAskill doesn't want to jail anyone for less than six months.
With the exception of oil, there has been nothing that I can recall being announced. That is why I am not convinced - yet - about independence.
The SNP is popular due to two main factors - Alex Salmond and Gordon Brown. At the last Scottish elections the SNP gained additional votes simply by every candidate standing for the "Alex Salmond for First Minister" party.
The next elections are critical for the SNP. They must increase their vote, but to do so they must choose their arguments carefully. No references to anything that is linked with failure - Iceland for example. Remember the headlines count, not the small print. Their support teams must be out in droves canvassing the electorate. Knocking on doors, out on the platforms at railway stations during rush hour.
Complain about this comment
165. At 11:18pm on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
#163 Sparklet
As MPs yes, unfortunatley! But not as chancellor or PM. You'll remember nobody voted for that!
------------------------
No one in the general public votes for the Prime Minister or Chanchellor. Get your facts right! ( I know what you mean though!)
Complain about this comment
#160 Sparklet
re - Though it might help if some of the SNP candidates attended a little more
publicwhip.org AlexSalmond Banff+Buchan
Is that what you mean by 'not represented' -
You want Scottish MPs to meddle in English afairs? What happened to the West Lothian Question?
Complain about this comment
#170. Neil_Small147
Neil!
But the point is....
........... Much of what you say gets decided in the elections after independence.
All that stuff will be debated and double debated I'm sure when we elect our Holyrood parliament in our general election.
The basics I'm sure will be covered in the referendum campaign itself, as to do so before would give cause for criticism, as any stats for example would be out of date and inaccurate as soon as they were released.
However I would welcome general discussion on the broad choices over some of the things you mention. Though, I expect it will happen at the right time - what I mean is the referendum is off the agenda since the nice vote, for now, isn't it.
Still it will all come out Neil. That's my opinion. If they do a Question Time, you should go on again! ;-)
Complain about this comment
170. At 11:28pm on 09 Mar 2009, Neil_Small147
"Remember the headlines count, not the small print"
Neil,
Don't you think the most important thing is they tell THE TRUTH
No Lies
No Obfuscation
No Broken Promises
We've already had 12 years of that with NuLab.
Complain about this comment
#171 Neil_Small147
"No one in the general public votes for the Prime Minister or Chanchellor. Get your facts right! ( I know what you mean though!)"
That's what I said, you tattie! ;-)
Complain about this comment
172. At 11:35pm on 09 Mar 2009, handclapping
They're supposed to be representing Scotland in the UK - obviously not important to them.
They can hardly complain of not being represented when they don't attend!!!
Complain about this comment
173. At 11:41pm on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"Much of what you say gets decided in the elections after independence.....
as to do so before would give cause for criticism"
Strange - I would have thought there should be a very detailed and careful debate BEFORE there's a referendum for Independence.
Surely the Scottish people should be told exactly what it is that the SNP represent and what exactly the SNP definition of 'Independence' is!!
Complain about this comment
#177. Sparklet wrote
You misunderstod. We have been over this before on here, quite a bit!
Details such as much of Neil's list are general election issues, as they pertain to any normal government anywhere.
Some are pertinent to independent/not indepndent. The choices that there would be should be discussed beforehand - in the referendum campaign.
Specific facts and figures about the economy I would not expect to come out until then either, for the reasons I mentioned, plus there is so much speculation here as Westminster hasn't done the real figures! (understandably).
The factors determining whether or not to be independect aren't in fact (red herring) the factors that government nomally deals with, it is about having a normal government to deal with them.
Complain about this comment
#177 Sparklet
The definition of independence is to be a self governing sovereign nation.
It is a decision over whether we want to be self governing or otherwise governed, not whether council tax rates for example will fall, rise or stay the same (or be replaced ;-)
Complain about this comment
#160. At 10:46pm on 09 Mar 2009, Sparklet
The fact that Brown and Darling are Scots is really irrelevant. Politically, their primary identity is British. Like every other MP, primarily they represent only their own constituency. All of the Cabinet are in Government only by personal invitation of the PM - and he is PM only because he was chosen (via no one standing against him) by the Labour MPs, who come mainly from England.
Scotland is no better represented by Brown, than Yorkshire was by Wilson. An individual Brit (from wherever) is empowered by the peculiar English constitution to wield the royal prerogative, and virtually untrammelled powers.
Of course, few on this blog would support these Scottish Labour MPs voting on English issues - and certainly not running the English Government. But, if that's what the English want!
Complain about this comment
#170 Neil_Small147
I think you are confusing two distinctly different issues -
1. What the effect would be on Scotland if we were independent (compared with the reserved powers being applied in a Parliament which is largely dominated by MPs from our close neighbour and friend - bu not controlled by us)
2. What the effect would be on Scotland if we elected a left-wing, right-wing, centrist, coalition Governments over the succeeding general elections during your children's/grandchildren's lifetimes (and beyond) and the policies they propose, and implement.
Your list of the critical issues was
Economy
Energy
Health and Public Services
Defence
Currency
EU status
Taxation
Benefits
Crime and Punishment
I'm presuming that you don't want guarantees of where we will be in 100, 50, or even 20 years time, but what the situation will be for Scotland at the point of independence.
Let's start by reducing your list.
Health and Public Services, plus Crime and Punishment are already (largely) devolved issues, so they are nothing to do with the Independence argument. Energy is of particular importance to you (I've assumed that you work for BNFL - though I may be wrong) but again it's not an issue that is affected by Independence as such, but the choices of particular parties (UK/Scottish) that are elected to power. That leaves
Economy (including Taxation and Benefits)
Defence
EU status and Currency
(I've re-ordered your list to make it a little easier to address).
I'll deal with each of these in turn.
Complain about this comment
#180, #181 oldnat
Thank you oldnat for saying what I would have said if I knew how to say it like you!
Good night ;-)
Complain about this comment
Jo (150),
Seconded enthusiastically!Nukes? No Thanks!
ed
Complain about this comment
#170 Neil_Small147 (Part2)
Economy (including Taxation and Benefits)
On the first day of an Independent Scotland Taxation and Benefits would be the same as they had been on the last day of the UK Union. Presumably you are concerned about whether Taxation would rise, or Benefits would reduce. You would be happy if Taxation fell and Benefits rose (as would we all)!
I've included Taxation and Benefits as part of the Economy, because you cannot separate them. If the tax base is low due to a poor economy then Scotland would have to follow the inevitable pattern that the UK has to do raise taxation and borrowing and effectively reduce benefits by the inflation caused by "quantitative easing".
Unfortunately, there is no definitive data on this because the UK Government has consistently failed to produce accurate data. GERS is a "best estimate" and (if accurate) indicates that during the financial bubble, Scotland had a structural economic deficit similar to the UK as a whole. However, the UK is more reliant on the collapsed financial sector than the UK, so it is likely that our deficit will now be less than that of the UK.
It is also unfortunate that the UK decision to use the oil resource as a "current revenue" to finance their "world power" expenditure means that we cannot expect the Norwegian benefits of an oil fund. It would, however, allow us to fund the transition to a balanced economy.
Defence
At least, in an independent Scotland, that term would be accurate - not a euphemism for aggression!
I'm not sure what the SNP policy is on this, but I have always assumed that the Irish model (duly adapted to protect the oil fields would be appropriate).
EU status and Currency
If Scotland is in the EU, it will adopt the euro (but that depends on the economy - Slovakia briefly introduced its own currency before joining the euro this year). An option is simply to adopt the euro unofficially as a number of aspirant countries have done.
EU status - I'd prefer the EU to determine the solution to the dissolution of another EU country first - Belgium - but if we have to be the first, so be it. There are legal arguments in several directions on this.
All parts of the previous UK would automatically be members
All parts of the previous UK would automatically have to reapply for membership
Scotland (if seen as seceding from the UK) would have to apply separately
Any decision would be entirely political by the rest of the EU.
Think about it. Would the EU want to exclude their only significant oil resource? The Spanish might have a problem as the only other multi-national state apart from the UK, but what would the others have to gaiin from excluding Scotland?
Complain about this comment
#163,
Others have already answered more than adequately for me, but just to make it absolutely clear: you have the constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to blame for Darling and Broon not: "the people of Scotland", not "the Scottish people", not "Scots".
Otherwise, by that logic Blair was an entirely "English" affliction, with no one north-of-the-border culpable for his, frankly criminal, actions.
In addition, at the last general election the people backed Tony Blair to be PM (for some reason) not some undemocratic succession to the incompetent "Brownies" ("Brownite" seems too dignified a term).
That Ultra-Brit Nat, Estuary "Bwown", is as much a creation of the Westminster village and Whitehall as a "dour son of the manse" ... [insert cliche here].
Complain about this comment
181. At 01:04am on 10 Mar 2009, oldnat wrote:
#170 Neil_Small147
"I think you are confusing two distinctly different issues"
No - he isn't. It's essential people in Scotland know exactly where the SNP stand on ALL these issues
After all when I'm asked to vote in a referendum on 'Independence' I'll want to know exactly what ALL the implications are.
Why are the SNP so anxious NOT to have this debated in the public arena???
Complain about this comment
179. At 00:02am on 10 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
#177 Sparklet
"The definition of independence is to be a self governing sovereign nation."
Ah, AW, glad you brought that up!
See what the Wikipedia definition of 'Independence' is -
"Independence is the self-government of a nation, country, or state by its residents and population, or some portion thereof, generally exercising sovereignty.
The term independence is used in contrast to subjugation, which refers to a region as a "territory" —subject to the political and military control of an external government"
By embracing the EU, the SNP is actually following a path of 'Subjugation'.
Don't you think the people of Scotland should be made aware of this.
Complain about this comment
185. At 03:17am on 10 Mar 2009, pattymkirkwood
"you have the constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath to blame for Darling and Broon not: "the people of Scotland", not "the Scottish people", not "Scots". "
So - you are denying the constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeat their status as 'people of Scotland'???
Complain about this comment
184. At 01:52am on 10 Mar 2009, oldnat wrote:
"EU status - I'd prefer the EU to determine the solution....Any decision would be entirely political by the rest of the EU."
WHY?
Complain about this comment
Ooh, I do like a good debate.
I take your points old_nat, do I get a gold star? :p
I don't work for BNFL, but energy is important to me. I think the SNP need to accept a short-term solution until renewables are efficient enough. Not quite there yet.
Re Alex Salmond and his Westminster seat, I do think he should have resigned it when he became First Minister. While he is in favour of independence, he is doing a disservice to those he represents in his constituency - he is there to represent them all, regardless of their politicial affiliations.
187. At 08:16am on 10 Mar 2009, Sparklet wrote:
By embracing the EU, the SNP is actually following a path of 'Subjugation'.
I disagree. We are already tied into Europe, and being independent out of Europe won't work. There would be too many restrictions on trade etc. EU countries still have a large degree of autonomy.
But you are correct when you say that the SNP must give people detailed information on what will happen if Scotland becomes independent. If they don't, there is a chance their message will be swamped by the opposition.
Anyway, time for the dentist and work!
Complain about this comment
Could we, should we, would we, what if they stop us, could we afford it, we are not big enough, etc?
We could , we should, we would, they can't they stop us, we can afford it, we are big enough, etc!
The debate in a nutshell. One highly negative, on highly positive, yes it's a simple as that!
TDBs
Complain about this comment
Re 150
Some of what you say about Uranium is true, but what you didn't recognise in my post was that I said in the medium term.
In the long term renewables will be the mainstay and Scotland is well placed in this area, I live beside the best tidal resource in europe, i hope it will be developed.
However large scale developement of this is 10 years away at least, more likely 15 or 20. Especially at the current rate of investment. This resource is much talked about however the government to more talking than action.
There is much to do but it has to be done sensitively so the mistakes of the past with for example coal extraction are not repeated. We must get the envirnmental protection right for this.
Also the government need to get round the problem that the best renewable sites are not where the bulk of people live. Transmission systems need to be built. These will cause problems, the current Beauly to Denny interconnector proposal is a good example. The government are very reluctant to anything other than stall the project. No lines no power. The lack of a way forward is currently stopping renewable development. The potential 30 GW of the Pentland Firth will require subsea distribution, work on the feasbility of this has not even started.
So I believe that in the medium term Nuclear is the only sensible environmental option. The prices for construction and decomissionining you quote are ridiculous.
Decomissioning a new build would produce a lot less waste, the lessons learned from the previous generations would be built into new reactors.
Anyway realistically we need to do something about consumption. The most efficient use of energy is vital, during the recent budget debacle the most sensible opinion was the Greens where they proposed making homes more energy efficient. Has to be done, sooner it is the sooner we will start to save energy.
So in the abscence of a credible energy policy from anyone else I reckon that nuclear cannot be ruled out.
Off course we could always rely on someone else to build the nuclear reactors and buy the electricity, which is what will probably happen.
Complain about this comment
190. At 08:50am on 10 Mar 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
"We are already tied into Europe, and being independent out of Europe won't work. There would be too many restrictions on trade etc. EU countries still have a large degree of autonomy."
Neil,
The EU is at something of a crossroads currently. There is a lot of popular concern about just how undemocratic the EU is.
Of the 500 million people that will be affected by the Lisbon Treaty only the political classes have been allowed to vote for what is in effect a political gravy train.
(Except the people of Ireland and their NO vote was ignored- as were the people of France and the Netherlands when they voted NO to the Constitution)
If the Lisbon Treaty is NOT fully ratified then the political elite in the EU will be forced to look again at just what is required and I think most of the People (as opposed to the Politicians) would prefer -
"willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states without power being centralised in Brussels or decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy"
The UK as the second largest Net Contributor to the EU (after Germany) has more say than most on this - it is essential we get our say in a Referendum on the EU.
Complain about this comment
Aye-write (# various): Thank you sincerely for taking the time to provide such detailed responses. You do a good job in explaining who you are and what you believe, and a fair job of explaining why. But you have no need to explain yourself to me. Self-justification is a personal release mechanism. It is neither advocacy nor evangelism.
So forgive me if I don't buy into it, even although I feel many of the same motivations in particular areas. My responses and my ambitions tend to be pragmatic.
Never doubt that I am a proud Scot, and patriotic. But I don't have a visceral need to be in the schiltron. I am one of the oddballs of the species, in that the herd instinct is missing from my genes. Perhaps it's due to getting dragged around the world as a child (my dad was a Merchant Navy captain) and meeting every creed and colour and finding it normal, that nationalism (small n) comes across as parochial.
Feel free to have a laugh at me, or a sneer, or a kick. But don't interpret the lack of a long response as a lack of answers. It's just not that important to me.
Complain about this comment
Re 184
I note with interest that the adoption of the Euro, with the disadvantages so easily skimmed over by Oldnat does not merit a referendum, unlike independence.
If we joined the Euro we would have interest rates set for the benefit of the largest countries in the eurozone, France and Germany. This would not necessarily benefit Scotland. In a way it is difficult to argue there is not a strong element of swapping Westminster domination for Euro domination.
We would go from having some considerable influence over EU matters as part of the UK to being a bit player having to do what we are told.
Decision making in the EU is already undemocratic, we would be giving up influence and would have little or no chance of an opt out of anything we didn't like, the example of the working time directive springs to mind.
I also don't like the fact that the SNP defence policy is just copy Ireland. Hardly a cohesive thought out arrangement is it?
How would current defence assets be divided? Assuming we don't want trident the facilities to house this are in Scotland, they would have to close, I can't see the RAF keeping bases in Moray, all serious questions that obviously haven't been thought about.
Would we be a part of NATO? Another important question not thought about.
With regard to the Economy, if we adopt the euro and the rest of the UK stays with the pound we start to introduce barriers to our largest market, the rest of the UK.
What about other laws? For example Health and Safety, we would have to set up our own people to make, draft and enforce such laws. Why would we want different laws from England? Would it not be sensible to arrange a cross border body to cover some of this? Long term transport infrastructure would be another issue benefitting from cross border bodies. There are others.
These are serious questions. Perhaps a more sensible model would be to have two votes, one to allow negotiations to start and one after we know what it will cost and how it will work. Also who would be arbitor if we don't agree about division of debt, pension liability etc, etc.
Complain about this comment
#159 forfar-loon: yes, I do remember, and thanks for the comment.
#168 handclapping: Lampooning is a lost art, so I hope you have some of your GGGgrandfather's original work. However, don't conflate it with nasty abuse. What we see here is entirely different. Your ancestor would be furious at the comparison.
#162 pattymkirkwood: Did you really think I believed that two posters might become Ministers? Okay, I'll make a wee note: Fanatic - don't waste humour and irony here.
Complain about this comment
Off to watch paint drying. (Note to PattyM: I'm not really going to do it. It's a figure of speech to indicate something more interesting than this).
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander,
Off course indeed! ;-)Scotland is, and is likely to remain a net exporter of energy, so we are unlikely to need to buy any in the foreseeable future. And the "medium term" required for the construction and operation of Nuke stations before the Uranium runs out is likely to be just about long enough to build and commission a few plants only to watch them stand useless and devoid of an affordable fuel supply.....
No Thanks!
ed
Complain about this comment
Sparky,
Ah, the techno-optimism! But, are we over-run with examples of learning from mistakes?The laws of Technodynamics:;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
Re 153 Snecked again
The climate Change Bill proposes that 25% of Scotlands Forestry will be leased to Private individuals or companies for up to 100years.
This is privitisation. Clearly.
Re nationalism
I also note another common thread running through most of the fervent nationalist posters.
If you don't speak against nuclear power you work for BNFL.
If you don't support Independence you must be a Labour Voter.
Asking sensible questions is scaremongering
If you don't support nationalsim you are frightened of change, negative and unworthy.
Alternative opionion must be discredited as opposed to debated.
Perhaps an indication of whats to come if we ever vote for the new independant inclusive Scotland proposed by the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#194 brigadierjohn
Before I look up some of the unknown words in your reply, I must tell you, just in case you think I am, I am so NOT a herd person, you just don't know! I am and have been, despite myself, deliberately and obtusely different and difficult, veering towards obnoxious, and have a total disdain for herd following. I'd rather say "Boo!" and have the herd run away. (Talk to my poor parents.)
Sorry, if you don't need to know, but the sheer thought of my motivation (even if you didn't mean that) for nationalism being to belong in a group, was....so horrific!
OK, off to mull over your reply now. (It strikes me I get the same brick wall from Anglophone. At least it's not personal then?)
Complain about this comment
#195 northhighlander
- We would go from having some considerable influence over EU matters as part of the UK to being a bit player having to do what we are told. -
Now there was me thinking that all the stooshie down South was because England is seen not to have considerable influence over EU matters eg UKIP, deanthetory, NR's blog.
However if we went in we would have 14 MEPs not 6 and our "own" commissioner, or will you still be happy when your UK commissioner is Global Brown, Fred the Shred or another of the Westminster rat pack?
As an aside, a deal of the "problem" with EU legislation is the way Westminster construes it.
Complain about this comment
Re 199
Ed in this case you are plain wrong.
The first car produced cost many years wages of a working person.
Now they are produced so all can afford them, much safer, cleaner and more reliable.
Therefore technology has progressed, human understanding of how to build better, safer and cheaper is greatly improved.
Nuclear technology is no different.
A nuclear powerstation can go from Brownfield Site to production in 4 years.
However the debate will only be resolved by a coherant energy policy for an independant Scotland. Not seeing any on the Horizon. Must be in the large "too Difficult " pile.
Complain about this comment
Techno-optimism:
;-)ed
Complain about this comment
158. jediirnbru
"I would like to think that people in the 60+ bracket along with everyone of any age would appreciate the opportunity to vote"
You may well be correct - I can only speak for my peers, and even then this is only my impressions, and as such, may not be 100pc correct:
I suspect that most of them regard the question as irrelevant.
Most are retired, (60-75 ranging to 93), most have a private pension, as well as the old age pension, live in relatively, or very, comfortable circumstances, in their own house in a nice area, and have done reasonably, or very well, out of the Union.
Their children and grandchildren are doing well, either in employment or in further education, and apart from the current blip in the economy, can expect to be in well paid jobs/professions, under the current arrangements.
At this age the National Health Service for the replacement of hips and joints means more to you than rabble rousing flag waving, and experience after many years of Government means you are well aware that one Government is pretty much as good, or as bad as another.
Almost all are well educated and civil in their manner, quite a number are retired teachers who would regard some of the posts on this blog, (not on this particular thread), as appalling behaviour, which if it had been encountered at their schools, would have led to exclusions.
Many are Conservative voters and have done as well under Blair and New Labour as they would have done under 'whoever' and the Conservatives, and the same applies to those who vote for Labour or Liberal Democrats.
Why would these people want to make a leap of faith into the unknown, as is being suggested by some of the posters here?
"Also they didn't want to see the end of the council tax only because they didn't think it'd be delivered? so if it could have been passed they'd have happily seen the back of it?"
I don't think I actually said that but just to clarify, the above should read:
Many of them, being pensioners, want to see the end of council tax, but did not vote SNP because, among other things, they did not believe the SNP would deliver.
If this applied to something they believed in, why would they vote for something they are extremely suspicious about?
As an added footnote I got quite a few remarks like: 'I told you so' at last week's meeting.
"I hope this post doesn't come across as cheeky, i'm always concerned people read these as if i type with a sarcastic tone, i really do
I see nothing cheeky about your post nor anything offensive - questioning what people say/mean and clarification are part of what the blog is about and your posts is as civil as it gets :-)
Good luck to you!
Complain about this comment
#203 northhighlander
Does the equivalent of the product of Torness and Hunterston not get "exported" South each year? Do we not have an about to be fully compliant coal fired power station at Longannet? Have the boffins not started on carbon sequestration? Does Scotland not have coal still? Are you absolutely certain about Global Warming? What are Scotland's energy needs going to be? How are energy storage techniques going to progress beyond pumped hydro and electrolysis?
If you can answer these, we can debate what a Scottish energy policy should be, otherwish it would just be a bashing of gums.
Complain about this comment
#194 brigadierjohn
OK, brig,
Apologies for latching on to the "Blether" part of this blog.
Such self justification as said is merely deliberate filling of space on a blog, for a matter of interest. I do not need you to accept it - I'm a grown up. It might have been a tiny bit interesting, that's all, for the purposes of debate. Take it or leave it. You left it. I'm still OK ;-)
You weren't supposed to be persuaded. I thought your position needed balance and I wanted to provide it. That's all. You can make your own mind up! I was hoping you hadn't merely made it up and left things there... Forgive me, but do "olds" (respectful!) do that a bit?
I think your schiltron bit betrays a slight ignorance, as I'm not sure we can certainly say that motivation is true today. There will be some....but I hope you weren't generalising, it would be unfair.
Nationalism is a cold headed decision I've made. I choose to deliberately fly in the face of your cool, calm, collected and accurate overview, as far as your definition of nationalism goes. Of course it is petty to cling to a nationality for weakness of psychological needs.
The reason why I got interested though was emotional in that I saw unfairness and I seem to be programmed to challenge that. So that I cannot easily control. But my decision as to what to do about it I can control indeed. Nationalism isn't emotion-led, self indulgent fantasy making me dance. I could choose (and did) to do nothing. But that's sometimes boring!
Pragmatism is a good trait. Mr Write has lots of it. But it needs an equal measure of the visceral does it not? (One steers the other.) I know men can sometimes have a habitual instinctual distrust of it though! I mention it merely because we are humans :-)
But thank you, I get where you are coming from. It not being a new concept, I had presumed it was your stance, but I wanted to merely widen it. You don't have us all taped.
I tend to like to get into all corners of something. Plus, I'd hoped to counter your view of nationalism as being an automatic negative. In fact I suspect we agree on a fundamental view of things, before you get as far as nationalism if you like.
I suppose, just to back up my #201, I didn't want to be pidgeonholed! (The very thought!)
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
You first point about influence in the EU is total nonsense. Scotland at present has no influence in the EU, and indeed under present arrangements has less MEPs than most countries even less than Malta I believe.
On defense policy, who do you suggest we attack, and why? If you do not think we should attack anyone why is Irelands policy not a good one?
SNP policy is to join the UN but not NATO.
A Scottish air force would be small but would need bases. Remember 8% of all UK military equipment belongs to Scotland.
On the economy, another red herring. The euro has not stopped Irelands exports to the UK. France and germany would appear to be coping quite well also.
Laws? That is what parliaments are for. That would be one of the main reasons for leaving the UK so we can produce our own laws.
The referendum that the unionist are running scared off is to allow negotiations to start. Everything else would flow from there.
I did not reply to your post 132 as I admit I was amused by your line "chocolate costing the NHS as much as alcohol" one of the main points of this bill is the violence the cheap alcohol causes on our streets. Being attacked with smartie tube does not worry me as much as being attacked with an empty fortified wine bottle.
On Schools, did your childrens schools suddenly deteriorate after May 2007? as it would appear that prior to this date all schools were delightful places, or at least the Labour spin would have you believe that.
Complain about this comment
#188 Sparklet
I'm afraid you're indulging in sophistry, so I'll respond in kind.Yes, absolutely, whilst all the constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath are indeed a part of that population that can be referred to as the 'people of Scotland', not all of the 'people of Scotland' are constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath.
The constituents of those to seats are a subset of the population. The voters in those two seats are a subset of the original subset, and the the labour voters are a yet smaller, if lamentably sizeable, subset of the subsequent subset (still with me?).
As such, Brown and Darling purport only to represent subset that is the constituents of Edinburgh South West, and Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath even though only a much smaller subset actually voted for them.
They therefore, do not represent the 'people of Scotland' in its entirety, they only represent their constituants (and some might argue that they don't even do that particularly well but, as I live in the current Laubour fiefdom of East Lothian, I can't really comment on their performace as constituency MPs (just don't get me started on my own one).
# 160
Can't really comment on this but, for what it's worth, I do think that the fact that the SNP members in Westminster do not, on a point of principle, vote on English only issues, unlike their 'Scottish' Labour, Lib-Den and Tory conterparts is to be commended. At least they can't be accused of inflicting unpopular and unnecessary policies on those who live in the rest of the UK even when it doesn't affect them ore their own constituents.
Complain about this comment
Re 202
It is not just England thats in a stooshie over the EU, lets be honest there are fundamental flaws in it that are getting worse not better.
Look at the Constitution, now rebranded the Lisbon Treaty. France and Holland rejected the constitution, fundamentally rejected it. They just went away and rebranded it. The Lisbon treaty. The Irish concerns are being ignored, just like ours would be in any future treaty. But the UK's views are not so easily ignored. Euro Scepticism used to be a purely English affliction, it is much more widespread now.
It is vital for Scotland that the CAP gets reformed. Do you think we will be able to lead a charge against the French?
Common Fisheries? Our position will be strengthened? I don't think so. anyway what use is an MEP? we would have 14 out of 780. A lot less than 13%.
Westminster enacts EU legislation, a lot is made of how we are hampered by this, to an extent we are but so is the rest of Europe. A lot of rubbish is also spoken in the name of EU legislation.
I feel the EU is a good institution that is really important to peace and stability in Europe and the larger it is the better. But to enlarge it requires it to do less and leave more to member states.
But it needs serious reform as indicated by the votes held. We will undoubetdly be stronger if we go through this process as part of the UK.
Complain about this comment
#200
The Climate Change Bill suggests, in what is a consultation document, that parts of our forest MAY be LEASED, at a significant cash benefit to the Forestry Commission, to private operations for up to 75 years. That is clearly NOT privatisation.
Stop talking rubbish.
In the absence of the financial powers which would allow the Scottish Government to invest in the Forestry Commission and
reverse the damage the Labour/LibDem administration did to it this could give the Commission the funds to hugely improve and expand its operations.
A significant proportion of your posts including this Forestry nonsense mimic exactly Labour Party press releases.
Complain about this comment
# 195 northhighlander
Don't think that's true.Although there are Scottish MEPs, Scotland has no votes in the Council of Ministers and so has no direct representation. The UK, as one of the EU's larger member states does, granted have a higher number of votes than the smaller nations so the UK's influence is potentially greater. But Scotland is not the UK and the UK is not Scotland and, what might be in the UK's best overall interests at a macro level might not be in Scotland's best interests at a micro one (feel free to replace Scotland with Wales, N. Ireland, The NE/SW/Home Counties/Whatever).
If Scotland were independant, we would have our own votes in council (albeit as one of the smaller nations) but that would be direct representation (we would also, potentially, gain a few more MEPs too). Granted, the remainder of the UK may end up losing votes (and therefore influence) but, I would imagine that there would be very few occasions where Scotland's and the UK's views on a particular postition on an issue (with the possible exception of the ownership of N Sea oil and gas fields) would be so diametrically opposed that we would vote in opposition to each other. So, on an issue by issue basis, the influence of Scotland and the UK working together in partnership within the EU could actually be greater than it is at present.
Complain about this comment
#203. northhighlander
"Therefore technology has progressed, human understanding of how to build better, safer and cheaper is greatly improved.
Nuclear technology is no different.
A nuclear powerstation can go from Brownfield Site to production in 4 years."
As I'm still patiently waiting for your factual not assertions list of the benefits of nuclear.
Olkiluoto 3 losses to reach €1.7 billion and since this was started in 2005 and latest projected start is now 2012, 3 years behind schedule.
Latest costs per Kwh figures show that nuclear is the most expensive by more than 25% but who cares its only money.
Complain about this comment
Re 202
!4 out of 750ish is not a high degree of representation, considerably worse than we have at Westminster.
In effect most EU decisions are made in private meetings, many by unelected officals.
Euroscepticism used to be a peculiarly English affliction, it is much more widespread across Europe now.
The EU is an organisation in crisis. It needs reform. In Scotland our national interst needs reform of the CAP, and the common fisheries policy.
Will be able to do this on our own? Eh No. Will we be able to achieve this as part of the UK, perhaps not, but the chances are considerably higher.
Look at the Irish rejection of the Lisbon treaty. They are being ignored and will be asked to vote again, with little or no change to the treaty. We would be treated the same.
Complain about this comment
Re 208
Irelands policy on Defense might well suit them, does it suit us? My point is it is not exactly a well developed argument that we just copy Ireland. Not exactly a fully functional ready to deploy policy is it? Seems to be a point that has not been thought out at all.
Re the jobs situation. We have more than 8 percent of all defense jobs in Scotland. There would be a net loss of jobs. A substantial one.
Re the EU 16 MEPs out of 750ish. Well what a big difference that will make.
So we join the UN, but not NATO. Why bother joining any? NATO is doing a good job of keeping the peace in Central Europe. But hey thats a long way from us it is really a residue of the empire days what?
I did not say adoption of the Euro would reduce trade, I merely observed it would build a barrier however small between us and the rest of the UK. Also business operating across the UK would find this a little more difficult.
If the referendum was only to allow negotiations to start with a second one required for acceptance then I say fine lets get on with it. However that is not whats proposed and nor will it ever be by the SNP.
Re Chocolate / alcahol. If you think for one minute the Morons who behave badly across the UK will stop due to an increase inproce then you are totally wrong. Prohibition has never worked only education ever will. This just puts the cost up for everyone. It will probably put crime up as well as those who behave the way you describe will still carry on, with more pressure to find the funds to do so.
Obesity is a huge problem that is being pretty much ignored. That is my point.
Re schools. My point is that the only funding mechanism that was available has been removed and replaced with nothing at all. Now I agree that PFI was not perfect but it is a whole lot better than nothing. When the SNP dither and do nothing my kids and many more like them suffer.
Complain about this comment
Re 209
They don't vote on anything at all form the stats. But if the people they represent are happy with this performance that is democracy.
Complain about this comment
#188,
Nope, just your "collective punishment" approach is very ugly.
Complain about this comment
#196, brig - I refer you to my previous post on the subject,
"doesn't mean there is the slightest prospect it will happen".
Merely trying to coax you out of your sulk, staged or otherwise.
Complain about this comment
208. At 11:51am on 10 Mar 2009, dubbieside wrote:
northhighlander
"You first point about influence in the EU is total nonsense. Scotland at present has no influence in the EU, and indeed under present arrangements has less MEPs than most countries even less than Malta I believe."
NO - Malta has 5 MEPs, Scotland currently has 7 MEPs out of a total of 785.
2 x no influence is still no influence!!!
"On the economy, another red herring. The euro has not stopped Irelands exports to the UK. France and germany would appear to be coping quite well also."
NO - not a red herring - what northhighlander actually said was
"If we joined the Euro we would have interest rates set for the benefit of the largest countries in the eurozone, France and Germany."
It is a fact that many countries in the Eurozone are struggling with the 'one size fits all' policies.
Not to mention tourism from England may be affected if the Euro is adopted in Scotland alone.
"That would be one of the main reasons for leaving the UK so we can produce our own laws."
Sorry but NO again - that's the problem - Brussels dictates many of the laws. Of course you could always add yet more laws to an already grossly overlegislated population. (You'll find most of the laws now passed in the UK have emanated from the EU - the UK govt admits to 50%, similar to the German govt - however the German Constitutional Court stated 80%!!)
"one of the main points of this bill is the violence the cheap alcohol causes on our streets."
[Interesting to see what happened when a company tried to sell a low alcohol level wine - because it was 8% rather than 15% the FSA seized it because it was in contravention of EU legislation. Also when the Tories proposed to single out alcopops for a tax rise, Labour said it would be illegal under EU rules]
Our freedom of action is being increasingly restricted by the ever-increasing extension of EU competences.
Complain about this comment
#202 northhighlander
I don't get your arithmetic. It turns out that UKGB+NI has 78 MEPs and 1 commissioner, Baroness Ashton anyone?, and 1 representative in the Council of Ministers. If Scotland was independent and was to be in agreement with the Rest of UKGB+NI, there would be 85 MEPs, 2 commissioners and 2 in the Council.
( 7 Scots MEPs at present, sorry. 8-( )
Complain about this comment
Sparklet,
Going to have to answer your posts later, I'm afraid - but I do have answers!
;-)
Complain about this comment
209. At 12:04pm on 10 Mar 2009, Fit Like?
"They therefore, do not represent the 'people of Scotland' in its entirety"
Well yes that's how politics works - are you saying an SNP govt. would be set up any differently?
ie would the people of Scotland 'in its entrirety' be able to vote for the First Minister and other govt. Ministers?
Complain about this comment
we would have interest rates that benefit another larger country, if we joined the euro ... Kind of irrelevant in the recession/depression brought on by Brown's incompetence, but we do have interest rates currently set to benefit another larger country.
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
Why do you keep evading the point?
You said that Scotland would loose influence in the EU. As we have no influence at present that is nonsense. So you have changed to 16 out of 750ish. 16 is better than 7 and it would be direct representation.
On defense just what is your point? Do we look for someone to attack or do we have a small defense force?
On defense jobs, how many do we have at present? How many will we loss? How will we loss them?
On the euro you said we start to build barriers to trade. How? Why? How are Ireland and all other euro countries able to overcome these barriers and somehow Scotland would not.
On the referendum that is very much what is proposed. Go and read the document.
No I do not think the idiots will stop behaving badly due to a price increase. But it is a start, and if you do not think we need to start somewhere it is my opinion that you are mistaken. How long do you think education will take to work? 5 years? 10 years? What would you do in the meantime? Labours only answer is do nothing, hope it will go away. Its not going to go away.
You never answered the question about the state of schools before Mat 2007, why? If PPP/PFI was the only answer we were asking the wrong question. Do you think it is right that we pay 25 billion pounds for app 5 billion pounds worth of assets?
If Macmillan at the CBI North British branch says the Futures Trust is they way to go, do you think maybe we should try it? If it takes longer but works better is it worth the wait? Or do you like governments that run about like headless chickens spraying money about with no plan or strategy, the billions given to the banks being the prime example.
Complain about this comment
#219 Sparklet
Well said. It's just that up here our take is that:- "Our freedom of action is being increasingly restricted by the ever-increasing extension of Westminster competences."
Complain about this comment
#216 northhighlander
I'm inclined to agree but that is a matter that's between them and the constituents they are supposed to represent. If sufficient numbers of those constituents feel that they haven't been doing a good job, then I suspect they may find themselves out of a job come the next election; which is how it should be for any MP of any party.Complain about this comment
Sparklet
On Malta I did say I was not sure, and I apologize as I did not mean to misled the blog. (Well it works in Westminster) however I have found some actual figures.
Slovakia has a population of 5.4m people and is represented by 14 MEPs.
Finland has a population of 5.3m and is represented by 14 MEPs.
Ireland has a population of 4.4m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.
Lithuania has a population of 3.3m people and is represented by 13 MEPs.
Latvia has a population of 2.2m people and is represented by 9 MEPs.
Slovenia has a population of 2m people and is represented by 7 MEPs.
Estonia has a population of 1.3m people and is represented by 6 MEPs.
Scotland has a population of 5.2m people and is represented by a mere 6 MEPs. Before anyone jumps up and down, Scotlands MEPs will reduce from 7 to six after the June election. I also think (code for not sure) that all these countries has an EU commissioner in addition to the MEPs.
Complain about this comment
213. At 12:36pm on 10 Mar 2009, cynicalHighlander
It seems that most of the rest of Europe realise it's unwise to burn our bridges on nuclear.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2009/02/german-reactions-to-swedish-decision.html
But exactly what is the alternative??
This is another area where our politicians have badly let us down!!
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/4953877/How-will-the-Tories-fill-our-power-shortfall.html
Complain about this comment
225. At 2:52pm on 10 Mar 2009, handclapping
That's exactly the problem - you're mistaking many ludicrous policies as being Westminster based - they're not - they're EU based!!!
Hate to disillusion you but the problems won't simply just disappear if you get rid of Westminster - though the SNP would really like you to believe that!
Complain about this comment
#222 Sparklet
No, of course not. But at least under the PR system we have for Holyrood, the make up of the various party groupings is a lot more represenative of the way people have voted than is the case under the first past the post system used for Westminster. It also pretty much ensures that we don't see large 'Landslide' governments form where the winning party has an almost entirey free hand to inflict whatever policies it sees fit on the population. I actually see that as one of the plus points of having a minority administration, it has to try and find a cross party concensus to get its policies through.
In an ideal world, this would mean that good policy ideas might not get passed over just because they come from the opposition and bad policy ideas, even when proposed by the government can be voted down. Unfortunately, it doesn't quite work like that at the moment since both the SNP and Labour seem to insist on opposing each other just for the sake of it, with the Lib-Dems, Tories and Greens supporting whichever side is most likely to accrue them the greatest percieved benefit.
There is also the fact that in Holyrood, the First Minister is not, by default the leader of the largest party (although, in practice, this ends up being the case) but has to be elected by all MSPs.
Not perfect, I grant you, but then no system of government ever is and some are less perfect than others.
Complain about this comment
#229 Sparklet
Trident?
ID cards?
Iraq?
More nuclear power stations for Scotland?
Or are you thinking straight bananas?
Complain about this comment
227. At 2:58pm on 10 Mar 2009, dubbieside wrote:
"I also think (code for not sure) that all these countries has an EU commissioner in addition to the MEPs."
Yes currently all the countries have a Commissioner but the Lisbon Treaty is looking to reduce that number by about a third (that was one of Ireland's bugbears) - not sure what the latest is on this?
However the Commissioners are supposed to be above National politics and each has a brief to represent so eg. Fisheries is represented by a guy from Malta, and Energy by someone from Latvia (they are therefore very influenced by the staff under their control - similar to our own civil service set-up).
Who gets what brief is decided by the President He would also be able to decide who exactly the Commissioner for Scotland was, although Scotland would be able to suggest candidates! (Gordon Brown perhaps????)
So just how much influence would they be able to exert for national interests??
And like I said 2 x no influence is still no influence!!
Complain about this comment
231. At 3:12pm on 10 Mar 2009, handclapping
I said many - not ALL !!!
but yes I believe more nuclear power stations would be a good thing - better than no electricity and blackouts!!!
Complain about this comment
#232 Sparklet
The last time England had any influence in the EU was under Saint Maggie. So like you said "2 x no influence is still no influence!!" and that may be your problem, but not ours.
Complain about this comment
230. At 3:09pm on 10 Mar 2009, Fit Like?
Unfortunately we don't have an ideal world and I think what we have will get a whole lot worse if the Lisbon Treaty is ratified!!
Complain about this comment
#233 Sparklet
It's the English who are liable to no electricity and blackouts. NIMBY bites! Our two nukes export all their output to keep your lights on now, what is your Westminster doing to replace them and give the English some certainty of supply? Perhaps they haven't noticed that there is the possibility of Scots independence.
Complain about this comment
234. At 3:42pm on 10 Mar 2009, handclapping wrote:
#232 Sparklet
"The last time England had any influence in the EU was under Saint Maggie. So like you said "2 x no influence is still no influence!!" and that may be your problem, but not ours."
NO - it's ALL of OUR problem, plus all the other Member States who have no influence.
It's about time the People had a say in how the EU is run.
Complain about this comment
#228. Sparklet
Beyond Nuclear
Battle in a Poor Land for Riches Beneath the Soil
I suppose as long as Britain can have what it wants these people can die or be sent foreign aid.
"But exactly what is the alternative??
This is another area where our politicians have badly let us down!"
Since we export electricity and nuclear only supplies 7% of UK usage we just don't need it.
Complain about this comment
236. At 3:48pm on 10 Mar 2009, handclapping wrote:
"Our two nukes export all their output to keep your lights on now"
Well - that's interesting as I live in Scotland, but once they're decommissioned in the not too distant future - what then?
I don't particularly relish the thought of much of the countryside covered by wind turbines (heavily subsidised and very inefficient)
Complain about this comment
Hi brigadier,
Its certainly a pleasant surprize to see that there is a bit more respect being shown both to you and from you these days.
Ref#194.
I'm not sure if you will agree but I would assert you are a "nationalist" just as much as many who claim to be "nationalists" on this blog.
If you are a supporter of the status quo, could it be possible that you could fairly be considered to be a "British Nationalist" in other's minds if not your own or would that make you feel too parochial?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
#235 Sparklet
I'm not going to disagree with you on that one.
Complain about this comment
#239 Sparklet
I don't expect hardline unionists all to have the same views, but I do wish that you could at least sing from the same songsheet and show some consistency.
The power issue in general and nuclear in particular was discussed extensively on Brian's Confident performance, but don't mention Iceland thread, with Reluctant-Expat doing most of the blethering for your side. His #264 is pretty representative of his arguments: "Question: The proposed Severn Barrage would alone produce twice our total electricity exports. And then you can add the proposed Thames Barrage too. And another at The Wash.
All this talk from Salmond that we could produce a gazillion GW of renewable electricity.....to whom can we sell it if our neighbours don't need it?"
It really would save time to have a look at his posts from that thread and the counters to them rather than to start again from scratch.
But the $64,000 question left outstanding is still: Cui bono from new nuclear?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#239 Sparklet
Sorry to mess up the link to your #239 in my previous post.
Another gem from the thread there referenced is Reluctant-Expat's #270 which says: "The UK is one of the more compliant countries when it comes to EU policies and rules. France is one of the lowest, especially when it comes to deregulation."
Obviously he was out of sync with the Supreme Leader's "fighting for stronger regulation since 1997" that day.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#190 -
I've never heard of nuclear power described as a short-term solution before, Neil, because whilst it may be a solution, short-term it most definately isn't.
If we are committed to building a nuclear plant, we are talking about a build cycle of approx 10 years to bring on-line, a productive lifespan of around 60-70 years and a decommissing cycle of over 30 years to take any site to brownfield status (at a cost of several billions). We then, of course, are still left with the spent fuel that has to be safely stored, and despite UKAE's example, we can't just bury it in a landfill site.
During this 100 year short-term solution, research funds will be diverted from renewables to look at making the uranium refinement process more efficient, the storage of spent fuel more safe, the decommissioning safer, quicker and more cost effective. Renewables will be thrown the scraps from the feast. When, since they would be operating on meagre resources, renewables fall behind what Westminster tells us our energy needs are, we will build more nuclear plants and repeat the cycle ad nauseum. All the while spending billions upon billions.
Of course, the easy way to break the cycle is do what Sammo should have and just say no. Scotland produces more electricity than it can ever use. If we could efficiently store this electricity for meaningful periods of time, we wouldn't need anything other than renewable sources. And that's before we even factor in the leaps and bounds being made in this sector. Even just fronting the money saved in not having to decommission nuclear plants and store the waste would move the renewable energy sector on to the next level.
Nuclear energy is something England needs. The SNP shouldn't allow a Westminster government to commit us to new nuclear plants when we could well be independent before the plants are even brought on-line.
Complain about this comment
242. At 5:33pm on 10 Mar 2009, Brownedov
The great thing about being an independent thinker is that I don't need to sing from any particular songsheet (unlike SNP supporters!).
And as a recent visitor to this blog the thread you linked to was before my time but thanks for the link anyway.
As far as the Barrages are concerned - aren't these still at the 'feasibility' (still dithering) stage? and similarly controversial.
Complain about this comment
243. At 5:49pm on 10 Mar 2009, Brownedov wrote:
"The UK is one of the more compliant countries when it comes to EU policies and rules"
Irritatingly yes - something that was commented on by Jean Monnet in his autobiography 'Memoirs' when he described the importance of getting the UK on board the EEC to further his grand plan for the United States of Europe!
Complain about this comment
#244 ForteanJo
Excellent post.
If we had spent the vast sums of money we have wasted in nuclear power generation on renewables instead we would be exporting power in huge amounts by now.
My biggest problem is understanding why some perfectly sensible Scots still swallow the nuclear guff
Complain about this comment
#245 Sparklet
Glad to hear you're a freethinker but your posts do happen to be very close to the unionist party line followed by both the NuLab and "official" wings, so it's not easy to tell.
"As far as the Barrages are concerned - aren't these still at the 'feasibility' (still dithering) stage? and similarly controversial"
That's certainly my understanding, and it looks most likely to happen first in the Solway Firth, with technology that's not really so new. My referencing those arguments was simply to demonstrate how selective that poster's pro-nuclear stance can be.
#246 Sparklet
The quote is from R-E not me - I'm the one who thinks the UK are bad Europeans, and have agreed with Monnet on that since the '60s. But my point was more about the paucity of evidence for Duff Gordon's claims to have wanted more regulation all along.
I don't quite follow your "[i]rritatingly yes". Had the UK joined the ECSC in the '50s, it could have been a designer of the club and its rules. By leaving it a decade before considering it, it was too late to get the lead role it wanted and has sulked ever since, being particularly curmudgeonly in joining any of the social and free movement initiatives and especially in doling out meaningful democracy to us hoi polloi - a condition insisted upon for new members nowadays.
Too late now to wait for modding, but I'll look back tomorrow, I hope. TTFN.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#239
You are obviously unaware of the stand-by hydro generation which keeps the lights on perfectly adequately on those occasions (fairly frequent)when out nuclear plants are down. The reason the hydro is kept on standby rather than nuclear is that it is flexible and can be turned on and off very quickly.
Nuclear is clumsy and can't.
Courtesy of Labour stupidity we are building up a huge portfolio of campaigns for the next election.
1. They blocked LIT
2. They insist on nuclear power
3. They insist in a GB soccer team
4. The have blocked a referendum
5. They are cutting £500 million from the scottish budget
6. They want to take away our Council Tax benefit
7. they have imposed a huge surcharge on renewable energy programmes in the North sea
8. The scuppered the carbon capture programme
9 they are stealing our money to pay for the London olympics
10 they want to privatise the Post Office
and so on
I could go on all night
Complain about this comment
#245 Sparklet
"The great thing about being an independent thinker is that I don't need to sing from any particular songsheet (unlike SNP supporters!)."
What an odd comment!
As a comparative newbie, you may not realise that many of us on the independence side of the argument are not members of the SNP, though most of us vote for them.
There is no "songsheet" as you call it (though party members presumably stick to the policy of the party - like members of other parties).
You maybe an "independent thinker", but your anti EU arguments sound remarkably like those of other anti-EU posters. One might as well suggest that you are warbling away to a set of prescribed ditties.
Complain about this comment
#133 northhighlander
Apologies. I forgot to reply. I didn't notice this was to me initially.
"You make a lot of assumptions in your posts. Your arguments would stack up with more credibility if they were based on something more solid."
Yes, I know! ;-)
"Also don't you understand, economics may be a nusiance but one that won't go away. Giving politicians a blank cheque to negotiate a new constitutional arrangement, or a divorce settlement if you prefer, is a high risk strategy given the holyrood experience."
Again, quite so ;-)
"Don't you think the argument would work a little better if you actually had worked out some indication of what the whole thing would cost, what it would look like?"
It would be nice....
"The fact that the SNP will not talk about such things makes me think such details are unlikley to increase support so best bury them. keep the details from the voters, a policy learned form labour perhaps?"
Well, that's one theory.
1. Would there be any country's figures that would look good? Don't they all borrow. Even sensible figures might freak the voting public?
2. Are they keeping some of these details until the referendum campaign, where thet can be properly peddled? Because any earlier and they are susceptible to being carved up by the opposition for being inaccurate?
3. (What I suspect) Because figures are a difficult matter to "sell", and Labour will go all out to make even good figures sound SO scary...perhaps the SNP is counting (sorry!) on the common sense arguments of "Union strange, independence normal" to convince voters.
4. (What I also suspect) Where figures are mentioned, I think the SNP will take the stance of defending independence (and therefore wait for attacks from unionists using alleged figures), and not promote it with their own figures, where they can be attacked. So they can make Labour out to be scaremongering, desperate and negative.
Hope this makes sense.
What do you make of this though:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#121 brigadierjohn
"The only argument needed for the Union is: It Exists."
Murder, rape, disease, famine all exist.....
Complain about this comment
#186 Sparklet
"oldnat wrote:
#170 Neil_Small147
"I think you are confusing two distinctly different issues"
No - he isn't. It's essential people in Scotland know exactly where the SNP stand on ALL these issues"
You completely miss the point and fail to understand independence.
The SNP will not automatically be the party in power in independent Scotland. They could well not even exist, as they are merely an umbrella party for all supporters of independence from across the political spectrum - some speculate they will fracture. So whatever their manifesto would be is quite not relevant.
Anyway, point is there will of course be a general election where all these normal issues relating to governing a nation will be debated, just as they have been, are, and will be in any normal country.
Why would we have to have our general election debate before the referendum to decide if we will in fact be getting a general election?
Rs about t!t?
Complain about this comment
#187 Sparklet
Oh, dear. Quoting Wiki is a dubious and dangerously unreliable exercise...shouldn't you know that! (It's forbidden in academic coursework.)
independence:
- freedom from control
subjugation:
- act of forcing into submission
Hmm...
dependence:
- reliance on somebody or something
So, do you think you were being a little over the top there?
"By embracing the EU, the SNP is actually following a path of 'Subjugation'."
Nope.
Nobody forces a sovereign state to join the EU! They negotiate it.
Even if it turns out Scotland is controlled by the EU (no...silly), it can't be subjugation, as parliament, or more likely a referendum, would have voted for it??
Complain about this comment
#133 northhighlander
Apologies. I forgot to reply. I didn't notice this was to me initially.
"You make a lot of assumptions in your posts. Your arguments would stack up with more credibility if they were based on something more solid."
Yes, I know! ;-)
"Also don't you understand, economics may be a nusiance but one that won't go away. Giving politicians a blank cheque to negotiate a new constitutional arrangement, or a divorce settlement if you prefer, is a high risk strategy given the holyrood experience."
Again, quite so ;-)
"Don't you think the argument would work a little better if you actually had worked out some indication of what the whole thing would cost, what it would look like?"
It would be nice....
"The fact that the SNP will not talk about such things makes me think such details are unlikley to increase support so best bury them. keep the details from the voters, a policy learned form labour perhaps?"
Well, that's one theory.
1. Would there be any country's figures that would look good? Don't they all borrow. Even sensible figures might freak the voting public?
2. Are they keeping some of these details until the referendum campaign, where thet can be properly peddled? Because any earlier and they are susceptible to being carved up by the opposition for being inaccurate?
3. (What I suspect) Because figures are a difficult matter to "sell", and Labour will go all out to make even good figures sound SO scary...perhaps the SNP is counting (sorry!) on the common sense arguments of "Union strange, independence normal" to convince voters.
4. (What I also suspect) Where figures are mentioned, I think the SNP will take the stance of defending independence (and therefore wait for attacks from unionists using alleged figures), and not promote it with their own figures, where they can be attacked. So they can make Labour out to be scaremongering, desperate and negative.
Hope this makes sense.
What do you make of this though:
Google:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
and open result headed:
"Document 1 Andrew, Sorry to bother you.. I was speaking ..."
I thought you might be interested :-)
Complain about this comment
#133 northhighlander
Apologies. I forgot to reply. I didn't notice this was to me initially.
"You make a lot of assumptions in your posts. Your arguments would stack up with more credibility if they were based on something more solid."
Yes, I know! ;-)
"Also don't you understand, economics may be a nusiance but one that won't go away. Giving politicians a blank cheque to negotiate a new constitutional arrangement, or a divorce settlement if you prefer, is a high risk strategy given the holyrood experience."
Again, quite so ;-)
"Don't you think the argument would work a little better if you actually had worked out some indication of what the whole thing would cost, what it would look like?"
It would be nice....
"The fact that the SNP will not talk about such things makes me think such details are unlikley to increase support so best bury them. keep the details from the voters, a policy learned form labour perhaps?"
Well, that's one theory.
1. Would there be any country's figures that would look good? Don't they all borrow. Even sensible figures might freak the voting public?
2. Are they keeping some of these details until the referendum campaign, where thet can be properly peddled? Because any earlier and they are susceptible to being carved up by the opposition for being inaccurate?
3. (What I suspect) Because figures are a difficult matter to "sell", and Labour will go all out to make even good figures sound SO scary...perhaps the SNP is counting (sorry!) on the common sense arguments of "Union strange, independence normal" to convince voters.
4. (What I also suspect) Where figures are mentioned, I think the SNP will take the stance of defending independence (and therefore wait for attacks from unionists using alleged figures), and not promote it with their own figures, where they can be attacked. So they can make Labour out to be scaremongering, desperate and negative.
Hope this makes sense.
What do you make of this though:
On the Scottish government website search for:
"Andrew, sorry to bother you"
(tbc)
I thought you might be interested :-)
Complain about this comment
#133 northhighlander
After your search, choose result "0055551"
Interesting, eh? Read, or skip, to the end :-)
Complain about this comment
#195 northhighlander
I thought you were making some good valid points but then this:
"We would go from having some considerable influence over EU matters as part of the UK to being a bit player having to do what we are told.
What influence exactly? You have 13% of the MPs at Westminster! Even of you're English, you have a ruling party with a majority on only a third of all votes cast. And then, it is under no obligation to have referenda, as parliament, not the people, is sovereign....bit dodgy.
Rest of your post, quite fair. Hope this means you see that not all pro-independence posters are as "mad" as you paint them in your #200. I listen when you make a fair point. Keep making them I say.
Complain about this comment
#210 northhighlander
"I feel the EU is a good institution that is really important to peace and stability in Europe and the larger it is the better. But to enlarge it requires it to do less and leave more to member states."
100% agree.
"But it needs serious reform as indicated by the votes held. We will undoubetdly be stronger if we go through this process as part of the UK."
100% disagree. You are trusting a ruling unaccountable elite in Westminster with their own, as they say on NR's, snouts in troughs as priority, to help reform another bunch of unaccountables with their snouts in troughs.
Not going to work. Need governements elected by the people where people are sovereign to do the influencing here. (We should be one and get involved.)
Complain about this comment
#239 Sparklet
"I don't particularly relish the thought of much of the countryside covered by wind turbines"
Och, you didn't say anything that much stood out, until that ;-)
I love wind turbines, they are gorgeous!
Complain about this comment
253. At 01:08am on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
No AW it's you who's missing the point.
Again we're getting back to what 'Independence' is. Supporting 'self-governance' for Scotland yet also supporting EU is a complete contradiction.
Virtually all the items on Neil's list will be subject to the EU.
Not surprising the SNP don't want to debate this.
Just look at the attached Euro encroachment - not much left is there?
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/comment.live?article=13989
Complain about this comment
#261 Sparklet
No, it's you!! ;-)
We'd better be an independent nation in the EU then and debate this like all the other nations do. It's run by soveriegn states, not voicesless parts of the UK.
Or should we let out mammy (the UK) do it for us? That sounds much more sensible....
You worries may have some basis, but the end of the day isn't here yet. The EU is in a process of change - you said so yourself.
WHO changes it? That's right, it's member STATES. It's not called international relations for nothing, Sparklet.
Complain about this comment
262. At 07:56am on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
But they won't be truly 'independent' nations will they.
You may prefer to live in a 'STATE' but I don't, I value national sovereignty very highly.
And interesting you so often refer to Norway in your posts (as do the SNP in their manifesto)
Norway is not a member of the EU but rather part of EFTA - there is a difference!!
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=10488
Complain about this comment
#261 Sparklet
Look Sparklet, I have to go out, but...
Further to my #262, this is the best chance you are going to get.
Assuming there is a UK after Scotland becomes an ordinary nation again, you will still have to renegotiate your voting quota at least etc. etc,. in the EU.
From my post on another thread:
"429. At 00:10am on 09 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
#417 palacedim
The point about constitutional competency is merely one about having national representation. We don't currently have it.
On the EU:
MYTH: Labour's Douglas Alexander claims that an independent Scotland would have to leave the EU and that we would then be stuck at the end of the long queue of countries applying to join. "This is a factual matter of European law which the European Commission and leading academics agree on," quoth he.
Most Unionists disagree but only Scottish Labour seems determined to perpetuate this nonsense.
TRUTH: If Scotland became independent it would then be in exactly the same position regarding the EU as England, Wales and Northern Ireland, the so-called rump UK. Curiously, no-one seriously suggests they would be left queuing for renewed EU membership. The Maastricht treaty conferred EU citizenship on the citizens all member states.
For Scotland to be forced out of the EU would, therefore, require us to be stripped of our EU citizenship and expelled at a time when the EU wants more members. Such a decision would have to be taken by an EU summit of heads of state and government ? and it is impossible to imagine why any one of them would reject Scotland, considering our resources and location.
The European Commission has never said Scotland would be expelled from the EU for reclaiming its independence. Indeed many senior European figures have said exactly the opposite, eg Eamonn Gallagher, the Glasgow-born former EU ambassador to the UN, who said: ?There could be no sustainable legal or political objection to separate Scottish membership of the European Union.?
What would happen is straightforward. An independent Scotland would become a member of the EU in its own right after its financial arrangement with Brussels was negotiated.
Scotland's position in the EU must be contrasted with its position in the UK.
My post on a previous thread to a sceptic:
All these problems with the EU are hardly arguments for Scotland to stay with the UK, are they?
You can question Scotland's relevance in the EU, as you can, and I think you do, question other European nations' relevance in it.
But that is not the point.
You cannot question Scotland's relevance in the UK. It hasn't got any.
Independence is not a magic pill to paradise. It is a process, to a better situation.
Stage one, succeed from the iniquitous UK Union.
Stage two reaffirm place in the world.
Saying Scotland wouldn't have any meaningful status in the EU doesn't make the UK work and stop Scotland being a non-country within it. These things are still true. So it is still correct to move on to independence, regardless.
The question of the EU has no bearing on the core arguments of whether or not to be independent (in case you thought it did).
It is OK for you to choose staying with the Union as your world vehicle, in preference to the EU, because you have meaningful representation in the UK.
That works best for you.
It does not work for us.
And from the next poster, who agreed:
The simple basic point that has to be made time and time again is that the EU is an entirely voluntary union and no country is held in it against its will.
What Scotland wants to achieve is the independence that would give it the free choice of staying in or negotiating withdrawal.
The same as any other "country".
At present Scotland had no status whatsover either in the UK or the EU.
The EU question in the Scottish constitutional debate is a red herring.
We have to be independent before we even think about our EU position."
It's your chance.
Post independence we all are members still but have to renegotiate. Sovereign nations with sovereignty with the people all saying hang on to Lisbon. Won't the EU have to think on.
Scotland highlighting this issue could be the best favour you're going to get.
OK, off now, back later in the afternoon maybe :-)
Complain about this comment
#263 Sparklet
Interesting points you raise, all, actually.
I have already accepted there will be negotiation - and a lot !;-)
Someone on NR's suggested we'd be better off forming alliances with the Scandi countries.
I would, as with the EU, look at all options. Nothing need be an absolute given.....that's the beauty of being able to negotiate!
As I said to Brig, it's the way it is.
International politics is between sovereign states. It might not be a perfectly fair game, but if you're not one, you don't even get to play!
TTFN
;-)
Complain about this comment
248. At 11:38pm on 10 Mar 2009, Brownedov
"I don't quite follow your "[i]rritatingly yes". Had the UK joined the ECSC in the '50s, it could have been a designer of the club and its rules. By leaving it a decade before considering it, it was too late to get the lead role it wanted and has sulked ever since, being particularly curmudgeonly in joining any of the social and free movement initiatives and especially in doling out meaningful democracy to us hoi polloi - a condition insisted upon for new members nowadays."
Ah yes - that old mantra of "in Europe, not run by europe".
If you're a follower of Monnet then you will realise that the path of the EEC/EU was pre-determined.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jean_Monnet
And is clearly stated in his 'Memoirs'
[And I make no apology for referring to Wikipedia, AW, it allows debate, and disputed articles are highlighted as such- unlike most other Encyclopaedic references and govt propaganda]
Complain about this comment
#266 Sparklet
"[And I make no apology for referring to Wikipedia, AW, it allows debate, and disputed articles are highlighted as such- unlike most other Encyclopaedic references and govt propaganda]"
I know, I'm not that snobby about it, just trying to get one over you and your 'poor wee Scotland' do dah!
In a rush, so will plug any holes you make in my argument later. I think we agree though - we both want our nations to have meaningful sovereignty! There must be a way we can both get what we want - lets be cunning about it. I'd see England as a potential close ally in many ways...!
:-)
Complain about this comment
264. At 08:23am on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
265. At 08:29am on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
Well - we're getting back to the 'Divide and Rule' principle again (much in the interests of the EU elite)
And that old red herring of expulsion - designed to get any red-blooded Scot demanding their right of membership.
And the 'In Europe, not run by Europe'
- just hasn't worked.
United we stand (or at least can put up a good fight!!), divided we fall.
So I suppose it depends on what sort of future you want - democratic or non-democratic.
Complain about this comment
Sparklet,
I think it is your UK system of no accountability that has made the UK weak in negotiations witht the EU - parliamentary sovereignty, FPTP enabling massive majorities with 36% of votes cast etc.
It allows the elite political class if you like to feather their own nests not work for the electorate. That's been a big problem and I think the UK could have used its influence to much better effect.
But rememeber the UK has baggage re Heath over the whole EU thing anyway and has never been on the front foot since, I don't think.
Time to change both those things and fix them with a healthy dose of constitutional reform (of which we could both take advantage).
Out again....!
;-)
Complain about this comment
269. At 09:42am on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
AW,
I think you need to study the EU model - much worse!! and infinitely less accessible to change.
Just look at the Laeken Declaration and the EU response - 'Ever greater union'. Jean Monnet would be proud!
Complain about this comment
#270 Sparklet
It costs Norway, Iceland, Switzerland more not to be members of the EU and trade with the EU through EFTA. Would you advise membership of the EFTA instead?
How about 52nd, or whatever the next number is, state of the USA?
Do you believe we can go it alone, like Somalia for instance?
What does the bruges group advise on the choices above?
If we have to be in the EU, would it not be better to be directly represented?
Complain about this comment
Brian,
"Alex Salmond would respond that he has done what he can - within the limits of devolution."
That in itself is no criticism of Labour. So the SNP would return an SNP answer. Labour have not that answer to give. When every answer is 'independence', does that spell a competent SNP postion on any specific issue ?
Complain about this comment
#266 Sparklet
"Ah yes - that old mantra of "in Europe, not run by europe"."
I'm sorry, but you leave me none the wiser as to what's irritating you. I assume you disagree with Monnet and/or the ECSC > EEC > EC > EU progression but have no idea why or what you propose to replace it with. Tear the whole lot up and start again? Re-build the Empire / Commonwealth? Join NAFTA?
Many of us have reservations about the EU as it currently is but most home rulers and unionists outwith UKIP and the BNP want to improve it from within, although I do note that Scottish "official" Tories seem less eurosceptic than seems to be the norm amongst their English chums.
Personally, I like the Euro, the Social Chapter, Schengen, the European Courts [to give some relief from the sovereignty of the Westmidden parliament] and much else, but deplore the opacity and unaccountability to the people of its governance.
Busy this afternoon but back tonight, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#240 bobbishop: You're still being too parochial with your "British Nationalist" suggestion - and I hope you don't mean it in the BNP sense. I don't "support" the status quo, I accept it as a reality and will do until I see something better.
I suppose I aspire to be a citizen of the world, because I've been accepted everywhere I've travelled and would hope to reciprocate the welcome.
I also hope that I reciprocate here when respect is shown to me. So thanks for your good wishes.
#252 aye_write: I hope you haven't been thinking that one up for all this time? Because I feel it's rather weak and a wee bit petty.
Let me try again. The things you list do, indeed, exist. So it is unnecessary to make an argument for their existence. Likewise the Earth, soor plooms and Mr Obama.
So the Union exists. It's here. Now! A fact. If you wish to change that fact, it is up to you to make the case and win the votes.
I did not endorse the Union. I noted its existence. I accept its existence. It is unarguable.
That is all I said.
We can take this debate right back to Plato and Aristotle, but it's a long way home via Newton, Darwin and Einstein.
Don't be such a fundamentalist/literalist. You must have an imagination. :-)
Complain about this comment
271. At 10:57am on 11 Mar 2009, handclapping wrote:
#270 Sparklet
It costs Norway, Iceland, Switzerland more not to be members of the EU and trade with the EU through EFTA
That's a bold statement - care to back it up?
Complain about this comment
#270 Sparklet
OK Sparklet, but you are being a bit fatalistic!
Remind me which members are against Lisbon:
UK
Ireland
and...
(I am in a hurry again and can't look back, don't want to remember wrongly!!)
Could all of those countries not have their referendums at the same time, even roughly? A phonecall or two could set that up surely.
Think outside the box if you want to fox or regain control within the EU. It's only people, who can be outsmarted. The States hold the cards. Those rules etc you quote exisit yes, but who, if you go right back to the beginning, made them, let it happen in the first place?
You can reverse the process by playing them at their own game. Scotland could be the catayst you/we need. Think.
I though the brolly brigade were supposed to be very canny at all this. Wiley Empire building wasn't done all neatly and squeaky cleanly was it - where are they (with their skill)?
You just have to be one step ahead of the game. It's politics after all.
(Nothing is certain. No higher body that states is in charge. You could collapse the EU pack of cards if you really, really wanted...not that I am suggesting major chaos! It's a game of chess...)
Complain about this comment
#271 handclapping
Switzerland don't actually participate (well, not in that way, unless Brownedov cares to correct me). Although a member of EFTA, along with Norway, Iceland, and Liechtenstein, only those other three members belong to the European Economic Area. Switzerland's relationship with the EU is determined by separate bilateral agreements.There are pros and cons to EEA membership without EU membership.
The EEA countries enjoy free trade with the EU and participate in the free movement of people.
However, they do have to adopt some of the Laws of the EU while having little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels that create these laws.
They don't bear the financial burdens associated with EU membership, although they contribute financially to the European single market (as handclapping stated).
They don't have to endure a lot of the bureaucracy imposed from Brussels that full EU countries have to endure and they are not obligated to joining the Euro as other entrant countries are.
I suppose the main, downside to EEA membership without EU membership is that
EEA countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds.
That said, despite the downsides, I don't hear Liechtenstein, Norway or Iceland clamouring for full EU membership and I suspect, if Scotland were to become independant, the EU/Efta discussion is one that would have to be considered.
Complain about this comment
Did you all see the huge headlines in the papers and on TV this morning?
Despite the massive economic downturn the SNP has managed to freeze the unfair Council Tax again and John Swinney has given Scottish councils £70million extra to encourage them.
No. I didn't see the headlines either. Just like I didn't see the headlines about the Great Leader addressing a three quarters empty Caird Hall at the "Scottish" Labour Party Conference.
The next election - whenever - bring it on.
Complain about this comment
Sparklet,
I am confused. Are you playing by the rules or something - when there are no rules in politics, only considered consequences.
Why not strengthen your hand so you can "bend" more "rules". There is no referee in international politics, is there.
What do you want?
What do I want?
If it's the same, lets band together and get others to also. A lot of countries having a similtaneous sulk over Lisbon has got to have more impact than one at a time?
Politics is like a playgroup committee only bigger! Therefore are you trying to please an invisible master rather than acting to please yourself (as everybody else does!)?
Just a thought.
Food....... ;-)
Complain about this comment
273. At 11:59am on 11 Mar 2009, Brownedov
Well - the list is pretty endless and reading through my posts you should have found a number - but I'll list some
Although we were promised a referendum before we entered the EEC we were denied one.
When we did get a referendum we were lied to by our politicians about the nature and scope of what was intended.
Lack of any proper democracy (including referendums that have been discounted and ignored) and the near 500 million people who have been denied the vote directly on whether they want the current set-up to continue.
The fact it's a Customs Union and not a Free Trade Agreement.
The point you said yourself - lack of opacity and the unaccountability.
The fact that after 30 years there is still a lack of democracy and far more competences have been turned over to the EU despite constant promises to the contrary. ie the sheer inability to 'change from within'.
The billions negotiated away by Blair in return for a 'review' of the CAP (no actual changes stipulated)
The 'red lines' that are worthless.
Our sheer inability to put in place the simplest of policies the help our own circumstances but which appear to contravene EU rules.
But most of all - the impact it has on the people of the UK when masses of red tape and petty bureacracy interefere with our daily lives (and that it is EU based is kept hidden from us).
What would I prefer ?
Well the free trade we were promised in the first place along the lines of -
"willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states without power being centralised in Brussels or decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy"
Complain about this comment
#274 brigadierjohn
Brig :-)
No, I wasn't making that point :-)
Oh, how we talk at cross purposes.
I just swapped your stance.
Agree, they exist, no argument to be made there!
I meant there is surely then an argument, that doesn't have to be made, for correcting them.
The Union is the norm, but not a benign norm. That's being too simple.
Hurrying here, so if this is all beneath you, sorry. I'll come back.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#280 Sparklet
Definately proves your problem is the UK govt. in the first place.
How can you tackle the EU non-democracy when you are bound in one of your own??
Do your own Claim of Right, like ours:
"The Claim of Right read:
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount.
We further declare and pledge that our actions and deliberations shall be directed to the following ends:
To agree a scheme for an Assembly or Parliament for Scotland;
To mobilise Scottish opinion and ensure the approval of the Scottish people for that scheme; and
To assert the right of the Scottish people to secrure implementation of that scheme."
Then sort out your dire FPTP.
Then Scotland can help you by, together, challenging Brussles as we renegotiate our place in the EU.
We can't get our act together if you don't get your Act together.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#275 Sparklet
Sorry for the delay; the BBC does not approve of a direct link to the site of EFTA even though the UKoGB+NI was a member!
It is an internet site efta.int and has a publication what is EFTA on page 22 of which you will find the figures.
Now will you answer the questions?
Complain about this comment
#275 Sparklet
#277 from Fit Like? gives the general tenor. You are still going to have to enact all the 4 freedoms EU legislation even so.
The question still remains "What is your alternative?".
Complain about this comment
278 SneckedAgain
And Brian,
What on earth do you mean that Council Tax has been frozen??
Where I live I have just received my CT bill for the year and you will NOT BELIEVE THIS:
I
T
H
A
S
B
E
E
N
R
E
D
U
C
E
D
!!!!!!!!!!!!
I do have the evidence beside me as I write - and my monthly bill (all things included) - has been reduced by £4!!
And nowhere do I see this amazing news being reported - not in the press and most certainly not on the BBC!! (Wee Glen Campbell disnae have enough gaps in his teeth tae spit the words through!!)
See that John Swinney - pure dead brilliant so he is!!
Complain about this comment
Re 278
Snecked again
What a load of bull! Councils have not been fully funded for many of the SNP initiatives, most noteably the free school meals policy.
They are expected to make up the shortfall by "efficiencies". Apparently a good thing in local government but a bad thing at holyrood.
Efficiencies in the Highlands is to cut funding in education, reduce roads maintenance, postpone capital works and reduce employment levels.
All good long term investments! Don't fix small holes in road today, have to build new road tommorow at 100 times the price.
A bit like PFI under a different name in a way really.
But hey if you are happy in your world don't let reality spoil it.
Complain about this comment
Re 211
The consultation document is from the SNP government. This is a proposal from the SNP Government asking people what they think about what they plan to do.
I think most people would agree that is a plan by the government to lease 25% of our forests to private individuals or organisations.
You are being a tad pedantic here. It is not necessary to support every single policy the SNP produce you know. They have not abolished freedom to think yet.
Complain about this comment
#277 Fit Like?
"Switzerland's relationship with the EU is determined by separate bilateral agreements."
Treaty status isn't my strong suit, but that's certainly my understanding and is seemingly confirmed on EFTA's website. I do think it's a moving target, and with Swiss entry into Schengen I think it's only small differences over the EU banking directives that differentiates Switzerland from the rest of the EEA, while Liechtenstein is a member of the EEA but not Schengen and more seriously at odds over the EU banking directives. All clear as mud, really.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#280 Sparklet
Sorry I asked, but looking through your past posts is a cheerless process, and you rely heavily on negatives except for a reference to "Saint Maggie" in your #237 above.
What you mainly seem to list, though, are reasons why the UK's governance is so unsatisfactory. You can hardly blame Brussels for successive UK governments since the Butskellism of the 60s ignoring the concerns of the governed. And nor can you blame Brussels for the Bernard (red tape is fun) Woolley school of civil servants who seem to delight in implementing european directives in the most slavish way possible.
"What would I prefer ? ...
willing and active cooperation between independent sovereign states without power being centralised in Brussels or decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy"
As opposed to power being undemocratically centralised in Westmidden and decisions taken by an appointed bureacracy in Whitehall?
Frankly, the need to maintain consensus in Brussels means that from my viewpoint it could only be less awful than the supremacy of the "mother of parliaments".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Hi brigadierjohn,
Even if you were to be a member or supporter of the BNP, in my opinion you would still be a human being and thus we would be equals. I suspect that you would not get too many people here supporting your views however, I certainly wouldn't agree with your general tenet if that was indeed the case.
I must make absolutely clear to you that I never for a second considered that you were connected with the BNP and I am certain that I did not imply that you were.
I had a friend when I was a pup who was a member of the Communist Party. He, like many of his ilk, tried desperately to convert all and sundry to his cause.
He like you, stated that he was an internationalist and scorned my stance of favouring Independance for Scotland. He never managed to explain to me how he could possibly be an internationalist without a national identity to base it on. I'm not trying to snare you but can you see where I'm coming from?
Best wishes
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
northhighlander, mate, you didn't read my protracted link then.....?
Complain about this comment
#287
1. Councils indeed have been fully funded for the meals deal they agreed to.
Why don't you check this stuff out before you make silly assertions
The efficiencies they are asked to make (which is in line with the Westminister government's similar attempts) has nothing whatever to do with this.
Unlike the Westminster government's scheme however all the efficiency savings they make are retained by the councils for them to spend on more sensible priorities.
If there are cuts in Education funding it is entirely the choice of Highland Council who have been given extra money for Education as have all Scottish councils by the Scottish government.
Extra money has also been given to Councils for roads so any problem there is the problem of your council.
Even the Labour Party has stopped talking about "SNP cuts" as the nonsense can't be made to stick.
Stephen Purcell, Labour Leader of Glasgow Council, just blew that out the water yesterday anyway. Didn't you notice?
The fact in hard figures is that the Government has given the councils across the boards an increase in their funding while freezing the council tax.
John Swinney is doing a magnificent job.
By the way, PFI is officially dead in the water as it is no longer possible to access under the present economic situation.
What is happening however is that lots of PFI schemes are starting to fail and already in England a number of large schemes have been to the government to ask for bail outs.
I'm so glad the SNP decided to have nothing to do with PFI. I would be happier still if we decided to build nothing we can't afford out of current revenues (like we are building the massive new Southern General Hospital by traditional funding methods - ie affordable current revenues).
There is no point in patting yourself on the back for building lots of schools and hospitals if you have paid for none of them. Any fools could do that - and several did!
Complain about this comment
284. At 5:01pm on 11 Mar 2009, handclapping
285. At 5:14pm on 11 Mar 2009, handclapping
Your reference still didn't answer the question of how you could have made such a bold statement.
But yes, Fitlike did rather pre-empt the reply I would have made though he probably phrased it better.
Though I would like to highlight some of his responses -
"However, they do have to adopt some of the Laws of the EU while having little influence on decision-making processes in Brussels that create these laws."
None of the Member States exert much influence on the decision-making processes in Brussels bar perhaps France & Germany.
It's a total nonsense to suggest that Scotland on its own ever could.
"I suppose the main, downside to EEA membership without EU membership is that
EEA countries do not receive any funding from EU policies and development funds"
Neither does the UK - we receive a portion of our own money back.
The NET contributions of the UK for 2007 were 6.7 billion euros - that's money that was spent elsewhere in the EU that could have been spent in the UK on UK priorities.
(And due to be much higher thanks to the billions Blair has negotiated away)
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
[best viewed as millions of euros rather than euros/capita, the preferred EU method, as EU encouraged immigration has skewed the figures somewhat]
And if you'd actually referred to the link I sent you wouldn't have needed to raise the questions you did - the answers
are contained therein.
Yes - membership of EFTA is certainly preferable to membership of the EU.
http://www.brugesgroup.com/mediacentre/index.live?article=10488
Daniel Hannan, the author of the report is himself an MEP and expert on the subject.
You would do well to read what he writes!
"The EFTA states participate fully in the so-called Four Freedoms of the single market — free movement, that is, of goods, services, people and capital. But they are outside the Common Agricultural Policy. They control their own territorial resources, including fish stocks and energy reserves. They administer their own frontiers and admit whom they choose onto their territory. They settle their own human rights questions. They are exempt from a good deal of EU social and employment law (all of it in the case of Switzerland). They are able to negotiate free trade deals with third countries. They pay only a token contribution to the Brussels budget. Oh yes, and they’re all sovereign democracies."
Complain about this comment
290. At 7:25pm on 11 Mar 2009, Brownedov wrote:
"reading through your past posts is a cheerless process"
Well we are rather talking about the EU so how wouldn't it be?
The reference to "Saint Maggie" was handclappings reference not mine but yes she did represent the UKs interests in the EU better than any PMs before or since.
The rest of your post was rather weak and didn't address the issues.
The last PM who reneged on the promise of a refererendum was Gordon Brown, a Scottish MP (and signatory to the Claim of Right !!).
We can replace the govt in Westminster, we can't replace the govt in Brussels.
Complain about this comment
And for those who think the EU is essential for peace in Europe please read the attached - it may prove enlightening.
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2004/05/myth-of-week_16.html
Complain about this comment
Re 292
thanks, I did read you link, have been working so no time to respond until now.
It is interesting that we would hold our own or improve. I never really doubted that. I don't for one minute think that Scotland is incapable of flourishing under independence. If we work hard at it then we can do what we want. I question our willingness to graft though.
However these statistics alon are not a reason for change. To agree a fundamental change like this we need to fully understand what we are signing up to.
too many of the reasons given for independence and much of the debate is based on loose notions of nationhood freedom, all intangibles.
I want a more fair and just Scotland. I want to see the everyday injustice in our society tackled. I want to see equality of opportunity so everyone has the chance to prosper.
Lets be honest 10 years of labour have moved some way towards helping the worst off, but not a lot. they have not delivered, wasted an opportunity.
The SNP have not been very radical on the issues facing the poorest and most disadvantaged. they are playing politics and with a few notable exceptions failing to make any real impact. At the next election the poorest will have little benefit for 4 years of SNP.
Would independence make a blind bit of of difference to the outcome if your kids attend the worst 20 percent of schools in Scotland?
Would their life chances be improved?
No.
All of these issues could be sorted by using the powers we already have to better effect.
Also are the hopes of kids in Wakefield any different to those in Wick? Are we really radically different form the rest of the UK?
I don't think we are all that different. I just don't see a good argument for constitutional change. I see plenty argument for taking politicians to task for not eradicating child poverty, for not improving the worst school performance, for not improving life expectancy in the poorest areas.
Imagine if all the effort on these blogs were put into pressuring our politicians to get these issues tackled? Imagine a parliament not sidetracked by reorganisation discussion but focused on delivery for the poorest sections of our community?
I am not frightened of change or against change if it is for the better. I just don't want to go through the hassle and waste of government reorganisation, where all attention will be on issues realting to divorce for at least 5 years, and none of the above are tackled unless I am sure there is a very real benefit.
If someone can convince me of that benefit then fine I will be pro-independence.
Complain about this comment
Re 293
I am afraid you are wrong, plain and simple. The increases in funding to councils do not cover the increases in expenditure required to meet all the council commitments.
I note you sidestep the issue where the SNP think Council efficiency savings are good but Holyrood can't be asked for any. Interesting double standards.
Are you really trying to argue that all councils have been funded to provide all the services they previously did and more without any cuts being required?
You must live in a pleasant fantasy land.
Re PFI, I don't like it and have never said I do. But if your kids went to a 100 year old dump that was struggling to attract quality teachers due to the state of the buildings and you had to watch your kids education suffer as a result you might look at things a little differently.
Also my youngest goes to school in a class of 26, he is in primary 2. Not exactly the class sizes promised at the last election?
The SFT may or may not be better. Will we ever know? Half way through the parliament now and no progress. So PFI had at least one advantage, some schools got built. Some children got a better start in life. yes they have to pay for it, but what is the alternative?
But if you want to pat yourself on the back for delivering nothing at all then thats your choice.
Complain about this comment
#295 Sparklet
Sorry for confusing your dour words with handclapping's irony. It's clearly being so cheerful that keeps you going.
"The rest of your post was rather weak and didn't address the issues."
Sorry you feel that, but then my #290 was attempting to respond to your #280, which makes precisely no valid points against the EU, but some good ones against the governance of member states in general and the UK in particular.
My #273 agreed that there is a democratic defecit in the EU, but pointed out some of the "goodies" on offer. Do you dispute that the Euro, the Social Chapter, Schengen [and] the European Courts have improved the lot of ordinary Europeans?
Where we seem to disagree vehemently is over your: "We can replace the govt in Westminster, we can't replace the govt in Brussels."
That statement is certainly untrue if your first "we" means the Scottish people - English votes will always determine any "winner" in UK elections under the existing polity. But even if you intend that "we" to mean the nations of the UK, the quasi-democratic plurality voting system offers nothing more than the occasional replacement of tweedledum with tweedledee.
Does it not make sense to remove that democratic deficit first, before we concentrate on democratising the EU?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#297 northhighlander
A good post, and you make some valid points, but I cannot agree with your:
"I just don't see a good argument for constitutional change."
If there were a UK-wide party committed to federalism and a fundamental reform of Westmidden on the brink of victory at the next general election, I'd have some sympathy with the view that constitutional change in Scotland could wait awhile. A decade or so ago, I thought that the Liberal wing of the LibDems might eventually prevail and that they might eventually "sell" both to the English electorate.
That was clearly a forlorn hope, as although the electoral reform promises are still rolled out it is the SDP wing that has prevailed, as evidenced by Clegg's sophist ratting on the EU referendum promise and both Scott and Rumbles siding with the hardline unionists over a Scottish one.
If you really want the UK to survive, then a referendum on Scottish governance may be the only way of delivering a wake-up call to the home nations that a Westmidden system little changed since 1832 is in serious need of revision and democratisation.
If held in 2010, with a multi-choice option, there is a significant chance that full fiscal autonomy would be the option chosen, for now, and would force Westmidden to start thinking seriously about a federal structure.
If held in 2011, with the "official" unionists in power at Westmidden and the SNP benefitting from a popular reaction to the other parties' blocking of a 2010 one, it is much more likely to be a straight yes/no to independence and much more likely to deliver a "yes" result.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
299. At 07:54am on 12 Mar 2009, Brownedov
"Sorry for confusing your dour words with handclapping's irony. It's clearly being so cheerful that keeps you going."
Do you really think the current set-up in Europe should make us 'cheerful'?
I'm fighting for the future of my children and take that very seriously.
Yes the national govts were guilty of not holding referenda for the people but who persuaded them not to?
Why the rebranding of the Constitution into the Lisbon Treaty - purely cosmetic and contained 96% of the Constitution but it was claimed was simply a 'tidying-up' exercise of previous treaties.
'The difference between the original Constitution and the present Lisbon Treaty is one of approach, rather than content ... the proposals in the original constitutional treaty are practically unchanged. They have simply been dispersed through old treaties in the form of amendments. Why this subtle change? Above all, to head off any threat of referenda by avoiding any form of constitutional vocabulary ...' V. Giscard D'Estaing (the main architect)
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/valeacutery-giscard-destaing-the-eu-treaty-is-the-same-as-the-constitution-398286.html
[And by the way the so-called 'red lines' for the UK have since proved to be worthless]
"Do you dispute that the Euro, the Social Chapter, Schengen [and] the European Courts have improved the lot of ordinary Europeans?"
Yes I do.
The 'one size fits all' has proved a disaster for several countries in the eurozone.
The Social Chapter has left many small businesses struggling. We have problems enough with immigration control without even fully adopting Schengen and the European Courts, well, I'm old enough to remember the Spanish trawler fiasco (ask our fishermen about that!!!)
And do you really think it's right for British citizens to be extradited automatically if they are convicted in their absence by foreign courts.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/3022479/EU-extradition-law-faces-legal-challenge.html
Show me your proof these have been beneficial!!!
And yes - I stand by my comment
"We can replace the govt in Westminster, we can't replace the govt in Brussels."
There is certainly far greater democratic deficit in the EU .
Complain about this comment
#301 Sparklet
Yes the national govts were guilty of not holding referenda for the people but who persuaded them not to?
Do you have evidence of this? We're not actually in dispute over the referendum. I'd have voted "Yes" given the chance, but feel that ratting on the promise by NuLab and the LibDems was anti-democratic and unsupportable. I have seen no evidence that Duff Gordon, Murphy [who I watched steamrollering it through the House of Cards] or Clegg were coerced to do this, and will believe it simply furthered their own agendas until provided with some.
"The 'one size fits all' has proved a disaster for several countries in the eurozone."
Some specific, referenced, examples might prove your case. Re Schengen at least I have personal experience of that and - living in Switzerland and spending a good deal of time in the Iberian peninsula - it is a huge benefit to be able to move freely around the zone without hindrance. Employing scarce resources on the boundaries of the zone is much more cost-effective than controlling movement within it. The UK might even qualify for some "boundary" relief if it joined.
Your Torygraph link seems to indicate an extradition situation somewhat less awful than that NuLab "negotiated" with the USA. At least, if extradited, UK nationals would still have access to the European courts and human rights law.
"And yes - I stand by my comment"
Perhaps you'd be kind enough to respond to my original query and tell us who the "we" are in your: "We can replace the govt in Westminster, we can't replace the govt in Brussels."
I realise that we are discussing which is the lesser of two evils here, but you have provided zero evidence to support your closing statement: "There is certainly far greater democratic deficit in the EU."
Oh, and by the way, you've still not clarified what your preferred option is for a UK newly emancipated from the clutches of the "evil" EU.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#298
You're struggling here. The councils are being asked to to things they are charged to do but better. They are not being asked to do more for less. They are being given extra money to allow then to carry out their duties while freezing their Council tax. They have all voted to do so.
Repeat. All councils of whatever political composition have voted to do so.
Obviously none of them share your concerns though of course Labour's UK economic collapse and the serious cost of it must concern them all. This is not the fault of the Scottish Government.
If your kids are at a crumbling school I'm sure it didn't start falling down just in 2007 because the SNP took power. It probably is suffering from the 20 years of underfunding before that.
If you would like to indicate the school you are talking about I'd like to go and see it and have a word with the staff. With over twenty years as a teacher behind me I have quite a good grasp of what constitutes crumbling schools.
My major concern is that the completely unscrupulous use of " build now, let the suckers pay later" PFI model will in fact GUARANTEE that there is no money for school maintenance and new schools for the next generation. Whether we like it or not we have to bite the bullet and only build what we can afford
Complain about this comment
#297 northhighlander: That's a more eloquent expression of my own opinions. Sorry again, if my endorsement damages your credibility. :-)
#291 bobbishop: The difference between your Communist friend and me is that I'm not trying to convert anyone.
Nationalist internationalist, where does it begin? As I said to Aye_write on the issue of "existence" #281, I think we need to consult the great philosophers.
Now Aristotle had some ideas about what constitutes the "essence" of a thing.
If you both start from there and come back in, say, 10 years..... :-)
Complain about this comment
Hi brigarierjohn,
No need to be offensive, you know. (Ref. your "come back in 10 years.....:-))
As you say, Nationalist internationalist, where does it begin? My point exactly, don't you agree?
While Aristotle was ahead of his time and we all have to admire his thoughts as being very advanced in his era, you are a bit out of date with your choice of philosophers aren't you?
Philosophy has moved on since then. Have you read David Hume (who acknowledges his dept to earlier students of the species), perhaps focusing on his ideas on the nature of human actions and motivations and the continued existance or not of objects and ideas?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
#304 brigadierjohn
Oi, you! ;-)
Don't spoil it and retreat to your ivory philosphory tower before I've had a chance to tell you (both!) you're wrong - might be this evening.
I will take some bricks out of the bottom of it....!
If you're oh, so clever, then I must be oh, so stupid...I always think it is a good idea to check for being oh, so stupid, so I should like to tackle what you've said.
Complain about this comment
302. At 11:24am on 12 Mar 2009, Brownedov wrote:
""Yes the national govts were guilty of not holding referenda for the people but who persuaded them not to? "
Do you have evidence of this? "
Didn't you read the words of Giscard D'Estaing admitting that the failed Constitution was repackaged the way it was to avoid refererenda?
There are many more -
“They decided that the document should be unreadable. If it is unreadable, it is not constitutional, that was the sort of perception. Where they got this perception from is a mystery to me. In order to make our citizens happy, to produce a document that they will never understand! But, there is some truth [in it]. Because if this is the kind of document that the IGC will produce, any Prime Minister - imagine the UK Prime Minister - can go to the Commons and say ‘Look, you see, it’s absolutely unreadable, it’s the typical Brussels treaty, nothing new, no need for a referendum.’ Should you succeed in understanding it at first sight there might be some reason for a referendum, because it would mean that there is something new.”
- Giuliano Amato, former Italian Prime Minister and Vice-Chairman of the Convention which drew up the EU Constitution, recorded by Open Europe, The Centre for European Reform, London, 12 July 2007
“Public opinion will be led to adopt, without knowing it, the proposals that we dare not present to them directly … All the earlier proposals will be in the new text, but will be hidden and disguised in some way.”
- V.Giscard D’Estaing, Le Monde, 14 June 2007, and Sunday Telegraph, 1 July 2007
The good thing about not calling it a Constltution is that no one can ask for a referendum on it.”
- Giuliano Amato ( Vice President of the Convention on the Future of Europe that drafted the new European Constitution)speech at London School of Econmics, 21 February 2007
“If it’s a Yes, we will say ‘On we go”, and if it’s a No we will say ‘We continue.’”
- Jean-Claude Juncker, Luxembourg Prime Minister and holder of the EU Presidency, Daily Telegraph, 26 May 2005
(And how like a Europhile to try and demean the sources that expose the EU for what it is!!)
You may want to vote YES but many more will vote NO - why do you think the political elite are so anxious to avoid the question?
You call this democracy - as I said at least we get to replace the govt in Westminster.
"Some specific, referenced, examples might prove your case"
[I note you have provided NONE!!! for yours.]
The words of Labour MP Gisela Stuart (for 2 years Parliament's representative in Brussels on the Convention on the Future of Europe)
"The single currency is not helping economies in the way its proponents said it would. It has led to economic divergence rather than convergence, reflected in the dire state of Spain, Ireland, Greece and Portugal today. One option for these countries is to leave the EMU. This can't be ruled out, but it would create problems for both the country leaving and, perhaps more importantly, those remaining, so some short term fix may be cobbled together. "
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/personal-view/4954319/The-EU-will-have-to-surrender-to-survive.html
http://www.theherald.co.uk/business/news/display.var.2489646.0.survival_question_for_onesizefitsall_eurozone.php
http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/0,1518,609024,00.html
And as for what I'd prefer look to my
response in #294 (just recently published after being 'referred to the moderator'??)
Membership of EFTA is far preferable. Read the final comment!!
[And by the way the broken link is one I've linked previously so not sure why it hasn't gone through this time but go to money-go-round.eu (It shows the net contributors and the net beneficiaries of the EU)]
And where is all the 'proof' of the benefits of EU membership bar your own experience of easier movement within it!
Complain about this comment
#297 northhighlander
Blame the brigadier's endorsement!
Lets be honest 10 years of labour have moved some way towards helping the worst off, but not a lot. they have not delivered, wasted an opportunity.
You've not seen nothing yet. Due to the crazy way we define poverty the statistics on poverty and child poverty are going to improve as more and more of us loose our jobs and have to survive on benefits. Look for the NuLab claims that they have "taken" 100,000 people out of poverty, by making 3,000,000 unemployed, except they won't tell you the immediately preceeding part of this sentence.
The SNP have not been very radical on the issues facing the poorest and most disadvantaged. they are playing politics and with a few notable exceptions failing to make any real impact. At the next election the poorest will have little benefit for 4 years of SNP.
Given that the benefits system is a reserved matter, what would you have had the SNP do if they could have got it through the pretendy wee? I will be interested to hear your views as my run ins with the benefits have given me a strong desire for one of the first things for an Scottish parliament with the power to examine and recast the whole sorry system to something logical.
Would independence make a blind bit of of difference to the outcome if your kids attend the worst 20 percent of schools in Scotland?
There are at least a couple of possibilities:-
a) parents would be more enthusiastic about the conditions and possibilities of their and their childrens lives and might offer more support to the learning process
b)there might be the funds and people to raise the total attainment of all schools so the worst 20% would be better.
Would their life chances be improved?
No.
See endless argument here and elsewhere!
Complain about this comment
#305 bobbishop: No offence meant. I think Hume's premise was that the search for knowledge should be a disinterested one. And treat what you find with caution. So I wouldn't use him as a building block for a particular political stance. Anyway, this could go round in circles forever, and I'm disinclined.
#306 Aye_write: There you go - torn between self-deprecation and defiance. In your way, you're as unanswerable as Descartes. Sorry!
As you may see on another thread, I'm considering a departure from blogging. My own threadbare philosophy is just about to self-implode with frustration. No, no! Let's not introduce Freud.
Complain about this comment
#309 brigadierjohn
It's OK, brig, I don't get your criticism. Descares? Apparently, he was the dogs doo-dahs. Anyway...
My faults and failings don't translate into my agreement with independence being wrong - independence isn't my fetish!
Now, if I weren't to see my faults and failings....no, who would be that silly?
;-)
Complain about this comment
#305 bobbishop: Just another thought on the nationalist/internationalist issue. My national identity is just an accident of birth. I can do nothing about it (I suppose I could apply for citizenship elsewhere, but wouldn't). I think I can be an internationalist by choice. But obviously if someone points at me and says "You're from Glasgow," I can't deny it. It comes down to outlook rather than nationality, I think.
Complain about this comment
#309 brigadierjohn,
I agree with you regarding not using Hume for a particular political stance. You did however raise the subject of philosophy did you not?
Hume did create many new theories, some of which were simple and some deep. I found interesting his assertion that humans are not logical beings and are more driven by emotion.
If this assertion of his was considered to be valid, it would explain a lot don't you agree?
Many of us seem to have access to similar facts but we all come to our own conclusions for the formation of our ideas.
Can this be explained by our different experiences of life or do we automatically follow the stranglehold of our own convictions despite what logic tells us to be true?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
279. At 1:02pm on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
283. At 4:28pm on 11 Mar 2009, aye_write
Sorry AW replied to these before but somehow it's been 'lost in the ethernet'
so apologies for the delay.
Not sure what you meant by 'play by the rules' but I do value honesty and integrity very highly.
Which is why I was so appalled by your second post on the Claim of Rights
"The Claim of Right read:
We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount."
which was signed in 1989 by 58 of Scotland's 72 Members of Parliament and 7 of Scotland's 8 MEPS.
Didn't they read what they'd signed??
"acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs"
How many of these same MPs/MEPs then went on to vote NO for a referendum on the Treaty of Lisbon - in direct contravention of their pledge?
I can name two at least -
Gordon Brown
Alistair Darling
Just confirms my opinion of politicians.
Their pledges and promises are totally meaningless and simply given when it suits their own political ends and easily reneged.
As to your other comments not sure how they apply to me as
I LIVE IN SCOTLAND
so I'm concerned as to the future of Scotland and indeed the whole of the UK.
Complain about this comment
#311 brigadierjohn
brig,
You don't have to care about nationality, internationalist is lovely. I agree, that you think that is fine.
As a fourteen year old (for about a fortnight) I felt we should do away with all national boundaries and live together as one people under the white flag of peace.
But your not bothering about nationality cannot cancel out others' taking theirs seriously as part of who they feel they are - not insanely ferverish about it but just accepting of the accident of birth, you can still feel happy or glad about that.
As an extremely tenacious status quo supporter on another thread just said, "it is a free country, feel what you like."
So, as nationalism is simply the desire for a political voice for your nationality, why is it less valid than your sort of non-nationalism shall I say?
As I repeat, isn't it just a difference of two legitimate opinions?
I don't, as you accuse many nats of doing, decry those who have an opposing view, so should you decry nationalists, as you do with criticisms of their being parochial and otherwise negative, as after all, they are just those with an opposing point of view?
Hope you haven't popped off (for a lie down, I mean ;-)
Complain about this comment
#311 brigadierjohn,
Sorry, don't mean to keep posting but I just missed getting a chance to respond to your #311 due to the lengthy moderation times. (Not too bad at the moment).
I might regret this but I think we are more or less on the same wavelength at the moment, brigadier ref. the nationalist / internationalist debate.
As a supporter and member of the SNP I hate being described as a "Nationalist". After all, I have a life outside the politics. This description removes most of my being and pidgeonholes me. (A more neutral description is to be described as a member or supporter of the Scottish National Party).
I too consider myself to be an internationalist. My own opinion is that the term "Nationalist" is intended to cast a subliminal slur where it is used by the media.
Thank you for your discussion, I suspect we may cross thoughts on some other topics.
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
#312 bobbishop: Forgive me, but I don't feel qualified to discuss Hume's ideas critically. I am aware of stuff, and find it interesting and challenging, and no doubt some of it seeps subliminally into my motivations in life. Beyond that, I'm out of my depth.
#314 Aye_write: I think we almost agree! I have never sought to deny anyone the right to be a nationalist, or to belong to a nationalist party, or to advocate independence.
But I emphatically reject Independence on any terms so far offered. Of course, it's two legitimate opinions. But not everyone here accepts that, apparently.
If you have a contrary opinion, rather than argue, many here just badmouth you and dismiss you as a Unionist or a traitor or both.
There seems little point in engaging with people who have closed minds.
I quite enjoyed being 14 for a year. How did you get to 15 in a fortnight? :-) Don't even think about answering that!
Complain about this comment
#307 Sparklet
The first 373 words of your post are a good summary of what was said at the time, but are in no way evidence of any coercion being put upon Duff Gordon, Murphy or Clegg. Their ratting on their promises was theirs alone, I think.
"You may want to vote YES but many more will vote NO - why do you think the political elite are so anxious to avoid the question?"
I've already said in my previous posts that it was undemocratic and wrong. Given the controversy it caused at the time, I can only guess at what motivates the three I have named. A mandelsonian cabin de-luxe on the gravy train, perhaps?
"You call this democracy - as I said at least we get to replace the govt in Westminster."
I do not call this democracy and have expressed my concern at the democratic deficit in the EU. However, the parties who voted down the referendum for the UK did so in the UK parliament in flagrant breach of their manifesto promises.
You keep saying "at least we get to replace the govt in Westminster" but you keep ignoring my request to define who "we" are. In the absence of an answer, I think it unlikely that "we" can mean the Scottish people, since you must know that Scots alone cannot determine the outcome of a UK general election. But even if "we" means the UK electorate, then the change effected in the last half-century is minimal indeed, and likely to become less so now that we have seen government lawyers arguing successfully in court that manifesto promises have no legal redress. It's the polity of the UK that must change.
"I note you have provided NONE!!! [= no proof] for yours"
Doubtless to the relief of any readers who stray here inadvertently, I don't have to, since I will assume the "Brig." position in supporting the status quo and claim it's you who has to convince me to change my mind. Any party I might choose to support is in favour of continued EU membership and thus would not prevent me from voting for whoever stands the best chance of getting rid of NuLab.
"The words of Labour MP Gisela Stuart" interest me not at all because the lady is a NuLab MP. To paraphrase the immortal words of Rowan Atkinson, I wouldn't trust any of them to sit the right way on a lavatory.
I hope, for your sake, that EFTA will accept such a member. Possibly so, but they're fairly picky about democracy nowadays. The Swiss, of course, had referenda over both the EEA and Schengen and have had a few over the EC/EU. My own gut feeling is that eventually they'll join, but that could well be a good few decades away.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re 304
Brigadier, your endorsement makes no difference to my credibility, but thanks for the comment.
Re 308
Handclapping.
I agree the SNP can do nothing about benefits. But the real key to helping the poorest 20% is to improve education and health. Both are devolved.
In this area the SNP have been a little timid, they could be more radical. Lets face it the kids that don't go to school end up costing a lifetime of benefits.
I don't criticise them for everything, look at the superbug post, I am the only one supporting them!
Complain about this comment
#310 aye_write
Those philospher johnnies can be very confusing - suggest you watch this educational viedo.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
317. At 7:13pm on 12 Mar 2009, Brownedov
Disappointing that you choose to hide behind a "Brig" position rather than fight the case FOR the EU, Brownedov. I think perhaps you are unable to - but that is not unexpected.
However I can sympathise with your stance of wishing to rid us of NuLab. I think that is the general view and certainly mine.
You are wrong, though, to dismiss Gisella Stuart's words - they go against the party line and that in itself is worthy of some merit. I prefer to read and learn and give the benefit of the doubt to those who appear to speak the truth (whatever party that may be!)
Re the Swiss, I think they value their democracy too much to fully join the EU.
Perhaps the EU will implode before then (it's looking a little 'creaky' at the
moment) - but perhaps that's wishful thinking on my part!!.
Complain about this comment
#195 northhighlander
northhighlander, the EU is certainly undemocratic, but you don't change it if you've no influence. No, I'm not talking about Scotland (though no, we don't). The UK govt. apparently has some influence, but it's not the voting electorate it represents, but the politicians at Westminster themselves.
They have parliamentary sovereignty, so don't have to have any referenda for example, and can change the UK constitution at will etc. The system of FPTP does away with any effective opposition, so there are no real checks and balances for this Westminster elite, even if, but as we know they don't, the Scottish ones were working for Scotland.
Fact is they are all working for the furtherment of their own power and status, for themselves.
This bunch of democratic defecit junkies are not going to effectively influence or help reform another group (of EU) democratic deficit junkies.
International relations is organised by sovereign states. As illustrated, the UK ,as is, is a dead duck, so the only choice is sovereignty with the people as with the Scottish parliament, through independence.
There are a few states like us and if all opposed Lisbon for example, in a coordinated not haphazard way, influence by boxing clever, not weight of population (vote), could be mustered.
It's all about negotiation (big game of chess, no rules, no referee, only calculated risks). But if we're not a sovereign state, we don't get to play.
Complain about this comment
#219 Sparklet
If so, get yourself out of your straightjacket and fix your own democratic defecit first!
Complain about this comment
#263 Sparklet
"But they won't be truly 'independent' nations will they."
Not if their sovereign parliament full of self-serving MPS agrees to hand some of it away - as no one else can do that.
"You may prefer to live in a 'STATE' but I don't, I value national sovereignty very highly."
Eh? Sovereign state! What did you think I meant? (That's what state means in IR.)
If you value national sovereignty very highly get it back , reform your constitution - you're sitting on a dead duck at the moment. No wonder it's all gone Bill Gates in the EU for you...
Complain about this comment
#268 Sparklet
"United we stand (or at least can put up a good fight!!), divided we fall.
So I suppose it depends on what sort of future you want - democratic or non-democratic."
That's hilarious! United, but with NO democracy of our own! Yeah, that'll work (like it's worked for the UK...no, wait!)
Geez a break!
;-)
Complain about this comment
A very bad day for Mr Gray
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00j7pjj/Holyrood_Live_12_03_2009/
Complain about this comment
#308
Handclapping touches on a sore point - the misuse of statistics.
To give an example. Governments are fond of boasting that the average wage has risen under their regime.
This however usually happens when there is an increase in unemployment and the poorest paid lose their jobs. If ,for instance you have a doctor, a teacher, a shopworker and a refuse collector in a village the average wage in the village more than doubles if the shopworker and the refuse collector lose their jobs.
No government ever uses average adult income as a measure as that pulls in the unemployed , part-time workers and others on other benefits though that's the real indicator of societal wealth
Complain about this comment
#297 northhighlander
What a good post, thank you.
Apologies for my jibes to Mr Brig, he enjoys them (I know, only kidding ;-).
Isn't interesting you see independence that way. You are concerned with real changes on the ground, but not interested in MPs' flowery nonsense. Fair enough.
I see political structures as a means to an end. It is entirely practical that I should want independence. I'm selfish. But it's OK because every other sovereign parliament on this planet is too, so I'd better be - the Realist view of international relations.
Is our best chance of reforming Scotland the way we want it to stay in an iniquitous Union, unlike the rest of the countries in Europe, or is it to run our own affairs as an independent nation, which is a fairly standard way of doing it.
Now, hang on, I'm not getting all dreamy here. I'm not under any illusions that an independent Scotland would be a wonderland of perfect political decision making etc. etc. The determining factor is that the UK is so substandard in this area.
It's made a pants job of government. The UK should be rich. If it had started an oil fund instead of spending the money to prop up over-inflated ideas abroad and the economy - unbelievable. It didn't do that. Name me one other oil producer that had spent all its money! Crazy. Your questions re falling down schools need never be asked.
Never a better example of how the UK does not look out for itself, never mind Scotland.
Did you mind that Scotland didn't want the Conservatives, Trident, nuclear, Iraq...? What about fishing...
Are you happy to be a voter one in 60 million as opposed to one in 5 million, or put it another way, one voter in one seat out of 646 as opposed to one seat out of 129? The choice is of course yours, as it is mine.
If the SNP administration has failed too much for you, then that is a reflection on them, not Holyrood. The SNP may not even exist post independence. Other parties from all across the political spectrum will. Maybe you will dislike them all. But if you're not willing to accept change then you have to accept the SNP.
What choice have you got in the UK?
Anything better?
Independence removes us from this doldrums.
As for your children. Sorry if this will sound intangible, but they first learn of their political status in the world by finding out their county isn't self-governing. Not an entirely confidence inspiring message I would say. You may say, maybe (philosophically) rightly, that it doesn't really matter, but they won't be able to help but compare their position with that of other countries. It's practical I would say to realise that and dreamy to ignore it.
"Would independence make a blind bit of of difference to the outcome if your kids attend the worst 20 percent of schools in Scotland?
Would their life chances be improved?"
They would see they are as good as everybody else. They would not have an excuse for sitting back and playing no part as their country sits back and plays no part... Now, that may make no difference whatsoever, independent countries have their poor. But being in the UK, for the reasons just given, makes it worse.
I think you are dooming independence to failure because it is not the perfect system to cure all. Yet that's what you criticise nationalists for apparently suggesting. It is only the full tool kit (as opposed to a partial set as we have currently). You need all the tools to fix your car, not just some - maybe you can make some parts of it rather better, but it still will not go.
It is a process and can only start where the Union has left off. Like Obama, there will be big problems to inherit, which could take more than a generation to fix. It is not a reason to reject change - tell the Americans.
If I say independence can fix everything, you will say I am romancing. Yet you seem to be saying you will not go for it because it will not just fix all. So you have defeated your own argument.
If I say it will do what you want it to do, I am away with the fairies. If I say it won't but in time we'll get there, you say it doesn't sound like it's worth the hassle? I can't win.
If you say no to independence though, you must then be accepting of the status quo. Now I can say it hasn't worked, isn't working and has little chance of working in the future. So where's the choice?
Complain about this comment
#313 Sparklet
"Not sure what you meant by 'play by the rules' but I do value honesty and integrity very highly.
Hmm, part of your problem? You don't expect politicians to do the same do you. You good guys need to gang up to outsmart the unscupulous, not watch them take the --- and shout "t's not fair!".
"Which is why I was so appalled by your second post on the Claim of Rights"
We up here are so far beyond appalled by what Brown and Darling do...
Complain about this comment
#321 Sparklet
"Disappointing that you choose to hide behind a "Brig" position rather than fight the case FOR the EU, Brownedov. I think perhaps you are unable to - but that is not unexpected."
Not hiding at all, but what's the point in my boring the pants off everyone else by listing sources when your mind is closed and you confuse the dishonesty of politicians at Westmidden with a Brussels plot?
Re Ms Stuart, it is indeed possible that a few NuLab elected representatives occasionally tell the truth, but their collective record ever since the broken promises from their '97 manifesto is such that the task of picking the occasional germ of truth from the morass of chaff spin is ever a thankless one.
Re the Swiss, they are indeed the most democratic nation in Europe by a long way. As a democrat first and foremost, I strongly believe that their model of popular sovereignty, frequent referenda, local government and minimal powers delegated to a federal assembly is the only one which might allow the UK to survive in the long term. It's there we seem to disagree fundamentally, since you seemingly believe in a unitary state with sovereignty vested in a Westmidden grown old and corrupt in a quasi-democratic system in which the sheer weight of English votes will inevitably determine which of tweedledum or tweedledee rules the roost in our elective dictatorship.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#326 sneckedagain
"A very bad day for Mr Gray"
Agreed - that gentleman's manual of techniques to employ at FMQs will be shorter than the apocryphal Wit and Wisdom of Richard Milhous Nixon. Maybe, just once, he should let Aunty A go first and study how to do it properly.
However, us expats can only use the iPlayer for radio. Fortunately, this website now makes them available in the built-in player.
This week's fun and games is at FMQs at the Scottish Parliament.
For "back-issues", simply enter fmqs in the search box on any BBC page and from the results page returned, you can get a full list by clicking on the News & Sport Clips caption.
They're also available for download from the http://www.holyrood.tv/ website.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
re328 aye right
You make the point that you see political structures as a means to an end. I would contend that political strucutres deliver nothing, it is the politicians within them that make things happen.
Therefore they all worked hard at making devolution work and maximised the benefits to Scotland and still come up short for a lack of power then I would look at this diffrently.
However they haven't. So if we give them more power will they suddenly start to gain a new work ethic and move forward with a gusto that we have not previously seen? Or will they just have 5 or so years re-organising while doing nothing.
Also your point about the poorest 20% is wriong. When you don't have anything and have to focus all your attention on surviving you don't think much or care much about politics, because whoever is in power life goes on the same way. It is irrelevant to your existance.
If you are a poor kid at the bottom 20% your self esteem andmotivation are going to be very very low. Independence is going to mean nothing to you.
I know this to be the case from first hand experience. If you are born in that patch you have a long hard fight to get out of it with little or no help from anyone. I eventually got to University at evening classes once I had earned enough to pay my own way through, but 10 years after devolution nothing has changed to alter life chances at the bottom. Education is the key, along with health. That is in our gift at present, but both our parties of government are set on governing for the middle classes, not helping the poor. We need equality of opportunity for the good of all.
So basically I don't reject independence out of hand, just that there are more important things to do just now and no convincing argument for it improving justice and equality.
Your point about this being the start of a process,
Complain about this comment
#332 northhighlander
As ever, a thoughtful post, but there have always been reasons to delay constitutional change, at least from the days of SuperMac's you've never had it so good to Duff Gordon's you've never had it so bad, but it wisnae me.
Even if you're right, can it really be good for there to be an ongoing fight between Westmidden and both Holyrood and Cardiff while the English electorate are increasingly lead to believe by the tabloid press that the celtic and Gaelic finges are packed with scroungers? And is there any realistic prospect of that changing when, as seems likely, nice Dave C climbs to the top of the greasy pole?
I'm sure you're not alone in believing that NuLab is not all bad, but how will that help with a UK Tory government in power and being pressed hard by its "backwoodsmen" to revise Barnett in favour of their own constituents?
The Scottish electorate cannot hope to outweigh English votes in forcing change at Westmidden, but they can take their own fate in their hands and deliver a huge wake-up call to the rest of the UK.
Do you disagree with my #300 regarding the rather different outcomes likely following a 2010 referendum vs a 2011 one?
Off out for the rest of the day, but I'll hope to look back later.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
As a PS to my #330 and #331, Ian Bell's entertaining Labour eyebrows raised at SNP schools programme in the Herald confirms it really wasn't such a good day for Mr Gray yesterday.
Re the EU, Bell points out: "Mr Salmond could have added that PFI is in trouble everywhere because European rules no longer allow governments, in London or Edinburgh, to keep the costs off the public books. Since this was the entire point of the wheeze, the 'initiative' is in a bit of trouble." One up for the EU?
Re Mr Gray, Bell's paraphrasing of Groucho Marx is right on the money: "either Mr Gray was speaking, or my watch had stopped".
Just waiting for the last post to clear but really off now.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#319 Brownedov
Like it Brownedov! Especially as mine is "I drink therefore I am". Very funny.
My boys (who didn't follow) laughed themselves silly, saying they were definately going to show their teacher and friends - erm.... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#335 aye_write
Glad you enjoyed it, but perhaps not so suitable for the bairns. My own philosophy is a mixture of the "Australian" school and the muse of my boyhood hero, Tom Lehrer, coupled with the sage advice of one of my first bosses: Whatever you do, make it fun!
I've forgotten who he plagiarised that from.
PS: Morning meeting cancelled so around for another hour or so.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#332 northhighlander
I like your posts. They puzzle me!
What I meant was they (political structures) are tools for the politicians to use, to deliver that fairness you want for the people.
So they can help or hamper the politicians in that end. Therefore if they are hindering progress, I say make them fit the task better. They pen politicians in so sometimes, largely providing an excuse for their not doing something! Now, you would blame the politicians maybe, but they don't really have free rein.
On education and health, yes they are devolved, but all devolved stuff is done with one hand behind our backs I think.
You think the SNP should have made larger improvements in these areas? But Labour opposes them every step of the way! That tends to slow a process somewhat. There is too much political point scoring drowning the process. It's angering.
If we weren't fighting, through Labour, over who has control of this country, the UK or Scotland, we might have seen a far greater lot of progress made, I think. But then Labour don't care about Scotland, only themselves.
How can we work in this guddle.
Remove this problem with the clarity of independence. This problem is not burdening other independent countries. Kill it dead. Get on with sorting Scotland.
Well, my husband comes from the poorest 10% in Scotland and like you has worked his way to much success. He's always supported independence. But accepts many where he's from don't.
He sees those council estates with the institutionalised residents, their aspiration so long spent. That utopian experiment dismally failed, but we are still paying the price. Social engineering in its woeful glory.
Scotland does not need more of the council house for life, the life so determined, the cosy inertia, the dependency and the fear. (I am talking about my extended family in laws and friends, not some imagined far fetched creation.)
This dependence culture, where families in council estates have thier hope replaced by fear, needs fixed.
I knew my statement about independence figuring in their consciousness didn't hold water, but I wanted to see what you'd say.
How could independence help? You don't doubt Scotland would prosper, if we worked hard. I would also accept that. Would a prosperous Scotland not afford its population the possibility of a better standard of living. Not necessarily, I readily agree.
What's the determinig factor then. Those politicians. Maybe you are right, they won't take the chance offered by an independent Scotland and take advantage of the opportunity to affect the social change, with Scotland as a fully independent country to back it up.
But, I say we owe it to them to attempt it, because the opportunity is there. Not taking it would be the crime.
Looking at the UK, it is a woeful structure and if it was going to deliver the kind of social change you rightly demand, I say it would have done so by now. It won't. It's a merry-go-round of dead horse party one then dead horse party two. You know that.
And Holyrood has too much baggage. We are only ever seeing it in first gear.
Even then it cannot effect the economy, and that effects everything else, health, education and social reform etc. We can't "play" with one without control over the other and expect any of it to really work. It's fantasy, avoids reality. It's all a balance is it not.
I can't say independence will be perfect. I can't promise our politicians won't be found wanting. But I can say, contrary to the status quo, we have a chance to make some big and meaningful changes, not just tweak at the edges. Perhaps that is what's needed to get some real results and solutions to the problems you speak of.
Maybe that's pie in the sky. But what's stopping us improving these problems now? Why isn't it happening and why are you still unimpressed.
To me, it's not a question of can we be sure independence will really deliver. It's a case of can we be sure the UK system cannot deliver, has not delivered. Of course we can, it hasn't. That system doesn't work.
Independence is an opportunity. You are right, it will mean nothing if we don't work at it. There's no guaranteed, handed on a plate, gifted automation of a happily ever after. It's a only a chance to achieve things.
For the sake of those who need change the most, northhighlander, we just have to take it.
Complain about this comment
325. At 10:33pm on 12 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"That's hilarious! United, but with NO democracy of our own! Yeah, that'll work (like it's worked for the UK...no, wait!)"
As I've already said - both the Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer (the two most powerful postitions in UK govt.) are Scottish elected MPs. (And according to you, you have 13% of the MPs in UK Parliament (although the population would only warrant 8%)
Yet somehow, magically, you claim you'd be better represented in the EU (that most undemocratic organization) with only 1-2% of MEPs, a Commissioner (not elected, who's supposed to be above National politics and with his own brief covering 500 million people) appointed by the President (not by the Scottish people) and a head of state on the European council (current UK representative, a Scottish elected MP).
You have a very strange sense of 'Independence' if you're happy to simply become one of the United States of Europe.
I am not and will resist any attempts to 'Divide and Rule'.
And will happily vote NO to the SNP version of 'Independence'.
You see I care for the future of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
337. At 11:19am on 13 Mar 2009, aye_write
Many fancy words, AW, meaning absolutely nothing as you appear to be someone willing to enter the EU as a very minor player.
See how the 'dwarves' are treated in your fairy story -
http://eureferendum.blogspot.com/search?q=dwarves
Complain about this comment
#339 Sparklet
And you are willing to be a straight-jacked bigger fish. Clever.
The dwarves ganged up.
Complain about this comment
340. At 4:26pm on 13 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"The dwarves ganged up."
And were still ignored.
Complain about this comment
338. At 11:29am on 13 Mar 2009, Sparklet
This comment is awaiting moderation.
Moderators,
It is almost 7 hours now and this comment is still 'awaiting moderation'
Any explanantion???
Complain about this comment
Re Aye right
Supposing we have independence, lets look at what might happen.
We have our first general election unde rthe same electrola system as in pllace just now. It is highly likely that the result would plus or minus a few seats be similar to the cuurent parliament, in that no party will have overall control.
So for health and Education nothing at all will have changed. So my point is get on with it now. What is needed is someone to show some leadership and build a consensus on the way forward. In reality Labour and the SNP are not a million miles apart on Education and health. So why not agree a plan and work at it.
the real reason is that both lie to play petty politics with these issues as they see them as key issues for gaining votes.
In reality this would improve the situation and show a different style of politicis for the benefit of all.
I am not holding my breath
Complain about this comment
#342 Sparklet
Chill out. A post of mine on Michael Crick's blog has been awaiting moderation for more than 10 days now - and I'm certain that's not a record! I think it sometimes happens when a query gets pushed up the line and forgotten. If you remember what your post said, you could try re-writing it with a view to a little bowdlerisation to ensure it passes modding next time.
Looking on the bright side, my own #336 [reply to aye_write] above spent much of the day in mod purgatory after being referred but has now emerged with links intact.
You could do worse than following the links therein.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#343 northhighlander
Thank you northhighlander, but forgive me, you miss the point.
The SNP play party politics (allegedly...I'm sure they do!) as their vested interest is gaining independence, right?
Labour play party politics (do they do anything else?) because their vested interest is keeping the Union, again right?
(Look out for a stunning post I am preparing detailing how devolution was gained and why Labour are such lap dogs for Westminster - I do a bit of research! ;-)
So I am saying to you this is strangling politics at Holyrood. You'll have noticed!
Take this dynamic away and you have plain simple governance for Scotland, i.e. when the job can really begin. Until then I think it can't.
I don't not blame the politicians for their actions, but I can understand them, and that there cannot really be any other way, right now - i.e. if one side is playing, the other kind of has to...
I can't see a way out of it until independence. Labour aren't going to change. Then the SNP is forced to keep position. It's sh!t for Scottish politics! Can you see a way of it changing without independence?
You fear the same rubbish will happen then. But, will it? Maybe in the immediate interim - Labour still have trouble accepting they aren't still in power. But medium term, when the focus has shifted well away from Westminster, I don't see another problem that will dog Scottish politics such as this one has for years and years and years.... We're still in its hangover, even though we have devolution.
Your point about the settlement I take on board. Lengthy divorce you said. Well, maybe, months perhaps. Maybe I am optimistic. But that prize of, at last, ordinary national politics is waiting northhighlander.
There will be no easy way out of negotiations, but if we are having them, they must be done right, as they will only be done once. A one time tedious thing I can accept, as a means to an end, if it is to be finally over when it's over, and I know I won't have to go there again!
Will it dominate Scottish party politics? Well, apparently,
"If a majority of those who vote in the referendum vote for independence, representatives of the Scottish government will then begin negotiations with Westminster to agree an independence settlement. While negotiations are under way, a written constitution for an independent Scotland will be drafted, [it is already predrafted I'm sure] which will guarantee rights for Scotland’s citizens and set out how Scotland will be governed."
I am assuming this is done then there are elections. I am assuming if there were to be elections and say a change of government, then there would be therefore be a change of negotiating team, which would be extremely silly in such crucial negotiations??
So perhaps we are stuck with the SNP until negotiations are concluded? I don't know. I'd rather have the SNP than anyone fighting my corner though.
But what I do know is what the alternative is. The non-starter that we've got now.
You say, get on with the important business. But were it that simple. It isn't capable of effecting change nh, while it is so constitutionally obsessed.
Because the other option is not perfect, isn't a good reason to just accept the unsatisfactory of now.
Independence will at least lead to success (as it can be tweaked along the way, as is usual). The road we're on now is only heading only one way fast - nowhere.
I have always thought Scots will have to become seriously pi$$ed off with their current situation before they will confront the need for change. You are disillusioned with politicians yet you expect them to come up with the goods even in this straight-jacket of a constitutional set up. How much more ---- are you going to take before you accept moving forward as the only option?
Not intended to offend you there, but you strike me as one who doesn't really suffer incompetence, yet you are prepared to, in an in competent system, and expect it to work. Why?
I think most people are going to be coming to the conclusion that they have to try something else, the way of all other EU countries, the proven way, of independence. Those other countries are not desperate to try out our system, rejoin with neighbours and surrender their sovereignty.
Because it doesn't work.
Complain about this comment
344. At 9:13pm on 13 Mar 2009, Brownedov
Thanks for the input Brownedov. Must admit 10 hours seems positively puny compared to 10 days - that must be a record surely!!!
Trouble is I did two posts around that time, one was to AW and one was to you.
One of them has vanished altogether (off into the ethernet - not even listed - an intermittent problem it seems) and the other is 338.
Don't know which is which and don't wish to duplicate.
PS Neat links !!
Complain about this comment
#343 northhighlander
re my #345
For the very informative tale I spoke of, please see my #61 on Cash cuts. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
345. At 9:46pm on 13 Mar 2009, aye_write
Sooner or later, AW, you're simply going to have to admit that all the SNP are really after is a bigger share of the Brussels trough.
Won't make a blind bit of difference to the people of Scotland as most of the laws/rules/regulations are passed down from Brussels anyway (with many, many more to come ) Poor old Scotland with a heavy dependence on Small Businesses will be completely strangled in red tape - it's already happening.
And "Lengthy divorce you said. Well, maybe, months perhaps"
Way, way out - it would take YEARS at great expense and with no benefit except that Scotland would be in a far WORSE position.
Complain about this comment
#348 Sparklet
Look, just because your parliament can't play the game, doesn't mean we're all so challenged!
Read my #61 on Cash cuts ;-)
Complain about this comment
re my #349 re my #61
http://quirkynats.freeforums.org/scotland-s-oil-t38.html#p260
Complain about this comment
348 Sparklet, your post;-
Sooner or later, AW, you're simply going to have to admit that all the SNP are really after is a bigger share of the Brussels trough.
Won't make a blind bit of difference to the people of Scotland as most of the laws/rules/regulations are passed down from Brussels anyway (with many, many more to come ) Poor old Scotland with a heavy dependence on Small Businesses will be completely strangled in red tape - it's already happening.
So sparklet let me get this right, you think Brussels has lots of red tape and thats why we shouldn't be independent ?
Yet here we are as part of the EU anyway and business is still managing to function.
Surely it would make much more sense to ditch w/minster and its rules and red tape that only seek to co-erce Scotland into doing whats best for w/minster
Complain about this comment
#341 Sparklet
"The dwarves ganged up."
"And were still ignored."
But was Dopey in charge? Then no wonder.
Complain about this comment
"So sparklet let me get this right, you think Brussels has lots of red tape and thats why we shouldn't be independent ?"
Come on pay attention, peh-man, that's why we won't BE 'independent' - whether we're with Westminster or not.
Best to stay with Westminster where there's at least some hoping of ditching the EU.
We've all seen what happens to the
DWARVES
Complain about this comment
352. At 9:02pm on 14 Mar 2009, aye_write
Nobody in charge, AW, they all had their own separate interests and couldn't agree on anything!
Complain about this comment
#354 Sparklet wrote:
Yes, hello!
You see that, so why not take advantage of it?
Diplomacy is about knowing what all these 'ones' want/ed and deploying that info. for best effect, is it not.
I'm sure, if it's in their best interests, some governments would 'bed in' with others for both their benefits.
I can see one area where some seem to agree already, Lisbon. Why are they not palling together, secretly if need be, to orchestrate some construction of a plan to defeat Lisbon, together??
There must be lots of other areas. They make their decisions behind closed doors before the various official Council meetings or whatever. There must be loopholes to exploit.
Are all members convinced doing everything for the good of the EU is automatically in their best interests?
Perhaps for individual MEPS, but not for the countries. I think national parliaments should be the main players involved and if they don't like the rules, change (or ignore) them! It's all down to PR as to how you get away with it.
Are they all terrified of WWIII do you think?
Complain about this comment
355. At 10:18pm on 14 Mar 2009, aye_write wrote:
"I think national parliaments should be the main players involved and if they don't like the rules, change (or ignore) them! "
I think most of us think that AW - unfortunately real life isn't that simple.
They made an attempt - the Laeken Declaration.
What they got in return was the
EU Constitution - REJECTED!
renamed and revamped as
The LISBON TREATY
currently being pushed through the various Parliamenst after heavy political pressure to avoid referenda.
Unfortunately the EU diplomats seem to run rings round our National Parliamentarians.
Ever see the BBC 2 Documentary "Tony's Tight Spot", a film by Michael Cockerell, shown on BBC Two - made Blair and Straw look like a couple of school boys - total amateurs - truly terrifying
COOKING UP A STORM
Complain about this comment
#356 Sparklet
Let me neuter your arguments on the 'Cash cuts' threads. I have some information for you this time ;-)
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS