Faustian pacts and pompous asses
Substantive stuff from the Liberal Democrats in Perth today - after a faintly faltering start yesterday when the exhibitors in the foyer nearly outnumbered the audience in the hall.
The substance came in a thoughtful speech from Vince Cable, the party's finance spokesperson at Westminster.
In a quiet, understated way, he excoriated his rivals, suggesting that Labour had made a Faustian pact with the financial world and indicating that independence for Scotland would be a calamity.
With a sense of perspective, he had opened in historical mode, reflecting on the so-called People's Budget introduced by Lloyd George a century ago.
It had, he said, set out to erode the gap between rich and poor: a challenge, he said, which was still before us, as he witnessed when he revisited Glasgow's Maryhill district which he had represented as a youthful (Labour) councillor in the city while lecturing at the university.
But perhaps history too reminds us of the challenge currently facing the Liberal Democrats.
They have been unable, during that century past, to come anywhere near the political dominance demonstrated by the Liberal government elected in 1906.
However, Mr Cable speculated that political turmoil might lead to a disturbance in established political allegiances - from which the LibDems might benefit, if they offered a credible alternative to the voters in Scotland and throughout the UK.
Elsewhere, I had a chat with Tavish Scott in a webcast interview, putting a selection of your questions to him.
Have a glance yourselves - but he remains agin an independence referendum while not absolutely ruling it out in future.
Nor does he rule out, absolutely, a future coalition with the SNP.
We shouldn't get too excited, though. One or two obstacles in the way.
Would the numbers stack up? Just how would they get round that referendum issue?
Plus would the SNP want to deal?
Do they find minority government liberating - or are they, down the line, beginning to find that the lack of voting clout at Holyrood is becoming frustrating, leading them to shelve policies?
PS: Wasn't that a remarkably vituperative exchange of comments between Sir Menzies Campbell and Alex Salmond?
Ming started it. (Didn't. Did too.) He suggested in full patrician mode that Mr Salmond was a "novice" in global affairs and lampooned the FM's visit to Washington.
Team Salmond responded with statespersonlike disdain. Or rather not. In fact, they said Sir Ming had sounded like a "pompous ass".
Boys, boys.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~14~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Vince's comments are disappointing, especially considering he knows absolutely nothing about independence. That said, Brig made a good pt on the last topic thread: that Vince has the luxury of passing comment on various economic developments and disasters without ever having to make the decisions of those governing.
As to whether he is a trend-setter predicting x,y,z or merely matched public opinion more closely over time ... I could not pass comment on that.
Seems strange for him to openly admit he is hoping for political and economic turmoil now?!
As to the comments of Tavish Scott, it just vindicates the current position of the minority government. While proving that yes the Lib Dems will do anything for power, including selling their grannies (so long as it is Labour they are cutting a deal with).
In short, the antics of this conference have shown them to be a semi-detached wing of the Labour Party in Scotland (having to prey on the soft Labour vote, with no Tories to target is probably something to do with it).
If Tavish, Ming the Meaningless and Vince are the best they have; the Tories have absolutely nothing to worry about in South-West England, the Liberals are facing further loss of seats in Wales, they will make some gain's at Labour's expense in the North of England (but not enough to set off losses to the Tories in the South).
As to Scotland ... if the Liberals continue along like this, their has to be a real danger of either a (re-unified) far left party overtaking them at the next Holyrood election.
Brian: do tell, have the Liberals managed to match Labour's total attendance of 200-250 delegates and party workers?
Complain about this comment
Fiberals:
we can cut taxes
we can raise the state pension substantially
we will introduce financial constraints on the budget
eh?!
As usual, the fib dems promise jam for all, on every topic ... tomorrow. Even when it directly conflicts with their other promises. Why does anyone take the Liberal party seriously?
Complain about this comment
#1 pattymkirkwood
Excellent post, covering all the key issues. Loved your closing: "Brian: do tell, have the Liberals managed to match Labour's total attendance of 200-250 delegates and party workers?"
Must visit the real world for a while, but back tonight I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
From the news clips that i've seen so far i'd take a guess at they haven't managed that amount of attendees.
Referendum, no, referendum, yes, referendum, no.
Complain about this comment
Hi all,
I stumbled across this piece in the New Zealand Herald, thought people might be interested in seeing how closely the antics of the younger Foulkes in the Labour Party over there, much those of the elder Foulkes back home.
Quite a read,
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/politics/news/article.cfm?c_id=280&objectid=10429398
Complain about this comment
Fascinating stuff! So political worth, the value of ideas, is now measured in the number of attendees in a hall?
Rubbish the man, tackle anything but the issues. Give people silly names. It's an SNP agit-prop masterclass. Or, for adult readers, kindergarten politics. Do grow up, children.
Complain about this comment
6.
Perhaps not, but it certainly is a good measure as to how appealing the policies and ideas are to the party members and electorate if people just dont want to be there to hear them. In the absence of far and wide reaching polls people have to look to other yardsticks.
Complain about this comment
It surprises me not that Sir Menzies Campbell has been miffed by First Minister Salmond's impressive reception in Washington. If a serving First Minister is a "novice", however, what is a failed party leader who has never been a minister of anything anywhere?
When MC was attempting years ago to become Liberal MP for the then Tory stronghold of East Fife, a function arranged at an East Neuk hotel attracted, embarrassingly, no more than a handful of local residents, two of whom were my good self and the other my brother. All the places had been set in the grand room reserved for the event at which the aspiring great man of politics was to preside, but there to meet and greet him were ultimately only me and my wee brother, both of us in our teens but genuinely interested in politics and ready and able to engage with him.
So what happened? Did MC reward us for our interest or was it beneath his dignity to meet a couple of lads who would have been delighted to meet him and indeed honoured? Too much of a patrician, I'm afraid. A minion was deputed to deal with us while the toff disappeared, never to be seen by either of us. Neither of us, needless to say, has ever felt tempted to vote for his then party or his current one.
Acting the patrician statesman is all very well, but you have to be a statesman first, really, and you would, honestly, have to be a bit of a pompous ass to reveal your jealousy of a successful party leader's statesmanlike meeting with the US Secretary of State, who was clearly not too proud to meet the political leader of Scotland but might have drawn the line at devoting a couple of hours to you, Sir Ming. Sir Who?
Complain about this comment
The SNP may be fustrated with minority rule.
On the other hand they may be lucky that they are unable to put their more extreme policies into practice. (We, the voters are certainly lucky!)
Does no one remember the last Holyrood election, when there was such a mess-up with the voting system, that the tartan elections went into the Guinness Book of Records for the highest percentage of spoiled or rejected votes - ever?
That's why the Salmond Gang got its hands on the steering wheel.
With hindsight, when it comes to the next Holyrood election, the SNP won't be within sniffing distance of government.
The Lib-Dems on the other hand may manage to get their hand on the tiller in another coalition setup.
Complain about this comment
#6 brig, you really were a journalist once weren't you?!
"Rubbish the man, tackle anything but the issues. Give people silly names."
Well done, you perfectly summed up both Vince and Ming's speeches ...
Complain about this comment
Vince cable states that an indepednent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the RBS-two points-
I dare say an independent Scotland would never have allowed, nor been able to grow, any bank to become the collosal monster that RBS became. indeed far form being an asset to a nation, it is such a large bank that it cannot be allowed to fail-we see the consequences now- precisely that it cannot be allowed to fail and must b ebailed out by the UK taxpayer!!
This bailout has cost billions yes, but the bank has not only overgrown the Scottish budget-hasnt it over grown the UK one too? with decades of high taxes, public service cuts and misery to come, i would say the RBS problem has surpassed the UKs spending power too!
However perhaps if the UK had enacted more financial regulation and properly controlle these cowboy bankers we wouldnt be having this discussion-but again these powers lie at westminister so PLEASE vince do not try to muddy the waters to suit your own partys current spin (we know how fast that changes!)
Complain about this comment
#7 jediirnbru: Now you're compounding it! We know the LibDems are a comparatively small party. With the best policies in the world, thousands of floating voters won't suddenly turn up at a scarcely advertised party event. When you've been silly, stop digging.
Complain about this comment
#10 pattymkirkwood: Did #1 tire you out? I see you're back to short, silly attempts at put-downs, after a fair attempt at an argument earlier. Why this visceral need to diminish people? Why the fear of counter-argument? Is it a deep-down lack of self-belief? Do you think that the more offensive the put-downs, the greater the support for your ideas? Some of your fellow SNP posters are extremely civil, but there are about six on the blog who can't cope rationally with the mildest challenge.
Complain about this comment
5 PATTYMKIRKWOOD: Thanks for that link -highly amusing. It must be in the genes!
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable walks on water
Complain about this comment
When a well established journalist like brian finds in appropriate to comment on the numbers i think it's fair enough to mention it. The Lib Dems are a UK wide party, they were in government for two terms up here. They aren't a small backward party, they have been around for a fair wee while.
Complain about this comment
#16 jediirnbru: I think everyone, especially Brian, knows that party conferences, like old-fashioned public meetings, are on the decline as participation events.. They are now seen as television opportunities, with the sole purpose of letting the leaders get their sound bites to a mass audience on the 6pm news. Attendance is almost irrelevant. Brian was probably thinking his freebie in a posh hotel might be in danger next year.
Complain about this comment
#13, when you actually produce anything worthy of the term "counter-argument" you may get a considered response.
If you continue to snipe with meaningless little statements as is your wont; you will be met in kind.
E.g. your current attacks on jediirnbru ... the strength of ideas are not well shown at party conferences - not least the lib dems because they don't have any enduring ideas other than "Federalism", which they have failed to properly define throughout their history - but the strength of the party itself is. Attendance is not an irrelevance.
Members of the public (other than a select handful) are generally not invited and not welcome at such events. If the big-wigs of a party like Labour or the Lib Dems can only attract c250-400 (I am being generous with the latter number!) out of total membership numbers of c15,000 for ("Scottish") Labour what does that tell us of the state of their party? Something at least.
Brigadier: I suggest if you don't like being the subject of put-downs, you stop insulting others and playing surprised when they respond.
Complain about this comment
17
Haha yes he most likely was. Hotels dont come cheap in perth.
Complain about this comment
#18 pattymkirkwood: We'll have to agree to differ on the attractions of sitting through endless procedural motions and changes in office bearers in order to hear a keynote speech that will be widely reported and televised.
Anyway, my "insults" will cease next week, and you can all cluck happily together like hens in a coop, without worrying about a fox.
For today, the fox is off to his den-oh!
Complain about this comment
#20 brigadier
65 is not old. They can't take your pension away so it's time to live some, not mope around waiting for death.
Be like Global Brown, wear purple and behave disgracefully.
Complain about this comment
#20, Not "attractions" but importance: if more people turn up, the party is in better health than if fewer do: simple!
"Fox" implies some sort of threat which, this as previous discussions have proven, you simply do not pose.
Again, throwing your reason for leaving on everyone else is lacking in back-bone. Why do I get the feeling there are going to be multiple Brigadier "final sign offs" (wanted or not)? Farewell Tour as tactic ... 2009, 2010, 2011, 2012 ...
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable is almost certainly right, but his figures are based on Scotland as it is now following 300 years of exploitation by the English.
An Independent Scotland would have husbanded its resources and built up its war chest for emergences, as Norway has done.
Perhaps Vince can remind us how many Norwegian banks have gone the way of RBS and LloydsTSB?
And how is Norway placed in this recession compared to less well off countries, like the UK?
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable suggests that an independent Scotland would have been unable to resuscitate RBS given its recent difficulties.
Why would an independent have wished so to do?
Most of the deposits came from outside Scotland, so the company should have been allowed to go to the wall - whilst the Scotland government offered financial assistance NOT to the company but to those Scottish citizens/residents who suffered losses as a result.
Why shouldn't we follow the banking model of the USA?
When I looked into the matter a few years ago (and I suspect that nothing has changed), it was a legal requirement that any deposits accepted by American bank branches overseas weher required to be first applied to its US liabilities.
Taxpayers' money should be deployed primarily to the direct benefit of those self-same taxpayers.
Complain about this comment
#21 handclapping,
Is it just me that sees this: or are you increasingly taking on the role of someone talking people down from ledges, and telling them everything will be alright?
Complain about this comment
I have just read that -
"Another city set to fall to SNP – just days after visit by Gordon Brown" on the Scotman.
Coming from Dundee originally myself, I am sure my fellow Dundonians would like to congratulate the SNP on their success, or maybe not.
Complain about this comment
My, the fiberals are earning their name this week! Just had a look at the text of some of Vince's speech: the Glasgow Labour propaganda/"re-education" machine clearly never quite died in this one.
Complain about this comment
#25 pmk
No, everybody sees it; all my nastys are referred and my nices passed so I seem like a nice chap and I'm not! It's infuriating!!
T'other thing is that I don't particularly want to loose the brig, he can stir the blog out of it's torpor without being as crass as RE.
Complain about this comment
I'm not surprised that Vince Cable indicated that independence for Scotland would be a calamity. The Lib-Dems are unionist to the core and the surprise would be if Vince Cable had indicated that independence was a good thing. He's also a little late to the party with his arguments. That old, "Scotland is too poor, small and stupid to govern itself", argument is like wearing a tank-top. Very cutting edge once but now displayed by the out of touch and left behind.
The problem for the Lib-Dems is that they have nothing to offer. The Conservatives, Labour and the Lib-Dems are all clustered round the managerial, ideology lite politics of Cameron, Brown and Clegg. They're also handicapped by the fact that as a unionist party they never will get into power in Westminster. Vince Cable is living in a fantasy,"What if?", world if he thinks there is going to be a Lib-Dem breakthrough. Even now the Labour vote is still around 30% and the Lib-Dem vote is around 15% across the UK despite Brown's failures with Iraq, Afghanistan, the Banks and all the other disasters such as PFI and ID cards.
The SNP say vote for us, we believe in Scots and Scotland and we can run ourselves. They are a real alternative. The Lib-Dems promote federalism as their big thing but they can't even do federalism in their own party. Can anyone point me to the English Lib-Dem web site and tell me who the English Lib-Dem leader is? Anyone? Even more bonus points for anyone who can point me to a call by the Lib-Dems for an English Parliament as the start of a federal system of government.
Credible alternatives have to have some consistency to back them up. Tavish Scott's, "Maybe we will, maybe we won't" and "Not now, perhaps later", is perfect to illustrate that getting a decision out of the Lib-Dems is as close to nailing jelly to the ceiling as it gets.
Funny isn't it, the only way that the Lib-Dems will ever get their dream of a Federal UK is by piggy-backing on the constitutional changes built on a fear of the SNP but they hate the SNP as good Unionists. They've always been a happy Alice to the Conservatives' and Labour's Tweedledum and Tweedledee in the looking glass world of Scottish Unionist politics and they just do not like anyone who proposes to close the book and leave.
To be honest the use of the phrase, "pompous ass", to describe Ming Cambell is entirely correct.
Pompous: characterized by exaggerated stateliness; pretentious, as in speech or manner; self-important.
Ass: a stupid or silly person; fool
Ming Cambell has never held a Government post in his life, local or national. For him to call the First Minister of Scotland a novice defines him as a, "pompous ass", perfectly.
He also said, "These are difficult times, they require experience and sophistication - and its best to leave it to those who have both these qualities."
Who did Ming have in mind? Brown is complicit in both the Iraq and Afghanistan debacles and he's the Chancellor and PM who has watched the Banks go bust under the unwatchful eye of his regulatory regime.
Maybe he means Cameron but Cameron has never held any Government office in local or national Government. Is it Clegg? Nope, he's just as novice as Cameron is in terms of Government.
Ming must mean himself. He was the Foreign Affairs spokesman for the Lib-Dems so that qualifies him superbly in his own mind
He was as patronising and as empty then as he is now. He could talk for a good ten minutes on the international topic of the day and still manage to say nothing. A real empty drum of a man.
Complain about this comment
#28, believe it or not I was trying to talk him round into staying just yesterday or the day before (much the same reasons) ... seems he is stuck in the mindset that he is going, and thats that.
Complain about this comment
11. At 3:06pm on 14 Mar 2009, drscot wrote:
Vince cable states that an indepednent Scotland would not have been able to bail out the RBS-two points-
I dare say an independent Scotland would never have allowed, nor been able to grow, any bank to become the collosal monster that RBS became. indeed far form being an asset to a nation, it is such a large bank that it cannot be allowed to fail-we see the consequences now- precisely that it cannot be allowed to fail and must b ebailed out by the UK taxpayer!!
================
I disagree. I doubt if an independent Scotland would have had tight enough regulation to prevent what happened. It might not have been as loose as the UK's, but RBS would have been unable to do glabl business had regulation been too tight.
We have to get away with the "if we had been independent, this would not have happened" arguments. We are not independent (yet), so we must provide solid arguments as to what will happen.
23. At 4:52pm on 14 Mar 2009, BrianHill wrote:
Vince Cable is almost certainly right, but his figures are based on Scotland as it is now following 300 years of exploitation by the English.
Brian, you are using the same old arguments here. 300 years of exploitation? We only strarted drilling for oil about 30 odd years ago.
And while Norway is better placed, their oil fund has taken a substantial hit, although to be fair it can absorb it.
Vince Cable is the only Lib Dem I will listen to. How did he end up in the wrong party?
Complain about this comment
Neil, did you see the articles on Norway planning on using a large portion of its oil fund to buy up British infrastructure and shares in well-placed businesses? Such as this,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4979607/Norway-to-use-oil-billions-to-buy-UK-commercial-property.html
Clearly they are far more flush with cash than the UK. Not only can it "absorb the hit"; it enables them to take advantage of situations such as this and buy shares etc ... at very low prices in the expectation of eventual recovery.
Complain about this comment
While i dont agree with all of the liberals thinking the question is who would i trust with my childrens future Vince cable or the brothers spin, old two pays and johnie mcswindler. hmmmm
Complain about this comment
32.
It really just makes you sick to the stomach thinking it could've been us in that position right now.
Complain about this comment
@31 "Vince Cable is the only Lib Dem I will listen to. How did he end up in the wrong party?"
Which party would you like him to have been in then Neil?
Complain about this comment
A pity. Of all the LibDem sheep Cable was the only one I had some regard for.
He is of course very wrong about RBS.
Had Scotland been independent then it would have undoubtedly followed the Scandinavian or European social economic model rather than the UK/American Anglo Saxon economic model.
Certainly with the advent of oil Scottish banks - like Norwegian banks - would have been "encouraged" to invest in Scottish oil and other energy related companies and ensure that their ex Scotland activities were limited.
In short, as in Norway where the financial institutions, industry and Govt have and still do work closely together then I would similarly expect RBS and BoS to have been doing the same.
Cable's argument is therefore just what he thinks and is not based on a realistic and verifiable model such as the Norwegian economy.
Sorry Vince old bean... You may be a good dancer and your analysis of the UK economy may be spot on but I'm afraid your scare tactics in respect of Scottish independence are groundless.
Complain about this comment
Vince Cable and the Rev.Ming came out of the same test tube, both full of sensible but impractical rhetoric . They both sound and act just like Charles Kennedy used to act; as though he was Mr Sensible and everybody else was wrong. None of them have ever done anything to set them aside from the pack, and it's unlikely they will ever have to deliver on the nonsense they spout at every opportunity. The Lib /Dems nowadays are exactly what the Libs were in the seventies, on the sub's bench in case Labour has to get them onside in an emergency, and this is not for any possible policy input, only as bums on seats or bodies in the division lobby.
Complain about this comment
#29 DougtheDug
A good post, and I fear that I have to agree with your delicately phrased "getting a decision out of the Lib-Dems is as close to nailing jelly to the ceiling as it gets".
Also your "Even more bonus points for anyone who can point me to a call by the Lib-Dems for an English Parliament as the start of a federal system of government" is unlikely to cause you much sleep deprivation.
Last summer, the main document in this area was the Policy paper 83: For the People, By the People from their September Conference 2007. It's still on the new website, but much harder to find and is clearly an unfinished work in progress increasingly likely never to be finished. It sought consultation on an English Parliament vs regional assemblies in true jelly-nailing style.
Much easier to find is the 2-page Constitutional affairs: Policy briefing number 7 of 10 September 2008. That replaces the old Liberal woolliness with: "Give people in England the choice of having directly elected regional assemblies where approved through referendums which would take powers and functions from central government and unelected quangos." Very much the stamp of the centralising SDP, I fear.
They're still probably the leastworst of the unionist parties, but I have to agree that their "federalism" is looking pretty threadbare.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#32 pattymkirkwood gives us a link to the Telegraph showing us how a 'former' member of the arc of prosperity - Norway - is garnishing a multi billion pound war chest to begin buying up UK assets on the cheap.
Remarkable how a member of the 'arc of insolvency' can come over to big powerful, successful, world leader UK and start buying up its assets.
Poor old Telegraph, obviously got the story the wrong way round.
Complain about this comment
If the Lib-Dem supporters and activists are happy at the state of their party just now, then they are easily fooled !
Complain about this comment
Talking about the "what ifs" of history or even recent events can be an entertaining process, but it's not a useful analytical tool.
If Scotland had become independent immediately after the RBS purchase of ABN-AMRO, we would indeed have had a major problem.
If Scotland had had control of the oil in the 1970s, then the problem would have been a different one. There is no particular reason why Scots regulators would have been better than many others, but there is a significant possibility that our banks would have been hit by the same crisis that the Scandinavian banks suffered in the 1990s, and that better regulation would have been put in place then.
If our fiscal policies had followed the City of London model, then the question would have been - let RBS fold, or use the oil fund to bail it out.
Complain about this comment
39, BH,
Here's the link (PMK may be offline!)
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/4979607/Norway-to-use-oil-billions-to-buy-UK-commercial-property.html
-;)
Complain about this comment
#23; "[Vince Cable's] figures are based on Scotland as it is now following 300 years of exploitation by the English?"
What's the story in Ballamory?
We do realise, don't we, that the 1745 "rebellion" was crushed mainly by tartan clad Scots? We do realise, don't we, that the Highland Clearances were actioned by Scottish aristocracy? We do realize, don't we, that Scottish engineers, doctors, lawyers and missionaries were the professional backbone of the BRITISH Empire?
What is the current proportion of Scottish employment funded by the BRITISH taxpayer?
You really do need to get out more and stop using your Edinburgh shortbread tin as a camera oscura.
Complain about this comment
I really do not agree with a lot of the posts above!
'Had Scotland been independent then it would have undoubtedly followed the Scandinavian or European social economic model rather than the UK/American Anglo Saxon economic model.'
How can you make this assumption? Scotland has far more in common with England than any other European nation. I am afraid this is just an attempt at blaming other people for a problem that was, in part, made in your own backyard.
'Vince Cable is almost certainly right, but his figures are based on Scotland as it is now following 300 years of exploitation by the English.'
I am sorry but this is just utter drivel! The English have not exploited the Scots for 300 hundred years. Just take a look around Glasgow or Edinburgh. The the fine town houses and neo-classical monuments that dominate these cities were built AFTER the union. Do you seriously think that Scotland has become less wealthy after the Union?
Complain about this comment
An independant Scotland would not be responsible for RBS. No more than it would for the bank of England, or Ireland. Whats the problem ?
Complain about this comment
#23; and another thing; was it not Robert Burns who nailed this spurious assertion by calling the SCOTS who signed away their independence, "What a parcel of rogues in a nation!"?
And of course - Burns was a BRITISH government Civil Servant (Excise man).
Any exploitation? It woz the Jocks wot dun it!
Complain about this comment
Speaking as a 'small n' nationalist, I found Vince Cable's arguments against independence far more convincing than anything the other parties (or indeed the Scottish Lib Dems) have come out with. I mean, I still don't agree with the man, but I can at least see that he has a valid point. Maybe Labour should take a leaf out of Cable's book - calm, measured discussion of the facts rather than alarmist 'SNP WILL COST EVERY FAMILY £5,000' drivel they put out at the last election.
If you make a reasoned point (as Cable generally does) then people will listen to you even if they don't agree - and if they listen to you then they might change their minds on reflection. If on the other hand you try to use overt scaremongering and name-calling then you harden attitudes and get nowhere.
GnuTwo:
The reason it is likely that Scotland would follow the more left wing 'Scandinavian' economic model rather than the right wing 'Anglo Saxon' economic model is because Scotland is (compared to England) quite a left wing place. Look at the most recent election results in each: at the last UK General Election, the Conservatives narrowly won the popular vote in England but are in fourth place (behind Labour, the SNP, and the Lib Dems) in Scotland.
BrianHill:
Making historical (and dubious at that) arguments isn't going to get nationalists anywhere. You might be right that Scotland would be in a different economic position now had it had control of oil revenues since the 1970s. It doesn't matter what the results 'might' have been if that had happened, because it didn't. The public want to know what will be best for Scotland now and in the future. It is only if nationalists put forward the view that Scotland as it is today would be better off, that more people will support independence.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me, or don't you find it a little bit ironic that the UK government and its supporters have brought the country to it's knees, don't have an answer to fixing their mess, and yet have the nerve to say "if you had to fix it on your own you would be in trouble".
HBOS & RBS have been broken during the UK's watch, Mr. Cable.
No matter how bad the economy becomes, the ratio of assets / debts for an independant Scotland to handle / deal with seems to get bandied around as somewhere around the 10% mark. If the ratio turns out to be around that mark, won't the remaining 90% or so of these "Private / Nationalised companies" be an albatross around the neck of the remainder of the UK rather than sinking an independant Scotland?
Never mind the speculation, Vince Cable, here is the reality, Scotland is not independant at this time. It's 100% your lot's problem at the moment.
If Scotland becomes independant while the current mess still has to be cleaned up, we will possibly have to fix our 10% of the mess don't you think.
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
Those of you who do not think that England has exploited us at every turn clearly haven't read your History of the British Empire.
Divide and conquer, exploit all natural resources for the benefit of the mother country viz England.
Scotland is still a part of the English Empire, albeit the rump.
Complain about this comment
#49
"The reason it is likely that Scotland would follow the more left wing 'Scandinavian' economic model rather than the right wing 'Anglo Saxon' economic model is because Scotland is (compared to England) quite a left wing place."
That didn't stop Ireland. Free-market capitalism is an adaptable ideology, it can easily adopt the trappings of hearty traditionalism. Especially the naive belief in 'Celtic' freedom.
Then there's the idea that Scots are canny with money. An independent Scotland with tough regulations would effectively be admitting that Scots can be as greedy and foolish with money as everyone else. I have trouble imagining a nationalist (or anyone) torpedoing a 'national trait' if there is no immediate, pressing need.
Finally, you've got the grovelling before the 'diaspora', a feature of Scottish political life which would presumably be amplified come independence. The need to attract them home would always be used to justify low taxes and a light touch.
Complain about this comment
Now Alistair Darling puts the Mint up for sale
"The chancellor, Alistair Darling, has appointed Rothschild to prepare the sale of the Royal Mint. Darling has also hired the Deloitte accountancy firm to explore a potential sale of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in central London."
I would add to the list in order of priorities.
Trident.
Westminster.
New Labour Party.
Buckingham Palace with sitting tenant.
Complain about this comment
#47 MrCynical: Making historical (and dubious at that) arguments isn't going to get nationalists anywhere. You might be right that Scotland would be in a different economic position now had it had control of oil revenues since the 1970s. It doesn't matter what the results 'might' have been if that had happened, because it didn't. The public want to know what will be best for Scotland now and in the future.
Wise words! Great minds think alike (even if I do say so myself!).
Complain about this comment
#49 BrianHill
I have to disagree with you.
The English Parliament wanted the Union to protect its northern border and the Protestant Succession.
The Scottish Parliament ignored the sovereignty of the people, and approved the Union for essentially economic reasons - to get access to the English Empire to replace the mainstay Baltic trade which had collapsed in the late 17th century.
Scotland did well economically out of the Empire (though morally our acts were very dubious!). We ran large parts of it in return for providing a tame group of MPs who would support the Government of the day.
Until the 20th century (and especially the second half of it), the UK parliament rarely interfered in Scottish issues.
The dysfunction of the UK stems largely from its excessive centralisation in London and its imperial posturing.
The significant economic exploitation of Scotland is of our oil resources, and the fact that they have been squandered as revenue to support excessive spending on the current account.
Scotland needs independence from the UK, but don't blame the English - especially those in the North who didn't have our political clout to protect themselves, and have been fairly ruthlessly exploited by their southern countrymen.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#51 cynicalHighlander: Wow! So Labour are now quite literally selling off the family silver! I know forward planning isn't their strong point, but don't they ever wonder what we'll do when everything is sold off?!
Complain about this comment
#51, cynical - you've got to be joking?! Surely? The Nu Lab govt. really thinks not only it is a good idea to sell the Royal Mint off, but this is a good time to do so!
+ Channel 4 and Royal Mail too, by the way.
Just shows that Labour and Gordon Brown really are prepared to sell-off anything and everything (permanently damaging the UK as a whole in the process) to cling on to the remote possibility that they might just be able to cling-on as a minority government (presumably with the obedient Ming-ite Liberal Democrats playing along) for a couple extra years.
Here is a Prime Minister completely unable and unwilling to put the long-term future of the country (however you want to define that - as a unionist or a nationalist) ahead of his reelection prospects in 2010! Frankly, it is disgusting.
Complain about this comment
#55 forfar-loon #56 pattymkirkwood
They'll sell their own grannies just to cling onto power just like junkies looking for the funds for the next fix. I wonder how much oil they've mortgaged by the back door.
All in the name of "British Democracy", treasonable.
Complain about this comment
This 70's "Scotland's Oil" thing is all a bit daft, don't you think?
Or should it be "Orkney's Oil" or "Aberdeen's oil" or even "Bridge o'Dee's Oil"?
The sooner you people start taking a wider view of life/the world and give up finally, once and forever, this "Here's tae us, wha's like us?" parochial attitude the better the debate will be.
Personally, I say have your independence.
What will you do on "I-Day plus one" to pay the polis, the nurses, the teachers, the pensions, the prescription charges, the student fees, the MSPs' expenses?
Of course it would have been so much different without the "English exploitation".
Popeye to that!
Complain about this comment
#31 Neil- Small
Where did you dig up the nonsense that Norway's Oil Fund has taken a hit?
How?
Due to the ridiculous oil prices until recently they have been salting away huge amounts. It stands now a $330 billion plus and Norway only spends some of the interest it accrues continuously. It takes no hits on the capital sum whatsoever.
You really must stop making these silly statements.
#17
Obviously haven't been at a recent SNP conference then. There will be standing room only at the auditorium of the Science Centre in Glasgow for the SNP's Spring Conference at which over 2000 Delegates and many other members will attend.
Complain about this comment
I've decided to write to Tavish and suggest he goes for a referendum on whether we should have a referendum. Seems like a typical LibDem solution to me
Complain about this comment
51. At 10:49pm on 14 Mar 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
Now Alistair Darling puts the Mint up for sale
"The chancellor, Alistair Darling, has appointed Rothschild to prepare the sale of the Royal Mint. Darling has also hired the Deloitte accountancy firm to explore a potential sale of the Queen Elizabeth II Conference Centre in central London."
I would add to the list in order of priorities.
Trident.
Westminster.
New Labour Party.
Buckingham Palace with sitting tenant.
--------------------
The Royal Family, regardless of your views, provides a lot of tourist income to the UK, and that includes Scotland. True, they need trimmed down a lot, but do you really want a President Blair?
As for selling off the Royal Mint, what in goodness (for want of stronger language!) name is Labour doing?
Westminster needs a confidence vote, and urgently.
I was glad to see that the Scottish Government has backed down over the forest leasing. Don't know the full (and real reasons), but at least they have done it. There are some calls about u-turns, but these will be short-lived.
Complain about this comment
#58. kashibeyaz
"
The sooner you people start taking a wider view of life/the world "
Could you please elaborate? should make interesting reading.
Complain about this comment
#59 sneckedagain
Norway oil fund drops 23.3% in 2008 on stock plunge
Nothings safe in the banking world these days everyone is being hit some harder than others, time to do nothing and wait for the dust to settle.
Complain about this comment
#59 sneckedagain
Neil is right. Have a look at the original article referred to.
They have lost none of the original capital they invested, but since significant amounts were invested in stocks around the world, of course the fund has been depleted, simply because stock prices are down. The same is true of the Middle East and every other oil fund.
However, they have the resources to now start buying into goodies that are underpriced at the moment, so they will make a mint (they might even buy the UK one!)
Complain about this comment
Neil, I just want to politely disagree with you on the royal family. The Royal Family bring no-one to London; Buck-house brings people to London. Same applies to Windser and Holyrood House.
No-one walks around Versailles saying: "if only there was a Royal family here, so i could see less of the rooms".
A President Blair would be a terrible thing, but you could vote him out. How long will all of us have to endure a King Charles or a King Billy!?
Complain about this comment
#61 Neil_Small147
I am not a Royalist and their cost doesn't justify the income. my opinion.
Complain about this comment
#58 kashibeyaz: This 70's "Scotland's Oil" thing is all a bit daft, don't you think?
Yes, it's the remainder in the ground that we're hoping to benefit from.
Or should it be "Orkney's Oil" or "Aberdeen's oil" or even "Bridge o'Dee's Oil"?
Yes, absolutely! Along with every other city, town, village and hamlet in Scotland!
The sooner you people start taking a wider view of life/the world and give up finally, once and forever, this "Here's tae us, wha's like us?" parochial attitude the better the debate will be.
Ah, so you're holding your good arguments back are you? I thought there must be an explanation for the banality of your post.
Personally, I say have your independence.
Very good of you, much obliged!
What will you do on "I-Day plus one" to pay the polis, the nurses, the teachers, the pensions, the prescription charges, the student fees, the MSPs' expenses?
Same as any other country.
Of course it would have been so much different without the "English exploitation".
Popeye to that!
Popeye to that indeed! (not sure what that means but I like the sound of it)
Can a single unionist make a decent case for Scotland remaining in the UK? Hint: try to be positive when you do so (in case you're not sure, positive means the opposite of negative)
Complain about this comment
aye_write 54
You are playing a dangerous in a number of ways that we both know.
Furthermore, no permission was sought nor given to use my post in your last submission, which was written from an English prospective on an English blog.
If you have your own views post them, not cross between other blogs seeking out other peoples opinions.
This is not the first time you have used other peoples work. It is even worse than some of your comments in earlier posts were you profess to be "doing missionary work on Nick Robinsons blog" on behalf of the Scottish Nationalists.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Does the complaint from #68, Susan-Croft mean that all the pre-moderation is a sham?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
I've voted Lib-Dem a few times although I'm not a party member, but I found the Sir Ming attack on Salmond quite astonishing.
If ever there was a case of how not to be a party leader, or lead a party, Sir Ming personifies it. His reign was a total failure.
At least the First Minister can point to a few successes.
Complain about this comment
#49 BrianHill
"Those of you who do not think that England has exploited us at every turn clearly haven't read your History of the British Empire."
Well!
Brian, I have recently read my history of the British Empire. Several authors in fact: McKillop in "A Global Clan", Divine "Scotland's Empire" and "The Study of the tobacco merchants of Glasgow and their trading activities", Richard's "Scotland and the uses of the Atlantic Empire", Fry "The Scottish Empire", "Bryant's "Scots in India in the Eighteenth Century" etc.
Far from Scots being exploited....you could not be more wrong!....we Scots exploited the British Empire more so than anyone - and by miles.
OK, lets start with, I forgive you. You are feeling disenfranchised by Scotland's woeful lack of democracy. That's understandable.
But how can we blame the English!
They have no way of exploiting Scots or anyone else, have they?
It is they themselves that are exploited by their system of parliamentary sovereignty and First Past the Post, meaning that their MPs are not accountable, and can do what they like.
England has no parliamentary representation on English only matters.
The nice English, for they are...I have in fact spoken to them!....are in no way, or could be, complicit in any conspiracy to exploit Scotland, and I don't think any would want to.
Back in days of Empire they weren't so much in charge as to do any exploiting! There were traders of course and writers, but the English people didn't conspire.
We cannot be racist or xenophobic here please.
Now, I suspect you were referring to English politicians, not our neighbours the English electorate.
But remember, as in those days gone by that you mentioned, there are disgraceful Scottish MPs (Brown and Darling...) as well, lest we forget...of course they would rather we referred to them as North Britons - well, yawn.
It's the constitutional system which of course you take issue with, that our national identity has no real political representation, while other nations and nationalities have.
To help you understand why we have in fact a devolved parliament go here.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
It wasn't because Labour were feeling particularly altruistic, rather they, as the UK, were forced.
My next story re the Empire tells partly why our national identity is so strong that we felt able to successfully stage that forcing.
For various reasons, that I won't go into, there was mass emmigration from Scotland throughout the Empire. And mass participation in imperial trade.
Scotland, given her size and population, should only have had around 12% share (of Britain's total) in this trade. But surprisingly, for such an assumed backwater, this was far from the case.
For tobacco - 40% (sometimes as high as 60%)
Sugar - Hustan & Co. (the biggest), all Scottish controlled
Tate (2nd biggest), half Scottish controlled
Glasgow main trading port for both.
These two goods were a hugely important part of the Empire.
In India, of the 5 big Agency Houses (the controllers of trading), 3 were Scottish partnerships = a huge majority (60% compared to 12%, as one might expect)
In Canada, Hudson Bay Co. (fur trading, controlled most of Canada), by 1800, of 500 employees, 425 are Scots = 81% not 12%
Scots supplied 50% of UK immigration to North America.
In the West Indies, 62% of Councillors (controllers of the slave trade) in Tobago were Scots - i.e. managing the elite of the slave trade.
Scots had the biggest non-Londoner group in London.
The fishing industry is two thirds Scottish.
In the Army, due to said emmigration, Scots poured into the services, with a high proportion of officers being Scots. And 50% of all regiments sent to India were Scottish.
Scotland was 'soaked' in the Empire.
Scots are involved in every activity in at least the numbers you would expect though frequently more (and much more).
Scots also change the Empire so it becomes free trading, through ideas from their Enlightenment.
The proposed 'Stadial Theory', where each part of the Empire is assessed to establish where along a set of points the place has reached in so far as its development is concerned, to then determine how best to bring that place forward, was applied throughout. Therefore Scots got the best out of wherever they were in the Empire.
Rather than the Union with England and the Empire diminishing Scottish identity, it had the opposite effect.
A lot of Scottish society is rejuvenated.
The Scottish education system was recognised for its quality. It was geared to imperialism, as many took degrees and went out to the colonies.
Due to the prominence of Scots in India, in 1813 the Kirk petitions for recognition outwith Scotland and succeeds. (Scots get their Church of Scotland in India.)
Scottish law, as kept by the Treaty of Union, and not being English law, makes Scots associate and do business with other Scots, and use Scots lawyers, to ensure that all monies are passed on after death etc. Therefore Scots pass wealth back home to Scots and Scotland.
Scots stick together abroad. There was much expatriate patriotism (you 'never leave Scotland' etc.) e.g. Highland Madras Society.
This money was used to display a resurgence of Scottish confidence. Edinburgh Old College building typifies this confidence and was supposed to demonstrate Scotland's greatness to the world.
Dr. Grays hospital in Elgin - built from money left for his homeplace by Alexander Gray
New Peer at Rodel, Harris - built with money from India
Burns monument in Edinburgh also paid for with money from Scots in the Empire abroad.
i.e. A Scot goes to the Empire, makes lots of money, comes back, buys big estate and land and restores it.
Hundreds of estates were improved this way......
..........and colleges were built etc. etc.
In all this it should be noted that there was quite a bit of resistance by some English counterparts to the quantity of the Scots' involvement in the empire. In particular some rules were enacted so that, in some companies, there could not be a majority of Scots on the Board, or Scots could not progress to that level, lest too many companies became too Scottish - it was perceived, correctly and with some resentment, that Scots did not play for the British team.
Therefore Brian, don't feel sorry for yourself or us, feel proud. Our nation punched well above its weight.
Today, the Union is no longer fit for purpose. These old days have gone and all that opportunity etc. with it.
What is left?
Only the democratic deficit that is no self governance for Scotland.
To secede from Britain with a return to independence is in no way to loose our role in the Empire. It doesn't get erased from our history -it is part of our history now as it would be then. We have already long since moved on from it.
There is no economic benefit from staying with Britain. The glorious trade days are passed. But the undemocratic constitution is still with us. Why?
We are left with this - an iniquitous Union where Scotland has no voice.
And far from having confidence, as we once had, we now doubt our abilities.
It is ironic, because, again we hold all the cards.
We can vote on a referendum for Scottish independence. The English electorate cannot. We can decide.
It is not a question of asking!
Are we being exploited?
Only if we let ourselves be.
We can "tell the Union" its fate.
Complain about this comment
#49 BrianHill
"Those of you who do not think that England has exploited us at every turn clearly haven't read your History of the British Empire."
Well!
Brian, I have recently read my history of the British Empire. Several authors in fact: McKillop in "A Global Clan", Divine "Scotland's Empire" and "The Study of the tobacco merchants of Glasgow and their trading activities", Richard's "Scotland and the uses of the Atlantic Empire", Fry "The Scottish Empire", Bryant's "Scots in India in the Eighteenth Century" etc.
Far from Scots being exploited....you could not be more wrong!....we Scots exploited the British Empire more so than anyone - and by miles.
OK, lets start with, I forgive you. You are feeling disenfranchised by Scotland's woeful lack of democracy. That's understandable.
But how can we blame the English!
They have no way of exploiting Scots or anyone else, have they?
It is they themselves that are exploited by their system of parliamentary sovereignty and First Past the Post, meaning that their MPs are not accountable, and can do what they like.
England has no parliamentary representation on English only matters.
The nice English, for they are...I have in fact spoken to them!....are in no way, or could be, complicit in any conspiracy to exploit Scotland, and I don't think any would want to.
Back in days of Empire they weren't so much in charge as to do any exploiting! There were traders of course and writers, but the English people didn't conspire.
We cannot be racist or xenophobic here please.
Now, I suspect you were referring to English politicians, not our neighbours the English electorate.
But remember, as in those days gone by that you mentioned, there are disgraceful Scottish MPs (Brown and Darling...) as well, lest we forget...of course they would rather we referred to them as North Britons - well, yawn.
It's the constitutional system which of course you take issue with, that our national identity has no real political representation, while other nations and nationalities have.
To help you understand why we have in fact a devolved parliament see my #350 on A good day for Mr. Gray.
It wasn't because Labour were feeling particularly altruistic, rather they, as the UK, were forced.
My next story re the Empire tells partly why our national identity is so strong that we felt able to successfully stage that forcing.
For various reasons, that I won't go into, there was mass emmigration from Scotland throughout the Empire. And mass participation in imperial trade.
Scotland, given her size and population, should only have had around 12% share (of Britain's total) in this trade. But surprisingly, for such an assumed backwater, this was far from the case.
For tobacco - 40% (sometimes as high as 60%)
Sugar - Hustan and Co. (the biggest), all Scottish controlled
Tate (2nd biggest), half Scottish controlled
Glasgow main trading port for both.
These two goods were a hugely important part of the Empire.
In India, of the 5 big Agency Houses (the controllers of trading), 3 were Scottish partnerships = a huge majority (60% compared to 12%, as one might expect)
In Canada, Hudson Bay Co. (fur trading, controlled most of Canada), by 1800, of 500 employees, 425 are Scots = 81% not 12%
Scots supplied 50% of UK immigration to North America.
In the West Indies, 62% of Councillors (controllers of the slave trade) in Tobago were Scots - i.e. managing the elite of the slave trade.
Scots had the biggest non-Londoner group in London.
The fishing industry was 60% Scottish.
In the Army, due to said emmigration, Scots poured into the services, with a high proportion of officers being Scots. And 50% of all regiments sent to India were Scottish.
Scotland was 'soaked' in the Empire.
Scots are involved in every activity in at least the numbers you would expect though frequently more (and much more).
Scots also change the Empire so it becomes free trading, through ideas from their Enlightenment.
The proposed 'Stadial Theory', where each part of the Empire is assessed to establish where along a set of points the place has reached in so far as its development is concerned, to then determine how best to bring that place forward, was applied throughout. Therefore Scots got the best out of wherever they were in the Empire.
Rather than the Union with England and the Empire diminishing Scottish identity, it had the opposite effect.
A lot of Scottish society is rejuvenated.
The Scottish education system was recognised for its quality. It was geared to imperialism, as many took degrees and went out to the colonies.
Due to the prominence of Scots in India, in 1813 the Kirk petitions for recognition outwith Scotland and succeeds. (Scots get their Church of Scotland in India.)
Scottish law, as kept by the Treaty of Union, and not being English law, makes Scots associate and do business with other Scots, and use Scots lawyers, to ensure that all monies are passed on after death etc. Therefore Scots pass wealth back home to Scots and Scotland.
Scots stick together abroad. There was much expatriate patriotism (you 'never leave Scotland' etc.) e.g. Highland Madras Society.
This money was used to display a resurgence of Scottish confidence. Edinburgh Old College building typifies this confidence and was supposed to demonstrate Scotland's greatness to the world.
Dr. Grays hospital in Elgin - built from money left for his homeplace by Alexander Gray
New peer at Rodel, Harris - built with money from India
Burns monument in Edinburgh also paid for with money from Scots in the Empire abroad.
i.e. A Scot goes to the Empire, makes lots of money, comes back, buys big estate and land and restores it.
Hundreds of estates were improved this way......
..........and colleges were built etc. etc.
In all this it should be noted that there was quite a bit of resistance by some English counterparts to the quantity of the Scots' involvement in the empire. In particular some rules were enacted so that, in some companies, there could not be a majority of Scots on the Board, or Scots could not progress to that level, lest too many companies became too Scottish - it was perceived, correctly and with some resentment, that Scots did not play for the British team.
Therefore Brian, don't feel sorry for yourself or us, feel proud. Our nation punched well above its weight.
Today, the Union is no longer fit for purpose. These old days have gone and all that opportunity etc. with it.
What is left?
Only the democratic deficit that is no self governance for Scotland.
To secede from Britain with a return to independence is in no way to loose our role in the Empire. It doesn't get erased from our history -it is part of our history now as it would be then. We have already long since moved on from it.
There is no economic benefit from staying with Britain. The glorious trade days are passed. But the undemocratic constitution is still with us. Why?
We are left with this - an iniquitous Union where Scotland has no voice.
And far from having confidence, as we once had, we now doubt our abilities.
It is ironic, because, again we hold all the cards.
We can vote on a referendum for Scottish independence. The English electorate cannot. We can decide.
It is not a question of asking!
Are we being exploited?
Only if we let ourselves be.
We can "tell the Union" its fate.
Complain about this comment
Just when you think the Fiberals can't get any worse!
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/7943821.stm
mebbes aye, and mebbes naw ... aye, naw, naw, but aye in future.
Complain about this comment
#68 Susan-Croft
aye_write's #54 was remiss in not providing a reference to your #208 on NR's Driven to distraction thread, but the BBC - Terms and Conditions FAQ section on What rights do I retain in my work when I submit it to the BBC? gives the BBC the right to use it and potentially sub-licence it. The pre-moderation of the comment clearly gave that sub-licence to her.
Oh, and by the way, NR's blog is a UK blog about UK politics. I would agree that it is a pity that the BBC do not provide the "English blog" about English politics which might spark a cry for English self-governance.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#72 aye_right
To be fair, you have to remember that a lot of historic Scottish trade was built on the back on English expanionism. Without that, a lot of the trade would not have existed.
I see Christine Grahame is at it again. Now she is raising a parliamentary motion to have William Wallace's letter returned.
Now, I'm in agreement here, but why does she need to waste valuable parliamentary time? Why not go to the media? Once again, she raises useless motions designed to give herself a little bit of publicity. I'm sure the return of the letter will boost the economy in her area.
Complain about this comment
Like the ghost shirts of the Lakota Sioux , so the Wallace letter should be returned, as for wasting time in parliament ,I think 'twill take but a moment to get agreement.
A word to the wise , to assume that any of our comments are taken seriously or even read , is to make a grave error of judgement!
To assume that our bon mots ,once passed the tips of our fingers is sacred and therefore not to be used and abused by others ,is nonsensical.
Complain about this comment
Browndov 74
You seem to have gone to an inordinate time and effort to investigate on another’s behalf.
The BBC is indeed allowed to use my views/comments. However it states that individuals cannot use a person’s material without gaining consent.
Furthermore, it also states that to use (the material) “you must have obtained the necessary rights or permissions to use that material”.
This has also occurred in the past when permission was sought and I expressly refused. Hence it was not remiss but blatant. However, we can discuss ad nauseam but ultimately the interpretation of “rules” lies with the BBC.
Complain about this comment
#68 Susan-Croft
Are you threatening me?
Are you...er...ticking me off!!!! No way, that's quite a scream.
If you are, don't get your facts completely wrong!
"English prospective on an English blog"
You post on a news website and get that wrong!
(Have you ever heard of the UK?)
"It is even worse than some of your comments in earlier posts were you profess to be "doing missionary work on Nick Robinsons blog" on behalf of the Scottish Nationalists."
Any "missionary work" was intended to make you English see the problems for you in your (lack of) democracy. It's an interesting point.
I neither need nor want your support on the issue of independence - you cannot vote on it, can you?
We can. You'll have to wait 'til we tell you the outcome.
But as you've decided to refer to England not the UK, maybe you have already mentally seceded from it yourself - clever you.
Your rant made an issue where previously no one was bothered. So was there a problem?
Not until you made one.
Why so cheesed off?
Because it was me? Please.
Precious, Susan, precious.
Oh, never mind. It doesn't matter.
-----
To the point:
You wrote it on a UK wide public blog!
If you didn't want anyone to see it, don't post it!!
I used your post as I thought it was quite good.
Do you stand by your remarks about Vince Cable - or not?
Complain about this comment
#75 Neil_Small147
"To be fair, you have to remember that a lot of historic Scottish trade was built on the back on English expanionism. Without that, a lot of the trade would not have existed."
Em, when did I deny or ignore that Scotland took advantage of England's bigger Empire at that time.
(Attempting not to despair.....!)
Or did you mean British expansionsim, post Union??
Or were you inferring that Scotland's historic trade pre-Union was in fact just thanks to England???
Regardless, the information in my post still stands.
I think you just had to offer an opposing argument (as I had made a pro-independence post!).
A bit tiresome, but it's entirely up to you..... ;-)
Apologies if that wasn't the case (actually it's quite funny if it was! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#6 brigadierjohn
brig,
But your anti-SNP stuff is no better (and perhaps more emotional), but hey..... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#9 newsjock
You been at the tarot cards??????
Complain about this comment
#77 Susan-Croft
If you feel that strongly about the issue, refer the post which offends you, claiming breach of copyright, and see what happens.
I note that you have not corrected or withdrawn your own mis-speak in your #68: "English prospective on an English blog".
I suspect you meant to say: "English perspective on a British blog".
Clarification would be welcome.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#82 Brownedov
It strikes me Brownedov, that we all frequently quote from other posters at the top of our replys here etc.
Are we supposed to get permission each time before doing that?
Would be a heck of a protracted "Blether"....?
Off out for the day (to paraphrase you!)
Complain about this comment
Browndov 82
I stand corrected.
NR is a British Blog which addresses primarily English topics as BB blog is British addressing primarily Scottish issues and BB for the Welsh etc. etc.
Complain about this comment
Not much on the LibDems' conference in the Sunday Herald, but a reasonably good summary of yesterday's "progress" in their: Coalition with SNP is now a possibility, says LibDem leader, which tells us: "Many of his MSPs believe he wants to block a referendum in the short-term in order to have it as a powerful bargaining chip after the 2011 election."
Probably so, I would guess, but a nice quote at the end from the SNP's Pete Wishart MP is intruding on private grief: "There have now been so many Lib Dem U-turns on a referendum that they must be just as dizzy as Labour."
Quite a few articles on NuLab's internal struggles, though.
Their Editorial, For democracy's sake, end the secrecy over Iraq is worth a read, but can be summarised in one sentence: "The harsh truth is that New Labour under Tony Blair, subverted Britain's democratic processes in the way it chose to spin the case for a war."
The Harperson gets a dishonourable mention in their: Labour face rebellion over all-women selection order for John Reid's safe seat, sub-titled "Harman accused of 'parachuting in apparatchik' in Airdrie", it tells us that "Labour's National Executive Committee has told activists in Airdrie and Shotts they must chose a candidate from an all-women shortlist to help boost the number of female MPs." Thriving internal democracy in NuLab, I see.
It also has more on the developing spat between Purcell and Gray in their Purcell takes on Gray over future of council tax. Back to rates, perhaps?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
The Sunday Herald pulls no punches on Labour's duplicity.
"There must be a fear within the already damaged and struggling Brown regime that an inquiry which threatened to reveal systematic and politically motivated manipulation of facts - "lies" is perhaps not too strong a word to use in this contect - would utterly destroy Labour's case for a fourth term.
The 2005 general election was fought under a cloud of spin and misinformation and we now face the prospect of the 2010 election being fought with the same tactics. By refusing to allow the facts of its own behaviour to be examined in a detailed inquiry, the government is effectively saying the that electorate has no right to know the full story. This isn't democracy, this is a sham version of democracy, worthy of a tin-pot dictatorship which treats voters as an inconvenience and where rights reside in those who hold, not authorise, power."
The final sentence is also a perfect description of "Parliamentary Sovereignty".
Complain about this comment
#83 aye_write
"It strikes me Brownedov, that we all frequently quote from other posters at the top of our replys here etc"
Quite so, but you were just a little naughty in not quoting who the source was. It does make identifying posts needing replies easier. One brownie point withheld.
"to paraphrase you!"
You're welcome to quote or paraphrase any of my bletherings, but merely suggest you quote the source to prevent your being blamed for them!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, re Susan
The reason I didn't credit S for her remarks (perhaps I should just for manners?) was that as yet I have been too lazy to figure the neat inserting link way of doing that, even though I have saved the info. I need to learn it!
So, if apologies are due, and even if they're not, for the sake of others' (Susan's!) feelings, I apologise.
I speed post sometimes and the finer points are often lost in this communication. I accept I am not perfect and blindly assume everybody will accommodate me for it.
My last post to you Brownedov, for example, was meant to be friendly and not confrontational.
:O(
"lets get going!"
(Sportakus)
Complain about this comment
#84 Susan-Croft
"NR is a British Blog which addresses primarily English topics"
A sage ten words which summarise what is wrong with the polity of the UK. NuLab's asymmetric devolution makes believe that there is no such thing as "English" politics, and at a national level there isn't. The Westmidden parliament - NR's primary topic - has been the union one for 300 years now and it really is time that England thought about self-governance.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#84 Susan-Croft
You need to be corrected again.
NR's blog is a UK blog. It primarily deals with matters covered by the Westminster Parliament.
Due to the effects of asymmetric devolution, the Westminster Parliament doubles up (or even quintuples up) as the UK Parliament and the English Parliament (and sometimes as the English and Welsh Parliament, and sometimes as the English, and Northern Irish Parliament, ans sometimes as the English, Welsh and Northern Irish Parliament).
Once again, the English are short-changed by the institutions of the UK, and there is no real forum for you to discuss English affairs. Get your own Parliament, then you won't have to deal with non-English people making perfectly valid comments on the UK constitution and other reserved matters, in the English blog that the BBC would no doubt set up. Even more importantly, you would also avoid Scottish and Welsh Labour MPs voting on purely English matters.
Wouldn't it be nice if there was democracy for England?
Complain about this comment
72:-
"Brian, I have recently read my history of the British Empire. Several authors in fact: McKillop in "A Global Clan", Divine "Scotland's Empire" and "The Study of the tobacco merchants of Glasgow and their trading activities", Richard's "Scotland and the uses of the Atlantic Empire", Fry "The Scottish Empire", Bryant's "Scots in India in the Eighteenth Century" etc."
That's not a history of the British Empire but a history of Scots in the British Empire. Nice for a sense of boosterism, but it's hardly a balanced overview.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone know anything about the "survey of 3,000 people, conducted by the Holyrood administration" on Nuclear issues, discussed in Scotland On Sunday's Blow to SNP as Scots back nuclear power?
The article talks about a 180-page report but gives no links or quotes from it.
As comment #9 on article from funny_newspaper says: "I can't find anything on http://www.scotland.gov.uk
Are they sure it was the scottish government?
Or are they just making this up?"
I've looked for it, too, and it certainly isn't easily visible in the News or Publications sections of http://www.scotland.gov.uk
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#86 oldnat
How right you are.
"The [pre-devolution] investigation by the Council of Europe Monitoring Committee [of June 1996]....concluded that the UK's democratic system was considered to be on a level with those of the most primitive states in Europe.
"...once the Council of Europe had inaugurated its monitoring system and its own investigations it was not just Scotland, but the entire UK democratic structure that was found to be defective and in need of drastic overhaul.
The Council of Europe papers that are now becoming available reveal that the UK's local and regional governmental system came nowhere near meeting the international norms, and indeed that the UK was regarded as being on the same level as Europe's most democratically underdeveloped states in that respect."
From the Realm of Scotland website.
Complain about this comment
#91 Anaxim
"That's not a history of the British Empire but a history of Scots in the British Empire. Nice for a sense of boosterism, but it's hardly a balanced overview."
That's what BrianHill was referring to!
Should I have spoken of Martians in the British Empire???
(I seem to have hit home with that post.......)
PS Would you want me to write a balanced overview? You must like reading my posts!
:-)
Complain about this comment
Nothing I spotted in the Indy re the LibDem conference, but an interesting and relevant opinion piece from Alan Watkins: Voting reform? Too late, Mr Brown subtitled: "Labour will not now be saved by changing the electoral system. That opportunity passed in 1997"
Too right, I hope. At last the broken promises from the '97 NuLab manifesto will come back to haunt them - along with their more recent ones, of course.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#91 Anaxim
Hang on Anaxim, does that mean you agree with BrainHill.....!
You are an enigma ;-)
Complain about this comment
#84 Susan_Croft
No. The Nick Robinson blog is a UK blog addressing primarily UK issues from a UK perspective. In so far as that is and remains the case, it is and remains no less Scottish than English. Many England-based posters on that blog may not understand this or entirely agree with it, but that is their prerogative.
The fact that English people are so anglocentric and indeed possessive in respect of the UK and UK affairs should come as no surprise north of the Border.
The Brian Taylor blog is, of course, primarily a blog addressing Scottish affairs within a UK context, as they can hardly be addressed outside that context for as long as the constitutional framework remains a UK one or, as you would no doubt prefer to put it, a primarily English one.
Complain about this comment
All the parties are united in one thing - Anglophobia.
Complain about this comment
All this truly amazing (at least to an old Remington basher) technology can surely be put to better use than the exchange of tittle-tattle, whingeing and English-bashing?
Does nobody have one positive idea about how Scotland might be, look and feel if independence was a reality?
Is it too much of a challenge to ask some of the brighter Nats to give us a wee preview? For example, list half a dozen random occupations/situations and tell us how they might change: bank worker, naval dock worker, pensioner, soldier, Silicon Glen worker or tourism worker.
I'm not looking for a recitation of the Tartan Taliban Mantra, just reduce it to everyday lives and private citizens. You must have a vision of how it would be? Go on, trust yourselves.
And please don't pick out "Taliban" or any other word and use it as a rod to beat me while ignoring the question. Substantial answers only please. I am genuinely interested.
Complain about this comment
Cynical (63),
You are assuming we have seen the bottom. ;-)If Norway has only dropped 23.3%, it shows that they were wise to keep a large proportion in cash or cash equivalents....Most normal funds are down 40-50%, in line with the main equity indices - Dow (DJI) is down from 14,164 (Oct 2007) to 6,547 (March 2009)
Oldnat (64),
Loon (67),except in the matter of feedback loops, where positive feedback loops generally have negative outcomes (ask any amplifier) and negative feedback loops are generally positive (ask anything called ----stat)...
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
aye_write 88
You miss the point of why your post broke the house rules. I am not at all bothered about being credited or not with my comments.
The reason your post at 54 has been removed is that the comments you cut and pasted into your post was only part of a response, relevant to an entirely different blog/topic. By doing this, you used it in another context on which I may not have given the same opinion, therefore potentially pulling me into a debate which was not of my choice.
A formal complaint has been made and acted upon. The house rules are such that you a person must ask and gain permission of the person concerned before you use/copy material if at all.
I have therefore had to address questions which were not of my choosing.
End of subject..............................
Complain about this comment
#98 StephenGash
"All the parties are united in one thing - Anglophobia."
Absolutely not.
And I always liked Anglophone.....
Complain about this comment
#98 StephenGash
"All the parties are united in one thing - Anglophobia."
That's certainly true of the NuLab and "official" unionists, but sadly it's seemingly true of the LibDems too as they bury their federal agenda and consultation on an English parliament in favour of English regional assemblies.
It's true of the far right UKIP and BNP too.
Not so, however, of either the SNP or PC, both of whom wish that England would get on with self-government.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brian
I'm not sure if it's a faustian pact or a pompous assininity but a sighly altered ending to Tavish's peroration might not come amiss.
"You cannot waste taxpayers' money, government time and parliamentary debates on a cause that the country doesn't want and the economy can't bear.
"Ditch the LibDems."
Complain about this comment
lol, I can see Nick Robinson behind the counter of his blog wearing a headscarf and looking faintly sinister ( well more Sgt Bilko)
Aye write cheerily opens the door to the dark blog and the bell rings.
Before she can even say hello, Nick cuts her off
"This is a local blog for local people, there's nothing for you here"
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#101 Susan-Croft
"End of subject"
Quick to attack, slow to correct I see, especially on a thread I dare not name for fear of moderation.
No withdrawal of the factual errors in your #68 and #84?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I stand corrected on the Norwegian Oil Fund.
Complain about this comment
These guys must be worth more than the mint!
Crack Down on the Tax Haven at the Top of the Mall
Complain about this comment
Phobia means fear, and we're no feart o' the Sassenachs!
;-)
ed
Complain about this comment
#101 Susan-Croft
PS to my #107
Having re-read, your #208 on NR's Driven to distraction thread, I fail to see that the passage initially quoted was out of context to a thread where the header text is all about the LibDem conference in general and your comments were about the first person named in that text.
As it happens, we agree about that gentleman's political nous but likely not about his competence as an economist.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#72 aye_write
For three hundred years England subjugated almost a quarter of the planet by means of an uninterrupted succession of expansionist conflicts. In order to secure its extensive conquests, this oppression of numerous peoples, England sought to maintain in Europe what is known as a balance of power, which is to say that it saw to it, after closing its back door by annexing Scotland, against the wishes of the Scottish people, that no state on the European mainland could increase its power beyond certain limits and thus acquire a predominant role in Europe.
As one of the major European powers to be neutralised was France, it stood to reason that Scotland, with which France had an historic alliance to protect it against England, had to be absorbed and, accordingly, it was absorbed, although not thoroughly. This annexation and its subsequent consolidation thus may be said to have been the key to English imperial policy from that point on, just as the Anschluss in which Germany annexed Austria in the 1930s may be said to have been the key to German expansionism in the 20th century.
No English imperial exploitation was sustainable without the suppression of Scottish independence and the mobilisation of its people in the English imperial interest. As the Scottish people as a nation had not consented to this, one may say that Scotland was as much subject to English imperial exploitation as were other peoples regardless of the role of individuals and groups within Scottish society in adapting to the political and economic circumstances which had been forced upon Scotland from outside.
With its sovereignty and security strengthened by the annexation of Scotland, England proceeded to neutralise its imperial rivals on the European mainland, processing through power struggles with Spain, the Netherlands and France to the great crescendo of the conflicts with the central European monolith of aggregated Germanic power.
At the end of all of this, Europe lay in ruins, but the germ of European unification, which England had spent its last imperial resources to oppose has spread throughout the continent and created a European Union which provides an open doorway through which the early English colony of Ireland has progressed to prosperity at last and through which Scotland may conceivably manage to achieve an independent membership of an equitable political and economic union founded not upon exploitative imperial ambition and force majeure but upon principle and respect for the right of self-determination within the framework of collective security and prosperity offered by the evolving supranational European unification that has been and is still anathema to England.
Complain about this comment
#101 Susan-Croft
You like to be wrong.
You were pulled into nothing!
I didn't mention your name!
You mentioned it!
You pulled yourself in!
So, you have effectively complained against yourself!!
Whatever keeps you happy ;-)
Complain about this comment
brigadier
It's all there, it's all out there to be found. Information, cases for and against are out there to be read, updated and constantly added to. We aren't your teacher or mother or feeder. If you want to find out the merits of something the best way to do it is to investigate the subject your self, dont rely on others opinions, especially from here. If you just want to stick with the status quo because a nat wont come up and spoon feed you the reasons why it's a good idea then so be it. It's laziness. I'm constantly trying to find out new stuff, new arguments, only this morning i went on the internet to find out about camels eyelids. I wasn't gonna sit about and wait for someone else to tell me about them. Even more so i wasn't gonna sit about and complain why no one had been telling me about the merits of having 3 sets of eyelids or indeed the disadvantages. I sought the information myself.
I believe it's right for us. wheteher you belive it's right or not. But i believe this because i've found out for myself. I've investigated, read, explored, discussed and listened. I've engaged in conversations on here before and i always try to uphold a sense of dignity and belief that hey i might not be the smartest guy here but i'm polite and will listen to what others have to say. And when wrong i'll accept it and acknowledge it.
I wont sit and wait to be told what i should vote for or believe in. I'll do the digging for myself.
Complain about this comment
#110 Ed
That's all I tried to say in my #106, but they wouldn't let me!
Complain about this comment
#110: Phobia can also mean "an aversion to." We can't leave pedantry to the pedants, can we?
Complain about this comment
Believe the latest YouGov poll says Labour are now ahead of the Nats in Scotland, due to the financial crisis and broken promises, although support for a referendum is now a majority. Must be a lot of folk seeing the opportunity to crush the independence thing for a generation?
Labour or SNP? Take your pick - either is bleak for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Surely almost 6 hours has to be some sort of record?!
Complain about this comment
My mistake, on "6 hours" just over-zealous moderating (3 in a row referred) made it appear that way.
Complain about this comment
#99 brigadierjohn
I have been thinking about you...!
Is it perhaps because you use sweeping statements to describe nationalists, when you criticise them for using negative generalisations to describe their perceived opponents, that I find that you can be insulting?
If you used specific criticisms directed towards specific breaches, by particular persons, would it lend more integrity to your argument and be more effective?
Complain about this comment
It's disappointing to see remarks covering independence, with 'arguements' such as, "It's not Scotland's oil, it's Aberdeens oil."
It's disappointing to see our English counterparts making other 'out of date' remark too.
Is this why Scotland are England drifitng apart? Is our education system creating minds who operate differently, with a different take on matters that we no longer see eye to eye.
Here is an example:
"We do realise, don't we, that the 1745 "rebellion" was crushed mainly by tartan clad Scots? We do realise, don't we, that the Highland Clearances were actioned by Scottish aristocracy? We do realize, don't we, that Scottish engineers, doctors, lawyers and missionaries were the professional backbone of the BRITISH Empire?"
The 1745 (the 2nd Jacobite rebellion, I believe) had many factors. The main issue was the religous reasons, but also the Scottish Clans played a major role, something which, I highly doubt a English person educated by an English school could ever understand.
It was never a fight for independence, however, and we all know that the Clan Cheifs were more then happy to fight within Scotland, and that Bonnie Prince Charlie lost major support by invading England. Another factor which could have influenced the downfall of the Scottish Army (which also consisted of English Jacobites) later on.
But how can there be a Britain when the two country's who make up Britain do not understand one anothers past?
The last part of the comment was also amusing. The people of Scotland were the backbone of the British Empire, however, Scotland was never the main focus of power during the Empire era, and Scotland never managed to develope as well as England overall despite how 'involved' we were, but of course we would take an opportunity to go elsewhere if it meant food, wealth and a better life, who would not? It was also known that Scot's sold themselves as 'slaves', but slaves is not the correct term (I forgot the correct term) but Scot's sold their time for a number of years to others abroad. The person then worked for the number of years untill they were free, but usually they remained where they were but were given wages. It mainly happend on the plantations I believe, perhaps someone here could go into more detail?
Also what do I know of England's history? I know almost nothing, all I know is what happened between Scotlanmd and England, it is, however a crucial part we are missing thesedays that allows quite alot of problems between England and Scotland and the 'simple' people who will rant and rave against the nationalities above and claim to not be racist...
Complain about this comment
#67; "forfar-loon"; I suppose that says it all, really.
As per usual, you tcheuchter types deliberately misunderstand; when I say "have your independence" I mean "have your independence"; if ever there's a vote in England to cut you lot loose there will be a queue longer than every pound in the Barnett formula laid end to end.
Nothing would be finer than to leave you with the grossly arrogant Alex "the Arc"- which according to his Highandmightyness "goes right round" (like a circle, then Alex?) - Salmond. Don't you know all the half decent politico Jocks are in Westminster?
But then I suppose the all knowing loons in Forfar, in their post modernist ironical fashion, knew that already.
And by the way bridie- you still haven't answered how you would pay for the public services, a bit like your Shrek of a First Minister, scoffing at some legitimate questioning when it gets a mite tricky.
On second thought, don't get out more; stay in Teuchterland and save the rest of us from your blethers.
Complain about this comment
#117 brigadierjohn
Re the YouGov poll, it's been "reported on" in the "Scotland News" section of the Thunderer all day by their Voters ditch SNP over referendum - a headline worthy of the Scotsman. Oddly, the North British aren't trusted with details, so no analysis is possible.
This contrasts with their "Politics" section, where the UK YouGov poll is covered on David Cameron pips Gordon Brown to new popularity high, and the readership considered sufficiently grown-up to be provided with a link to the detail, with its usual tiny Scottish sample.
If both Labour and SNP are "bleak for Scotland", why not tell us who isn't?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#114 jediirnbru
Very good point. Obvious, really.
What is not obvious is why someone who claims to have been a journalist would be wanting or needing to be spoon-fed.
Not an investigative journalist, then, Brig?
Complain about this comment
#122
Pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#122 kashibeyaz
For the sufferers of blinding embitterment, do you perhaps require this....
http://www.democracyforum.co.uk/
:-)
Complain about this comment
#112 Supranationalist
I have just returned, as planned, to re-read your post, as earlier I was rushing.
What a very interesting point!
I am going to keep it, and may paraphrase it to use myself in future.
I hope you don't have a problem with that!
If you do and want to use 'roch spik' to reprimand me, you can do so here:
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
:-)
Complain about this comment
Thomas (121),
I believe you're thinking of "Indentured Servants", and that it was as you suggest, a time-limited voluntary self-enslavement, not dissimilar to most forms of military enlistment...;-)Slainte!
ed
Complain about this comment
#1 -
patty, that has to be the understatement of the year. Not even Labour, with their pathological hatred of all things nationalist, would send an Englishman north of the border to trot out the old "you're too wee, too poor, too stupid" routine these days. Vince must be trying to beat Nicol and Tavish to the title of "The Man who Did most to Kill the Lib Dums in Scotland".
It's surprising as well, he normally comes across as quite sensible at PMQs. It's so surprising that there seems quite a few posters quite prepared to accept his comments, simply because it's Vince. Yet if, say, Purnell, the DWP minister, was to come up to Argyle Street and tell the crowds they were too stupid, too poor, too relient on English handouts to stand on their own two feet, he'd be lucky to make it to Central Station under his own power for a quick escape. So why is the sainted cable allowed to say it? Is it more true because he's made some semblence of sense in the past?
We need to recognise his speech for what it was. The tired ramblings of a dyed in the wool Unionist, a last pitched defence of a union that only the feeble minded can't accept is in its death throws. The sooner it's put out its (and ours) misery, the better.
Complain about this comment
Rong Radio Station?
Respect!
ed
Complain about this comment
#112 Supranationalist
I agree wholly with the first part of your analysis.
However, I think you fail to realise that in the 19th century the "English" Empire morphed into a "British" Empire, as the Scots increasingly grabbed th opportunities of making money by subjugating other countries along with England.
Probably one of the most inglorious periods of our history, but we can't ignore it.
The British continue to hanker after those "Britannia Rules the Waves" days. Hence the British are the problem - whether their origin is Scots, English, Welsh, or Irish.
Those who accept their own nationality without wishing to dominate others have moved beyond imperialism.
Complain about this comment
#112 Supranationalist
I have just returned, as planned, to re-read your post, as earlier I was rushing.
What a very interesting point!
I am going to keep it, and may paraphrase it to use myself in future.
I hope you don't have a problem with that!
:-)
Complain about this comment
#128 Ed Iglehart
"Indentured servants" - usually for a period of 7 years - after that you could leave.
Complain about this comment
#128 Ed Iglehart
Sorry ed. I should have read your post properly!
Complain about this comment
aye_write 113
You know that was not the point at all and I have taken the time to explain things to you at 101.
Learn to accept things with good grace when you are wrong as, others do.
People who are unable to do this loose creditability.
Complain about this comment
#135 Susan-Croft
Gosh, is an apology (my #88 "So, if apologies are due, and even if they're not, for the sake of others' (Susan's!) feelings, I apologise.") not good grace in your book?
Had you not so haughtily intervened, no one would have known, nor cared, who wrote what in my post!
So you created the stink for yourself.
People who do that loose all credibility.
Complain about this comment
For those who did not see Vince Cable on the Politics Show at the end of last month, it was very embarrassing.
He was caught out saying the exact opposite of what a clip they had showed him saying earlier during the banking crisis. What a fraud. There was more than one clip aswell. It begs the question, does he just follow what he thinks is public opinion?
Ask yourselves, do you think if he were involved in a full debate on independence he would have a successful grasp of all the arguments? Or would he be found wanting?
Imagine you are debating with him? Do you maybe know more than he?
You decide.
Complain about this comment
#122 kashibeyaz:
"forfar-loon"; I suppose that says it all, really.
Yep, a loon originally from Forfar.
As per usual, you tcheuchter types deliberately misunderstand; when I say "have your independence" I mean "have your independence"; if ever there's a vote in England to cut you lot loose there will be a queue longer than every pound in the Barnett formula laid end to end.
Nice generalisation, usually a sign of erudition.
Regarding a vote in England, I'm afraid I don't see any relevance.
Nothing would be finer than to leave you with the grossly arrogant Alex "the Arc"- which according to his Highandmightyness "goes right round" (like a circle, then Alex?) - Salmond.
Agreed, nothing would be finer! I commend you also on your mastery of Euclidean geometry.
Don't you know all the half decent politico Jocks are in Westminster?
But then I suppose the all knowing loons in Forfar, in their post modernist ironical fashion, knew that already.
First teuchter, now "Jocks". Is this the high level of debate that you were seeking earlier? Oh, to answer your question: yes I do know. And you can keep them if you like (please!).
And by the way bridie- you still haven't answered how you would pay for the public services, a bit like your Shrek of a First Minister, scoffing at some legitimate questioning when it gets a mite tricky.
Now it's "bridie" and "Shrek" is it? More high level debate, eh Kashi?
I did answer and, shattering blow to your self-esteem that this may be, your question isn't "tricky". I'll answer again: Same as any other country. In case that's still not clear enough Scotland would pay for public services through taxes raised. If that proves insufficient public spending would either be trimmed or money would be borrowed. Just like any other country.
I suppose we could also start printing money, but then we'd really be in the arc of insolvency...wait a second!
On second thought, don't get out more; stay in Teuchterland and save the rest of us from your blethers.
I'm in "Teuchterland" am I? That's no way to speak about Brigadoon! Oh, and people come here precisely to read blethers Kashi. That's sort of the whole point of Blether with Brian.
Final thought: "Kashi Beyaz". I may be wrong, and if so please correct me, but do you perhaps have some Turkish ancestry? And if so, how would you feel if others were to use derogatory descriptions of Turks in their replies to you? The good news is I don't think anyone on here would be remotely inclined to do so, but you might like to think about that before your next post. The risk is less that you'll offend anyone here, more that you make yourself look foolish and a little unpleasant.
Complain about this comment
#112 Supranationalist
#131 oldnat
Yes, oldnat's right of course. In the interests of balance (for Anaxim ;-), I'll say that I did not deny, but did omit to mention, that Scots were regarded as the nasty aggressors in imagery from India of the time, and during the American Revolution, similarly Scots were seen as nasty and aggressive, as they were involved in much of the brutality (in seeing their economic powerhouse coming under threat).
And I'm sure there were other examples.
Empire building isn't pretty.
That's why most modern nations are no longer hung up on it. As for the UK, well....are they clinging on (a bit)? Look at the UK's behaviour with the EU (must be a big fish, cannot accept other authority, expects other members to just fall in behind etc. etc,)
So, contrary to much mud slinging that tends to go on, we supporters of independence do not think Scots are perfect and superiorly blemish free, we do not look at history through rose tinted specs and more importantly, do not see the future in such an idealistic way either.
Sorry, but independence is very sensible, as are the majority of its supporters.
That those against take the small minority of slightly over the top ones (as there are in any movement remember) and seek to tar us all with that same brush, is really quite disingenuous and says more about their credibility and motives than ours.
Complain about this comment
#131 oldnat
I appreciate your comment and see what you mean about morphing.
The wording in my post which, I acknowledge, was somewhat rushed, resulted from an impulse to distinguish between the role of Scotland and the role of Scots as individuals and groups in the British imperial enterprise, as loss of national autonomy involves, I would suggest, loss of Scottish national responsibility, in view of the fact that we cannot as a nation reasonably be held to account for participation in ventures in which, as a nation, we were not free to choose not to participate. Unless it is maintained that we were, on the contrary, in a position to secede from the UK at the height of British imperialism.
My position is, then, that it clearly should be accepted that we were implicated in the imperial venture but freely implicated only as individuals and groups within society, as after the completion of the Union Scotland as a society was, of course, not free to choose not to be implicated in any British policy as a result of having lost its freedom of action.
Complain about this comment
#132 aye_write
Feel free to improve upon it. The more ideas circulate the better.
Complain about this comment
#114 jediirnbru: Nothing wrong with anything you say, except it doesn't address the question. Which was my point about Nats, actually. You seem to be saying that we have a political party that wants voters to find out for themselves what it's offering. That's truly something new! Or is it just that what's been promised so far has gone so badly wrong that they're feart to say anything?
Sooner of later you have to explain all, or do you expected to get elected by the gullible? Either way, it doesn't say much for your (SNP's) opinion about voters.
I'll give you another chance to lay something constructive before me. but you'll have to be quick.
#120 aye_write: So, no answer from you either.
#124 IM_Wright: Is that another pointless jibe, or do you really think people should have to "investigate" what the SNP is about? Aren't you sufficiently proud of it to tell us?
My only conclusion can be that the SNP has nothing to offer beyond emotive bluster and economic madness, backed up with destructive abuse to anyone who asks them for more.
Strangely, I came to this blog about a year ago with this opinion, hoping to have it challenged. In fact it has been confirmed.
Complain about this comment
#139 aye_write
During the American Revolution there were those who were loyal to the Crown on the one hand and those who were disloyal to it on the other hand. The degree of brutality was not determined by which side one was on. A loyalist colonist whose story I am aware of was suspected of being an informant. A group of disloyal colonists came after him and caught him. To cut a long story short, his death at their hands was just about as grisly as you can imagine. What had he done wrong? He was loyal to the Crown.
There were, of course, colonist families who were just keeping their heads down and trying to mind their own business until the storm passed but who literally lost their heads nonetheless, because some neighbour or other wanted their land and accused them of being loyal to the Crown. Were Scottish members of the Crown forces more brutal than that? Is that even conceivable? A row of severed heads on the sideboard confronts you as you enter the plundered farm-house on behalf of the King. As a soldier of the King, what might you do that could be more brutal than that?
Loyalty to the Crown was the issue for Scots at that time. Weighing up benefit and loss that might result from loss of the American or any other colonies was really neither here nor there for most of us. Loyalty to the Crown was expected and required in the UK just as disloyalty to it came increasingly to be expected in the communities of the American colonies. The penalty for stepping out of line or even for being unjustly accused of doing so could be extremely severe in either case in either camp.
Freedom of choice is a luxury that most Scots simply did not have in the eighteenth century and subsequently, just as the Scottish nation had no such freedom after England took it away.
Complain about this comment
#142 bg
I am at a loss to know why you might expect me to provide you with information about the Scottish National Party, of which I am not a member and with which I have no connection.
I am aware, however, that information about the SNP and its policies is, of course, freely available and that all you have to do is to stir yourself to gain access to it if you are interested in doing so, as I did many years ago.
If you have any difficulties, ask Brian Taylor how to go about it. As a journalist, he has already been there and done that, naturally.
Complain about this comment
Re #142 Brigadierjohn (the farewell tour, or the unionist parties have knackered the country, so I'm off, tour)
"Strangely, I came to this blog about a year ago with this opinion"
and spent a great deal of time telling everyone that you were a true neutral, until you were finally exposed as the card-carrying unionist that you are.
Spin from an ex-hack? well I never expected that .... much
Just remember, there is none so blind as he who will not see. If you arrive with a closed mind, you cannot expect others to waste their time trying to change it.
Complain about this comment
aye_write 136
Yep and if you do it again, I will do the same thing again.
As far as I am concerned there was no stink, its a principle and one we all signed up to when we starting to use the blogs (House rules) it has as you well know nothing to do with feelings. If people are allowed to move a persons post around at will, onto different blogs it would cause mayhem.
You have done it before and it was time to put a stop to it.
Furthermore that would not have been my answer to the particular question Brian is presenting. It is a much more in-depth question than just discrediting Vince Cable.
Complain about this comment
#144 and 145: pardon my ignorance. I thought political parties set out to win people to their ideas. Remember the SNP Manifesto? I thought they wanted my vote. Of course, I didn't realise it was a false prospectus, and they don't want to say what they're really about.
Don't get hung up on my past career. It's over. I'm just a floating voter now.
That means I'm lifting my skirt to passing parties (copyright either the Aberdeen or Dunfermline chairman) and quite huffy that you don't fancy me. :-)
So you can't, or won't answer my original questions? Well that's fine. I'll draw the rather obvious conclusion.
For the record, I'm still not a Unionist.
Complain about this comment
#146 Susan-Croft
Well, if I'm that important to you.....happy stalking my posts....!
It'd be like a pony being in charge of Deeb Blue but on ye go......
:-D
Complain about this comment
#146 Susan-Croft
Well, if I'm that important to you.....happy stalking my posts....!
It'd be like a pony being in charge of Deep Blue but on ye go......
:-D
Complain about this comment
#146 Susan-Croft
Yawn..........!!
Complain about this comment
# Susan-Croft
We don't care!!
Complain about this comment
#146 Susan-Croft
(Has this blog been retitled "Susan's self importance"?)
Complain about this comment
#146 Susan-Croft
I chocket on a tattie,
a ta-a-ttie,
I chocket on a tattie,
I threw ma tattie soup
Complain about this comment
Brian,
That'll be a new record for the blog, then?
Six posts (148-153 at this point) ALL from the same poster awaiting moderation!!
Must be a wummin!!??
Complain about this comment
#117
The YouGove poll you refer to has the SNP ahead of Labour of the MSP vote and Labour ahead of SNP on the list vote.
However it is merely a tiny subset (about 8%)of a UK wide YouGov poll and the figures from it therefore are completely meaningless. They do not constitute a big enough sample to qualify them as a poll .
The journalist who ran with this in the unionist Times was well aware of that this stunt was based on inadequate information.
I'll rely on then evidence of real polls, like that in Dundee last week
Complain about this comment
Re #147 Brigadierjohn
"for the (daily) record, I'm still not a unionist"
LOL
Well, you are certainly a comedian
Complain about this comment
Brownedov (and all),
It looks like we may be on the verge of post-moderation.
Have a look here
Interesting....
Complain about this comment
#143 Supranationalist
Interesting.
But of course, and not that I am suggesting you are saying, Scots should not feel any sense of having no freedom of choice today, as after all it is just a case of making our choice known, though the independence referendum - the choice is in our hands.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#147 brigadierjohn,
Hi brigadier or (to be friendly) should that be John?
Whatever your reasons for visiting Brians Blogs, you are invaluable to us. We need to be reminded that there are lots of sceptics out there.
I'm pretty sure you don't inhabit this quagmire to learn about and be converted to vote for the SNP however. You could easily find out what info you say you are keen to devour by starting on the Official SNP website and also trawling through the masses of links which you have been provided with from individuals on this blog.
How can you expect to be convinced one way or another by anyone here when none of us have any authority to make policy of any description?
Quite a few people who participate in Brian's Blogs are "Unionists". Quite a few are anti Union, ie., the "UK Union". Some on here are desperate for Scotland to attain independance and yet detest the SNP. Some vote SNP through gritted teeth as a neccessity. (Remember the National Convention with its 2.5 million signature for a Parliament, ignored completely by Westminster)?
Not many are quite as coy as you are though, re your efforts at covering up where you are coming from or uncovering your aspirations for Scotland.
Coyness of course can derive from various causes, shyness, modesty, uncertainty, evasiveness, etc.. Some of us on this blog will make our guesses and perhaps one or two of us will guess correctly. (Sorry, brigadier, that's a bit naughty, just couldn't resist the tease).
Why so coy, brigadier? Would it be too painful to allow your friends here to know a little bit about your current and past voting patterns? After all most of us are quite transparent about where we are coming from, don't you agree?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
#147 bg
Of course the Scottish National Party sets out to win people over to its ideas, as you put it, and, as we all know, these ideas are frequently ventilated here, whether you care to acknowledge the fact or not.
Bluster away if you must, however, and, evidently, you must, as has not gone un-noticed here. Your blog-space histrionics are a legend in your own lifetime.
Debate is one thing. Engaging with you is quite another. Wouldn't give you the time of day, old boy.
Complain about this comment
I see that translated into seats the You gov poll would indicate that at the next Holyrood election - Labour would have 49 seats and the SNP 44. That may well be good new for the LibDems as they will get their mitts on the steering wheel again!
Complain about this comment
152 AW
Naw hen, it's been re-titled, someone else's self importance!!
Complain about this comment
Information on the new look for (some) blogs...
Make of it what you will
Slainte
ed
Complain about this comment
#154 freedjmac
What a chick!
;-D
Complain about this comment
#153 ad nauseam aye_write: You lost that argument with Susan Croft on every level. But I'm the only one prepared to say I'm embarrassed for you.
Complain about this comment
#153 ad nauseam aye_write: Everyone knows you lost that argument with Susan Croft on every level. But I'm the only one prepared to say I'm embarrassed for you.
Complain about this comment
#159 bobbishop: You certainly don't need me here. But your questions are fair enough.
Right now I wouldn't trust any party in Scotland or the UK. I'd prefer to see the moderating hand of coalition partners, although that would not be my favoured form if, for example, one party could produce a true statesman or a natural leader for the nation. I'd prefer federation to separation, but first I'd like to see an attempt at fixing the Union, just to see if something demonstrably fair could be arrived at.
Past voting has always been for the candidate rather than the party. In this area the Tories seem to produce better people, although I did once vote for Margaret Bain, the late Mrs Ewing for whom I had much respect. Probably Tory next time, but anyone honourable.
Aspiration for Scotland? A return to old educational standards, respect for others, an end to the handout culture (for individuals) anything that elevates decency and self-respect, affordable homes in remote communities, nothing too revolutionary. Same as most folk, I suspect. Oh, and for me, bigger pensions!
Maybe a Nat will tell me now, what he/she think would be special or different, or what they aspire to, under Home Rule?
As for SNP policy, I really don't want to read carefully crafted PR stuff. I want ordinary Nats to tell me what it means to them, in practical terms. It seems to be a huge problem. Even asking draws a barrage of abuse.
Complain about this comment
brigadierjohn:
#167.
Oh John, you change your position more times then I change my socks during a the day!
You were a hardcore status quo supporter several months ago, what happened? You now would prefer federilism then for Scotland to reverse the Act of the Union?
But please, seperation? You and I know Scotland was and still is a country in her own right, then we are simply reversing an old act which is not seperation!
Or are you using wording to your own advantage? The public does not like the word 'seperation' as for some reason it is seen a a 'bad thing'.
Tit-for tat John, tit-for-tat.
"Maybe a Nat will tell me now, what he/she think would be special or different, or what they aspire to, under Home Rule?"
Please, I do prefer the term Scottish independence supporter, the word 'nat' is simply a shorter word for unionists to describe a group of people, quite dirty because we all know what some would say after mentioning 'nat', and how pleasant it can be.
The best part for Scotland (this is all my opinion) is the right to choose. At the moment for example we vote Labour, middle England vote Conservative, who do we get? I also believe that since we are suppose to be equal partners, a partnership between two country's then the balance of power is not fair at all. I understand England has more population, but America has more population then Great Britain, but we all would prefer America to treat us as partners rather then poodles, agreed? I also believe that the flaws within Scotland would be dragged out, so many problems and Westminister does not have to deal with the problems because Scotland is in the minority by a large amount that... well it can go unnoticed and the Government could return to power... even without our support. There's also ideology, I feel that Scotland can better represent the country and the people better then Westminister and that way we can have a better balance of views and opinions instead of Labour and the Conservatives everyday and every year.
Then there is the European Union future, bigger, more money and far more influential then the United Kingdom.
There is no logic for one Union to continue to simply be apart of another better Union by default. It's a waste and our power is diluted as a result and we see little return for our service at Brussels.
Complain about this comment
#158 aye_write
Interesting point: the question of freedom of choice in relation to an independence referendum. So have the unionist parties that have stated that they will block it relented? I don't think so.
The unionist parties' view would appear to be that in the British Union you have freedom of choice on constitutional matters so long as you do not expect to be free to choose independence in a referendum.
No, I don't think that this amounts to true freedom of choice. Do you? If you do, then you would probably be satisfied to be told that you could have any colour of car so long as it was black. If that is the only colour of car that is available, then you do indeed have an absolutely free choice of all that has been made available. Excellent, unless you happen to really really want a white one.
You honestly think the UK will let the choice be in our hands? If so, I don't think you quite appreciate, with respect, the truly awesome nature of this old imperial state that has Scotland in its clutches and which has the soundest of pragmatic reasons for keeping it there and none whatever for releasing it.
In the UK the exit sign does not exist. Nor is there an exit. You have to make one yourself if you want to leave, as the Irish discovered. Having made one, if you can manage that against all the odds, do not expect to pass through it unscathed or to take all your worldly goods with you.
Complain about this comment
#167 brigadierjohn
It is not too much to expect that anyone who cares about his country will take the trouble to find out what he needs to know in order to decide whether it should be independent.
If you can't be bothered or just can't make up your mind, snap out of it. You're a big boy now. Shift for yourself.
The information is available, and arguments for and against are presented all the time. You have no excuse for not consulting this material or for claiming that it is not to hand, especially if you have been a journalist. Enough of this pantomime.
Complain about this comment
#169. Supranationalist
Come on now, I know how Scotland-UN forced devolution onto the Labour govt. for fear of embarrassment at the EU, where the 22 ex-soviet states were having their democracy scrutinised pre-joining, so the UK was found desperately wanting re Westminster, not just Scotland, and had to shape up.
I'm not really silly you know. PR is a large part of front of house politics, as steely, hard-nosed negotiating (blackmail!) is of the behind the scenes. We can choose. Can you see a way the UK can avoid the referendum, given both parties vested interests in the next GE? Are you testing me?
;-)
Complain about this comment
#166 brigadierjohn
Is your loosing the argument re 'big bad SNP' on every level the reason for your well aimed spite in that post.
It doesn't really matter even if I did, does it.
Complain about this comment
#171 aye_write
With respect, as we are all aware, there cannot be a consultative Scottish-Government-organised independence referendum unless there is a majority for the enabling legislation for this in the Scottish Parliament. There is, of course, no such majority at present.
As the SNP appears unlikely to win a majority of seats at the 2011 election, for reasons which are well understood, another substantial group of MSPs will need to lend its support. Might it be Labour? No. The Tories? No again. The Lib Dems? If you're lucky and they are in the right frame of mind and can make their minds up and if the wind is blowing in the right direction . . . and if they increase their representation at the next election, which is not looking very likely.
Assuming, in spite of all of these difficulties, that a parliamentary majority is constructed, a referendum bill is passed and a consultative referendum is held, what happens if there is a small majority in favour of independence? Back to the drawing board, I'm afraid. On that basis you do not pass go and you certainly do not collect 200 pounds. What happens is that Westminster concludes that this merely signifies that it may be appropriate at a convenient opportunity for it to consider whether further constitutional reform in Scotland may be merited, possibly based on Calman recommendations. MPs eventually agree that fresh proposals should be brought forward, and a timetable is agreed for this, one allowing for extremely lengthy consideration of the issues in view of their importance, of course.
Then the proposed new measures are voted on in a referendum organised by the UK government. The independence option is not included, as the aim is to see if discontent can be assuaged by constitutional concessions aimed at preserving the Union. The Scottish electorate rejects these? I don't think so. It takes what is on offer as before. This is then interpreted by the UK government as rejection of the independence option, which is thus kicked into the long grass again.
Eventually, if a demand for an independence referendum does not go away, the UK government holds one to determine whether there should be one and, if it absolutely cannot avoid having one after all of this prevarication, at which the UK is, of course, a past master, the old 40 per cent rule that adorned the first devolution referendum in the 1970s so memorably is dug up and brought into service, thus ensuring that a simple majority in favour of independence will not be enough. Or, as it might not get away with that a second time, it confines itself to mounting the most ginormously gargantuan scare-mongering campaign of all time, with all the stops pulled out, and a majority for independence is not achieved, as the Scottish electorate is mainly composed of cautious and easily alarmed individuals rather than brave souls such as your good self.
There is no exit. You have to make one.
No, I am not testing you. These are only ideas presented in good faith. By all means shoot them down. Please do.
Complain about this comment
#167 brigadierjohn,
Thank you for your helpful reply.
I note your preference for a Federal solution and I respect your view on that. It is not an easy solution to achieve though.
A few decades ago, the SNP and the Liberals, (as they were then), tried to find common ground on that policy but the talks failed. I certainly wasn't involved with the SNP at that time, (I'm not that old), and I have never seen any documentation either. It isn't hard to see the difficulties though.
I could speculate on these difficulties if you would allow me that privilidge?
Obviously Federalism has been Liberal / Lib Dem policy since Adam was a boy but how it could be achieved has never been worked out to the best of my knowledge.
First it requires that the Lib Dems are in power in Westminster. It would take a bit of an act of faith to forecast that, I suggest, but let's not be downbeat, however.
Let's speculate that they could get into power somehow. They would then have to be in power on the manifesto pledge to create a Federal Britain, surely, if they were going to be able to carry Westminster with them.
The next bit of speculation then may be along the lines of "The Federal Design". Would you think that it would suit Westminster to be a participant in an unequal federation of 4 home nations? Would it seem likely that that solution would gain favour? What do you think?
Perhaps a more likely scenario would be if they were to set up a series of regional assemblies. John Prescott tried that and failed however, there was just no call for it in England.
So should we just wait for a few more years or decades and see if the English regions change their minds?
In response to the meeting with the Liberals all these years ago, the SNP adopted a policy which is still in existance as far as I am aware. A Conferation of British States was how it was described. This would be advocated after Independance was achieved. Perhaps there are early signs that this would not be difficult to achieve?
Best wishes.
Complain about this comment
#173. Supranationalist
Thank you. I am a long term collector of the honest portrayal.
A proactive approach is certainly required. I do not advocate only playing by Westminster's rules, especially as you pointed out, they can change them at will.
It's only a challenge.
But for now it's nearly time for bed.
Complain about this comment
#173 Supranationalist
btw Supranationalist, the answers I am going to give you are pretty much all on:
http://www.realmofscotland.com
and summed up by the first comment in comments. But check out all the sections, Constitution, Sovereignty, Scotland-UN...
It is considered that refusal to hold a referendum on independence would be a matter for reference to the international authorities, especially the Council of Europe and the United Nations.
By all means pick holes in this, we must get it right!
;-)
Complain about this comment
#166 brigadierjohn
And brig, you get embarrassed if anyone advocates Scotland should be independent.
Complain about this comment
#176 aye_write
Oh, but it's not a question of refusal to hold a referendum. It's a question of prevarication and procrastination until a problematic constitutional situation can be dealt with by other means, which, incidentally, are under way.
If it is dealt with by other means with the result that an overwhelming demand for either independence or a referendum on the question can be said to have not been reliably demonstrated, the UK government does not have to hold a referendum and is not in sufficiently hot water to cause it undue discomfort.
Furthermore, in a major global economic recession bordering on a depression other states and international bodies will be guarding against what can be categorised as transient political upheavals resulting from or aggravated by it. Other states will be guarding against secessionist pressures within their own territories in such a period with particular vigilance. Such pressures are already evident in the French DOM-TOMS, for instance.
Other states are not going to be rushing to condemn a state such as the UK for protecting its territorial integrity against an event which is affecting them all in similar ways to a greater or lesser degree. Consequently, the UK government is very likely to find itself given the leeway and time to fix the problem by constitutional reform of its own choosing. It is, after all, a sovereign state, and there is an international bias in favour of preserving the status quo, if it can properly be preserved, particularly in states such as the UK which are strategically important to other states which have a strategically important global or regional role to play.
Prevarication and procrastination could not protect the UK government against internal and eventually external pressures in favour of an independence referendum indefinitely, of course. But they would not have to. The nature of the Scottish demand for independence and for an independence referendum is such that there would appear to be ample scope for the UK government to defuse the situation long before it could become critical. The proportion of the electorate voting for the SNP is not, of course, a majority, and it is known that people vote for it for a variety of reasons, particularly within the context of devolved government. As for the supposed demand for an independence referendum, it has not been demonstrated by means which government needs to take account of. Opinion polls don't count. What would count?
Well, a more impressive performance at elections would help, of course. Not enough, however, if a Holyrood parliamentary majority for an independence referendum still cannot be assembled to get the ball rolling. What would count is irrefutable evidence that the population cares about the issue. Direct action is always needed sooner or later in these cases, by which I mean lawful demonstrations of popular discontent and demand for a referendum. This in itself will not be enough, but it may be expected to push up the SNP share of the vote and thus advance the case for a referendum.
There is a problem with this, however: getting Scottish people out into the streets in a sustained campaign of popular demonstrations in the Scottish cities for as long as it takes to produce a result. If it can be managed, however, this would make it difficult for the UK government to prevaricate and procrastinate and reduce the credibility of their claim that there is no need for a referendum. There is a time for such a campaign, of course, and it has not arrived yet, I suppose. But, when the time does arrive, can such a campaign possibly be mounted credibly? Doubtful.
Thank you for the link, which I shall certainly make use of when I have time. In the meantime the above is my initial rapid response for what it may be worth.
Complain about this comment
I was looking through some previous contributions to some of Brian's previous blogs and was intrigued by a response that went on to list some of Scotland's (apparently many) failings, one of which was an intense introspection. I was intrigued, I must say, because, if interpretation of the Labour position is correct, then this introspection can only be cured by continuing to be governed from Westminster. Somehow Labour assume internationalism to be equal to Westminster rule, and the values of outward-looking, hands across the waters, cross-border cooperation, can only be achieved by Westminster governance.
This, sort of, raises a number of immediate questions, such as why does such introspection persist in deepest, darkest Scotland. Why have we daft Scots not snapped out of it? I can only presume Menzies was dropping big hints at the recent Lib Dem conference: we have neither the sophistication nor general nous to snap out of it. In other words, Scotland is not to blame, only Scots are to blame.
Menzies revelations at the Lib Dem conference reminded me of an article written, I think, by George Foulkes, who seemed to think that the best way to address some of the problems of the Scottish media output (Brian excluded, of course) was for people in Scotland to listen to Radio 4 in the morning. We would be comforted, he assured us, because there would be some nice Scottish voices for us to hear, and you know us Scots just love the sound of our own voices, according to the unionist party mentality anyway.
This is an old trick of unionist parties, though, and it is one that is becoming increasingly easy to spot. That, in order to avoid having to address systemic failings, one simply blames these syetmic failings on the Scottish general public. So, why are people in Scotland apparently so introspective according to unionist parties? It has got nothing to do with living in a country that has no foreign policy powers, no seat at the EU or UN, no, no, no, it's because people in Scotland are introspective. It's got nothing to do with Scotland having a mere regional news branch, no, no, no, it's because people in Scotland don't listen to Radio 4. That's it, I'm away to tune into Radio 4, at least they have some nice Scottish voices for me to prick my ears up to every time they speak.
Well, not really, and what was that the unionist parties were saying again about the great economic benefits of the union dividend? I stopped listening a long time ago, around about the time that I came to the conclusion that in order to address any of these apparent failings, we must address the failings of the system first.
Complain about this comment
# aye_write
"the expressed will of the Scottish people"
Having fended off concerted efforts to drag me away from my computer, I have now read what you directed me to and am focusing on the above quotation from the James Wilkie contribution.
There is obviously a problem concerning how to establish "the expressed will of the Scottish people" on the question of independence for so long as an independence referendum has not been held and also on the question of whether such a referendum should be held. Consequently, the UK government and unionist parties in Scotland may be expected to continue by one means or another to prevent one from being held.
This is not likely to involve outright refusal to countenance such a thing. For so long as no reliable popular majority in favour of a referendum can be established by recognised means, the UK government will probably maintain that it has not been shown that the case has been made for one to be held and that, therefore, it is perfectly entitled to choose to address constitutional concerns by other means without resort to a plebiscite on independence at any stage.
Without a parliamentary majority in favour of a non-binding consultative referendum, the SNP will not persuade the Scottish Parliament to hold one. If it cannot do that, it will not succeed in manoeuvring the UK parliament into holding a binding one. How to assemble a Holyrood majority in favour of a referendum on the assumption that there will not be an SNP majority in the Scottish Parliament after the 2011 election?
Aside from concerted and sustained street demonstrations directed at manifesting the "will of the Scottish people" on the subject, the SNP might care to consider, and may already be considering, inviting interested parties, not least wealthy donors, to contribute to the organising of a constitutionally void but actually potentially potent consultative referendum beyond the authority of the state, the independently authenticated results of which might be presented to the UK government and international bodies in the form of a petition as evidence of "the expressed will of the Scottish people" in favour of a constitutionally binding referendum on independence.
If the UK government still dithers or even says no in circumstances such as these, then we can call in the cavalry.
Complain about this comment
#174 bobbishop: I hope I didn't advocate federalism per se. I said I preferred it to Independence as now offered, if that was the choice. My first idea was to repair what we have.
I realise Mandelas and Havels don't grow on trees, but I also said if we had a true statesman or a natural leader I would be prepared to give him a mandate.
Sadly, I see us just limping along with the Nats, without the Independence mandate, but strong enough to deny Labour another go at corruption. A mess.
Remember Northern Ireland? Everyone was so fed up there was substantial suport for a return to Westminster Rule. We may have to go through that phase.
(For pedants, yes, I know the politics in NI weren't directly comparable).
Complain about this comment
#177 aye_write: No spite. I was being chivalrous in telling you not to keep making a fool of yourself. Once, a lady would have recognised that without the need to have it spelled out. :-)
I'm finished on this thread. Kick back on the next of you must.
Complain about this comment
#180 Supranationalist
Thanks. I too am busy today.
I see where you are coming from. Westminster can be relied upon to act that way. But it was in no mind to have a devolution referendum, until forced to by behind the scenes tactics. The same thing will be necessary here again no doubt. Without going in to detail, two can play.
Interesting, it might be necessary to demonstrate? And about funding a sort of non referendum? I'll have to return to this debate. I see the referendum problem as a challenge and the smartest side will win.
Complain about this comment
#182 brigadierjohn
Yawn. You embarrassed yourself there. I think you stepped into the wrong century.......is that what's been getting to you?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS