Unlikely bedfellows
An intriguing vote at Holyrood on finance.
The SNP and the Tories both voted to condemn what they say will be "severe cuts" in Scottish public spending as a consequence of the Chancellor's budget.
Why? Because they have a shared objective, albeit different reasons for sharing.
Quite understandably, SNP ministers want to highlight cuts which they say are pending: £500m next year with worse to come.
Equally understandably, they want to pin the blame on Labour.
As do the Tories. They hope and expect to replace Labour next year as the UK Government.
And they want to enter power, if they do, with the voters regarding Labour, not the Tories, as culpable for what David Cameron has said will be an "age of austerity."
In the Holyrood debate, Labour maintained its line: that Scotland's budget will increase fractionally in real terms, if one factors out the shift in capital expenditure caused by bringing forward projects in an effort to counter recession.
They argued further that Scotland had benefited from Treasury initiatives such as the cut in VAT - and the cash support for the banks.
Consequently, they offered the spending package a "welcome".
However, by a majority, MSPs preferred to heed the case that there are big cuts pending, with worse to come.
During the debate, the Tories cited research prepared by the Centre for Public Policy for Regions.
CPPR has gained a reputation for hard-edged, dispassionate research.
This is an academically rigorous organisation featuring, among others, a former Labour special adviser on the economy.
They say that, in real terms, the Scottish Departmental Expenditure Limit (DEL) will shrink by between £2.1bn and £3.8bn between 08/09 and 13/14.
And that, beyond that, the prospects remain decidedly challenging.
Big numbers - with potentially big implications. And big thinking ahead at Holyrood.
You may remember at the time of the stushie over John Swinney's budget that there was talk of reforming the process by which spending plans are determined, to reflect the gravity and detail - plus the minority status of the SNP administration.
Such talk has not gone away.
Indeed, behind the scenes in Andrew Welsh's finance committee and elsewhere, there is considerable work going on.
Realistically, of course, it is not possible to exclude entirely the last-minute haggling which customarily attends political compromises.
Plus of course partisan politics will always intrude, especially with European Elections due in June and a UK General Election due next year.
But perhaps it might be possible to confront, collectively, the spending challenges ahead.
PS: Welcome your comments as ever. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer.
This is designed to ensure that, in the interests of all readers, there can be focused, substantive debate.
Over a prolonged period, it means that the broadest possible range of topics can be aired.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Partisan politics back so soon after the last blog? What a surprise! All the parties have their eyes on the upcoming elections and will continue to blame any predecessors for the state the country is in...
History repeating.
Complain about this comment
Here we go again, calling a Block Grant a budget.
Like I said on Douglas Frasers blog no more than 24 hours ago;
If you want Holyrood to take REAL responsibility and fix the current and forthcoming economic problems in Scotland, give them the purse strings.
I'd sooner trust Swinney to steer us out of recession than the asshat's in Westmonster
Complain about this comment
The Tories and the SNP are hardly " unlikely bedfellows ", they are united in a common purpose, trying hard to get rid of the worst government Britain has ever been afflicted with. Who is right about the budget is irrelevant, somebody is right and somebody is telling porkies; no prizes for saying who is who. Sometime next year, the SNP are going to have to deal with the Tories in a big way ( unless the dreaded swine flu kills us all off ) so it is better to have an amiable working relationship from day one, rather than the mutual loathing demonstrated between Scottish Labour and anybody opposed to them.
Complain about this comment
So if the CPPR are talking of budget cuts, can we stop this Labour nonsense of claiming budgetary increases?
We're in for major belt tightening, and significant tax rises for a long time. As Brian eludes - it's important that we all recognise where the blame lies for that.
It sure ain't at Holyrood.
To all those who say Scotland can't go it alone - I'm not sure we can afford to stay in this Union!
Complain about this comment
"Quite understandably, SNP ministers want to highlight cuts which they say are pending: £500m next year with worse to come.
Equally understandably, they want to pin the blame on Labour."
The SNP argument is presented as being purely political "pin the blame on Labour". The reasoning behind the SNP calculations are not explained, they are described merely as claims.
"Labour maintained its line: that Scotland's budget will increase fractionally in real terms, if one factors out the shift in capital expenditure caused by bringing forward projects in an effort to counter recession.
They argued further that Scotland had benefited from Treasury initiatives such as the cut in VAT - and the cash support for the banks."
The Labour argument is presented from a non political Scottish perspective "Scotland's budget will increase", "Scotland had benefited". Brian even throws in a few 'ifs' in an effort to lend credence to the laughable Labour claims.
Brian did much the same thing in his radio broadcast on newsdrive, the twaddle regarding the banks is probably the most annoying, particularly when the Dunfermline BS scandal is so fresh in the mind (Remember Murphy's false claims on USA sub primes and Darlings exaggerated numbers 30-40 million became 60-100 million)
Why are BBC presenters so afraid to acknowledge that Labour at Westminster are about to cut the Scottish budget, that Scotland will suffer and that any Scottish First Minister would be neglecting his duties if he didn't highlight them.
An excellent letter in The Herald from Iain Mann explained very clearly why the SNP are correct here.
Complain about this comment
This isn't the "age of austerity" it's the "age of audacity".
The audacity of Labour to expect rational adults to believe they are blameless for weakening the UK economy so much that it almost collapsed in the face of a worldwide recession.
Total collapse was only averted because everyone "confronted, collectively, the spending challenges ahead" - i.e the poor old taxpayer was made liable for billions of pounds worth of long-term loans - whether we liked it or not - only to find large amounts of the money STILL being used to line the pockets of corrupt bankers.
It's all very well saying everyone should "confront, collectively, the spending challenges ahead" but let's not forget it's Labour's corruption and incompetence that's left us so ill-equipped to respond to those challenges.
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor, the Conservative & Unionists in Scotland aren't merely trying to pin the blame on Labour for the coming streamlining of the oversized UK public sector. This is already a substantive fact.
We support the SNP government of Scotland when they say "500bn cuts" etc.. because it is merely factual. We don't engage in denying facts as Scottish Labour under Grayman are engaged in.
And something worth commenting on is how times have changed in the SNP camp. It wasnt three years ago they refused to enter into any kind of political negotiations, and now we are mutually being accused of being too palsy. Perhaps Scotland could do well with a bit of SNP minority government and sensible opposition politics from the Scottish Conservative and Unionists (God oly knows the Fiberals and Labourites are wholly incapable of being reasonable and pragmatic).
Complain about this comment
sorry that should read "refused to enter into any kind of political negotiations with the conservatives"
Complain about this comment
Imagine if Nulab were in control they would just roll over and get there tummies scratched rather than stick up for Scots.
Polls open in council by-election
Complain about this comment
i know it might not matter to anyone else on this thread , but can anyone enlighten me as to the way the lib-dems voted on this occasion?
I'm just watching and hoping for any sign of them cutting the umbilical cord from the labour party!
Sid
Complain about this comment
Personally I think the title "unlikely bed fellows" is premature, it most certainly will be applicable when the Tories win the GE.
To think that the same relationship of consensus as seen today will continue once the Tories are in the same position as Labour are in now (opposition in Holyrood, in power at Westmisnter) is stretching the capacity if faith.
To expect the Tory party in Scotland to be any less susceptible to the Labour disease of 'Westminster speaks Holyrood jumps' is also beyond belief. As a Unionist party what Westminster wants will always take precednet regardless of how principled Tory MSP's are in looking to Scotland's interests, the party and UK will come first, even for Aunty A the crunch time will come.
It's right to highlight the shambles of Labour and the cuts to be imposed, hopefully it will encourage voters to desire fiscal autonomy. Outwith Scotland this will likely find little favour and perhaps even generate more antagonism, as well as highlighting the cuts and not 'increases'.
Had to laugh at your comment on the CPPR though Brian "This is an academically rigorous organisation featuring, among others, a former Labour special adviser on the economy."
On refelction, is that really a good thing?
Complain about this comment
Brian
An interesting choice of words that Labour agreeing with SNP is consensus outbreak whereas Tory SNP agreement is unlikely bedfellows. I'm not sure that you have fully grasped the change in Scottish politics since 2007, of course being constantly bombarded by your own organisation with commentary on and examples of the daft system that obtains at Westminster can easily bring on a false memory of the time when Labour was in control.
What you have failed to point out in your piece is that 1 £ in every 8 is liable to go. (Thanks to Douglas Fraser for his blog) The Scottish Government gets £30billion to spend, £11 billion goes on Health and another £11 on local government, leaving £8 billion for everything else, prisons and parliament, squirrels and squid, trunk roads and forest rides, farmers and dramas, etcetera, etcetera, etcetera, as Yul Brynner would say. Where we are really going to need consensus will be to decide how, where and when limbs are going to be chopped off.
Who is for the NHS is free only up until you retire? (I think that would be possible wholly under the remit of the Scottish Parliament.)
Complain about this comment
A poster on The Scotsman asked what paper or which journalist would be the first to use Swine Flu in order to attack the SNP.
Take a bow Alan Cochrane:
Incidently, let me pose a question to my fellow independence supporters:
Pretty soon the general election will be upon us and the Scottish media will behave as expected. The Herald have closed their comment facility and The Scotsman has began to close the accounts of non Unionist posters.
Bearing in mind The Herald's coverage of both Glasgow East and Glenrothes became as bad as The Scotsman at it's worst during the campaigns, then there is every reason to believe this will come to pass again.
This blog cannot be relied upon to continue to allow comments like this one, therefore it is not unreasonable to expect that the usefullness of this forum will diminish throughout the campaign.
The question I therefore pose is this:
How will we maintain even this meagre profile and what alternatives are we putting in place to ensure that undecided's have access to our positive arguments?
This isn't rhetorical, I am genuinely interested in peoples thoughts and whether they have realised that all mainstream forums may be effectively closed off.
Complain about this comment
It's not at all suprising that the Conservatives and SNP are united against the direct cuts Scotland faces. They are cuts, and both parties want to ensure that neither are to blame for actions being taken in London!
However the Conservatives have also been calling for cuts, I wonder what we would be seeing at the moment under a Conservative Government? I've heard some Conservative plans, but well, would Scotland be on the top of their lists considering they represent middle and southern England?
It's difficult to tell. This is a time to appreciate living in Scotland, at least the SNP provide us with a reasonable alternative, but England are stuck with Labour, Conservatives or the BNP!
Complain about this comment
Vote on the times poll should Brown stay or go. Not looking good for Gogsy.
Complain about this comment
#13 greenockboy
"How will we maintain even this meagre profile and what alternatives are we putting in place to ensure that undecided's have access to our positive arguments?"
If the BBC decide to gag Nationalist posters here - as The Herald and the Scotsman have already done - there's nothing we can do to stop them.
I don't think it matters that much. Recent events (such as the humiliation over the "divide 24 by zero" debacle) and now attempts to limit discussion directly, show the Unionists have already lost the argument.
The only message that matters is this: if you are a Scot and stupid enough to vote Labour at the next general election you are effectively volunteering to become the next poll tax guinea pigs for Lord Snooty.
The only viable way to avoid this is to put the SNP into power at the next Scottish election. Voting for Labour in that election still leaves Scotland powerless in a Tory-led United Kingdom.
We've tried Liberals, we've tried Conservatives and we've tried Labour. They've all ended up as the same festering, corrupt shambles.
If people understand this argument, and still vote Labour, they must be willfully self-destructive.
If that is the case then there's no hope of a better future for any of us.
Complain about this comment
I'm afraid to say it. But Auntie Bella is one of the best leaders (of any party) I've seen in recent years. If she wasn't so damn stubborn in never considering independence (even as an OPTION) She'd have my support - and that's someone who think Thatchers state funeral should happen before she passes on!
I think Bella would be a fantastic Scottish First Minister - after we ascend to independence. She has the union in her heart though, and I'm minded that her actions would always tow the line with her benefactors in London.
With regards to the relationship between the SNP and the Tories... their policies except for independance almost sit akin. 10 years after indepenedence I doubt you'd be able to tell the difference.
Complain about this comment
#17 GAberdeen
I'm not so sure that there wouldn't be differences between SNP and Tory after devolution. I think the cosying-up at present is purely because the SNP have only a fixed pot to spend and the Torys have a "reputation" as 'canny with your money' to defend. If it comes to devolution max you'll find clear water between them, but I'm not forecasting which of them will have wet the bed.
Complain about this comment
Ah so, the nats and the cons cuddle up under the duvet planning just how fast they can streamline the public sector with their efficiency saving measures and underspending.It's no accident that the nats have failed to spend the full budget for the last three years, while the rain is flooding in through the roofs of many the SNP want to continue with an underspend. Come on nats stop cutting at least 2Bn ayear of the budget.
Complain about this comment
#19 derekbarker
You got figures for the 2Bn underspend? I mean they can do the fifth Forth crossing for that without going cap in hand to London Labour if they are. You're not making this up and having us on, are you?
Complain about this comment
#13 greenockboy
It is wrong that certain parts of the media seem to be restricting debate by controlling blogs too much.
Politics must have the facility for debate. It does not matter what your views are, nor how politically extreme they may be. But as long as they do not incite or break any laws, then everyone has the right to be heard. Not to do so is the first step towards a dictatorship. Harsh term, but the Government should not be controlling the media except in cases of genuine national security or other areas where the media has overstepped the mark.
This blog allows a wide range of views, and the debate can get quite interesting, if a little heated at times.
What to do? Look at alternative websites. Social networking ones are good, although they can be hijacked at times. Politics is all about attracting people to a cause or belief.
I don't ever want to see debate either stifled or controlled. I enjoy this blog, despite the odd comment that goes a bit over the top. Some people are passionate about their views, some get over technical while others don't research properly at times. But it makes for interesting reading.
But out there in cyberspace there are hundreds of message board sites. They are easily set up and can be controlled.
But if people have to resort to these because the mainstream have been closed then there are serious problems. At present I may not be supportive of independence, but I do not want to see pro- arguments suppressed simply because the Westminster Government does not agree with the SNP. You don't see the Scottish Government closing off pro-union sites do you?
The Government wants records of all internet activity now. Why? There are already laws in place to do this where there is a genuine requirement. The techology to hijack a PC is already here. Will that be the next step? Will we have Big Brother television in out houses watching us carry out our morning exercises? I can accept CCTV. I cannot accept an invasion of my privacy.
Complain about this comment
#20 handclapping
It's been plastered all over the tabloids and media over the past 3 years
how the nats have only spent 28 to 29 Bn of a 32Bn projected budget.
Mr Swinney calls it efficiency savings, others call it cuts.
Complain about this comment
13 Greenochboy
"The Scotsman has began to close the accounts of non Unionist posters."
I do not believe that for one second! Just because your an independence fan? Onward O'struggle eh?
Prove that evidence with links, that these newspapers are systematically shutting down non-unionist opinion on their sites; or if you are unable then please stop the pathetic (yes pathetic) self victimization culture that is quite frankly worthy of a socialist labourite.
Complain about this comment
17. GAberdeen
Your clearly not familiar with Scottish COnservative political history. We were once an independent political movement from the 'Conservatives', merely taking their whip at Westminster, a the SDLP do with Labour in fact. We were the Unionist Party, so no, auntie Bella shall never ever ever accept independence as an option, because if she did- she couln't be a Scottish Conservative. End of.
Complain about this comment
At risk of sounding a tad cynical, I'm not so sure the vote is really 'intriguing'.
It seems to me that they were voting on a matter of political posturing.
Will the outcome of events be changed by a single penny for Scottish people as a result of this vote? Will there be any more money in the kitty because of it?
Complain about this comment
Look guys, why is there all of this discussion about after devolution? Are all you cybernats that complacent that you really believe independence an inevitability?
That is your mistake to make however, please don't let me stop you making it!
;)
Complain about this comment
#21 Neil_Small147
"Will we have Big Brother television in out houses watching us carry out our morning exercises?"
You must be a beginner at this.
The point of having Big Brother television in your house is to see if you're NOT doing out your morning exercises.
That's the bit that really makes it scary. They don't want to just observe. They want to control.
Complain about this comment
#22 derekbarker
The only big underspend that I can come up with is the 1.5Bn that the LabLib executive made and which the Westminster Treasury won't give back now.
If you believe what you read in the tabloids ...!
Complain about this comment
I know you've heard it all before but hey! I'll run it by you again.
How many schools has the snp government commissioned to build, 2006 and onwards (brick for brick)
What about student debt being cancelled?
How many new police-officers?
How many new prisons?
What about class-room sizes?
What about that new forth bridge?
How are they making such a mess of the new tram-line and it's increased over-spend?
What has happened to the nats Scottish future trust funds?
Complain about this comment
Derek is right: the SNP have failed to implement ever single major manifesto commitment in office. It would not be hard for even a moderately well organized Scottish Labour to become the largest party at Holyrood again.
Complain about this comment
#26 deanthetory
"why is there all of this discussion about after devolution?"
If you hadn't noticed, your Unionist pals are discussing changes to the current devolution settlement right now through the Calman Commission - though we've all noted that your party has made no submission to it, nor any comment on it's deliberations.
The discussion about Scotland's place (or not) in the UK Union continues, because there is a fundamental disagreement between those of us whose primary political identity is Scots - we start from there, and then look to sharing aspects of sovereignty : and those who are Brits - and start from the premise that the UK Parliament is sovereign, and can do as it wishes.
All the debate about economics etc is there to persuade those who have not yet made up their minds as to whether their best interests are served by putting their Scots identity first or not. You are one of the few Unionists who tries to argue rationally for the UK dimension (I applaud you for trying to be positive about it). Can you identify any other poster from the Unionist side who does anything other than be negative about Scotland.
There's an old saying "By your friends, ye shall be known".
Complain about this comment
#29 derekbarker
If they are pumping money into trying to do all these things you say they are not doing then how can they be underspending; overspending more likely.
Aren't the trams down to Auntie Annabel et al; I thought the SNP wanted to scrap it.
What are you going to scrap when the bills for PFI start rolling in?
Complain about this comment
#30 deanthetory
It may have escaped your notice but the SNP are still in office, like with more than 3 years left to go out of 5. And also how many of your lot's manifesto pledges has Bella enacted; ah, but of course she still has 3 years before we can count her out.
PS Road bridge tolls anyone. Council tax freeze.
Complain about this comment
#30 deanthetory
I said in my #31 "By your friends, ye shall be known" and there you are agreeing with derek.
Don't you understand anything about Scottish politics? Had the SNP a majority in Parliament they could have pushed through all their manifesto commitments (whether good, bad or bloody awful). Getting a majority in a PR Parliament means that sometimes good ideas can be slow to get through because the opposition wants to oppose for the sake of opposition. Simultaneously poorly thought out ideas don't get implemented (and quite right too).
Do you really want to return to the days when a minority party has absolute power to push through stupid legislation?
Complain about this comment
opening line of newsnight:
"Will some of the SNP hallmark legislation have to be dropped?"
The SNP under trouble thanks to Labours budget squeeze.
Complain about this comment
I've just had a look on Stirling Council's website. No news of the bye-election so I'm off to bed.
Complain about this comment
#35 deanthetory
I'm sure you intended to make some point, but I'm not sure what it was supposed to be, Care to elucidate?
Complain about this comment
#35 deanthetory
And do you think this is good for Scotland?
Complain about this comment
handclapping you make a valid point- the SNP still have a good amount of time to set out a new message, new policies and more importantly the next wave of major reforms and policies (last election LIT, that can stay for 2011, but what new major reforms?) This all has to be considered, and the SNP have plenty of time to do so, in Hollyrood terms, and a good poll rating to sustain them in the mean time.
Auntie Bella, she's not done too badly for my lot despite loosing one of her numbers to the speakerhood. Business rates cuts, a tory conndition agreed to by the SNP (see labour, pragmatic opposition gets you what you most want even when out of power!), town centre rejuvination funds, and SNP-Tory united policy agreement on council tax (in SNP case freeze, in Tory case freeze, eventually aiming for real tax cuts).
Oldnat: you make good points about the irrationality among some unionist supporters. But its the fault of history as you well know, the unionist cause is splintered amongst orange order unionists, liberal unionists, tories (of the jacobite variety) the list is endless, and they all do have their modern contemporaries
Complain about this comment
#35
Dean although Oldnat likes to use the minority clause like the 5th amendment, there stills lays a common bond to improve Scotlands lot in the key areas of health, education, public safety and transport or is Oldnat saying that it's all right to break pledges as long as you keep the idea of border points and Independence opened?.
The greens never backed this years budget because the SNP broke so many of their green manifesto pledges.Thats a fact Oldnat!
Complain about this comment
my 35.
I was indicating that the media now have (thanks to labour's economic bungling) an excuse to really dig at the SNP popularity, the tough choices for the SNP will be used by the likes of newsnight to paint the SNP into a less flattering corner.
Be prepared.
Complain about this comment
#39 deanthetory
I think you misunderstand my point. I wasn't suggesting that only some Unionists are irrational! Some Nationalists are as well - it goes with politics!
I was simply suggesting that attacking a Government (of any party) for not implementing their manifesto, when they don't command a majority is simply cheap politics. One expects it from Labour supporters like derek - they don't understand anything other than using government to impose the will of a minority on everyone. Frankly, I expected better of you.
Complain about this comment
#40 derekbarker
When you understand the actual dynamics of minority government, you might have something worth saying.
Complain about this comment
#42 oldnat
Understand this point oldnat, will the SNP government go ahead with it's referendum on Independence come 2010, as I'm sure you are aware that the polls show a minority stance on the Independence question.
Further more oldnat, there's is nothing more cheaper than a false pledge,
when will all these wonderful missing pledges become reality, you know like Scotland will be Europes leading pilot in re-newables.
Complain about this comment
oldnat 42
You are quite correct, it is cheep politics and you have my humble apology.
To quote my favorite Yes Minister line: "my insight lacked foresight, with the benefit of hindsight". -Bernard Wooley.
Complain about this comment
derek
Minority government means that potentially much of a governing party's core manifesto commitments will never see the light of day; most obviously because of two major factors (as far as one can see):
1. labour and liberal intransigence over every single issue (even if they have grounds to agree / negototiate with the SNP)
2. most of any governments major / core reforms will be controversial and generates much opposition, so in minority government it makes it even more difficult than routine policy proposals to pass muster.
Complain about this comment
#43 oldnat
The dynamic goverment called minority?. Hee, Hee, Hee!
Why dont you just say proportional representation or in you sad existence
the secondarly transferable vote system.
Complain about this comment
#46 Dean
The whole process of devolved government is designed around consultation, negotiation and agreement, now! if you cant sit down and talk and agree, then you dilute the system and become anti-devolved.
Dean it's the system, it's not dynamic nor to difficult to understand, you must seek others support?.
Complain about this comment
Absolutely any minority government by the very nature of the system must seek out compromise and negotiation. However it can only function if the opposition parties are willing to be pragmatic, enter into negotiations and reach mutually acceptable agreements.
The budget fiasco has clearly demonstrated that the Scottish Labour and Liberal parties are unable to realize that they have to do this. That they cannot enjoy the "privilege of opposition"- that every vote matters under the devolved system.
What I am saying is only the Greens, SNP and Con Unionist MSPs are currently engaged in such pragmatic and progressive politics.
That is why it is rather superfluous for you to engage in attacking the SNP for failing to get major policy changes through, such as LIT for example; which (had the liberals been engaged in Holyrood politics) been able to pass through negotiation between Liberal and Nationalist parties.
This didn't happen because the Liberals are stuck in a Western Front mentality of 'no negotiations, no surrender', It just isn't helpful for the standing of Scottish politics at Holyrood.
This is perhaps why in Holyrood terms more people would either like to see Salmond or Goldie as First Minister, rather than Grayman or Tavish.
Complain about this comment
#49
Dean the very word "compromise" Dean the nationalist from day one set an agenda against devolution and attack westminster at every giving opportunity, while in the process, neglecting their duty to the Scottish parliament and being ill perpared to "COMPROMISE ON THINGS LIKE APPRENTICESHIPS" YOU SEE! they the snp didn't seek the key role "CNA" they didn't want to compromise, they just shored up their flagship policy of Independence and separation.
Hey! and oldnat calls that dynamic?.
Complain about this comment
#50
The LIT taxation scheme was the second poll tax, it was ill thought out and all over the place, it stank of unfairness Dean and thats why it failed.
Complain about this comment
In terms of local government taxation, it must be local, to make local governments more responsible and relevant. It ought to focus on individuals, making an individual contribution to their local community. As soon as they come of adult age, they start making contribution to the community that they were children in. This might serve to compel more young adults to grow up rather than loiter, to contribute rather than live off of the tax payer. What is more fair than every adult making a contribution, equally as adults in a grown up civic-culture that values shrift and hard work- above all?
That is what I would like to see for local finance, its vague certainly, but as soon as someone points out a method of local funding that best meets that aspiration then I shall support it. (In the spirit of negotiation and compromise above petty tribal politics- in the best interests of our people of Scotland).
Oh, and as for your accusation that the SNP merely are interested in solely picking fights with Westminster to further their independence agenda- thats for a Nationalist (independentist if you prefer) to defend
:)
Complain about this comment
Good people with their heart's in the right place however the pragmatic sense of taxation is a burden beyond some, not because they fail or choose to ignore employment, it's more often than not a case of undervalued attention from the said government, yes! a victim or victims of poor policies. The social science doesn't quite match the reality for many, however I agree that to go forward we must all compromise and agree to find away to agree.
Complain about this comment
And that is the problem, where can we agree in order to reform local government taxation?
SNP: LIT, set at Holyrood
Liberal: LIT, set locally
Con Unionist: Cut councl tax until convinced of a better replacement
Labour: no apparent opinion, policy or preference except that they want the option the SNP have rejected.
Isn't it clear that the problem in terms of reforming local government taxation is that Labour are preventing the debate from being had as they refuse to make a clear policy alternative to LIT (that they apparently reject out of hand). Until the Holyrood main opposition party, that is Labour actually move on this issue by outlining another option other than status quo that no one honestly really desires, then we cannot even have the wide ranging debate that must happen never mind find areas of agreement.
I will add this however; Auntie B has been ducking making any real judgment on this matter save a public "not convinced of any possible replacement". And the only possible replacements as far as I can see are:
1. LIT (set either locally or nationally)
2. LST (Local Sales Tax, this one has always been around but lacks any major party support).
We need Scottish Labours suggestion! Then everyone can formulate their party judgments based upon the discussion outlined by the two larger parties.
Complain about this comment
#24. deanthetory
Actually, I am fully aware of it's history. The Scottish Conservatives have only ever been Scottish in name alone, and only to hide the fact that the conservatives unequivocal powerbase stems from England's aristocratic families. The bourgeois the old marxist in me identifies.
I was purely lamenting that even though you have a bright, talented and potentially great leader in Anabelle Goldie, I wouldn't vote for her because she either doesn't or cannot believe in Scotlands ability to be a great nation.
Scotland is worth giving 100% for, alas under the Union she is forced to give significantly less.
Complain about this comment
Dean , you may not have noticed but we already have a devolved parliament.
We wait, with baited breath, for an Independent one.
One where even the lovely Ms Goldie may thrive and grow in a thriving ,growing independent Scotland.
I can't wait!
Bring it on!
I want to be part of the celebrations and die happy!
Complain about this comment
I note that our mutual unionist friend Alan Cochrane is today complaining in the Telegraph that no-one has died of Swine flu in Scotland yet as this stops him blaming the SNP for it.
Do unionists have no shame or morality?
Complain about this comment
#29 I know many of us are all living the Gordon Brown nightmare, but let me run this one past you all again, LABOUR SCREWED THE ECONOMY BIG TIME AND FOR A LONG TIME. Given their track record running the UK economy they simply cannot be trusted either in westminster or in Hollyrood.
Complain about this comment
Bannockburn
Any news? Rumour has it that Labour won! I can't believe it!
Complain about this comment
#30, deanthetory:
"Derek is right."
I hope you feel better soon, dean. Remember - THIS [Scottish] Government has made it less costly to be in need of medication.
(It is difficult to have respect for Conservative policy when the party's MSPs sought to prevent the reduction - and eventual elimination - of prescription charges.)
--
As to "unlikely bedfellows," what is so unlikely?
We frequently have an 'unholy' alliance against the SNP at Holyrood with the Unionists combining purely on the basis of opposing the Nationalists.
Why is it so surprising that there should be common opposition to the Westminster governing party, whose policy is diminishing the quality of life of MSPs' constituents?
Complain about this comment
#59, SchoolTieColours:
"Bannockburn
Rumour has it Labour won!"
Don't tell me NuLab is now claiming that Robert the Bruce would have been a Unionist and opposed to Scottish independence...
Complain about this comment
If you informed a Labour voter that before joining a ship that it was going to sink they'd still board it!
Complain about this comment
You know it makes sense.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8028467.stm
Complain about this comment
A CHANGE OF DIRECTION FOR LABOUR?
It seems Mr Foulkes has had a change of heart from his and Labours previous position as qoted below.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mr. Michael Fallon (Sevenoaks): What recent discussions she has had with
Treasury Ministers about the operation of the Barnett formula
The Minister of State, Scotland Office (Mr. George Foulkes): My right hon.
Friend the Secretary of State and I have regular discussions with Treasury
Ministers about a range of matters. The Barnett formula continues to provide a
fair deal for Scotland within the United Kingdom and we have no plans to change
it.
Mr. Fallon: Now that education and health spending are at least 25 per cent.
higher per capita in Scotland than in England, and as that difference is paid for
through the formula mainly by taxpayers in England, would not it be reasonable
to invite the Scottish Parliament to use its tax-raising powers to enable Scottish
decisions on higher teachers’ pay or free nursing care, which it is fully entitled to
take, to be financed with enthusiasm and integrity by Scottish taxpayers?
Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that the hon. Gentleman understands the question.
The spending allocations in Scotland were originally based on a needs
assessment. The Barnett formula allocates the increases each year according to
population, so they are updated annually as the population changes north and
south of the border. I have been considering his constituency, which has an
unemployment rate of 1.5 per cent. My constituency has an unemployment rate of
6.6 per cent. All the other indicators there are better than those in my
constituency, too, which suggests that Scotland still has needs that do not exist in
his part of England. Some parts of England will be receiving higher per capita
expenditure than Scotland, however, as they also have substantial needs.
Mrs. Maria Fyfe (Glasgow, Maryhill): Does my hon. Friend agree that those
who seek to abolish the Barnett formula are doing Scotland a great disservice?
Will he speculate on their motive for doing so?
Mr. Foulkes: I do not think that such people can be motivated by a desire for reelection
in Scotland, which has clearly been abandoned by the Conservatives.
Sometimes, Opposition Members say that the decisions taken by the Scottish
Executive, who have a finite budget, create preferential treatment north of the
border. Devolution means that they decide their own priorities. If they choose to
spend more on one area, it means that less will be spent on another area.
However, that spending is in the context of the fastest increasing budget in living
memory north and south of the border. By 2003, the Scottish Executive will have
£3.4 billion extra to spend because of a Labour Government, and they will spend
it according to the priorities decided in Scotland.
Mr. Alasdair Morgan (Galloway and Upper Nithsdale): Will the Minister
concede that, year on year, the Barnett formula reduces the percentage of
Government expenditure in Scotland? Despite that, the Government surplus of
revenue from, against expenditure in, Scotland in the next couple of years will be
approximately £7.7 billion, which should help to subsidise some Members and
their constituents.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
61 Pyramids
That would be Nulabour spin!
63 Derek
It makes no sense. Stupidity is what Labour feed on and they've feasted for years. The weening off is going to take a while. Any way you can't win them all.
Complain about this comment
Do we info on swings and % etc?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
60 Votes seperated the SNP and New Labour in Stirling.....Someone got it right when they pointed out that many Scots are institutionalized fearties.....still it is changing...we are getting there and I for one am very confident that if we continue to work hard...We Will Win The War Despite a Biased Media in Our Nation...
Complain about this comment
#68 scottishrepublic
The really interesting bit is that Violet Weir only made it by those 60 votes after 7 rounds of transfers. It must have been close. But good to see that 37% turned out on a not very good day weatherwise.
Complain about this comment
68 Republic
What's wrong with your 67?
Fearties and stupid what a mixture.
Complain about this comment
#70
Just read:I cdnuolt blveiee
taht I cluod aulaclty uesdnatnrd waht I was rdanieg. The
phaonmneal pweor of the hmuan mnid Aoccdrnig to rscheearch at
Cmabrigde Uinervtisy, it deosn't mttaer in waht oredr the
ltteers in a wrod are, the olny iprmoatnt tihng is taht the
first and last ltteer be in the rghit pclae. The rset can be a
taotl mses and you can still raed it wouthit a porbelm. This
is bcuseae the huamn mnid deos not raed ervey lteter by
istlef, but the wrod as a wlohe. Amzanig huh? How's that!
Complain about this comment
69 Hand
Do you know if any swing to SNP?
Complain about this comment
#45 deanthetory
You are a gentleman.
Complain about this comment
71 Derek
I know it's Friday but have you been drinking early? You must have enjoyed the result more than I thought! Lol.
Complain about this comment
#71 derekbarker
That must be the first of your posts that I have ever understood. 8-)
Complain about this comment
#72 SchoolTieColours
Stirling have not yet released the details of the votes. I presume someone will put them up on Monday. With numerous Labour candidates, it will be a little difficult to work out swing!
Complain about this comment
#72 STC
I've had another look on Stirling Council website but can't see any detailed result yet. I got the turnout wrong it was 34.7% not 37%. Ooops.
Complain about this comment
#71, derekbarker:
"phaonmneal" is NOT an anagram of 'phenomenal'!
Complain about this comment
6 Bighullaballo
I find myself in the unusual but strangely heady situation of agreeing with you entirely. I must go and lie down.
55 GAaberdeen
You must be a very old Marxist indeed...the aristocracy and the bourgeoisie are two different things. I doubt that the aristocracy have much sway in the Conservative party these days...so pre1945. The block on progress in many areas always seems to be the local associations who are dominated by the retired and small local businessmen who tend to have "fixed views". David Cameron's one time attempts to reform the party are forever banging up against this reactionary rump. That however was before Labour, realising that they stand little chance at the next election redeclared class war and set about "defecating in the nest" with the national finances to the extent that any incoming administration will immediately have to enact unpopular austerity measures. I'm betting that the Tories, despite protestations are not keen to assume power before 2010...that is unless Gordon Brown actually implodes.
Lovely little piece in Private Eye in which the Tudor Times reports on Mr. Shakespeare's new play McBroon. In this the eponymous hero spends 10 years trying to work up the courage to assassinate King Duncan Blair before he actually succeeds and becomes king. However, shortly after assuming the throne he is assailed at a celebratory feast by the ghost of the Royal Banquo of Scotland...you can guess the rest.
A pleasant Bank Holiday weekend to all my readers. It looks like the weather's going to be reasonably good in most places.
PS: To all my Scottish historian friends...I know that MacBeth was in fact a wise and successful ruler but Shakespeare did a number on him to please Elizabeth I who, you will remember was a bit fed up with a certain Scottish monarch's machinations over the English throne at the time.
Complain about this comment
Nor does "rscheearch" equate to 'research'!
Complain about this comment
How does everyone see the future European elections results as?
It would be interesting to read, what we all see the results turning out as.
Complain about this comment
From Stirling Council's website:
"Violet Weir took the seat with 1288 votes, a majority of 60 over the SNP candidate Bill McDonald.
The turnout for the by-election was 34.7%."
Complain about this comment
In haste to post my #82, I omitted the fact that victorious Violet Weir was, of course, the Labour candidate in the Bannockburn by-election.
FPTP naturally means that a s=majority of a single vote is "a comfortable win," but a margin of 60 seems slim indeed.
http://www.stirling.gov.uk/news?id=200437
Complain about this comment
#79, Anglophone
My old English teacher would be screaming at you, tearing out what little of his hair remains.
Only once did I make the mistake of referring to the erstwhile Thane of Cawdor and of Glamis as "MacBeth"!!!!
(For the uninitiated, Scotland's ruler during the period 1040-1057 was Macbeth.)
Complain about this comment
#83 Older than the Pyramids
Further to my #69; as the count (STV) only finished at nearly two this morning, the staff are only now arriving back at the Council offices. I hope they get the detailed results including all the 7 transfers up on the web this afternoon as Monday is a Bank Holiday and we'd not know till Tuesday
Complain about this comment
#81 Thomas_Porter
I presume you have the Scottish vote for the Euro elections in mind. I'm afraid I can't help, no-one seems bothered enough to talk about it.
Complain about this comment
Re the Stirling/Bannockburn result. Any idea of the swing to SNP vote?
Is it substantial enough?
Slighty worrying. Even with bias in the media, to describe all those who voted Labour as stupid is demeaning. The SNP needs to look at why they did not take the seat, bearing in mind the current situation and recent budget.
I'll stand up and be honest that I have not been reading all the news etc, having been dragged round IKEA and Next this morning, my brain is slightly frazzled.
Complain about this comment
What verbal pictures you paint, Brian.
Old Alex in tartan undies, diving into a super-king sized (naturally) bed, beside a regally blue nightie-clad Lady Annabelle.
Complain about this comment
No more unlikely bed fellows than Elmer Fudd and Tavish - Brian!
Elmer was described by the Times at FMQs as having "all the force of a housewife in Tescos asking about a two for one offer on margarine."
The majority opinion in the quality papers is that there is an in built cut in the Scottish block grant of 11% over the course of this parliament - in real terms - even before Darling's latest wheeze to claw back another billion over the next two years.
Aunty Annabelle is a blue stocking (political and intellectual) and she knows that the Tories are in enough pooh in Scotland (given the recent survey showing that 35% of those voting against independence would vote for if there is a Tory Government in Westminster) without being seen to side with numpty Labour economies of truth over the actual Scottish Block Grant cut. Annabelle gets that if the Union is to be good for Scotland then it has to be seen to be good for Scotland and Labour are not making the positive case. So, irony of irony, we have the Tories pointing out that Labour are telling porkies about the Scottish Block Grant and it is not good for the pro - Union argument.
At some point even Tavish will have to get his nose out of Labour's cheeks before he is buried in the fall out.
So not so much strange bedfellows, really, as they are both highlighting Labour's porkies for totally opposing reasons.
Complain about this comment
#79 Anglophone
Bourgeois by Marxist definition as an upper or ruling class? You wouldn't agree that old Etonians had or have a tendancy toward governance then? Tracing the lineage of conservative etonians wouldn't lead back to an aristocratic family? Maybe my statement looked like misplaced conjecture, but I assure you it wasn't.
Complain about this comment
#79 Anglophone
"I find myself in the unusual but strangely heady situation of agreeing with you entirely. I must go and lie down."
If it's all the same to you I'll put that down as "Consensus outbreak" rather than "Unlikely bedfellows"! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#81 Thomas, in turns of representation: 2 SNP MEPS, 2 Labour, 1 Tory and 1 Lib Dem. Question is: who finishes in symbolic first place?
Complain about this comment
Some of you may be interested to know that The Scotsman were forced to issue a correction to their 'Salmond Stumped' divide by zero article.
Didn't see it? No, me neither but The Scotsman apparently published just such a correction on 24th April.
Here is the wording of their correction:
In our story of 18th April headlined 'Salmond stumped by a mothers maths question' we reported that First Minister Alex Salmond had erred on an arithmetic question posed by a member of the public during a BBC webcast.
Mr Salmond was asked to divid 24 by zero and gave the answer infinity. He was told by the BBC interviewer that the correct answer was zero.
Mr Salmond's answer of infinity was, in fact, correct. We are happy to set the record straight.
I can find to sign of such a correction - note though, not an apology!!
Complain about this comment
Re Bannockburn result - according to the SNP website it was an 8% swing.
"Commenting on the result of the Bannockburn by-election in Stirling Local Authority where Labour's vote plummeted and the SNP achieved an 8% swing from Labour the SNP's MSP for Stirling Bruce Crawford said:
"This is an excellent result and a solid performance for the SNP in what should have been a safe Labour seat. Labour received over 50% of the vote in May 2007 and to lose 20% of that shows how Labour is falling apart in Scotland. It also puts the Westminster seat firmly in our sights."
Complain about this comment
#93 greenockboy
Since the Scotsman has now admitted Salmond's first answer ("infinity") was, in fact, as correct as his second answer ("you can't divide by zero") what do you think the chances are of me getting an apology from all the aggressive and ill-informed people (for example NCA999 #177 on the "Courageous stuff" blog) who tried to shout me down and insist that "infinity" was an incorrect answer? My guess would be "ZERO!"
Isn't revenge sweet?!! ;-)
Complain about this comment
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/DivisionbyZero.html
There, are you happy. Having actually studied maths at university I have an understanding of what I'm actually talking about. When questioned as specifically as he was , "What is 24 divided by 0", the answer is "undefined". There are contexts, as layed out in that article, in which a division by zero can be used to represent infinity, the question asked was not one of them.
I don't really care about this, I wasn't being political, or expressing an opinion. It just annoyed me lots to see people who don't know what they're talking about ranting on maths, wrongly. Grow up and drop the subject please.
On this debate itself. This is the most annoying thing going. I don't care whether their budget has been proportionally cut or not. The current job of the SNP, as elected by their constituents, is to work within the context they were elected to.
Simple facts,
1. The Chancellor isn't going to change the budget to give us a net increase and everyone else a net decrease, no matter how much they rant about it.
2. Since ranting about the budget will not change the fact that it's the budget, maybe the SNP should stop protesting and start acting. This is the reality, lets find the best solution. If you can't carry out that action, then you're not a very good government.
3. All of the manifesto promises that they misled the public on, students, police, housing as a few examples, were abandoned long before this recession. Nobody is going to believe that it's westminsters fault that they never met their manifesto commitments, they should stop trying to cover their own rear ends and start admitting they made a mistake. They promised more than they could deliver so that they could get votes. Unfortunate, but there's not much we can do about it now, it would be nice if you started acting on solving the problems.
Listening to John Swinney outline his amazing plan for economic recovery, and then follow it with, "but we can't do this cos our budgets been cut" leaves me with the question, well then what are you going to do. You have more money coming in than the last Scottish Government, your hardly poor, start telling us what you're going to do, not what you can't do.
Complain about this comment
#96 NCA999
You're now sounding like a churlish child that's been sent to bed early without dinner!
I'm sure you want me to "drop the subject" but why should just because it's highly embarrassing to you? You dug your own hole on this, not me. Hoist with your own petard! Always such a delicious spectacle!
When you studied maths at university didn't they attempt to do anything to improve your ability to understand written English? Even the Wolfram Mathworld example you're now desperately offering up as "proof" of how "smart" you are doesn't support you in any way.
The Wolfram article states: "To the persistent but misguided reader (Taylor?) who insists on asking "What happens if I do divide by zero," Derbyshire (2004, p. 36) provides the slightly flippant but firm and concise response, "You can't. It's against the rules."
Or, as Alex Salmond put it (without even the slightest trace of flippancy): "You can't divide by zero."
Your Wolfram article further states: "There are, however, contexts in which division by zero can be considered as defined. For example, division by zero z/0 for z in C^*!=0 in the extended complex plane C-* is defined to be a quantity known as complex INFINITY."
For all you know, that's the exact same "infinity" Salmond was referrign to in the first part of his answer. The same "infinity" you and your university education is STILL trying to tell us is an "incorrect" answer.
Pardon us if we were a little skeptical, because the "evidence" for your claim was that you'd be correct if you "wrote in a history exam, Germany declared war on Poland." (see #177 Courageous stuff)
Oh dear.
Have you never heard the phrase: "When you're in a hole - stop digging!"?
Okay, it's a good giggle watching you desperately back-pedaling.
But don't expect rational adults to believe you suddenly "don't really care". Give us some credit, please. You cared enough at the time to make multiple angry posts about it insisting we were wrong and you were right, even though you weren't (and still aren't).
The truth is you were so intent on trying to make Salmond look like a fool that you tripped over your university books and ended up looking like one yourself.
You "don't really care" now because you've been exposed as 100%, cast-iron, plain old, wrong! Why don't you just accept that, like a man?
Still can't face the awful truth? Okay then.....go to your room!!! lol
Complain about this comment
96 NCA999:
To be fair, ALL political parties promise the earth while in opposition, then fail to deliver once in power. The SNP are no different but nor are they any worse either.
The cannot deliver on student debt simply because of two things:
1. The cost will ALWAYS be there. If students are going to receive full funding from the Scottish Government, then work out the total fees (already subsidised), and grants that would be paid. Then multiply it by however many Scottish students attend further education. It runs into rather high numbers, and with current levels on students unfair on the taxpayer. However, I feel that all medical and dental students should receive full support provided they give a minimum of 5 years service to NHS Scotland once they graduate.
2. Paying off student debt to a figure of an excess of 2 billion - a high proportion of the entire Scottish budget, is not a vote winner. And before I got shot down in flames, I was a mature student 6 years ago. And I had a family to support.
Police - I think the results are neutral. There has been a slight increase in numbers. However, I am concerns about their policies on non-custodial sentences, having seen recent issues with colleagues. Jail may not rehabilitate some offenders, but then some of then do not want to go straight.
Housing - difficult when you are up against councils who already have plans in place to sell off land to private housing.
Transport - BIG failure. Handing private companies further contracts with service that is simply abysmal. Having first hand experience of extremely poor rush hour train services, with people being late for work THREE times in six days, makes me wonder if the transport minister is doing anything at all. Someone should point out to him that a poorly run tranport infrastructure has a direct effect on the economy.
Health - doing rather well I'd say. A few initiatives that appear to be working. Definitely a plus. The only exception is this "Aroma" coffee shop idea.
The SNP have a right to moan about the cuts from Westminster. However the problem that they have is this excuse has been rolled out a few too many times. The "it's Westminster's fault" has been used too much. They need to sharpen up their delivery.
The SNP haven't exactly failed. Yes, they did overpromise but that's not new to politicis. I recall Labour prior to 1997 promising to wipe out sleaze in politics!
The Stirling council election is slightly worrying. I've read up on matters and while the turnout was low, I'm genuinely surprised the SNP did not win the seat. Very close but the Labour vote was split, and the history behind it could have been an advantage to the SNP. But local politics are always strange. We have a few councillors where I live who couldn't run a coffee shop, let alone a council. Yet they return year after year! However, I doubt Alex will lose any sleep over it.
Complain about this comment
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/simon-carr/the-sketch-united-only-in-despair-ndash-even-browns-fan-club-is-giving-the-last-rites-1677098.html
Labour Loyalists turn on Broon.
On Bannockburn result, not seen the final breakdown but with final totals as close as that one has to suspect this was an area where 2nd preferences were going Labour's way. I remember being told a long-time ago, when asking "surely the SNP could take Bannockburn!?", that that council seat was the equivalent of Glasgow East.
Read in to that what you will. No doubt the near total BBC-print press media blackout as to why the by-election was being held, helped Labour to cling on. This was an example of Labour managing to temporarily stem the bleeding ... one of the reasons that Gray was constantly there too!
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#96.
This is a rather disappointing comment, although the SNP promised some ridiculous commitments during the elections, you simply can not dismiss the London Government's recent cuts with our grant and the effect it will have on Scotland.
"1. The Chancellor isn't going to change the budget to give us a net increase and everyone else a net decrease, no matter how much they rant about it."
The Scottish Government have never insisted on protecting Scotland, and Scotland alone! However perhaps under the Scottish National Party we would be better protected at the moment. The SNP, compared to Labour have brought more interesting ideas when it's came to borrowing and I feel that the SNP would not have spent as much as Labour and we may have enough for seervices now as a result.
It's all assumption I have though, but I have no reason to believe the SNP would have spent money in order to win back votes in the manner that Labour have.
But why have you not taken a fair approach into dishing out blame?
Labour promised the end to boom and bust, but here we are, busted, destroyed and limping along like a dog!
Complain about this comment
#98 Neil_Small147
"The SNP...did overpromise"
No they didn't. If you're going to be "fair" then be true to the spirit of the word.
All political parties promise what they will deliver if the electorate provides them with a mandate to form a majority government.
The electorate didn't provide the SNP with a majority mandate, so trying to insist they deliver on every single promise in their manifesto is churlish to say the least.
We don't live in some Unionist fantasy world where politial parties always deliver exactly what they promise.
There's the small matter that people can't predict unforeseen circumstances like, oh, let's say, a world recession!
It's also not "fair" to describe the SNP as "overpromising".
What would you have them do, Neil? "Under" promise? That's just not going to happen.
Not from ANY political party that wants to get elected in the real world.
Complain about this comment
I find it quite strange why so many nats think their political party dont have a duty to even try to deliver on their manifesto. Are the nats really saying that their political party is a colour brand void of intent
and meaningless in terms of policy making?.
Do the nats not feel some pain, giving that the biggest gainers in their admin so far are the tories, yes! the tories have more of their manifesto implemented than the actual devolved government.
Would Nicola Sturgeon negate the principle position of consensus and devolvment.
Complain about this comment
I find it quite strange why so many Unionists are still trying to pretend the SNP hasn't already delivered on many of the promises in their manifesto.
The Unionist capacity to ignore reality is reaching breathtaking proportions. Don't they read the Unionist press?
Complain about this comment
#102. derekbarker
"I find it quite strange why so many nats think their political party dont have a duty to even try to deliver on their manifesto."
Over the five years of a Labour government:
1. Education will be our number one priority, and we will increase the share of national income spent on education as we decrease it on the bills of economic and social failure
2. There will be no increase in the basic or top rates of income tax
3. We will provide stable economic growth with low inflation, and promote dynamic and competitive business and industry at home and abroad
4. We will get 250,000 young unemployed off benefit and into work
5. We will rebuild the NHS, reducing spending on administration and increasing spending on patient care
6. We will be tough on crime and tough on the causes of crime, and halve the time it takes persistent juvenile offenders to come to court
7. We will help build strong families and strong communities, and lay the foundations of a modern welfare state in pensions and community care
8. We will safeguard our environment, and develop an integrated transport policy to fight congestion and pollution
9. We will clean up politics, decentralise political power throughout the United Kingdom and put the funding of political parties on a proper and accountable basis
10. We will give Britain the leadership in Europe which Britain and Europe need
1 guess!
Complain about this comment
I guess some do have the notion of progressive politics, they may even come to admire the social content of progressive movement.
Some people believe that their identity isn't magnified by borders nor the sound of collective drum beating. Some people simply believe in Internationalism and have some pride in the knowledge that the union of man is far greater than the separation of mankind.
Complain about this comment
Labour Party manifesto 2010
Complain about this comment
105. Derek behave yourself. The American's are proud of their country. Why do you have to make snide attacks like that?
Complain about this comment
FYI on NE prospects.
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
PS many probably already seen the programme or read the article, however I was kindly (not so in fact) informed on NR's blog that Scotland's education system is 'failing', according to a recent report by Reform Scotland.
http://www.reformscotland.com/index.php/publication/view_details/404/
Complain about this comment
#105 Vive la difference!!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My #108 gave a link to the activity survey published in Feb 09 which can be found here:
http://news.stv.tv/scotland/75311-rising-costs-to-impact-north-sea-oil-and-gas-projects/
with the full pdf report link below the article for those that are interested.
Complain about this comment
Many of you have probably already watched the Daily Politics show on this or knew anyway but it was kindly (not so much in fact) pointed out to me that Scotland's education system is failing, under performing in comparison to England and Wales. The measure for this being five good grades at S4 level in Scotland, GCSE level in England and Wales.
This according to a Reform Scotland report.
http://www.reformscotland.com/index.php/publication/view_details/404/
Complain about this comment
#107 Grassyknollington
Someone said these words way back in 1965 " Ever since monopoly capital took over the world, it has kept the greater part of humanity in poverty, dividing all the profits among the group of the most powerful countries. The standard of living in those countries is based on the extreme poverty of our countries"
Who said those words?
Complain about this comment
Talking of berets, how about the unification of Britain and France as the start of one world government then Derek?
Complain about this comment
#112, ScotInNotts:
"Scotland's education system is failing, under performing in comparison to England and Wales"
Put another way, Scottish exams might be getting easier than in the past (they are, as anyone visiting the SQA website to download recent examination papers would discover) but at a slower rate than those south of the border.
With Government objectives now centred upon delaying the point at which youths enter the labour market - hence, the aspiration that anyone who wants a degree should be encouraged to go to University (regardless of ability, or the relevance of the study topic chosen) - all school certificates now do is to give a yardstick for universities to compare applicants, but in a manner which cannot be carried forward or backward since each year's results are unique.
Locally, secondary schools have gone from less than 10% of Fourth Year pupils staying on till age 18 (in 1990) to around 75% now; is anyone seriously suggesting that budding manual labourers (who form the essential backbone of the national labour-force) benefit from not becoming wage-earners at 16?
Complain about this comment
Do "not stray from the particular topic on offer." -
Quite right Brian, keep within the BBC remit, we would not want to be writing about anything that goes against the BBC's political agenda.
Complain about this comment
derekbarker,
I'm surprised at you; you seem to sober and rational this evening.
I thought that all good socialists would today be toasting the memories of the 'good old days' when May Day BBC news was dominated by coverage of the Soviet Union's annual show of 'might is right' militarism in Red Square (or drowning their sorrows at its demise).
Or do you not imbibe?
Complain about this comment
101. At 9:05pm on 01 May 2009, bighullabaloo
I never said I expected the SNP to deliver every promise. Nor am I living in some unionist fantasy world if you read my post.
OK, maybe "overpromising" is a bit strong, but I did state that NO party ever delivers what they promise.
Opposition is easy. Reality bites when you do gain power. Yes, the SNP are up against it with the other parties at time shooting down any policy they raise.
But while they do have difficulties, they have to stop using the constant "Westminster's fault" argument. In many cases it is true, but it doesn't read well for your average voter who only reads headlines.
Look at how politics works. If you are in power you are responsible.
The opposition will use every chance to highlight what they call failures.
But the SNP did deliver on one promise certainly: keeping all three Lanarkshire hospitals open.
Complain about this comment
How about a world wide national health services, that could bring a swift end to all the millions of people that are dying from simple preventitive syndromes and diseases through-out the third world.
Then a world wide education system, based on the priciple that every child gets a full and proper education.
Hey! light your cigar!
Complain about this comment
#119 derekbarker
Nelson was on Robben Island in 65 so it must be Che.
Complain about this comment
#116 Scottish Voice
funnily enough over on NR's blog I had a pretty ridiculous post directed at me for straying 'off topic' in reponse to another posters 'off topic' comments.
Surely any political topic can be discussed, especially those stemming naturally from that chosen for the day. I tend to see the thread more as guidance than a hard and fast rule to adhere to.
Complain about this comment
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/blunkett-labour-is-heading-for-civil-war-1677093.html
Labour heading for Civil War
Complain about this comment
#115 Pyramids
I'm not sure what reason Susan on NR's blog had in raising the point other than to point out a failing in Scotland, according to the report over the last 10 years since devolution with education being a devolved matter despite the money invested.
The report seemed to suggest that it was schools in poorer areas that were 'dragging down' the national average, but other schools had shown that such pupils could also confound that premise. THe conclusion being that it wasn't the pupils that had a lack of ability just because of their socio-economic position (surprise surprise, why would a child not have ability just because of where they were broght up?), rather the learning environment the pupil found themselves in.
I'd venture to say this isn't just about poor school buildings, lack of equipment etc. but also social attitudes towards doing well in school, or being 'geeky', as well as poor home environments in which the pupil has to do homework etc.
Obviously there is a need for improving infrastructure, but I would also say that attitudes towards education also have to change, with education as a means to 'better' yourself or attaining the occupation you want.
Complain about this comment
#97
Oh my god. You actually have no clue what you are talking about. Honestly I'm getting sick and tired of this repeated level of pointless comments.
You claim in your fifth paragraph that his answer was "you can't divide by zero" but then acknowledge in the following paragraph that that is not what he said, and in fact answered "the answer would be infinity because you cannot divide by zero". The second answer is completely different to the first. If you want to rant any further about this you are only highlighting your own ignorance and for that I feel tremendously sorry for you, however now no longer care as I'm quite sure most readers here can tell that you don't know what you're talking about.
"For all you know thats the exact same infinity that Alex Salmond was talking about" Maybe it was, but if so then he was incorrect. If you had so much as an Advanced Higher in maths, ie school level knowledge, then you would understand that there is a difference between complex and real numbers.
He was asked what the solution was to a number divided by zero. This is a real equation and does not have a solution.
Were you discussing a complex equation then the answer would be 'complex infinity'. Again highlighting your COMPLETE IGNORANCE on the subject you capitalised only half of the term thinking that it would back you up. Complex infinity is a different mathematical term from infiinty and is a different thing entirely.
You clearly don't know what you're talking about.
What I honestly meant from my "I don't really care comment" is that I don't believe Alex Salmond has no grasp on Mathematics. Frankly, looking at the evidence, he probably has far more understanding than you do. I made the comment that I did in the previous forum because people were attacking the labour leader for saying that the answer salmond gave referring to "infinity" was not correct. He wasn't wrong about this and so I defended him. I personally have privately joked on many occassions about Brian and the Scotsmand getting it completely wrong as well. I have not and never will vote labour, ever. I genuinely posted that particular comment because you were wrong, and as such I felt the desire to correct you.
On the point about manifesto commitments. I acknowledge that most politicians make promises they can't keep to. The argument I was making is that the SNP done so quite a bit more than others normally do.
They quite clearly promised concrete things they couldn't deliver, re: students, police, housing. A good example, my local SNP MSP was elected on a single issue. He overturned a long standing Lib Dem stronghold and came from 4th to 1st by promising that if elected he would fix the local ferry. Since being elected he's effectively had to acknowledge that this isn't going to happen, although still pretends to be "consulting" on the subject. The SNP won by 1 seat, this is 1, of I'm sure many examples, where they would not have won the seat had they not misled the electorate.
So far the only comparison of misleading promises from other parties has been labour promising to end sleaze, at least this one is a matter of opinion. The SNP promised concrete things, and then did not deliver. This is a fact, one that they will not be able to run from, certainly in my constituency, come the next election.
#104 provided a list of examples, all of these were "we will improve" generalised statements. Again, I don't support the labour party but there is a difference between "we will improve policing" and "we will provide 1000 extra police officers". The labour party don't promise something concrete because they know that, whilst they may get extra votes for it, they can't guarantee to deliver on it. The SNP made promises they couldn't keep, and which they knew they couldn't keep. This is irresponsible and wrong.
My point was singly this. If any member of the Scottish public is ever going to vote for the SNP again, it will be because they believe that the SNP can change things for the better. When the SNP stand up and do nothing other than say "we can't do anything because of Westminster", regardless of whether this is true or not, which it never is because they can always do something even if not everything they want, people lose all respect for them. I'd rather vote for someone that can achieve something to help me. All they seem to be saying is that their not going to do anything. For that I, and I imagine most Scots, will blame them, and nobody else.tless comments.
Complain about this comment
What a vibrant imagination!
Complain about this comment
#124, NCA999:
"If any member of the Scottish public is ever going to vote for the SNP again, it will be because they believe that the SNP can change things for the better."
Sadly, like most elections, the outcome will be determined as a result of whom the electorate least dislike.
If the basis of the next general election was to be a positive, affirmative vote in favour of the respective parties' policies, David Cameron wouldn't have a hope of getting within sight of Number 10. The only vestige of hope for the Conservatives - at least until they ditch their charismally-challenged leader and replace him with William 'The Mekon' Hague - is that Labour is sufficiently reviled to have the electorate overlook the failings in Tory policy.
As to leaders, has there ever previously been a time in history when NONE of the UK parties has had a leader other than utterly devoid of people-skills?
Complain about this comment
#124 NCA999
1. The BBC has admitted Salmond was right and apologised to him.
2. The Scotsman has admitted Salmond was right and published a retraction.
3. The only person who still thinks Salmond was wrong is...you.
So, you are right and everyone else in the world is wrong. The song most often sung but least listened to.
Very sad.
Complain about this comment
This gutless Cabinet must share the blame
"Jeremy Vine is a noble figure and Radio 2 a lofty institution, but I had not until this week understood their position in our unwritten constitution. You have the Queen at the top; beneath her the Prime Minister; then YouTube; then Radio2; then the Cabinet; and finally (lowest of the low) Parliament. Walter Bagehot, great Victorian constitutionalist though he was, seems never to have foreseen this."
In other words the public don't matter except during a general election.
Complain about this comment
#118 Neil_Small147
"I never said I expected the SNP to deliver every promise. Nor am I living in some unionist fantasy world if you read my post."
I never said you were. But there are those here who are. That part of my comment was directed at them but you're assuming it was directed at you because it formed part of my criticism of your unfairness.
My point to you was that "overpromising" was unfair, and you've admitted it was. End of story.
"Look at how politics works. If you are in power you are responsible."
Yes, I've noticed we're up to our armpits in people blaming Alex Salmond for things he didn't do.
Saying the SNP "did deliver on one promise certainly" just shows you're still strugglig with the concept of "fairness".
Any honest, unbiased observer knows they've achieved far more.
Complain about this comment
#124 NCA999
"They quite clearly promised concrete things they couldn't deliver"
You really have a problem understanding plain English don't you?!
The SNP promised things they COULD deliver if they were a MAJORITY Scottish government.
That is not "promising concrete things you can't deliver".
Waste of time replying to you.
Complain about this comment
#130
This is the hilarious one, as if somehow the SNP would have been able to scrap student debt, introduce housing grants, done all of the other things they promised had they been in the majority.
In order for this to be true it would have to be the case that the opposition stood up and refused to support the SNP on any of these policies, none of which they did. In actual fact one of the few manifesto promises that they kept to was FORCED upon them by the conservatives. If you can present me with any policy that has been brought forward by the SNP to "Scrap Student Debt", "Introduce first time home loans", "Recruit 1000 extra police officers", "Reduce class sizes to 18" or any other forgotten and intentionally misleading promise which has been defeated by the majority of parliament then I will consider your position to have merit.
So long as the situation remains however that the SNP have just produced a workable budget, which would never in a million years as they were well aware have been able to afford these promises, then you can't criticise the opposition.
Given that the only example of where minority government has changed their policy with regards the manifesto commitments I outlined was the opposition forcing them to honour their promises I hardly think your claim bears any merit.
As to your continued pointless claims to understand mathematics. I provided you with evidence, if you were educated enough to understand it then you would have stopped posting on the subject a long time ago. Your odd, highly amusing, attempts to quote and analyse it highlighted only your own ignorance and nobody elses.
Again I refer you back to the point which I made originally in the previous discussion which was that what Iain Gray had said was technically correct therefore your attacks on him were as unfair as the Scotsmans on Salmond. I think that the Scotsman and the BBC were right to retract their position because all those involved at their end clearly had no idea what was going on, similar to you, whilst Alex Salmond quite clearly understood what he was talking about and so was unfortunately portrayed as being stupid, which he is not.
The FACT remains however that the answer given was not technically correct. I'm sorry you don't understand this. I have explained it in the simplest way I can for you, beyond that I can offer you no more help.
Complain about this comment
Came across some numbers of interest other than plenty of negatives for Lab, Conc's and LD's.
Bannockburn Ward, Stirling Council. Lab hold. STV first preferences: Lab 1131 (39.9%, -11.1), SNP 1067 (37.6%, +4.4), Ind 229/89/28 (12.2%, +7.3), Con 173 (6.1%, -1.2), LD 82 (2.9%, -0.8), Green 36 (1.3%, +1.3). Swing of 7.8% from Lab to SNP since 2007.
Complain about this comment
"P.S. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer."
Sounds like someone is still smarting about his arithmetical inexactitude being pored over at length on this blog... since the matter of the (in)ability to divide by zero could never have been raised legitimately!
Complain about this comment
#131 NCA999 - "The FACT remains however that the answer given was not technically correct. I'm sorry you don't understand this. I have explained it in the simplest way I can for you, beyond that I can offer you no more help."
Not that I want to intrude in what is obviously a private argument, the answer given by Salmond was not technically incorrect.
The problem is this:
If you divide a number by 4 (say divide 8 by 4), the result is 2. If, however, you divide the same by -4, the answer is -2. If we divide the same number by 2, we get the answer 4, whilst dividing by -2 gives us -4. Now, if we divide 8 by 0.5, we get 16, whilst dividing by -0.5 gives us -16. If we divide by 0.05, we get 160, whilst -0.05 gives us -160. As we can see, as our divisor approaches zero, our result approaches infinity (in both directions).
But what about zero itself? Would the answer be infinity or minus infinity. We can't just pick whatever one we feel like, we say that infinity (and therefore the result of 8/0) is undefined.
So, when Salmond say that the answer was infinity because you can't divide by zero, he was effectively saying the answer was undefined because you can't divide by zero.
NCA999, you seem to be the only person still unable to grasp that.
Complain about this comment
#132 cynicalHighlander
The full transfers can be found in the pdf at the bottom of
http://www.stirling.gov.uk/index/council/yourcouncil/elections/by-election.htm
The bits I found interesting are:-
only 32% of LibDems are dyed-in-the-wool and split Con 17.5% SNP 18.5% Lab 23% whereas 48% of Tories are d.i.t.w. and the rest split 26% SNP to 10% Lab.
Even after 7 rounds of transfers there still wasn't a majority, won on 45%
the winner was elected on the votes of 15.8% of the electorate
Complain about this comment
#132, cynicalHighlander
Good to see the actual figures, including the fact that fewer than two-fifths of the voters (and only around a third bothered so to do) apparently wanted the Labour candidate.
I am increasingly drawn towards the [more] Continental manner of having two rounds of voting, esp. for Westminster (and the Holyrood constituency members) - the first round to reduce the field to two candidates (which two would of course vary according to the constituency), with a run-off to determine the elected individual.
If nothing else, it would ensure that each representative had attracted over 50% of the vote, and was truly 'the people's choice'!!!
Complain about this comment
#96 et seq
Guys, give it a rest. Nobody was right.
The teacher made a mistake in not checking the girl had understood.
The wee girl made a mistake not asking when she didn't understand.
The mother made a mistake in thinking it was a question for the FM.
BT made a mistake in asking a question he didn't understand.
The FM made a mistake in trying to be helpful.
The correct answer was:- "As it will depend on the context, I can't answer."
Complain about this comment
#137 - handclapping:
" The teacher made a mistake in not checking the girl had understood.
The wee girl made a mistake not asking when she didn't understand.
The mother made a mistake in thinking it was a question for the FM.
BT made a mistake in asking a question he didn't understand.
The FM made a mistake in trying to be helpful."
And, of course, the Grayman made a mistake in trying to make political capital out of it!
Complain about this comment
'PS: Welcome your comments as ever. Would remind you, gently, that it is one of the house rules that responses should not stray from the particular topic on offer.
This is designed to ensure that, in the interests of all readers, there can be focused, substantive debate.
Over a prolonged period, it means that the broadest possible range of topics can be aired.'
I've said this before and the mods have decided that it was off subject but I shall try again. We are not the only ones who tend to drift off subject, Brian. You have a habit of doing this also. Several of your blogs have had little relation to job that we the licence payers are employing you to do; which is, politics. This is the sole reason that the majority of us visit this blog of yours so that we can converse with those of a like mind and discuss current affairs in the world of politics (I hasten to add that discussing the state of the Arabs is always on subject ;)). I'm not too sure if this is you trying to rein us in or you have been told to do so. Either way it is a bit of a cheek that on a political blog we cannot discuss the wide range of political subjects that any political poster is bound to bring up. I'm sure that you are aware that it would indeed be rude not to comment or even answer a fellow poster in the best manner possible using all the resources that we, the posters, have available to us. This may include answering a poster, or even the blogger himself, using history, political affairs in other countries etc to try and highlight the points we want to bring forward.
I can only assume that you are not the original writer of this rebuff to us and I also suspect that you may indeed enjoy the wide variety of subjects that your blogging brings up, even if it is attacks on your own political point of view. I'm sure you are man enough to take it. Not too sure about your bosses though whether they be at the BBC or indeed Labour party HQ. ;)
Complain about this comment
#134
Yes the limit as x tends to zero of 1/x is infinity, that is a completely different thing. 1/0 is an equation which cannot be computed and does not have a solution. It is a very different problem from the one which you posed. I'm fairly sure you know this, so why you made your point I'm really not sure.
Salmond was asked to divide a real number by zero, to this question the answer infinity is not correct.
Complain about this comment
# 139 How can the mods possibly say this is not off subject when I am discussing Brian's PS. It can't be construed as abusive because I was most certainly not abusive in any way shape or form (maybe a little ironic, but surely that is no sin). Unless they are taking exception to the word 'Arab' which all those football supporters in Scotland know refers to the nickname of Dundee United supporters (of whom Brian is one). To the mods: we are called 'Arabs' due to the amount of sand on the pitch.
Complain about this comment
134. At 12:40pm on 02 May 2009, ForteanJo:
While I personally don't give a monkeys about what Salmond said, infinity is not the same as undefined.
But can we please stop going about this? It's old news. It's not going to harm Alex Salmond unless people keep going on about it.
There are far more important issues ongoing at present.
Complain about this comment
#141, gedguy2:
"we are called 'Arabs' due to the amount of sand on the pitch."
As is the case with many football team nicknames (whose origins have been obscured by the passage of the sands of time - no pun intended), I never did know how DUFC supporters gained this sobriquet, so I thank you for the elucidation.
Similarly, why are 'Gers fans (and I am one) referred to as H.uns? Again, a sightless roe.
What is so 'Posh' about Peterborough United? A blinded fallow.
Since all footballers used to play in baggy shorts, I cannot believe that this is the origin of WBA's alias; but what was? A white-cane-carrying red.
Complain about this comment
#142, Neil_Small147:
"It's not going to harm Alex Salmond unless people keep going on about it."
I'm happy to move on, but I don't quite see how keeping going on about it WOULD harm Salmond. Surely it is an advantage to the FM to repeatedly reinforce that, as a former economist, he is more arithmetically aware and able than a [mere] journalist reading out other people's words.
Complain about this comment
# 139 I think I'll have to take this one step at a time to find out what it is that the mods are objecting to. Obviously it isn't the word 'Arab'.
Complain about this comment
#139, #143
It appears that the [probably] English moderators' lack of awareness of Scottish football nicknames is creating all sorts of bother for them in determining suitability of particular terms.
I made the mistake of querying why those visitors to the stadium in Edmiston Drive are associated with the tribe once led by Attila.
Complain about this comment
Discussing the PS issue that Brian has brought up on this blog, wouldn't it be safe to assume that posters will drift away from the blog in order to support their point of view, in relation to the blog or to answer another poster and,thus, even though it seems that it is off subject, in actual fact, it is still relating (though often obscurely) to the blog.
Complain about this comment
Fear and Filth at Browns Number 10
The true face of unionism in one of the worst democracies in the world.
Not a statistician so cannot comment on the election numbers other than any true Labour politician should take a long hard look at themselves before criticizing anybody else or country because they can't.
Complain about this comment
#139
Discussing Brian's PS on this blog, isn't it worthy of a political blog (which 'Blether with Brian' is) that all issues should be openly discussed to further the cause of 'Free speech'. If you attempt to stifle the political discussions on this blog (I am in some doubt whether this was your idea for a PS or someone else's) then the function of this blog to be taken as a serious forum for political discourse is left in some doubt.
Complain about this comment
Since both my #143 and #146 are apparently proving problematic, I wonder if a reference to Visigoths will get past the mods?
(One would hope that the moderators are tested to ensure that their breadth of knowlege is sufficient to allow contextualised determinations to be arrived at, rather than taking each word in isolation: I won't make the mistake of referring to William the Conqueror by his contemporary name.)
Complain about this comment
# 139
Discussing Brian's PS on this blog. In order to support a poster's point of view then a poster may have to draw upon facts and figures that may come from: history, economics on other sites, books etc., newspapers and other BBC sites etc.. This will, inevitably, seem to lead the posters off subject. Surely it is far better to do this and enhance the discussions on this blog than to rigidly stick to the blog's subject and end up a boring blog.
Complain about this comment
# 139
It seems that it was something that I said in irony which related to Brian's raison d'etre as a political blogger.
Complain about this comment
# 139
It seems a little unfair to tell the posters that we are off subject when you, as a political blogger, have done that yourself on several occasions. Several times you have written a blog which has nothing to do politics. I realise that this is your blog and, as such, have the right to write about what you feel. More to follow; I want to see if this passes.
Complain about this comment
#140 - "Salmond was asked to divide a real number by zero, to this question the answer infinity is not correct."
NCA999, it's not incorrect, either. And that's the point. You were defending the Grayman for saying Salmond was wrong. Salmond's answer was not incorrect, so the Grayman got it wrong.
#142 - " infinity is not the same as undefined."
Neil, there is a reason x/0 is undefined. Whilst 0 and negative 0 are effectively one and the same, infinity and negative infinity are not. So if it were possible to divide 24 by zero, would we end up with a positive or negative number? Since there is no way to ascertain whether the result is positive or negative, we can't define the answer, so the answer is undefined.
Complain about this comment
# 139
Now I'm getting very confused here. I know that I have adjusted my posts because I couldn't remember exactly what it is that I wrote on # 139, but I've kept mostly to my initial post. I'll have to wait until the e-mail arrives and then post one sentence at a time and see what is unacceptable. C'est la vie.
Complain about this comment
# 150 Older than the pyramids
If you are using William's nickname (which is used in several history books of note) then the mods should understand that the term 'Bastard' is a word that is found in the dictionary and is used to denote that a child is the off-spring of a married man and not a legal heir to his estate, as opposed to the term 'Illegitimate' which is used to denote a person whose father is usually unknown. These terms were widely used throughout history, mostly relating to the hierarchy but was never meant as an insult. it just denoted the person's legal standing. It has only become a term of abuse later on in history.
In fact, it is a well used word in Dundee. ;)
It is also a term used in carpentry to describe a type of wood which is not a proper type of that ilk, hence the saying 'it is a bastard oak'. There is also a file in metal work of that name called a 'bastard file'. I don't see what the problem is unless it is used as a term of abuse.
Complain about this comment
#155, gedguy2
You were lucky to get away with that final sentence, since posting in foreign languages is also against House Rules.
Complain about this comment
Regarding the P.S., it is surely inherent in the term blether - as in Blether with Brian - that the discussion should flow and ramble where it will; otherwise, 'discussion' and 'debate' are impossible.
Complain about this comment
# 157 Older than the Pyramids
lol. You're right, I'd forgotten about that. It seems that Franch is not classified as a foreign language, or, at the very least, French words that have worked their way into the English language.
Complain about this comment
# 158 Older than the Pyramids
Indeed, which is why I suspect that the PS was not of Brian's making. I suspect that it may be an instruction from the Gods above. Thank you for reminding me; I've just remembered something else that I said on my # 139 posting. I'll try that one now.
Complain about this comment
#156, gedguy2
Well done in getting that through (although we would agree that there is nothing therein which should attract undue scrutiny).
Like your reference to DUFC nicknaming, I have merely presumed that the difficulty in my earlier posts was in identifying a racial group (albeit historical) - which I had to do 'sideways' since I received an initial message that my posting had "failed the profanity filter", but it might be something else entirely.
It would be helpful if rejected postings - and mine are as yet merely 'referred' rather than 'removed' - resulted in posters being advised as to where the problem lies.
I have in the past had a seven-paragraph post rejected, and - inasmuch as the reason for rejection was as clear as mud (I couldn't see anything wrong with it) - I had to re-post paragraph by paragraph...
... and all seven passed moderation!!!!!
Complain about this comment
# 139
Further to my posting about Brian's PS: I suspect that you didn't add the PS yourself but were under instructions from your bosses at the BBC or would that be the Labour party HQ? ;)
Complain about this comment
154. At 4:36pm on 02 May 2009, ForteanJo wrote:
#140 - "Salmond was asked to divide a real number by zero, to this question the answer infinity is not correct."
NCA999, it's not incorrect, either. And that's the point. You were defending the Grayman for saying Salmond was wrong. Salmond's answer was not incorrect, so the Grayman got it wrong.
#142 - " infinity is not the same as undefined."
Neil, there is a reason x/0 is undefined. Whilst 0 and negative 0 are effectively one and the same, infinity and negative infinity are not. So if it were possible to divide 24 by zero, would we end up with a positive or negative number? Since there is no way to ascertain whether the result is positive or negative, we can't define the answer, so the answer is undefined.
----------------
I used my description based on my work. I do a lot of analysis at work and there are times when I have a divide by zero scenario, but in these cases the result is "n/a". It's all down to context.
Bottom line was Salmond was not wrong in his answer. I wish people would accept this.
Complain about this comment
# 161 Older than the Pyramids
I have had this problem before with the mods. One day it is acceptable and another day it isn't. I wish they would make up their minds, or, at the very least, be given proper training so that we know where we stand when it comes to postings.
There are some people who post on here who are, in my mind, very abusive but they seem to be acceptable to the mods. Sometimes I wonder if the mods are real people at all but are, instead, a computer programme keeping an eye on us. Matrix all over again.
Complain about this comment
A Parallel Scotland
The last paragraph sums it up.
"Some of which might be good for the SNP. Nevertheless, I've no more desire to read an SNP version of Pravda than I have a unionist version, whether that occurs through design or more likely, laziness and a desire not to stand out too far from one's peers. The question remains, though - wouldn't democracy be so much healthier if we achieved balance not through competing extremes, but by having our journos remember that comment is best left to the editorial and the columnists?"
gedguy2 have you looked back your history where you'll find your original post. Tip I sometimes use copy post after highlighting just in case!
Complain about this comment
#163 dont worry about it Neil, when even the Hootsman and the Beeb have admitted they were wrong and Mr Salmond was right, NCA-whatever appears to be the sole remaining nutjob who believes otherwise.
Complain about this comment
#166 pattymkirkwood
Yes, and like all true nutjobs he's still muttering: "No! I really AM Napoleon!" even as they're tightening the straps.
Something that seems to escape these nutjobs is the disgraceful behaviour of the Scotsman in all this.
First the Scotsman carries a full-blown headline in their newspaper and on their website trumpeting 'Salmond stumped by a mothers maths question'.
When they realise they've got it wrong they publish a tiny retraction in the newspaper ONLY that greenockboy says he couldn't even find. Nothing at all anywhere on the website.
Despite this, all us "mugs" out here are STILL expected to believe the Scotsman isn't conducting any kind of witch hunt against Salmond!
The public deserve better "journalism" than that.
My proof of that is today's BBC website story: "Jobs to go in merger at Scotsman":
"The group faces a sharp downturn in advertising revenue and in circulation.
It has been reported The Scotsman is facing its first annual loss in 192 years of publishing."
The public is yelling in their face: "we don't want this propaganda garbage" but they are too thick to get it. (And incidentally, they are not the only ones).
Maybe they should hire NCA999 and his maths degree and he can convince them all that instead of making "zero profit" they're actually making "infinite profit" - provided you aren't talking about "real numbers" of course!
Naturally, as with all these would-be eggheads, the rest of us are deemed too "dumb" to understand math so we're expected to agree that whatever NCA999 says is true, just because he says so.
Talk about "fantasy land"! These people are moving into warp drive now. "The engines cannae take it captain!!!"
Complain about this comment
# 165 cynicalHighlander
Interesting read. I do tend to agree with the last paragraph as well.
My history won't allow me to go back that far. I usually copy and paste the postings that I think might be contentious. However, it is difficult to try to get into the mind of the mods. That is, if they have one. (Mods: I was only joking, well nearly ;) )
Complain about this comment
You know how the press sometimes favour a certain political party, well!
TheScotsman doing a very good job in supporting Alex Salmond, the Scotsman always seems to get to the big stories first, honestly, that direct line to A. Salmonds office is a real winner for the Scotsman, Hootsman.
Complain about this comment
#96 NCA999
Having actually studied maths at university I have an understanding of what I'm actually talking about. When questioned as specifically as he was, "What is 24 divided by 0", the answer is "undefined". There are contexts, as layed out in that article, in which a division by zero can be used to represent infinity, the question asked was not one of them.
Having also studied maths at university, my recollection of Real Analysis is that division by zero is defined on the Projective Real Line (i.e. one-point compactification of the real line), and the answer is infinity. However, it is undefined as you explain on the Affinely Extended Real Line (i.e. two-point compactification of the real line). The reason is that in the former there is a single point at infinity, and in the latter there are two points at infinity negative infinity and positive infinity.
#124 NCA999
He was asked what the solution was to a number divided by zero. This is a real equation and does not have a solution. Were you discussing a complex equation then the answer would be 'complex infinity'.
My similar recollection of Complex Analysis is that division by zero is defined on the Projective Complex Line or Extended Complex Plane (i.e. one-point compactification of a plane onto a sphere) and the answer is infinity. Like the Projected Real Line, there is a single point at infinity, and so division by zero is defined with answer infinity.
#140 NCA999
Salmond was asked to divide a real number by zero, to this question the answer infinity is not correct.
As illustrated above, this rather depends on whether Salmond was thinking of projective or affinely extended real numbers (i.e. single infinity or double infinity). Being an economist by training, I suspect his notion of infinity is the former, with a single point at infinity. In that, case the quotient of 24 and 0 would be given correctly as infinity.
However, the BBC is quite reprehensible for presenting this question without production staff realising their limited understanding of the subject and checking the correct answer. The BBC compounded this by telling Salmond and their audience that his correct answer was wrong, and then not retracting immediately their error was confirmed. Salmond could have been asked to explain his answer, and the BBC could then have said they would check and get back to the FM.
Scottish press reporting this incident as Salmond getting the answer wrong, instead of the real story BBC embarrassed telling FM dividing by zero gives zero, further undermines any notional credibility remaining in their independence and practice of journalism.
Complain about this comment
#170. Erdos-lemniscate
Thanks you for that lets hope that that shuts up the naysayers for good. here's hoping anyway.
#169. derekbarker
Is this the undemocratic Labour party that you are a member of.
Complain about this comment
#170 Erdos-lemniscate
I've already made the exact same three simple mathematical arguments you make to NCA999 but he still insists he's "right" and everyone else is "wrong".
He still insists we're stupid enough to believe he has no axe to grind and he isn't trying to support the case of those who tried to make Salmond look like a fool.
It's easy to see who really looks like a fool. And it's not Salmond.
Complain about this comment
#171 cynicalHighlander
Is this the real face of nationalism?
http://nationalistblog.blogspot.com/
Complain about this comment
#173, as you well know Derek, that link you supllied has absolutely nothing in common with the SNP or supporters of Scottish Independence.
What were Gordon Brown's words....British jobs for British people, and what about not allowing Gurkha's the right to settle in the UK, rather right wing don't you think Derek, rather 'nationalistic' of Labour. Nice try Derek, but once again you shoot yourself in the foot.
Complain about this comment
#173 derekbarker
Gurkhas to you too.
Which way is your moral compass pointing now?
Complain about this comment
#173.derekbarker
Here's your party leader in all his glory.
Complain about this comment
#174 Inmykip
Delighted to read your rejection of nationalism.
The Gurkhas went to war for Thathcher, they fought hard in the Falkland Islands, they were rewarded with 6 residence places. They now! have 6,000
residence and up to date wages and pensions.
Does the SNP say Scottish oil for Scottish people?.
Complain about this comment
#132 cynicalHighlander
Since the "Independents" were mainly a result of Labour in-fighting, I suspect the real swing to the SNP is smaller than your figures suggest, but we'll need to see the redistribution of 2nd and subsequent preference votes to get a handle on this.
Complain about this comment
#176 cynicalHighlander.
I didn't think so many nationalist would be so supportive of the Gurkhas and the old empire, is there a hidden agenda that the nationalist have?.
Just a question! what precentage of the 36,000th Gurkhas will Scotland
take?.
Complain about this comment
#178. oldnat
If you check 135 handclapping link the pdf at the bottom gives the numbers etc and the preference votes don't appear to show a logical path.
Complain about this comment
Clare Baker, MSP - member of a new political party? which one are you a member of derek as they are at sixes and sevens!
Complain about this comment
New Liebour
http://www.britishblogs.co.uk/images/280939.jpg
nuf said
Complain about this comment
#179.derekbarker
Aayo Gurkhali
Complain about this comment
Labour MP 'claimed sauna on expenses' this is getting more ridiculous by the day and should be investigated as a complete misuse of public funds. It's a pity that we don't have a credible PM to take a grip of what he and his nuLab conspirators are doing but since the whole lot are a den of thieves it looks like mass public protest is going to be the only action that will bring this lot to account.
Complain about this comment
#183 cynicalHighlander (careful! wealth and abuse)
In the meantime just abit about Joanna Lumley' Joanna Lamond Lumley[1] was born on 1 May 1946 in Srinagar, Kashmir, India. Her parents were Major James Rutherford Lumley, who served in the 6th Gurkha Rifles,[2] a regiment of the British Indian Army, and Beatrice Rose Weir. They married in 1941. After the independence of India in 1947, the Lumleys settled in Kent, England.[1] Joanna was educated at St Mary's School in Northiam, East Sussex, England, and afterward attended the Lucie Clayton finishing school. Tall, leggy, slim and blond, she spent three years as a photographic model, and is said to have made her TV debut in a well-known UK advert for Nimble bread first screened in 1969.[3] Lumley appears in episode 1.6 of The Bruce Forsyth Show (1966) and she also worked as a house model for Jean Muir.
Complain about this comment
#185 derekbarker
in the meantime just abit about Gordon Brown
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-1176666/SUZANNE-MOORE-Gordon-Brown-stop-behaving-like-gurning-zombie-election-today.html
It's in the papers so you've got to believe it.
Complain about this comment
#185.derekbarker
Trolls belong under bridges and I've run out of sandwiches to feed them.
Complain about this comment
#177 you are correct Derek, Scottish oil for Scotland, though I find it hard to see why this form of 'nationalism' is any worse than Gordon Brown's 'British jobs for British people' nationalism. SNP 'nationalism' bad, Labour 'nationalism' good.......aye right.
Complain about this comment
Taking a break from software development for a moment ......
The PCC are trying to ascertain whether The Scotsman published their correction to the 'Salmond Stumped' article in both the hard copy and online version of the paper.
If not then they may be forced to issue an online correction. This is important as it can be URL'd in future arguments.
The real aim however is to force the real culprits in this sorry little episode to apologise - the BBC. Remember that the broadcast was allowed to go uncorrected and made it all the way to the parliament itself, where the hapless Iain Gray used it in order to attack the First Minister.
Let's not forget that Gray himself described the question as a "trick question". We still have no explanation from the BBC as to why such a question was allowed.
I believe that an election is imminent, Brown is now dead in the water - be prepared for an onslaught !!
Complain about this comment
#189 greenockboy
"Let's not forget that Gray himself described the question as a "trick question".
Taylor at the time described it as a "tricky" question.
I'll just point out that there's a very important difference between a "tricky" question and a "trick" question.
(I know there are a lot of language-challenged Unionists on here so I'll make it as simple as possible - grad-level math not required).
1. A "tricky" question is one the questioner anticipates might pose the answerer an unusual level of difficulty in formulating an answer. Such a question implies no deliberate attempt on the part of the questioner to "catch out" or embarrass the answerer should they fail to answer correctly.
2. A "trick" question is one the questioner expects the answerer to fail to answer correctly because it contains a cunning unseen "trap" for the hapless answerer to fall into. Such a question implies a deliberate attempt on the part of the questioner to "catch out" or embarrass should the answerer fail to answer correctly.
Interesting, isn't it, that Gray used the description "trick" rather than "tricky", strongly suggesting he believes the question fell into the second category. The English language is full of these sorts of subtle, yet critially important distinctions, as any libel lawyer will be glad to tell you.
Re: imminent disaster for Brown:
He's definitely on the ropes, just about out on his feet. He's been knocked senseless by a barrage of punches from his own "Communities Secretary" Hazel Blears.
Complain about this comment
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/latestnews/Brown-given-five-weeks-to.5230266.jp
Hootsman on Sunday: Brown has 5 weeks to save his neck.
Complain about this comment
Anyone in need of a little giggle on MPs expenses should visit the Times and then Guido and his irreverend bloggers!
Complain about this comment
I hope I'm wrong on this but I feel that the Scottish media may try to find something in the 'Swine Flu' story with which to attack the Scottish government.
Thus far Nicola Sturgeon has handled the outbreak excellently, stating clearly and calmly what the situation is. Her profile has increased dramatically as has her stock.
Will the BBC in Scotland start sidelining her in favour of Westminster Health minister Alan Johnson?
Complain about this comment
#193, greenockboy:
By "Westminster Health minister," I presume you mean the Secretary of State for Health whose fiefdom - like the so-called 'National Health Service' itself - extends no further (and has at no time extended further) than the borders of ENGLAND.
One can count on the fingers of one hand those members of the Cabinet whose departmental responsibilities cover the entirety of the United Kingdom; if those heading English-only Departments were to meet as the English Cabinet, with a single representative (in the company of the Secretaries of State for Scotland, Wales and NI) at the UK Cabinet table, perhaps legislation deriving from English society and history would not be (inappropriately) foisted upon the rest of the UK electorate.
Complain about this comment
Blink and you'll miss it, but the Sunday Herald has 4 paragraphs at the bottom of p15 (not on line as far as I can see) about a new opinion poll.
No details of who conducted it or when, so it's impossible to compare it with anything meaningful (though they strangely do!)
All it says is that the SNP have a 12% lead over Labour in the constituency vote for Holyrood and a 10% lead on the regional list. For Westminster, the Labour lead over the SNP has dropped to 4%.
Complain about this comment
Good grief! Who's just seen Glenn Campbell's interview with Nicola Sturgeon?
From a serious discussion about Swine Flu he decided to come out with "so, Times columnist says you've been playing a blinder, would you maybe make a better First Minister than Alex Salmond?"
Then, "yes but, come on, you know, if anything was to happen to him, you would want the job?"
Dreadful.
Complain about this comment
Hi, I'm not a new member and I've never had any post removed or even referred to moderators. Could you please stop pre-moderating me?
Thanks
Complain about this comment
So, My Johnson is giving the PM "full support". Oh dear.
Not much of a better choice, if rumours are to be believed. Remember, the HEalth Secretary was strangely silent during the Communications Workers strikes. In addition, he is partly responsible years ago for refusing new working practices at the Royal Mail which would have made it more efficient without any cuts.
Did you know that postmen used to be able to go home before their shoft had ended if they had done their own work? The new practices were for them to assist others, something the union apparently rejected outright.
Don't be surprised if he replaces GB very soon. GB and AD are damaged goods and an electoral liability. I think the Labour hierachy are moving to replace them very quickly, the call a general election in the hope that the damage is limited.
Complain about this comment
#193 greenockboy
"Will the BBC in Scotland start sidelining her in favour of Westminster Health minister Alan Johnson?"
No, instead they've decided to sideline Salmond in favour of her becoming First Minister (see #196).
Glenn Campbell plays the tired old "divide and rule" trick about as hamfistedly as it is possible to play it.
Desperate.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or do links in posts no longer work?
Another attempt to make it more difficult for nationalists to highlight the truth rather than the Labour propaganda they try to force feed us here?
Complain about this comment
Cuts are inevitable, and quite frankly, necessary. The only real challenge is to make them in the right place. I'd start with the top layers of public sector management and work my way down.
Complain about this comment
#200 bighullabaloo
courtesy of forfar-loon from earlier post.
PS As mentioned above, in case the link gives a 404 error try removing any spurious
in the URL.
Complain about this comment
The redistribution of votes in Bannockburn was interesting. Not only was there was the Labour factionalism of having two ex-Labour "independents", but significant numbers of their first preference votes did not transfer to the official Labour candidate.
The following table has for each excluded candidate, the % of their overall votes not transferred, then the percentages of the transferred votes that went to Labour and SNP.
Party, No transfer, Lab, SNP
IND, 29%, 15%, 25%
GREEN, 22%, 25%, 21%
LIB, 32%, 34%, 27%
Lab wife, 32%, 19%, 22%
CON, 48%, 20%, 50%
ex Lab provost, 48%, 58%, 42%
Complain about this comment
Biased BBC just for starters.
Complain about this comment
# 203 Oldnat
Surely when adding up the percentage points all those who voted for the ousted labour candidate should be added to the Labour vote as this would give a more accurate figure of what the voting pattern would be when it comes to either the Euro elections or General elections?
Complain about this comment
202 missing/removed by mods "
"
Complain about this comment
#205 gedguy2
That would only be true if you assume that those voting for the two ex-Labour candidates will vote Labour in June. What appears to have happened in Bannockburn is that many did not do so. Dangerous to think that voters are sheep who all vote for the same party every time.
Complain about this comment
#207 oldnat
"Dangerous to think that voters are sheep who all vote for the same party every time."
Do you mean like the sheep who vote for the chimpanzee with the Labour Party rosette every time?
Believe me, it's not a risky bet predicting what that lot will do.
Complain about this comment
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2505731.0.0.php
Jim Devine MP (supposed "replacement" for Robin Cook in Livingston), claimed 17,000 in car and mileage; his office manager who did all the driving got 60 pounds. Sounds like someone has some explaining to do!
Must be one of the myriad of reasons why Gordon is looking to censor the receipts, see Times article,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6211391.ece
Another couple links from Guidos Sunday Sleaze,
3 Labour MPs on Suicide Watch,
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/labour/5264069/Labour-MP-claimed-sauna-on-expenses.html
Labour Baroness claims 100,000 on expenses for an empty flat in Maidstone, Kent despite living only 4 miles away from the House of Lords,
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6211846.ece
Miliband demands a private jet for the Foreign Office,
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/news/288042/FOREIGN-Secretary-David-Miliband-is-to-waste-hundreds-of-thousands-of-pounds-on-a-private-jet.html
http://www.newsoftheworld.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00037/milliband_map2_big_37645a.jpg
Complain about this comment
#209 pattymkirkwood
"Three Labour MPs were reported last week to have been placed on "suicide watch" by party whips"
These three must be finally getting a taste of what it's like to live in the real world where you have to turn up every day and do some actual work.
Complain about this comment
Poll numbers
Complain about this comment
#208 bighullabaloo
Of course there are some like that, but lots of former Labour voters now vote SNP - may help to explain why the SNP are in Government!
Complain about this comment
From the amount of Labour scandal stories suddenly appearing in the media lately, it looks as if the 'Black ops' is being used against them instead of us. I wonder how the Labourites who post on this blog are going to answer all these 'smearings'; with more to come during Westminster's parliment recess in the summer. (Assuming that the expenses of MPs are allowed out in the open.) Hopefully they will be on the back foot long enough to leave us alone. Only Dean to worry about now. ;)
Complain about this comment
#213 gedguy2
Pretty naive gedguy, to suggest that only one party holds MP's with doddgy expenses claims.
I would remind you that MSP's also claim expenses and second home mortgage expenses to.
I expect many tory, lid/dems and nationalist Mp's AND MSP's are also very anxious.
Complain about this comment
#213 gedguy2
Only Dean to worry about now ... #214! Why did you have to rattle the cage?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hey Derek, 214, I bet you anything the SNP group at Westminster are less worried than anyone in that parlaiment about full expenses transparency.
Complain about this comment
216 was strangely deleted. All it said was that I was looking forward to seeing the expenses for a particular former Glasgow MP.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#211 cynicalHighlander
Thanks for the pointer. Still not good enough to get Global out of Kirkcaldy though. At 32% for Lab the hysteresis and 'hes one of oor ain' factors that will work for him can be countered by the scunnert vote if the SNP can put the squeeze on the LibDems and Tories. More difficult at a GE but if you can do it the results can be spectacular viz Glenrothes where NuLabour had AS turning up every day to frighten the other Unionists and the care charges to whip in the faithful. Its really up to the SNP in Kirkcaldy + Cowdenbeath to find the lever, and the point to use it. I dont think the usual tactic of promising endless sunshine will swing it for them, find some dirt and use it. It would be good to see the biter bit.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Hello Martin, expenses rows are not new to westminster nor the Scottish parliament?.
Martin, if you accept that daily meals and furnishing is part of the expenses row, would that mean more or less members would be anxious.
Complain about this comment
#214 - "I would remind you that MSP's also claim expenses and second home mortgage expenses to."
MSPs must provide receipts, etc. to actually prove they have actually incurred the expenditure they are claiming expenses for. It's only at Westminster where MPs are given a blank cheque and told, "there you go, boys, the money's there for claiming".
Westminster will, eventually, be forced to do the same. And by the looks of it, second (and third) jobs will be severely curtailed (who would believe Frank Skinner would be able to take the high ground against MPs!).
On an aside, once the pig's trough is closed, I wonder how many of our current MPs will still wish to be one.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
# 215 handclapping
Didn't you ever rattle the cage to watch the monkeys jump, when you were a kid?
Complain about this comment
# 211 cynical Highlander
If the TNS/System 3 poll is to be believed then it looks good for the SNP and not too good for the Lib/Dems; not too good for Labour either. I can see the UK Labour party dumping, not only its leader, but also some of its more contentious policies. I can see the ID cards being put on the back burner but I can't see the Trident replacement being shelved. I suspect that the contracts have already been agreed, if not signed. It would then be hard to dump Trident. Still, its going to fun watching Labour squirm.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#226 gedguy2
If there has to be better scruntiny of politicians expenses, would you include politicians that hold more than one poltical positon?.
On a more lighter note, do you always spit the dummy KID!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
BBC in total retreat just because I said they were shielding their political masters! Orwell's 1984 a reality.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8031375.stm
Johnson: "Brown the best man to be PM" (for now, I'll take over after he has us slaughtered at the next election).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Derek, I don't understand your question. However, i reiterate, I think the SNP group at Westminster will be far more relaxed than many Labour, Tory or even Lib Dems MPs.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
My posts are being removed for having the audacity to mention by number MartinFromBothwell's censored and uncensored(!) posts above.
Quite utterly pathetic.
Complain about this comment
#234
Martin, does the FM have a second home in london, giving the fact that he is still an MP and if so do you endorse that position?.
Complain about this comment
# 229 derekbarker
I don't have any problem with having all politicians, of whichever parliament, having their expenses scrutinised daily; if it came to that. I see the MPs, MSPs or whatever, being the servants of the people and those with their snouts in the trough, from whichever party, in my books should not only be thrown out of parliament but charged with theft of our money. It should be deemed a priviledge for those who wish to represent us.
'On a more lighter note, do you always spit the dummy KID!' Sticks and stones, Derekbarker. It's unbecoming of you.
Complain about this comment
#237 derekbarker
No, Salmond doesn't have a second home in London. He used to rent a flat in London's Dolphin Square but gave it up.
He said at the time: "I'm one of the MPs who don't own a flat or take advantage of the mortgage scheme. I had to look at what was cost effective and it is cheaper to stay in a hotel."
So, Derek, do you never get fed up making a complete fool of yourself with your pointless, failed attempts at petty point scoring?
p.s. if you want to know anything more about what Salmond claims in expenses (or doesn't claim) try getting of your lazy derriere and checking some facts for a change.
Complain about this comment
#239 bighullabaloo
Thy shall not be tempted?
Bighullabaloo, read your post? and be honest in terms of MP's expenses
you could spit peas through that reply, the cheaper option indeed!
Do you never get fed up with just pointing your finger in one direction or will you accept that many politicians could better their expenses position.
Complain about this comment
#237 derekbarker
Most (if not all) on my side of the debate would condemn any SNP MP found with their snout in the trough more virulently than the Unionists. Such a person would have betrayed what we are fighting for.
You on the other hand, seem to have given up fighting for your ideals a long time ago (unlike fourstrikes). You simply support a political party which distanced itself from what you started out believing in, a long time ago.
Every political party which has the likelihood of gaining power attracts those interested in their own advancement than the ideals of that party. Unfortunately Labour seems now to be dominated by such people, and your trying to smear others does not excuse the behaviour of your MPs.
Complain about this comment
#241 oldnat
"Every political party which has the likelihood of gaining power attracts those interested in their own advancement than the ideals of that party. Unfortunately Labour seems now to be dominated by such people, and your trying to smear others does not excuse the behaviour of your MPs"
Oldnat another colour blind attempt at the untruths.When you butter your bread do you only butter one half?. You see! the problem here is people like you contain the satus quo with your impartial representation of the truths.
Complain about this comment
#240 - " in terms of MP's expenses you could spit peas through that reply, the cheaper option indeed!"
Okay, Derek, enlighten us. How much does Salmond claim for hotel bills compared to the likes of Darling, etc. in second home allowances? Are you asserting that Salmond's hotel bills are more then Darling's second home expenses? (We'll see how close you come to libel before you realise what you're typing).
Go on, enlighten us or shut up.
Complain about this comment
#240 derekbarker
Derek, try to focus for a moment.
I'm going to make a couple of simple points using a concept you've never heard of: LOGIC.
1. You're claiming you "could spit peas through that reply" but very revealingly you don't even try!
Derek, people are actually capable of seeing that can't even make an attempt at disproving my #239 because it would just make you look like an even bigger fool.
2. If you ever did try to disprove my #239 you'd end up having to call your beloved Labour rag the Daily Record a liar. That's where the facts came from.
Trying to spread such smears is the tactic of desperate people who know their time is almost up.
So, Derek, it's probably best if you just crawled back under your rock.
Complain about this comment
Hi Derek, sorry, popped out to go to Mass there, but it would appear your question has been answered.
Complain about this comment
200 bighullabaloo
I've had trouble some of the links for the past few days.
204 cynicalhighlander
great link thanks!
220 handclapping Excellent post. Thanks!
Complain about this comment
labour wins bannockburn, makes me ill, it really honestly does. Why are Scots voters so unable to be fickle with their vote? Goodness, a monkey with a labour badge would be elected by those damn people!
Here is the results breakdown on a spreadsheet (just in case no one has already posted it):
[Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Oh and in reference to GAberdeen. You clearly do not know/understand my parties political history if you believe us to be the 'english party', for Gods sake have a political historical memory that stretches back more than 20 years please. Or even better just do not comment upon things you clearly fail to grasp, people like yourself simply characture politicians and political parties which lowers the tone of our communal political culture. Sad, and rather childish quite frankly.
Complain about this comment
The well documented instances of Labour MPs (Sarwar and Martin) trying to hand on their seats to their sons is too much for the BBC censors!
Perhaps, if it is so repugnant that it cannot be mentioned by us mere plebs; they should send someone out to do a journalistic piece on why "the people's party" is now defaulting to the hereditary principle.
Complain about this comment
#242, derekbarker to oldnat:
"When you butter your bread do you only butter one half"
Only an idiot would butter both halves (both face-up and face-down, that is)!
Complain about this comment
#244
Bighullabaloo,
You say A. Salmond didn't take advantage of the mortgage scheme, yet failed to say he claimed expenses for his home allowance scheme.
You seem to have no problem with one indivdual holding more than one political position. Yet rip into others that have more than one job declared in the recent expenses row.
You also tend to speak down to people as though your some type of highly advanced intellect. It's not smear spreading, it's a simple case of saying that there is more than one party at fault for the expenses row.
Now! does that register with your "LOGIC"
Complain about this comment
Re Alex Salmond and expenses, I doubt very much if he is knee deep in the trough.
My only objection is that he claims two salaries - one for each parliament, something that should not be allowed.
If any SNP MPs are claiming for a second home in London, then they are justified, unlike certain members of the Cabinet.
Complain about this comment
Oh dear, the mods have really been digging their teeth into taday's postings. They've even moderated Dean's posting. What a strange breed these mods are.
Complain about this comment
#243 Forteanjo
"How much does Salmond claim for hotel bills compared to the likes of Darling, etc. in second home allowances?"
You're on a loser getting any facts out of that idiot troll but all the information is already in the public domain.
1. Salmond claimed £14,000 to pay rent for his former London flat (before he gave it up as not being a cost effective use of public money).
2. Until 2005 Alistair Darling claimed that a flat he shared with other Labour MPs was his "main home". This allowed him to claim about £70,000 in expenses on his Edinburgh home where his wife and children lived.
3. It was then reported that Darling switched his formal declaration and told the Parliamentary authorities the Edinburgh home was his main residence. This allowed him to claim for a London property and he bought a flat in the capital which he then rented out for private profit.
4. After becoming Chancellor in July 2007, a grace-and-favour (taxpayer-funded) flat in Downing Street automatically became Darling's main residence. He then began claiming expenses again on his Edinburgh property whilst renting out the London flat he'd bought for himself. In the 2007-08 financial year, Darling claimed £9,837 in second-home expenses.
5. In addition to the above, as Chancellor Darling has the use of Dorneywood, a stately home in Buckinghamshire, for free.
Breathtaking isn't it?
Complain about this comment
#250 derekbarker
"You say A. Salmond didn't take advantage of the mortgage scheme, yet failed to say he claimed expenses for his home allowance scheme."
No, Derek, please try to concentrate:
1. The DAILY RECORD said Salmond didn't take advantage of the mortgage scheme, not me.
2. You're now claiming Salmond "claimed expenses for his home allowance scheme" but nobody knows which "home allowance" scheme you're talking about or whether it's true because unlike me you've offered no PROOF.
3. I have said nothing about anyone holding more than one political position. It must have been your imaginary friend. You know, the six-foot bunny rabbit.
"You also tend to speak down to people as though your some type of highly advanced intellect."
Derek, compared to you, I AM a highly advanced intellect. At least what I'm writing makes sense!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Just wondering if anyone else here can smell the panic in the Labour ranks?
It's that moment where they've suddenly realised the battle's lost and they're just about to turn tail and scatter.
Complain about this comment
As an aside, lets hope Sarwar son #2 turns out to be a better egg than the first one to make it in to the media glare ... the convicted money-launderer.
Complain about this comment
#240
Well Jo, aint you gasing off! PUE" Are you saying that all SNP MSP's and MP's are whiter than the driven snow?.
I think your memory is very short Jo..................trip/trap
Complain about this comment
# 249 Older than the Pyramids
ROFL
Complain about this comment
I see the mod.s have blocked my attempt to upload a link the the bannockburn by-election pdf file. No matter.
Labour victory over the SNP (sadly):
Stage No. eight: Labour-1288.0, SNP- 1228.0
exceptionally close, with a rather high turnout at 33% (much to everyones surprise, I'd put a turnout figure around 15%)
Apparently McGuire's absence from the labour campaign helped matters for them! But the SNP ought to be proud, the labour majority last time was much, much, much, MUCH higher than 60 votes! A very good labour-SNP swing. I think the failure to push that final stretch was down to two factors:
1. a rather successful independent sucked votes away from SNP, these voters may have been unwilling to put SNP as second option?
2. a higher turnout than expected helped labour.
perhaps also a final observation- I hold that the SNP campaign in the by-election wasn't as higher profile and active as it could perhaps have been.
Complain about this comment
#254 Bighullabaloo
Now! your claiming that A. Salmond claimed 14,ooo for his rent.
From zero to hero Bighullabaloo?.
A few months ago on this web-site you claimed that Scotland would be a net supplier of electricity to Europe.Was that another wild claim?.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Is it me or is derekbarker slagging off his own postings? I want whatever he's on!
Complain about this comment
#258 derekbarker
Derek, you've replied to your own post #240 so it looks as if you're arguing with yourself.
Just you carry on. Come back when you've finished and tell us whether you won or not.
Complain about this comment
249 had me chortling out loud! Bravo!
Complain about this comment
#261 derekbarker
"your claiming that A. Salmond claimed 14,ooo for his rent."
No Derek, the DAILY RECORD is claiming Salmond claimed £14,000 for his rent, not me.
I can't remember what I did a week ago never mind "a few months" ago.
Unlike you I've got a life that prevents me keeping a meticulous record of what some an stranger wrote on a political blog three months ago.
Complain about this comment
Neil Small, in his quest to find positive arguments in favour of independence/SNP seems only ever to uncover 'arguments' against - how unfortunate.
However this comment #251 from Neil:
"My only objection is that he claims two salaries - one for each parliament, something that should not be allowed."
... is untrue, false, inaccurate, misleading etc, etc.
Salmond didn't want the Westminster salary, he is compelled to accept it by law. As I understand it the money is then paid into a charitable trust.
This 'factoid' is routinely presented in this fashion by Unionists in order to attack Salmond.
Neil also says:
"Re Alex Salmond and expenses, I doubt very much if he is knee deep in the trough."
What Neil appears to be trying to suggest is that Salmond is also in the trough, just not in it as deeply as Labour. However, as I have pointed out, the 'evidence' offered by Neil to back up his assertion needs to have a subtle 'twist' applied to it in order to make it look as though Alex Salmond 'claims' the second salary.
Let me anticipate Neils response:
I haven't said you are Unionist Neil, only that you have used a typical and well worn Unionist 'argument'.
Yes, you haven't said that he is in the trough explicitly, however you word the sentence that will lead the reader to infer just that.
Yes, Salmond does indeed receive two salaries, however by suggesting he 'claims' them you are inaccurately implying that Salmond could simply not claim them.
Complain about this comment
#263 gedguy2
"I want whatever he's on!"
Seriously you don't!
Complain about this comment
#267 greenockboy
Their arguments are always full of holes and half-baked innuendos.
see derekbarker's latest nonsenical rubbish above for the full falvour of their "debating" skill).
These idiots NEVER come up with any hard facts or genuine evidence to support their arguments. They can't, because they're trying to defend a deeply flawed view of reality.
Unfortunately for them their illusory reality is now starting to crumble before their very eyes.
Soon they'll be melting into obscurity because what they're desperately trying to defend won't exist any more.
Complain about this comment
#263
Of course it should have been a reply to #224 ForteanJo
#266 " I can't remember what I did a week ago never mind "a few months" ago." Well, that just about sums you up Bighullabaloo, nothing like an admission.
#268 Old natters and his one way dream, you cant take the teaching out of the teacher, pitty your political teaching is so wrong.
Complain about this comment
We always end up talking of independence, devolution and the character of Alex Salmond (who is routinely under 'character assassination' from my ill-thought fellow unionists).
What I shall say is this: Alex Salmond is Scotland's 'blue eyed boy' (according to April's Holyrood magazine), and there are reasons why 34% of people in last months poll said that he was top of their list to be first minister. Why? Because from what I can discern he has a brain, which he engages (compare to Tavish and Grayman), has well structured arguments (even if you do not agree with them- he clearly puts effort into policy/speeches etc, again compare to Bendy Wendy and her heir).
He has vision, that some like myself might not share; but the key -Derek is not to play petty politics (and I know it can be extremely tempting!), but to fight vision with vision. Ideas with ideas.
If you really what to help the unionist cause you can stop with the pointless Salmond slander, it doesnt work, it has no electoral effect (or at least hasnt for the last two years) and quite frankly as oldnat pointed out to me earlier on in this thread- it is rather pathetic and childish. Perhaps you could present a good case for the union, economically or socially or both? This can turn heads, it is better.
Complain about this comment
#251 Neil_Small147
I think AS has to take his Parliamentary salaries because it was thought if some Members didn't it might show up the others as somehow "second class". But that was in the far off days when Members were honourable and PCs were right and honourable.
Westminster has far too many Members sitting around doing "very little" (I would suggest that you insert appropriate language) and could well be culled. 400 would not be too many and we would get an immediate reduction of £100,000,000 per annum towards the costs imposed on us by fiscal efforts of the Right Honourable Member for Kirkcaldy and Cowdenbeath. It might also reduce the price of fat bacon; the pig industry has always suffered from boom and bust, flying pigs are just another of their problems.
Complain about this comment
# 268 Oldnat
Probably.
I did a quick check on my # 226 posting to find out what Derekbarker was ranting about. I can see why he thought that I might have inferred that the Labourites were a bunch of monkeys. Actually it was meant in a joking way about a cage being rattled at a zoo, Edinburgh zoo to be more precise. I had the pleasure of visiting it once on a school trip out. I had to use the example of monkeys as it is difficult to rattle a cage with elephants in it. Anyway, elephants are normally known as great jumpers. However, judging by the reaction of derekbarker then I am quickly coming to the conclusion that he was probably right in his initial impression.
Complain about this comment
#263 derekbarker
"Well, that just about sums you up Bighullabaloo, nothing like an admission."
Yes, Derek, it is nothing like an admission.
And I think you'll find that, for most people, that's normal.
Normal people don't fixate on some brief comment made by a complete stranger on an anonymous blog three months ago.
Life provides a range of challenges every week that prevent normal people clinging onto musty, unhealthy grudges from the distant past.
Normal life keeps you connected with the present, and forces you to look forward optimistically to the future.
You should try it sometime.
But I understand completely why you don't can't acknowledge the present and absolutely dread the future.
Complain about this comment
#258 - "Are you saying that all SNP MSP's and MP's are whiter than the driven snow?."
Well, white is only really identifiable in contrast to something else. If that something else is certain Labour MPs, then most people will make their own minds up about how white SNP MSPs and MPs are.
I do note, however, that you've quickly retreated from your insinuation that Salmond was "on the take". It interesting how Unionists love to insinuate but completely bottle it when taken to task.
Complain about this comment
Take note of # 271 deanthetory, derekbarker. A unionist who makes sense and is willing to stand and argue his case. He may not have a lot of humour in his writings but it is worth reading. Whereas, yours is full of inadvertent humour and isn't worth reading.
Complain about this comment
#260 deanthetory
You must appreciate that the SNP, for all it is doing so well, is really a one man and his dog outfit. If it wasn't for its ability to enthuse its adherents to turn out in quantity for elections it couldn't get anywhere; it's got no money and no backers. They won the 2007 elections on less than £1,000,000, so they probably had the people in Bannockburn, they couldn't afford the leaflets!
Complain about this comment
#271 - "Perhaps you could present a good case for the union, economically or socially or both? This can turn heads, it is better."
If only all Unionists thought like this, dean, the Scottish people would be better informed about the whole issue. But perhaps that's the last thing some Unionists would want.
Complain about this comment
#271. deanthetory
Lord Forsyth's full speech.
"Our inspiration lies in the victory in 1979 and the example of this great lady who saved our country."
Do you believe that? There is only one thing that delayed the economic mess then until now and that was Scotland's Oil nothing more. It could of been Mickey Mouse or even Donald Duck in charge as the result would of been the same as it had nothing whatsoever to do with a particular person.
Complain about this comment
267. At 8:40pm on 03 May 2009, greenockboy:
I object to your implications here.
re two salaries. Read the whole post. I object to a politician holding two posts in separate parliaments. Any politician. Any party. You cannot give 100% attention to both. Alex should have resigned his Westminster seat as soon as he knew he would become FM. It's not exactly as though Labour would win it! The argument you use that he is compelled by law to accept is weak. It does not justify him sitting in both parliaments. How can he do justice to those in his Westminster constituency when he cannot be there too often due to his duties as FM? I know he is standing down from Westmister next GE but that is still 2 or 3 years too late.
I also object to any MP/MSP holding another job. They are elected to serve whatever parliament they stand for. For one thing, it helps prevent conflicts of interest.
Nor did I imply that Alex was "in the trough". I don't particularly like him, but he is honourable as a politician in not running up huge expenses.
Stop resorting to "unionist" arguments. If you look at my recent posts I've been quite supportive of the SNP.
Or am I part of this great conspiracy theory you keep raising.
--------------
272 handclapping
Thank you for a more constructive response.
There are too many MPs.
---------------
Back to Gordon Brown. I reckon there will be a leadership challenge within 6 weeks.
Complain about this comment
greenockboy re 267
Neil Small is back to his pretendy nat bit again. I am reminded of Brians blog about Dunfermline building Society when he said the chairman had some explaining to do.
When pulled up about this he said that he had posted that Alister Darling also had some explaining to do. I asked him to direct me to the post were he had said this as I must have missed it. I am still waiting on a reply, he just disappeared from that thread only to pop up again when a new one starts.
He is no more a nat than Derek Barker or reluctant ex, maybe they are all the same person???
P.S. Derek the two positions that you mention. That would be the same as Donald Dewar then. The only difference maybe that Alex Salmond does not take both salaries, does anyone know what Dewar did about the salaries?
Complain about this comment
Mods
When did I become a new member? Look back at my log. I have been on this blog for a long time.
Complain about this comment
#271
Dean, clearly the SNP supporters are doing all they can do to discredit the labour party by accusing the labour party as the only party that has expenses issues with MP's and MSP's
Your continued voice of unionist politic's is only voiced by the conservatives, remember, it was the labour party that introduced the devolved parliament and the conservatives and the nationalist first opposed devolution.
The devolved settle budget is now! double what it was 10 years ago, in a relatively short period the budget has went from 15Bn to 30Bn.
If you think Alex Salmond has made the economic argument for an Independent Scotland, then lets hear it?. What position would Scotland have been in if Salmond did plough 100Bn into one bank under Independence, what position would Salmond be in, if Salmond was basing at least 9Bn on an annual oil surplus.
Almost three years of the SNP and all they can highlight in terms of potential growth, is one golf course near Aberdeen.
Dean, your old liberal sense of federalism draws you closer to the oldnat position on Independence, but what's really very odd, is the fact that oldnat and co are prepared to share Scotland's sovereignty with Europe yet seek Independence from England and westminster.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#280.
However Neil, Alex Salmond campaigned based on his intention to become First Minister of Scotland. Yet, the electorate brought Salmond into power despite what you see as 'wrong'.
If the people find it acceptable, surely that's all that matters?
Of course we can change the rules and ensure no one can stand for two Parliaments, but at the time do you believe it should have been up to the voters and voters alone?
A;ex Salmond represents my home constinuency, and I have no problem with Alex Salmond standing for two Parliaments. I trust Salmond, and also believe that being a member of both Parliaments then Salmond can represent my constinuency even better.
Complain about this comment
#281 - "He is no more a nat than Derek Barker or reluctant ex, maybe they are all the same person???"
Ouch, that's a bit harsh, dubbieside. For all I don't agree with many of Neil's views, he doesn't resort to inane ramblings that both Mr Barking and his alter ego, Postman Ex, will routinely return to when challenged.
Complain about this comment
#275 ForteanJo
"It interesting how Unionists love to insinuate but completely bottle it when taken to task."
I have taken several of them to task and the same thing happens every single time.
They make some completely false accusation or, more usually, some cowardly half-baked innuendo based on their own malicious intent to discredit Salmond or the SNP. No facts, no research, nothing.
If you totally disprove their claim with facts from verifiable sources (as I did with the nutjob troll's scurrilous attempt to smear Salmond above) they immediately drop the accusation and accuse you of saying something you didn't say like: "So, you're in favour of politicians having two jobs - aha!"
There is no attempt to defend their original accusation by providing any argument or verifiable evidence (because there isn't any) but rather they immediately resort to an infantile barrage of insults.
They seem to think no one can see they haven't even attempted to defend their now totally discredited accusation, never mind providing any sort of counter argument to support it.
It's truly bizarre, almost like they live in a hallucinatory world detached from actual reality.
Complain about this comment
Derek:
#283.
"Your continued voice of unionist politic's is only voiced by the conservatives, remember, it was the labour party that introduced the devolved parliament and the conservatives and the nationalist first opposed devolution."
The Labour Party introduced devolution for all the wrong reasons, "To stop nationalism dead." I believe was one of the main reasons.
"The devolved settle budget is now! double what it was 10 years ago, in a relatively short period the budget has went from 15Bn to 30Bn."
However overall Britain's budget has also doubled in size in the past 10 years. It's fair to see the Scottish grant increased, what would you expect otherwise?
"If you think Alex Salmond has made the economic argument for an Independent Scotland, then lets hear it?. What position would Scotland have been in if Salmond did plough 100Bn into one bank under Independence, what position would Salmond be in, if Salmond was basing at least 9Bn on an annual oil surplus."
Alex Salmond never insisted on putting 100 billion into HBOS, or any other bank. It's rather desperate to create lies based on what's said in the papers, has anyone told you not to believe everything in a paper, Derek?
"Dean, your old liberal sense of federalism draws you closer to the oldnat position on Independence, but what's really very odd, is the fact that oldnat and co are prepared to share Scotland's sovereignty with Europe yet seek Independence from England and westminster."
This is wrong too. Scotland wants to be apart of Europe, and be apart of the future. England and Westminister will remain apart of the European Union. Scotland and England will still be together, just under a different name.
Complain about this comment
#285
Well! ForteanJo, you may well take inspiration from the naked rambler
with all your bare @rse nothing comments but HEY! your used to blowing clear bubbles.
Complain about this comment
#283.derekbarker or resident tr**l
"it was the labour party that introduced the devolved parliament and the conservatives and the nationalist first opposed devolution."
"There is therefore no truth whatsoever in the assertion that the devolution of political power to Scotland, and the restoration of the Scottish Parliament and Government, was an initiative by the Labour Party. The full story of Labour's attempts to retain power in Scotland by any means whatsoever has still to be told, and indeed these tactics (including the suppression of the real facts of devolution) were successful to the extent that they enabled the party to cling to office for a further eight years. Truth may be a philosophical concept, but the hard fact is that the restoration of democratic government in Scotland was forced on London by the international authorities as a foreign policy commitment that had to be implemented under the implied threat of international sanctions."
Complain about this comment
#283 derekbarker
"clearly the SNP supporters are doing all they can do to discredit the labour party by accusing the labour party as the only party that has expenses issues with MP's and MSP's"
No, Derek. Clearly YOU implied Salmond was claiming for a second home and therefore the SNP were not in a position to criticise greedy Labour politicians.
It turns out Salmond doesn't claim for a second home, you looked like an idiot, but you haven't got the guts to admit you were wrong never mind apologise for it.
Just keep going. You've got about five weeks before you'll be defending the pile of goo that's left after Labour's meltdown.
Complain about this comment
279. cynicalHighlander
I couldn't manage to get the link to the Forsyth speech to work, so I'll comment in reference specifically to the quotation you highlighted.
"Our inspiration lies in the victory in 1979 and the example of this great lady who saved our country."
Depends upon ones personal political alignment rather.
I agree that Margaret Thatcher was successful in apparently reinvigorating an all too Keynesian economic model that by 1979 seemed to have ran dry of fresh thinking and innovative economic thought.
But I speak as a young man, born in 1989- one of the Thatcher-generation of children that grew up after her term in office, and therefore are more accustomed to the new UK economy of service and financial sectors rather than manufacturing and heavy industry.
Saved the UK? From undemocratic trades-union practice yes, but hardly saved the people, Scots, Welsh or English from extraordinarily high unemployment. She saved the UK from economic decline- up to a point, however her economic restructuring was made possible through the oil boom. When Forsyth says she saved the UK, ell, not exactly in terms of constitutionality, she made the case for home rule strong.
As a one-nationist leaning young Tory, I recognise, happily, that she did save the UK economy from state dependent culture, she did 'save' the UK from undemocratic trades union non-balloting wild ca strikes.
However, her lack of focus for unemployment (altogether too Keynesian for her?) made the UK state internally more exposed to nationalisms than ever before. Socially she made people like my own parents rich, cutting their taxes and the right to buy was my mothers first chance to own property, so yes I feel a personal debt of gratitude to some of her more progressive policies, but I would run well short of saying anything so overly generalistic as "she saved the UK".
Shades of grey, not black or white.
Complain about this comment
#283 derekbarker
Yet more ramblings derek?
"oldnat and co are prepared to share Scotland's sovereignty with Europe yet seek Independence from England and westminster."
Are you arguing that Scotland should not be part of the EU? If we are, then of course we will continue to be in union with the other parts of the UK - but with the other EU countries as well - unless England decides to leave the EU.
You normally don't answer any questions (presumably because your party hasn't told you the answers) but does your version of "international" socialism restrict the "international" to the nations of the UK only?
Complain about this comment
#288 - "Well! ForteanJo, you may well take inspiration from the naked rambler with all your bare @rse nothing comments but HEY! your used to blowing clear bubbles."
Great come back, Derek, I bet you're on your school's debating team. Won't you miss such comfort blankets when you finally have to leave primary and have to go to the big school?
Complain about this comment
#289
cynicalHighlander your losing the plot! of-course it was the labour government that introduced the devolved Scottish parliament.
#286 Bighullabaloo, you are being selective or ignorant as to the multiple arguments surrounding the expenses row.
#290 Bighullabaloo, It was in your written words' Quote, Alex Salmond claimed 14,000 for his rent,plus claimed expenses for hotel bills.
Oh, by the way! do you support politicians that hold two posts?.
Complain about this comment
#293
Ah, if only it was those school years! I'd still be nutmeging clowns like you.
Complain about this comment
1. Headline news from the BBC: "Cabinet members rally round Brown"
2. Headline news NOT from the BBC: "Harriet Harman to fight for leadership if Gordon Brown is forced out"
Complain about this comment
#292 oldnat
Sorry Oldnat cant understand what your getting at there old-boy, care to be a bit more clearer, I have to say, it is very unlike you and your usual sense of poetic justice, in fact! is it you Oldnat?
Complain about this comment
# 296 bighullabaloo
When the BBC say that the cabinet members are rallying around their leader it reminds me of Brutus and co rallying around Caesar just before those immortal words, 'Et tu...'.
Goodbye Gordon.
Complain about this comment
#294 derekbarker
"It was in your written words' Quote, Alex Salmond claimed 14,000 for his rent,plus claimed expenses for hotel bills."
They are NOT my written words. I was quoting the DAILY RECORD.
I've told you that three times now.
Your totally infantile refusal to acknowledge this fact is as tedious as it is pathetic.
I look forward to your disappearance in five weeks when there'll be nothing left of Labour and no point to you making your daft comments any more.
Complain about this comment
#295 - "Ah, if only it was those school years! I'd still be nutmeging clowns like you."
Is that what you think you're doing! You do realise those drugs you're taking are a controlled substance.
Complain about this comment
#298 gedguy2
It's the political equivalent of football's infamous "the manager has the full support of the board".
Two days later they're standing on the street with their nose pressed against the window.
Such will be Brown's fate very soon.
The honourable Labour members aren't going to put at risk their nice fat expense accounts, second mortgage funds, family employment scams, long lunches and part time work schedules for anyone, never mind Gordon Brown!
Complain about this comment
End of a bad week: Labour MPs say Brown is 'doomed'
A headline from todays Evening Standard in London.
Complain about this comment
#299
OK Bighullabaloo, let me re-phrase it, on a number of occassions you have written and said on this blog that Alex Salmond claimed 14,000 living expenses plus untold hotel bill expenses (care to give the link to the daily record) still if you want to quote the daily record and say that's your evidence, well! BigMac, thats another neuron misfiring.
Complain about this comment
Harriet-Harman-to-fight-for-leadership-if-Gordon-Brown-is-forced-out
A headline from the Telegraph.
Complain about this comment
New blow for Prime Minister as Clarke and Blunkett blast his leadership
From the Daily Record
Complain about this comment
Double trouble for Brown: As Hazel Blears taunts PM, Alan Johnson refuses to rule himself out of taking over
Mail online
Complain about this comment
#303 derekbarker
"you have written and said on this blog that Alex Salmond claimed 14,000 living expenses plus untold hotel bill expenses (care to give the link to the daily record)"
No, I haven't said he claimed "14,000 for living expenses."
For the fourth and last time, the DAILY RECORD said he claimed 14,000 pounds - but it was NOT for "living expneses" as you now put it.
It was rent for a flat in London which Salmond no longer has.
You think I'm quoting a story that doesn't exist? This is the story:
http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/2008/03/27/alex-salmond-claimed-116k-expenses-for-just-six-westminster-visits-86908-20363907/
Naturally, since it was in a Labour rag, the story is an attempt to bury Salmond over expenses.
But the facts in relation to your baseless smear are crystal clear. Salmond does not have a second home in London.
You have been totally and utterly discredited.
There is no point whatsoever in continuing this ludicrous nonsense where you refuse to acknowledge reality.
Complain about this comment
The Labour leadership is safe under Brown until the Euro and local council elections.
If it is worse than 2004's 22% then we may well see leadership chatter again- but who will they congeal behind? Straw, Johnston all know that the man who wields the dagger never gets the premiership. So again, who will be the stalking horse? MacDonald, Cruddas ? Hard to believe perhaps.
Complain about this comment
To be fair Derek, you have been soundly hammered here. Just hold your hands up.
Complain about this comment
#307
Thankyou Bighallabaloo!
#309 Martin, care to say what party you support and did you click on Bighullaballoo's link?.
Complain about this comment
Nothing from the 'Scotsman' about Brown's troubles, apart from a piece about AS saying that we are two thirds of the way to independence.
A reply to this from Iain Gray, the Scottish Labour leader.
He said:
"During the worst economic crisis since the war, the rest of Scotland is planning for recovery but Alex Salmond is planning for a referendum.
"Separate from the rest of the UK, our banks and building societies would have vanished, losing all the jobs, mortgages and savings. It's not that big countries are immune from the recession look at America it's that they have the strength to recover faster."
I thought that we had already lost them. Maybe not the jobs but that might happen as well.
Complain about this comment
#294. derekbarker
Have you seen this!
President Mugabe writes letters of apology and offers free visas to all Labour politicians as he needs help in ruining/running his country's economy and help to modernise his democratic government to bring it down to Westminster's level.
It was the threat by the UN on Westminster that they had no option but to reluctantly offer devolution.
Complain about this comment
O' Bighullaballoo, care to read my initial post, which asked the question does AS have a second home in london, I clearly asked whether he had a home or not.
Agree Martin?.
Complain about this comment
Brown given five weeks to save party or face challenge
Found this in the 'Scotsman'.
Complain about this comment
Neil Small writes of me:
"The argument you use that he is compelled by law to accept is weak."
I did not make an argument, I provided verifiable facts that destroyed yours. I won't be engaging with you futher on this mattter, unless of course you post the same false information again.
Complain about this comment
281. At 9:46pm on 03 May 2009, dubbieside:
You're correct - I'm not a nat. But nor am I a union-loving Labourite.
But I criticise both sides, something I don't see either SNP or Labour supporters doing.
I also praise the SNP where due - for example their health initiatives and keeping all three Lanarkshire hospitals open. That's not "pretendy" stuff - it's fact. I wrote an open letter in my local paper and had the entire local Labour party on top of me, including my councillor who telephoned me demanding I withdrew a phrase of hypocrite! I have no love at all for the S Lanarkshire Labour group.
However, perhaps you could comment on the SNP's failure to sort out public transport, my one major gripe with them.
Could you contribute to a debate without resorting to the same old insults?
------
284. At 9:56pm on 03 May 2009, Thomas_Porter:
If it was a Labour FM also sitting in a Westminster seat (highly unlikely now), would you say the same? It's not a dig at the SNP, it applies to all MPs. Salmond does not vote in every Westminster lobby, and that could, just could make the difference in a vote of confidence. Labour will not play nice and keep one MP back simply because one opposition MP isn't there. If he resigned his Westminster seat his successor is practically guaranteed to be a member of the SNP.
304. At 10:52pm on 03 May 2009, gedguy2:
Don't know where the Telegraph got that. She is not well liked within Labour ranks. Remember the deputy leadership election? Alan Johnson was odds-on to win.
I reckon some unknown Labour MP will challenge Brown, opening the door for a more heavyweight contender. Depends if GB can make it to the summer recess.
And as for Clarke and Blunkett.........
Complain about this comment
# 308 deanthetory
That's assuming he lasts that long. However, I suspect that the party will wait until after the euros. Unless he does another youtube on them.
Complain about this comment
Certainly Derek. I'm an SNP supporter. I used to be a Labour supporter and even leafleted during election campaign but I abandoned Labour finally in 2003.
To this day I cannot understand why ANYONE of good will would continue to support them. The New Labour "movement" is deeply evil. It's sad that some people look at political parties the same way people look at football teams. It seems that some grown adults actually think it's wrong to switch your party allegiance and that a party should be supported no matter what. To me that kind of thinking is intellectually childish beyond belief.
To answer your second question, no, I did not look at the link. Why?
Complain about this comment
Neil:
"If it was a Labour FM also sitting in a Westminster seat (highly unlikely now), would you say the same? It's not a dig at the SNP, it applies to all MPs. Salmond does not vote in every Westminster lobby, and that could, just could make the difference in a vote of confidence. Labour will not play nice and keep one MP back simply because one opposition MP isn't there. If he resigned his Westminster seat his successor is practically guaranteed to be a member of the SNP."
Of course not, I would have to look at each case individually, but I never complained about Curran running for Glasgow East despite also being a member of the Scottish Parliament.
Both individuals were open of their intentions and the public will take that into account when it comes to voting. I would also not comment on cases that are taken outside of my home constinuency. If it does not effect me, why should I bother to complain, I try not to score cheap political points.
Complain about this comment
Back Gordon Brown or boost BNP, Neil Kinnock warns MPs
Guardian
Complain about this comment
313. Yes Derek. And the answer was no, he does not have a second home in London.
He did once have a rented flat at Pimlico, but that is entirely normal. Even Laour MPs who aren't taking the michael out of us all by buying second homes can take these if they want to, and many do. Of his own doing, he gave that up so that he wouldn't have to claim rent on it.
So what's your point?
Complain about this comment
Youtube if U want to.
It may be more catching than anyone at the present realises- a further step down the line of joker-Brown sadly.
Labour wouldnt surely oust Brown would they, not if you consider that the demand for an immediate G.E. would be too great to be put off for even three months.
They know that as soon as Brown goes, so does the Labour parties abilit to decide for themselves when to hold the G.E.
Complain about this comment
#308, kinda hard to believe that Labour could really do worse than 22%, especially when they are now trying to dust off old class-war elements to ensure they have some sort of vote to build from after the next general election.
If Brown were to achieve under 22% of the vote in the Euro elections ... I would be very surprised if he were to survive the summer.
Complain about this comment
http://petitions.number10.gov.uk/please-go/
Complain about this comment
315. At 11:17pm on 03 May 2009, greenockboy wrote:
Neil Small writes of me:
"The argument you use that he is compelled by law to accept is weak."
I did not make an argument, I provided verifiable facts that destroyed yours. I won't be engaging with you futher on this mattter, unless of course you post the same false information again.
Would you like to repost that in Times Roman, 20 point, red and capitals with a few exclamation marks? I can see you walloping the final key as you hammered your reply.
Complain about this comment
319. At 11:30pm on 03 May 2009, Thomas_Porter wrote:
Neil:
"If it was a Labour FM also sitting in a Westminster seat (highly unlikely now), would you say the same? It's not a dig at the SNP, it applies to all MPs. Salmond does not vote in every Westminster lobby, and that could, just could make the difference in a vote of confidence. Labour will not play nice and keep one MP back simply because one opposition MP isn't there. If he resigned his Westminster seat his successor is practically guaranteed to be a member of the SNP."
Of course not, I would have to look at each case individually, but I never complained about Curran running for Glasgow East despite also being a member of the Scottish Parliament.
Both individuals were open of their intentions and the public will take that into account when it comes to voting. I would also not comment on cases that are taken outside of my home constinuency. If it does not effect me, why should I bother to complain, I try not to score cheap political points.
----------
It's a matter of principle for me. Alex was totally open about his intentions, something I have no trouble with. But I do not agree with politicians having jobs in addition to their roles as MPs/MSPs. It applies to Margaret Curran as well.
And it affects everyone, since taxpayers pay the bill.
------------
320. At 11:30pm on 03 May 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
Back Gordon Brown or boost BNP, Neil Kinnock warns MPs
Guardian
Eh? Another Neil Kinnock gem. From what I gather from Paddy, half of Labour is about to join the Lib Dems.
Complain about this comment
Gordon surely couldn't boost the BNP any further, he has already made them in to a credible alternative to Labour for many in areas such as the North of England and parts of London, via his ramblings.
Brown stole a NF slogan, used it, now the BNP has it back - and the fool was surprised when it all went bad for him!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E6J2QUw0A-0
"British Jobs for British Workers"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=abE087jbVs0
Browns political children they owe him everything.
Complain about this comment
#321
Martin, my point is dont throw stones at class houses, the whole expenses affair has opened a tin of worms through out the political spectrum.
Martin, there have been disappointments from the labour government but if you measure those as opposed to the last tory government, there is not really a choice, it's labour every time.(O' and of course real labour not new)
Complain about this comment
#251
Re Alex Salmond's salary. He takes a third of his Westminster salary which is then given to a charity (I think it is to Caritas).
Could we do derekbarker a favour and stop replying to his demented offerings.
Lest we forget the totally below avergae Labour MP for Falkirk, Major Eric Joyce has had over £1,000,000 in parliamentary expenses since he got there in 2001. We await with interest details of the former MP for Glasgow East's claims. I find the reports of Jim Devine's treatment of his staff just as objectionable as his alleged freeloading. I see some are suggesting that that the SNP are on target for 14 gains. Is this for Westminster or Holyrood?
I think were are actually seeing the SNP beginning to replace the Labour Party in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
"Martin, my point is dont throw stones at class houses, the whole expenses affair has opened a tin of worms through out the political spectrum."
Indications are that Labour are far and away the worst offenders. There is no indication that the SNP have offended in this regard at all.
"Martin, there have been disappointments from the labour government but if you measure those as opposed to the last tory government, there is not really a choice, it's labour every time."
Disappointments??? Talk about an understatement. Labour has become so malicious, so hateful and so incompetent that they have been IN NO WAY BETTER than Tories. Labour are deservedly despised, it still hasn't dawned on them the extent of it.
Complain about this comment
#313 derekbarker
"care to read my initial post, which asked the question does AS have a second home in london, I clearly asked whether he had a home or not."
Derek, everyone can see your initial post (#237) was a question. We have eyes.
No one here is denying you the right to ask an honest question.
But unfortunately your "question" is nothing more than a thinly-disguised attempt to find something, anything, you can use to discredit Alex Salmond.
Your intent is obvious since in the very same post in your indecent haste to deliver your smear you added: "and if so, then do you endorse that" (Salmond having a second home in London).
You're clearly so eager to attack Salmond you're getting your smear in before you even know whether there's any basis for an smear at all!
"Does Alex Salmond have a second home and if so do you endorse that position?" isn't an honest enquiry seeking the truth.
It's just a fishing expedition for anything that might be used to smear Salmond.
No need for you to wait to see if SALMOND ACTUALLY HAS A SECOND HOME!
No, you just forget that and go straight to the smear that IF HE DOES HAVE A SECOND HOME then that's something that shouldn't be endorsed.
Genuine questions are always welcome.
But questions that include an automatic assumption that someone's abusing the system are NOT.
You can't really believe people here are so stupid that they can't see exactly what you're doing and why! I've known five-year-olds that had more guile than you're showing here.
Complain about this comment
#328 derekbarker
"my point is dont throw stones at class (sic) houses"
Derek, the point is that Salmond isn't IN a glass house. He doesn't have a second home like some greedy Labour politicians.
Salmond isn't "throwing stones". He hasn't accused any Labour politicians of abusing their expenses.
The only person who's "throwing stones" (at an innocent man no less)is YOU.
Since you support a party with a lot of politicians who ARE abusing their expenses the person in the "glass house" is YOU.
And that's why your "question" is nothing more than a baseless smear.
Complain about this comment
329. At 11:51pm on 03 May 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
Re Alex Salmond's salary. He takes a third of his Westminster salary which is then given to a charity (I think it is to Caritas).
-----------------
Thanks for clearing that up. I honestly wasn't aware of that. Blows my #326 comment about taxpayer's bill out of the water!
Complain about this comment
#331
Oh dear, Bighullabaloo, back to the conspiracy theories agian.
Your narrow views have captured you! stop being so paranoid.
O' and thanks again for that super link.
Complain about this comment
I thought I'd take this opportunity to demonstrate what I call the 'nebulous argument' tactic. This tactic starts with a basic accusation/assertion or question that, as each is addressed, grows ever bigger. Like a virus, the original comment evolves and changes - new variations branch off. The original assertion having been dealt with has nevertheless spawned a virtual avalanche of new 'strains'.
Eventually, there are so many of them that they are impossible to deal with. The only real 'cure' is to deal with the first then simply ignore the others, 'scratching' them will only generate more.
Let's see how this works using Nreil Small's original #251 comment:
Neil Wrote:
Re Alex Salmond and expenses, I doubt very much if he is knee deep in the trough.
My only objection is that he claims two salaries - one for each parliament, something that should not be allowed.
If any SNP MPs are claiming for a second home in London, then they are justified, unlike certain members of the Cabinet.
See my response at #267
Let's see how Neil reacted to my rebuttal of his assertion
re two salaries. Read the whole post. I object to a politician holding two posts in separate parliaments.
Look at Neil's actual comment, it is clearly referring to Salmond alone.
"My only objection is that he claims two salaries - one for each parliament, something that should not be allowed" .... The evolution has begun.
Any politician. Any party. You cannot give 100% attention to both.
This is a completely new argument, Neils assertion that Salmond claims two salaries is still false.
Alex should have resigned his Westminster seat as soon as he knew he would become FM. It's not exactly as though Labour would win it!
Another new argument. Neils assertion that Salmond claims two salaries is still false.
The argument you use that he is compelled by law to accept is weak. A sidetrack is introduced. I made no argument, it is a fact that totally destroys Neils false claim - no more, no less.
It does not justify him sitting in both parliaments.Another sidetrack is introduced, I posted a fact that totally destroys Neils false claim - no more, no less.
How can he do justice to those in his Westminster constituency when he cannot be there too often due to his duties as FM? A totally new question is introduced. Neils assertion that Salmond claims two salaries is still false.
I know he is standing down from Westmister next GE but that is still 2 or 3 years too late.A new criticism is introduced.
I also object to any MP/MSP holding another job. They are elected to serve whatever parliament they stand for. For one thing, it helps prevent conflicts of interest.Yet another sidetrack is introduced.
Nor did I imply that Alex was "in the trough".
I repeat, you word the sentence that will lead the reader to infer just that otherwise there is no need to add "knee deep", why not just "I doubt very much if he is in the trough."?
Stop resorting to "unionist" arguments. If you look at my recent posts I've been quite supportive of the SNP.
Neil's false claim is a typical one frequently made by Unionists, no more - no less.
Or am I part of this great conspiracy theory you keep raising.
Then we see the attempt at provoking a less than civil response through the use of yet another typical accusation oft used by Unionists.
--------------
272 handclapping
Thank you for a more constructive response.
We end with the indirect insult, the aim here of course is to 'contrast' my 'non constructive unreasonable' comment with handclapping's whilst at the same time demonstrating just how 'reasonable' and polite Neil is.
I do hope that the mods let this through, I think it deserves to be read.
Remember that Neils assertion that Salmond claims two salaries is still false.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147 re your 316
Thats the whole point, you do not criticize both sides. You say you do, but when asked where your criticism of Labour is you disappear.
As I said before where is your post criticizing Alister Darling when you were criticizing the chairman of Dunfermline B.S.?
Point me to it and I will gladly apologize.
Complain about this comment
#330
Martin, another question! does the FM have two homes in Scotland?
and if so does he claim any expenses for one of the two homes, if indeed he has two homes in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#328 derekbarker
"the whole expenses affair has opened a tin of worms through out the political spectrum"
We wont know all the details till July. However, your desperation to assume all MPs have an equal share of guilt in cheating the taxpayer rings hollow. Couple of months and we'll find out how many MPs (and of which parties) are forced to resign.
Complain about this comment
#334 derekbarker
You are welcome to the "super" link.
I've not provided a top secret SNP memo full of sensitive information that can be used to smear Alex Salmond, even if you're trying to imply I have.
If you really liked it that much, you can find any number of similar attempts by the Daily Record to discredit Salmond in under 10 seconds with a simple Google search.
Such stories have got about as much credibility as your baseless insinuation that Salmond is wrong to claim expenses for a second home which in reality he doesn't have.
That's to say, no credibility at all.
Complain about this comment
O' Martin if you dont mind, could you be so kind to answer whether the FM
goes to his MP's constituency to hold surgeries and if so does he stay the night at a hotel and claim that expenses.
Complain about this comment
#328 derekbarker
Its 12 years we've had of the Blair/Brown "Labour" party.
We've had Stealth taxes, shed loads of money thrown at public services without any plan for improvement, PFI, lost data, the renewal of Trident, cash for honours, the death of Dr Kelly, an illegal war in Iraq, lets let the French build nuclear power plants here, stealth payments to MPs through uncontrolled allowances and expenses AND now we are bankrupt.
And on the plus side ... the minimum wage.
Compare that with Clem Atlee's 6 years and 3 months
National Insurance, the NHS, council houses, nationalisation of coal, rail, steel, the freeing of India and Pakistan and it goes on and then we were bankrupt.
Which of these was a socialist government? which deserved to use the name Labour for their Government?
I think less of you every time you stick up for this mob and their snouts in troughs mentality. Stick to your principles, vote SNP and then we have a chance in a Scotland free of the baleful influence of all those southern tories.
Complain about this comment
#333, good of you to admit that Neil ... if you check out Alex Salmond's stats on expenses 2001/2-2007/08 on They Work For You, you can read the entries made on the Member's Register. Don't think it is up to date, but it breaks down everything including impromptu, free upgrades of Mr Salmond and his wife on Virgin flights across the Atlantic.
Complain about this comment
#341 handclapping
Yes Atlee's government with Bevin was super and yes missed opportunities to take some assets back into public ownership, however Atlee did rely on Key's and America, considering Britain was broke after the war.
I think Colin Fox gave a fantastic speech while he was an MSP about the need to scrap prescription charges, do you think the nats will ever scrap prescription charges?.
Handclapping, if the tories do gain power at westminster, the Scottish budget and Scottish parliament effectiveness will be sorely compromised
but hey! only time will tell.
Complain about this comment
#335 greenockboy
An excellent analysis of the Unionists' ridiculous "shifting sands" tactic.
Another one of their favourites is this:
1. Innuendo (never a direct accusation as this would require facts or, at least, a modicum of moral courage).
2. The veiled accusation is shot down in flames with facts and evidence.
3. The fact that their baseless lie has just been exposed is ignored.
4. A new accusation is made against the person who's exposed the lie: usually that they have made a totally unrelated claim.
5. Requests for proof are always ignored. Demands are always made of others to disprove their lies.
6. Even after those lies are comprehensively disproved, a refusal to acknowledge that fact, followed by a swift move onto their next baseless innuendo.
On and on, they go like this. Every day. Totally pointless. Totally without merit or integrity.
Complain about this comment
#338
Oldnat, Hmmm? no I'm not pointing the blame finger at all MP's (wow! thats the old fork handles talk oldnat, four candles)I'm merely pointing to your naiveity to accept that the expenses row runs deeper than just the labour party.
Complain about this comment
#335 greenockboy
To see a perfect example of the Unionists' fatuous "argument" style look no further than derekbarker's #340 where, already having had his first baseless attempt at a slur completely destroyed, he has now moved on to a mutated version of it, equally scurrilous in intent, always demanding effort of others to "disprove" an implied slight, never providing a genuine point for debate.
It is so utterly tedious I would formally ask everyone here, regardless of political views, to just ignore this annoying troll's posts from this moment on and for all time. It's unfortunately the best we can hope for until Brown's gravy train collapses under the weight of its own greed.
Complain about this comment
335. At 00:13am on 04 May 2009, greenockboy wrote:
I have never read so much tripe in my life.
You see conspiracy theories in everything. Do you honestly think I sit here for hours scripting my posts so I can get a reaction? I'm making points that I consider important, not some great attempt to floor Alex Salmond and raise Gordon Brown to the Pinnacle of Political Greatness.
PROVE that I am a unionist and support Labour. Prove it. You can't. You are typical of the extreme SNP and Labour supporters on here who will not ever accept the slighest criticism or disagreement of personal views.
And Salmond DOES accept two salaries, although as snecked pointed out he only accepts a third of his Westminster salary and donates this to charity, something you did not point out. I responded to snecked's post and accepted what he said.
Dubbieside is just as bad, ranting on about Dunfermline and Alistair Darling. Dubbieside, I don't have time to trawl through all my posts. I do occasionally leave my PC and do other things. By the time I get back either there are another 4o odd posts or Brian has added two new topics.
Dubbieside, you want proof of criticism of Labour? Write to the editor of the EK News and ask about the number of letters I have had published openly criticising South Lanarkshire Council Labour councillors. Check the stories about 2 years ago when the possibility of Hairmyres Hospital being closed was very real, and I had a letter published questionning why the Labour councillors had a photo opportunity to support the hospital.
I lived in England for several years, and voted Conservative every time as I do not and never have trusted Labour. But I did not vote for the SNP last time round because my local SNP candidate does not support her constituents very well. She is invisible and only reacts when publicly criticised for ignoring letters sent to her local office.
The other reason I did not vote SNP at the last Scottish election was I did not agree with the presentation of the SNP - "Alex Salmond for First Minister". Sure, it states his intentions, but does little to promote the local candidate.
This time I probably will vote SNP, and don't care whether you believe me or not.
Why vote for them? No spin, advances with health policies that are beneficial, and the ability to recind a policy (the forest leasing).
What needs improved? Communication more than anything. Yes, there is a hostile press, but that is overcome with more live interviews and debates. Also being careful how they present new policies. (The bridge).
Failure? Only one come to mind - public transport regulation. Fares still rocketing and services very poor. A PQ to the Transport Minister resulted in the same answer given by the company in question and nothing has been done, despite the service remaining poor.
I don't accept we are ready for independence yet, but I accept that the current administration is more effective than the previous. The next Scottish GE should give the SNP a working majority.
But you have to accept that the SNP is not perfect, and must accept that people are entitled to question policies or disagree with them, whatever the reason.
No doubt dubbieside will make a comment that I'm doing my pretendy bit again..........
Complain about this comment
#346
I thankyou again baloon for your roundish comments, your clearly just a first base player, I dont hold that against you (O' no) I merely praise
you consistent efforts, well done! what a hullav guy.
Complain about this comment
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2505795.0.We_have_delivered_on_election_promises_says_SNP.php
Anyone want a laugh? Read Iain Gray's mince at the bottom of the above article!
Complain about this comment
Harriet Har-person and Johnson are now all but ready to run.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/politics/gordon-brown/5269662/Harriet-Harman-to-fight-for-leadership-if-Gordon-Brown-is-forced-out.html
Hardly the sort of "Titans" needed to rescue the Labour Party from the moral abyss where Brown's broken compass has led them.
Barring anything truly extraordinary at Euro elections, Brown will probably limp on to the next election (take the blame, go), and join the list of worst PMs ever.
Those fighting to take over the Labour ship now look a little bit unhinged to value "the top job" so highly at this stage. One thing of which you can be certain anyway ... the next Labour leader wont be Scots-born ... or the one after that ... or the one after that. Broon has guaranteed that much.
Complain about this comment
Even if Brown goes before the next General Election (Which I am confident he will. He must, already, be counting the knives in his back.) I suspect that the new Labour leader will not want to call for an early General Election as he/she will be wanting to hold on to power for as long as possible hoping against hope that some good fairy might appear and magic all the bad things away. Not that I'm implying that another of the reasons for holding on to power is to milk the system as much as possible before their obvious demise at the polling stations. I didn't see Brown holding a General Election when he took over the premiership from Blair in that coup de grace.
When the Tories take power in Westminster, which they surely will, I suspect that they will honestly try to sort out the troubles that have arisen between Holyrood and Westminster. We know that the basis of the trouble between the two parliaments has come about because Labour could not accept that they were no longer the rulers of Scotland and have done everything they possibly could to rubbish the Government of Scotland. Whereas, the Tories will try to seek an accomodation with the Scottish Government to try to keep Scotland within the union. At the very least, I have respect for the Tories as they will start negotiations from the point of view (Unionism) that they believe in, as opposed to Labour who have shed everything that they believe in, in the rush for power and glory.
Alex, who is a pragmatist, I'm sure will be happy to come to some form of accommodation (whether bought or rented ;) ) for the good of the people of Scotland but still 'stick to his guns' over independence.
The next few years are going to be interesting politically as the Tories try to balance the books, which Labour are leaving them, and reach a deal to try and keep Scotland within the Union.
Complain about this comment
I've just read the BBC's piece on Harriet Harman. It is interesting how the BBC have formulated this piece. (I wish I knew how to provide links)
Their headline is: 'Harman dismisses leadership talk'
Then they go on to say that, 'But a spokeswoman for Ms Harman later said she was firmly focused on being a loyal deputy to Mr Brown.' OK, but why isn't Harriet saying this herself? Surely the BBC is able to get close to the cabinet members enough to get a statement off them. I'll wait a bit to see if she says this herself. After all the Telegraph headline only came out yesterday and Harriet might be unreachable just now.
Later on in the piece the BBC say, 'Ms Harman's spokeswoman said the Telegraph story - which suggested Ms Harman would refuse to stand aside for a "unity candidate" should Mr Brown move on - was "utter rubbish".'
Surely if the BBC was able to get hold of Harriet's spokesperson then it shouldn't be too hard to get hold of Harriet herself, unless she is keeping her head down, for the moment.
We all know that it is OK for a spokesperson to say what they like as it can always be denied by the person that 'employs' them that those comments were not hers (Harriets). It wouldn't look good for any potential contender for the leadership to have to eat their words at a later stage in the contest. No sense in giving ammunition to the opposition (other Labour leadership contenders). Will Harriet come out and condemn the Telegraph's headline herself? We can only wait and see.
Poor old Gordon. Those who live by the sword will die by the knife.
Complain about this comment
Greenockboy, a word to the wise, you should have put your responses in BOLD and not Neils.
It was good of you to point out the damning with faint praise that he does so regularly ,that I have given up reading his posts.Sadly you have just made me read them!
I don't know where derekbarker has sprung from, I can only assume that he is part of an irritating cabal who use multiple monikers on all political blogs.The labour rapid response bunch spring to mind.
He/they appears to favour Brians blog all of a sudden.
He/they used to favour Nicks but now makes rare appearances there.
Complain about this comment
People, Brian very politely asked that we all stay on topic with this thread.
I know that I often stray from the point, albeit usually discrediting repeated baseless nationalist claims and conspiracies, but any chance we could stick to the subject of Holyrood's budget?
There still exist some alternate blogs available for those that must regurgitate the usual partisan spin.
The SNP's 'National Conversation' needs all the help it can get, for example!
Complain about this comment
In my very first response to Neil Small's post at #251 I tried to anticipate what he might say in response, below is what I added to my comment.
I haven't said you are Unionist Neil, only that you have used a typical and well worn Unionist 'argument'.
Yes, you haven't said that he is in the trough explicitly, however you word the sentence that will lead the reader to infer just that.
Yes, Salmond does indeed receive two salaries, however by suggesting he 'claims' them you are inaccurately implying that Salmond could simply not claim them.
Here is a selection of statements from Neils latest post at #347:
You see conspiracy theories in everything
The conspiracy line being used again, this time more direct. Shouldn't straight forward insults like this compel the mods to act?
PROVE that I am a unionist and support Labour. Prove it. You can't.As you can see, I actually anticipated this line of response and answered it before Neil even used it.
You are typical of the extreme SNP and Labour supporters on here who will not ever accept the slighest criticism or disagreement of personal views.Now we see further insults, I am an 'extreme' SNP supporter who is intollerant of opposing views. Neil does not say who the intollerant Labour supporters are. Again, shoudln't the mods act here in order to prevent 'flaming' of the thread?
And Salmond DOES accept two salaries, although as snecked pointed out he only accepts a third of his Westminster salary and donates this to charity, something you did not point out.See my reproduced comment above which incudes the line "Yes, Salmond does indeed receive two salaries". I also stated quite clearly in my original response that Salmond donates whay he receives from Westminster to a charity.
So, I actually did point it out, although not the point that two thirds of the salary is waived.
My view is that this comment from Neil contains deliberate insults and misrepresentations that I have listed. If I was to respond in kind then the thread disintegrates into a tit for tat slagging match.
Remember, much of this is due to Neil offering up a well worn Unionist 'factoid' that, shall we say, isn't flattering of Alex Salmond and suggests a degree of 'trough snuffling' on the part of the FM.
There is a case to be made for the removal of the post above, whether the mods deem the insults and misrepresentations as reason enough is up to them, I haven't complained.
Neil may or may not be a Unionist, I don't care. However, if he posts comments that contain lines of argument or smears oft used by Unionists then it is only fair that this is pointed out.
I said that I wouldn't engage with Neil on this matter further, however this indirect engagement is necessary in order to highlight what I see as a trait amongst many commentators to these blogs.
Complain about this comment
I can't find any response to my request for info on Thursday:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/thereporters/briantaylor/2009/04/so_far_so_competent.html#P79303070
I'll only be posting on topic today (if I have both time and inclination, that is) but if someone could kindly oblige by directing me to a response or simply re-posting it, I'd be most grateful.
Complain about this comment
#340 - "could you be so kind to answer whether the FM
goes to his MP's constituency to hold surgeries and if so does he stay the night at a hotel and claim that expenses."
Derek, your attempts to smear Salmond are getting more desperate. Salmond actually has a house in his constituency, but unlike many MPs, it's his first house, so he can't claim any allowances on it.
However, when he visits Westminster for duties as an MP, he claims expenses to cover his hotel bills (he felt he could not justify the expence (to the taxpayer) of a second home. If only more MPs thought along those lines, imagine just how much money could be saved. But then, Labour have always had the notion that it's only taxpayer's money and the taxpayer's pocket is a bottomless pit. This is demonstrated not only by the whole expenses fiasco but through every element of government spending.
Complain about this comment
Gents,
Can I make a plea that if we want to differentiate between our own words and someone elses that we use italics to do so rather than bold? And reserve bold for emphasising a particular word or short phrase that we want to draw attention to?
To me, too much bold is like using Caps all the time and is akin to shouting.
Complain about this comment
#358
Oh, and Ladies as well !!
Complain about this comment
#353 Diabloandco
Don't feed the barking mad troll.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Could someone come up with the total amount of revenue that Scotland has paid into the Treasury (including oil) since the first drop of oil came ashore as it would be negligent to just take the revenue accrued from oil to base Scotland's ability to function as an independent country. Could you please also include all the monies generated in Scotland but, being a non resident Scottish company may have its HQ in London or somewhere else in the world.
While you are at it could someone also come around to my house and finish off my decoration as I'm getting fed up with it ;).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Regal Margaret Beckett keeps £250,000-a-year police guard nice work if you can get it!
Complain about this comment
# 359 Bangingonabout
Luckily you added that before aye_write saw it.
Complain about this comment
"Ms Harman said she intended to keep the promise she made to Labour members at the time her election as deputy leader that she would stand behind Mr Brown."
Yes, but she didn't mention she'd be holding a dagger!! ;-)
Complain about this comment
Would-be Labour MP accused of forcing junior employee 'to do her dirty work'
It must be in Labour's genes or in their instruction manual under "Anything goes".
Complain about this comment
361. Neil, it's a standard tactic among the dozen or so nationalists that post on here:
If the argument cannot be won then resort to lies, bluster and insults.
Just scan through their posts and see for yourself. It's a shame as this blog has descended from being a bastion of informed, reasoned and mature debate to something akin to a primary school playground.
Complain about this comment
However poor a leader Brown might be, who is there with ability to replace him?
Certainly not Harriet Harman, who would surely cause Labour to haemorrage votes...
Hardy HarHar appears to be suffering increasingly from 'Margaret Beckett Syndrome' - believing that because the Party voted for her as Deputy Leader (which is a clearly-defined role, not overlapping with the Leader's), it would accept - or want - her as Leader. As with the leadership election following the decease of John Smith, the winner of the contest to succeed Gordon Brown is unlikely to be anyone too obvious.
Plus, there are few inded within among the MPs who would wish to see HarHar's husband any closer to real power...
My own tips - Hilary Benn, Jacqui Smith or (deep breath) Peter Mandelson!!!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Neil_Small147 re your 347
Dubbieside is just as bad, ranting on about Dunfermline and Alistair Darling. Dubbieside, I don't have time to trawl through all my posts. I do occasionally leave my PC and do other things. By the time I get back either there are another 4o odd posts or Brian has added two new topics.
You really are getting desperate now. No matter how much time you spend trawling through all your posts you will not find one criticizing Alister Darling for the simple reason you never wrote one. You said you did but as we all know you did not. If asking you to prove your false statements is ranting I will continue to rant at the false information given here.
I have no interest in the East Kilbride newspaper, why would I want to look at it???
Since Derek as been blown out of the water, reluctant shows up again. You notice he replys to Neil not Derek, I wonder why? Not yet at the stage of talking to himself yet maybe? Once again I need to ask, are Derek and Reluctant the same person?
Is Reluctants post 368 the biggest example of two faced hypocrisy on this blog?
Complain about this comment
The tragedies of a wasteful system
Complain about this comment
#357 ForteanJo
Well! Well! a home in his MP constituency, Hmmm, Does he not have a home in linlithgow as well. some say he also has a residence in Edinburgh.
Can you confirm any of the above.
Complain about this comment
371. So, dubbieside, your response is pretty much "No, that's you that is!"
So it looks like the nats are not going to stick on-topic but instead are going to throw insults around.
Yep, that comprehensively and utterly disproves my point that this blog has become something akin to a primary school playground.
Complain about this comment
Afternoon bighullavniceguy, got any new feed for me today!
ps, are your friends still talking to you....ops.....ouch!
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
I'm going to give up chasing the nationalists for substantiation of their tediously oft-repeated claim that Scotland as been denied its oil tax revenues (as I asked again for last Wednesday).
It is abundantly clear that none of them have got any proof.
Who'd have thought.
Complain about this comment
I heard that the nationalist dont do austerity, it's to difficult for them to understand, especially when they cant quite work out their budget spend and their proposed manifesto.
Complain about this comment
The System 3 poll data is still not available on their website, but at least we now have the percentages from the Herald
Holyrood Constituency, SNP 41%, Lab 29%, Con 15%, LibDems 11%
Holyrood List, SNP 40%, Lab 30%, Con 13%, LibDems 10%
Westminster, SNP 32%, Lab 36%, Con 19%, LibDems 9%
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat re 374
I think 347 confirms that you and Derek are the same person. You both write in the same totally incomprehensible fashion. Your 347 makes no sense at all.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat re 377
Re Scotlands oil. Google Ian and Margaret Cuthbert and you will get a full breakdown of Scotlands finances. You have been told this before, but of course facts are no use to you.
Complain about this comment
I have complained about Neil Small's comment number 361. I acknowledged this with my comment at 370 where I reproduced the actual text of the complaint for all to see.
Interestingly, that comment (which originally appeared) has been referred to the mods.
I am open about my complaint and will wait with interest to see if it is upheld. I will reproduce the text of my complaint in my next comment for all to form a judgement and to see if the mods will allow it to be displayed.
Complain about this comment
#379 oldnat
cynical gave us those figures back at #211. As far as I'm concerned not good enough yet, we still don't get Global out of Kirkcaldy! 8-)
Complain about this comment
re my #379
The inbuilt advantage Labour have from FPTP is quite staggering. Electoral Calculus suggests that with only 36% of the vote, they would still take 68% of Scottish seats!
The seats predicted to change (since 2005) are -
Dundee West - SNP gain from Lab
Ochil and South Perthshire - SNP gain from Lab
Inverness Nairn Badenoch and Strathspey - SNP gain from LD
Argyll and Bute - SNP gain from LD
Gordon - SNP gain from LD
Dunbartonshire East - Lab gain from LD
Berwickshire, Roxburgh and Selkirk - Con gain from LD
Aberdeenshire West and Kincardine - Con gain from LD
Complain about this comment
#378, well Derek maybe none of us would have to do 'austerity' if Labour had managed the economy with some due diligence the past 10 years rather than their Laissez-faire love affair with the banks. Of course Derek it is unlikely any MP in the Labour party cares since their all doing very nicely thank you via their Westminster expenses. So tell us Derek which back stabber in the Labour party will be the one to put the knife in Gordon? Et tu Derek?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#383 handclapping
Missed that!
Complain about this comment
381. Young dubbieside
The question I asked last Wednesday was:
"Can anyone supply a link to a document that details the overall total of the annual deficits (the difference between our land-based, non-oil tax revenues and total public expenditure).
For example, in both 2005-06 and 2006-07, the deficit was around #10bn a year.
Total tax revenues from our share of North Sea oil is usually quoted as #250bn since the first drop came ashore. Can anyone provide an authentic figure here too?
By comparing both figures, we'll be able to see, once and for all, whether the rest of the UK has benefited from Scottish oil tax revenues or whether it has all been returned in successive block grants."
And your 'answer' is:
"Google Ian and Margaret Cuthbert and you will get a full breakdown of Scotlands finances."
You have clearly seen them for yourself so how about posting a proper link rather than some vague pointer in an even more vague direction?
(Or maybe you'd find sticking to your usual cries of "Expat and Derek are the same person!!" easier on the grey matter.)
Complain about this comment
#377 Hmmm....Reluctant Ex Pat....a person who knows the cost of everything but the value of nothing. A somewhat tedious individual to the point of ZZZZZZZzzzzzzz..........
Complain about this comment
Hi folks,
Sky news cover Scottish Independence ......
http://news.sky.com/skynews/Sky-Search?searchTextBox=scotland+independent&searchType=news&vgnextoid=2cb89aeb43c97110VgnVCM1000009811d20aRCRD&f_searchSubmit=SEARCH
TV version is worth watching, it has a little more & very interesting!
I wonder how it will compare to the BBC documentary?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Reluctant-Expat
Are you trying to make us think you do not know who Ian and Margaret Cuthbertson are.
You tried for a long time, without success to refute their arguments when you were AM2, or have you forgotten?
Complain about this comment
Well, well - the comment I complained about was removed yet the text of my complaint that I posted (twice) was also removed.
This is disappointing as I wished to be open about my complaint. It is also unfortunate that others are unable to see the wording of my complaint.
Having two moderated comments unfortunately leave the impression that there was something untoward in them. This was not the case, they merely highlighted what I believed to be personal insults and misrepresentations of my comments.
Complain about this comment
I wrote: You have clearly seen them for yourself so how about posting a proper link rather than some vague pointer in an even more vague direction?
(Or maybe you'd find sticking to your usual cries of "Expat and Derek are the same person!!" easier on the grey matter.)
And the response is...
391. In yet another shock move, dubbieside opts for the latter!
Furthermore, in a bold and original move never seen before on these boards, he wails about 'Scotland being denied #500m of its own money'......clearly ignoring the #600Bn being spent on bailing out RBS and HBOS, a sum four times the size of the entire Scottish economy (and that's including oil).
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#387 oldnat
And I didn't know about Electoral Calculus. I wouldn't agree with their scottish predictions, their hysteresis is far too high and they seem to think the nat vote is a squeeze on tory and libdem whereas I think the polls show SNP new adherents coming 2 ex Lab to 1 each ex tory and libdem.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
When are the mods going to take proactive steps on the 2 obvious resident trolls which invade these blogs?
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
396. handclapping
I agree with what you say in reference to Electoral Calculus.
384. oldnat
I agree with your sentiments, it is rather sad that on 36% labour can dominate the overall number of seats.
I would however say I quite like the idea of FPTP representatives, I like the fact that we all have someone who is our communities elected representative.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Reluctant-Expat
Link you requested. Though it will not make any difference to you. This contains facts. We all know you do not like facts.
http://www.cuthbert1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/
Remind me when Halifax moved to Scotland again, I must have missed it.
Complain about this comment
401. There are definitely some drawbacks to FPTP but, as with you, it does have the strong advantage in that you have an identifiable representative for you community who has a vested interest in gaining/retaining your support.
You do not get this with a list representative who is often solely there to serve their party.
An AV/STV system would be an improvement but the cost would be frequent weak/paralysed coalition governments, often seeking more frequent general elections.
FPTP, like Trident and nuclear power, is a necessary evil!
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
#394 Expat
The £600bn to bail out two UK finanacial institutions is a red-herring and you know it. Scotland did not get £600bn and by virtue of the fact that those of us who live in Scotland are UK taxpayers, some of that £600bn was stumped up by us.
If you want to be truly accurate, only the RBS bailout resorted in a 'Scottish' bank getting extra money. HBoS didn't actually get a penny until it was taken over by LloydsTSB, which means, at that point, it was tecnically an English Financial Institution. Not that it actually matters in any event, it's still a red-herring however you look at.
To date, UK taxpayers, through the UK treasury, have bailed out 5 (possibly 6) UK financial institutions. End of. It's that simple.
Complain about this comment
I've been thinking it over and I've decided that I'm 100% in favour of Brian Taylor's "on topic only" rule.
However, if they are going to have a rule then they should enforce it - strictly.
Any post that does not mention in some material way the topic of the article should be removed.
Any post that mentions the topic of the article then immediately strays off topic should be removed.
The BBC can limit discussion to the extremely narrow range of Labour-biased topics if that's what they really want to do.
The question now becomes: why are they not enforcing their own rule on many of the posts here?
If they are going to have rules they should stop pussyfooting about and apply the rules properly.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
#405 - "FPTP, like Trident and nuclear power, is a necessary evil!"
Excellent, something we can actually debate like adults.
FPTP will always result in enomalies similar to that mentioned previously, were 30 odd percent of the votes results in 60 od percent of the seats. The list system from our version of PR isn't ideal with, as you say, list MSP more responsible to their party than any constituents. Is there a way to take the advantages from both PR and FPTP to create a system that doesn't have the drawbacks of either?
As to trident and nuclear being necessary evils, the only reason Scotland has ever been the potential target of a nuclear strike is because we have nuclear weapons. Far from being a deterrent, it makes it more likely we'd be hit in a nuclear attack.
And power, we've debated that before. You've yet to show the economic case for nuclear power, never mind the logical or moral case.
Complain about this comment
#405 Expat
"FPTP, like Trident and nuclear power, is a necessary evil!"
I'm prepared to accept FPTP and, if push comes to shove, I'll (very) reuctantly accept Nuclear Power but, I'm afraid, there is no way that Trident is necessary.
In the event of an all out nuclear attack on this country, our 16 (or is 32) missiles aren't going to make a single bit of difference (and there wouldn't be too many of us left around to worry about the fact. Likewise, possessing Nuclear Weapons makes no difference to terrorist organisations like Al Queda or, in times not so long past, the IRA to commit attrocities.
Complain about this comment
#408, Fit Like?
Since you are interested in being technical, Lloyds TSB Group PLC (formerly TSB Group PLC) was actually a Scottish-registered company.
Complain about this comment
And indeed Lloyds Banking Group PLC remains a SCOTTISH company, registered no. SC095000
Complain about this comment
I would like to see the oil revenues discounted forward todays value; it would probably be a few trillion.
Complain about this comment
#413 Pyramids.
Almost right.
LloydsTSB Scotland (formally TSB as you say) is registered in Scotland, Head Quarterd at Henry Duncan House in Edinburgh. LloydsTSB (formerly Lloyds)is registered in England at gresham Street in London.
Where, as the new, all embracing Lloyds Banking Group, our HQ is, I don't know. The Scottish HQ is now, however, at the Mound.
Complain about this comment
404. Uh-huh. And their all too brief review on GERS and the deficit proves your argument.....how?
If you care to read it, it also more backs up my argument. I have always referred to the SNP's GERS in my arguments so to disagree with me means....gasp!...that you also disagree with the Party!
I'll also remind you AGAIN that the SNP's 'recalculated' GERS 2006/07 was almost identical to Labours 'flawed' GERS 2005/06. The figures for non-oil tax revenue were within 1.6% of each other, and the total expenditures and overall deficits were within 2-3%. The only significant difference was the result of oil prices averaging $70-80 in 06/07 as opposed to $45-55 the previous year resulting in a smaller deficit when including oil income.
Also, there is no sign of any tally of Holyrood's deficits as I requested, so your clumsy attempt at being condescending falls wonderfully flat.
And it's now almost unanimous among the nats that RBS and HBOS have NEVER been 'Scottish' banks but have always been 'British' banks. That does mean that we have no domestic finance industry of any significance but if that's the attitude of the nats....
Complain about this comment
#414 Older than the Pyramids
Where a company is registered is only one way of defining it's supposed "nationality".
The people who really own Lloyds Banking Group are the shareholders.
Your claim that it's a "Scottish" company might have greater credibility if a large number of those shareholders are Scottish.
Do you know how many of Lloyd's shareholders are Scottish? Of course you don't.
So, just how "Scottish" is Lloyd's Banking Group? Answer: not very.
Complain about this comment
#417 Expat
"And it's now almost unanimous among the nats that RBS and HBOS have NEVER been 'Scottish' banks but have always been 'British' banks. That does mean that we have no domestic finance industry of any significance but if that's the attitude of the nats...."
Um, no. Scotland has a finance industry and RBS and (arguably) HBoS are part of it. But Scotland, if you remember (and surely you must as you keep trying to point out the benefits that being part of that Union), is part of the UK and therefore, the Scottish Finance industry is part of the wider UK Finance industry. So, while not all UK financial institutions are Scottish, all Scottish financial institutions are British. That's just the way it is in this crazy mixed up United Kingdom in which we live.
The UK Treasury was happy to accept the tax on the huge profits those organisations were making up until only last year. The UK Treasury is now supporting those organisations through the 'generous offices' of the UK taxpayer. Since Scotland is part of the UK, that means that we in Scotland, in our capacities as UK taxpayers are helping to support, not just RBS and HBos, but Northern Rock and bits of B&B.
Funnily enough, I don't here you kicking up a fuss about the latter two even though our 'Scottish' taxes are in someway helping them too.
Maybe that is the true Union dividend, we're all in the same pile of brown smelly stuff together.
Complain about this comment
Briefly...
412. The nuclear deterrents obviously exists to protect us from a regional/nuclear threat (that they have never been needed suggests they have been a pretty successful deterrent). Plus those 16 missiles per sub are capable of destroying up to 192 of an enemy's major cities/strategic sites. To suggest they "aren't going to make a single bit of difference" is therefore a little off.
Countering terrorist threats are what the intelligence/security services and conventional forces are for.
Complain about this comment
#418.
It's ridiuclous to start claiming that shareholders are to be taken into account when deciding what nationality a compnay is.
These companies can be bought by everyone, and they, as in everyone have a right to buy shares or not, but does that change where the company operates from and pays taxes into?
That's what matters. That's all that matters, but I guess I may have some clothes from different designers from around the world.
Just because I now own french make car, is it Scottish because I own it? or does it remain a French car because it was made in France?
Complain about this comment
414. Older than the Pyramids, the nationalists need to argue that the #600bn is not being used to bail out 'Scottish' banks as that would destroy their claim that Scotland is losing money to the UK.
So do not expect this little factette to be acknowledged.
Complain about this comment
#421 Thomas
You need to be careful with analogies.
Is a Nissan Micra, made in the UK by a UK workforce a British car or is it still a Japanese car because Nissan are Japanese?
If it is British, in what way is it different from exactly the same model of car, built in a Japanese factory with a Japanese workforce? (Note, the Japanese drive on the same side of the road as us so you can't even make that a differntiation).
Is Guiness actually English because it was (and maybe still is) owned by a UK holding company?
Similarly, is Nat West English because that's the National and Westminster banks were English or is it Scottish because it's owned by RBS? Is Clydesdale bank Scottish or Australian?
It's a tricky one, isn't it?
Complain about this comment
#421 Thomas_Porter
In today's global financial markets it's actually ridiculous to define a bank as having a "nationality" at all!
If people are going to insist on doing so then the answer depends entirely on any of several possible definitions of which "country of registration" is only one.
Here are just a few others:
1. Companies registered in country A with factories in country B.
2. Companies started in country A and registered in country B.
3. Companies with customers in country A but head office in Country B.
The possibilities are endless.
Of course here, the one claimed to be "best" depends on the petty political point being made.
Complain about this comment
#422 Expat
Sorry, but you can't have it both ways.
Either Scotland is a part of the UK or it isn't.
If it is, then by default, Scottish financial institutions are UK financial institutions.
You can't cut it any other way.
Similarly, Scottish Taxpayers are UK Taxpayers and, so consequently, there is a Scottish contribution to that UK bailout.
Oh, and as an LBG Employee, I know only full well were my company is actually headquartered, regardless of what a convenient piece of paper at Companies House might say.
Complain about this comment
Reluctant-Expat:
#420.
I see your are blowing more hot air on the nuclear issue. The weapons would be destroyed first come a war, what idiot would allow Britain the ability to use trident in a war?. Plus what country(s) pose the United Kingdom's security at risk that we have to have nuclear weapons? Then come a nuclear war, it's game over, the population would die, why would a counter attack be logical when the crew manning these weapons no longer have a country to fight for? Between them America and Russia have enough firepower to destroy the world many times over.
Is it not more logical to develop anti-nuclear weaponary in order to combat nuclear missles?
Complain about this comment
The Tories and SNP agree Labour is cutting the Scottish block grant. The Tories and the SNP agree that Scotland would exist as an effective independent nation. Calman's unionist cabal now agree with the SNP that Holyrood should have fiscal independence (we are now just bickering about the degree).42% odd Scots would be happy to live in an independent Scotland within the EU, more if the Tories win the next general election.
What the Tories can't agree to is loosing the North Sea cash cow or Trident on the Clyde which would be the logical result of all this agreement.
Yet the Tories now agree that son of Trident is a £30 billion waste of cash: thus pulling the rug out from under 'Scotland does well from defence jobs' argument (to which we can add the delays to the Type 45 program and the pending cancellation of the new air craft carriers).
So just what part of the Union is dying argument is the SNP actually loosing and that leaves Brown's finger nail hold on his Unionist reality just where?
Complain about this comment
421. Thomas_Porter
I echo your sentiments concerning share ownership! That is the beautiful thing about shares, they can allow the people to gain a direct stake into capitalism. Indeed before 1979 the vast majority of people probably still envisioned capitalists as men in top hats.
If you shall forgive and allow for some party self-congrads I shall point out that it was the previous Conservative government which, turned this around. 1979- only 7% of the population owned shares, by 1990 25% owned shares. The best way to make capitalism and free market economics work for everyone is to encourage everyone to own shares.
It really honestly does not matter whether a firm was founded as Japanese or Korean or British or German- in the modern globalised economy all you need to do is own shares, as a fellow human being in this global free market. It is rather beautiful if you ask me (and no one did but I told you all anyway!)
What was it that was once said of this Tory commitment? "popular capitalism is nothing less than a crusade to enfrancise the many in the economic life of the nation. We conservativies are returning power to the people, that is the way to One Nation, One People!"...on this day of all I think even I must do a bit of honouring of HRH... ;)
Complain about this comment
sorry people for my burst of enthusiasm as per 428...I've been up early to watch the BBC Parliament replay of the election night 1979- all the thrills for anaraks like myself. Teddy 'birch them' Taylor, Sir Tam's holding of Glasgow hillhead...a old days long lost and well before my generation.
Complain about this comment
#427 slaintemha
"that leaves Brown's finger nail hold on his Unionist reality just where?"
With Alex Salmond stamping on his fingers.
Complain about this comment
#421 deanthetory
"We conservativies are returning power to the people, that is the way to One Nation, One People!"
Hallelujah! I can just hear the Scottish Tories crying out in unison from their annual conference being held in a telephone box in Perth: "One Nation! One Railway Station!"
Complain about this comment
#431 bighullabaloo
"Hallelujah! I can just hear the Scottish Tories crying out in unison from their annual conference being held in a telephone box in Perth: "One Nation! One Railway Station!"
Frantically pressing button "B" to get there money back.
Complain about this comment
#432 cynicalHighlander
Yes, and all because that nasty man Lord Snooty refused to accept a reverse charge call!
Complain about this comment
Hello Expat! could we turn the grey matter into a new energy source?.
On the subject of budgets, I think you have the nats raising their white flags.
Complain about this comment
#434 "Hello Expat! could we turn the grey matter into a new energy source?." ....... only if you want negative energy Derek. As for budgets, Alistair Darlings is a bumper isn't it......his economic forecasts.....must be for Mars. Are you sharpening your knife for Gordon yet Derek? Who would you like to be the new Labour leader.....Harriet, Jack, Ed or David, strange how part of the problem with Labour now thinks it's part of the cure.
Complain about this comment
# 428 deanthetory
Much as I do not wish to dampen your excitement, even though I tend to agree with most of what you have said, there is a drawback to all of this share ownership, and that is that there is still a large proportion of the population who do not have any shares and are unlikely to be in aposition where they will ever be able to buy any shares. Also, as I am sure you will agree, the majority of shares held in the majority of 'Global' companies is not owned by individuals but by pension funds etc. It would be disengenous to suggest that being an individual shareholder in a company has any real effect on the nature of that company when they can be voted down by the big institutions. I accept that there have been exceptions to that rule when individual shareholders band together, but they still need the backing of the big institutions.
However, I agree that the Conservatives did encourage shareholding amongst the populace and that could only be a good thing.
Not too sure where you're going with 'Birch 'em' Teddy Taylor on your next posting, but each to their own.
Complain about this comment
# 432 cynicalHighlander
You are showing your age if you remember the 'B' button. Unless there are still more about. I remember as a young man in the 70s, while working in the Shetlands, trying to use a phone box with an 'A' and 'B' button. I had to ask the woman in the post office at Mossbank how to use it.
Complain about this comment
Kind of sad Gordo is so insecure he is making everyone in the Labour Party come out and say they definitely wont challenge him (as they don't want associated with the massive defeat he has ensured they will recieve).
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/politics/8032125.stm
The sooner this compulsive liar and natural-born loser is gone from Downing Street the better for all concerned.
Complain about this comment
247# Deanthetory
At which point did I Say "English Party" ? I said only that Goldie was a good leader, but because of her allegiance to the Conservative party, she could only ever achieve for Scotland half of what an independant one could.
How do you surmise that my post is childish when I started this discussion by showering your leader of choice with plaudits?
You sound like a thoroughly detestable person and not one who can take a slight against thier opinon lightly.
Complain about this comment
#437. gedguy2
The first thing one did was press the "B" button as it often increased your pocket money by 4d.
Complain about this comment
Perhaps Neil was right, perhaps people are becoming too precious of both their opinions and their party allegiances.
It been on the cards for a while now but people are now quick to take offence and see slights that aren't meant as such.
Come on people, can we not get back to some honest to goodness debate?
Complain about this comment
18 months more of this is too much! "Closing Down Sale" Bankrupt Stock everything must go! Euros or Dollars only no cheques.
Complain about this comment
# 440 cynicalHighlander
Can I take it that you are not a 'Townie' as I can't remember those types of boxes. I know that we all used to press the handset holder to see if there was any money left in the box. My pocket money was only a tanner until I was 12 and I quickly lost that increase to half a crown when I started my paper round.
# 441 ForteanJo
I agree with you but would also add that the humour is beginning to go from this blog. Even the mods can't recognise humour when they see it, that is, if they ever had a sense of humour in the first place. There is a Russian lady on Mark Mardell's blog, webaliceinwonderland, whose humour is fantastic and her loosely veiled insults to the rest of the ex USSR is wonderful. People should start taking politics more lightly. After all, its only an exchange of ideas. There isn't a single political party within the confines of this planet of ours where all the members of that same party agree totally with each other. So, accept that people are going to have a different opinion from yourself and respect their view point. You don't have to agree with it; just respect it. The only thing that I am sure of in life is that I'm unsure of everything. Have fun.
Complain about this comment
Just a PS to my # 443, wouldn't it be better if we were able to use 'smileys', then maybe some of the so called insulting postings can be seen for what they are, which is humour. But I doubt the BBC has the money to spend on such things as they need all our licence fee to pay for trips abroad and drinks for their Xmas parties.
Complain about this comment
#443. gedguy2
Suburban with large Victorian gardens in "Inglandshire" "A" and "B" buttons put in money dial a local number (or get telephonist) press "A" button to speak when connected or "B" if no reply to get your money back.
Complain about this comment
#444 - Excellent idea, gedguy2, many times I posted what I thought was a cutting quip only for it to be taken as a humourless insult. The only drawback, of course, is that the over use of smileys is as bad as no smileys at all.
Complain about this comment
#419
Good post. RBS alone poured more than £40 billion in tax revenue into Brown's coffers.
Sadly, as is becomiong very obvious, the money didn't actually exist.
The debt does, unfortunately.
Complain about this comment
What about this for a sinister headline in The Scotsman?
Cybernats highlight dangers of web anonymity
The article is by David Maddox and is available only through subscription. One can only wonder what this journalist says in it. One thing is certain, he won't be praising the freedom of the internet.
Complain about this comment
#448 - It's interesting, greenockboy, that a particular term, one that has already taken on derogatory undertones (or at least as far as the Scotsman is concerned), has been coined to describe online nationalist supporters but nothing similar is in common usage to describe Unionists, or even Labour/Tory/Lib Dum supporters.
Could it well be that, unlike printed/broadcast media, the government of the day can't control the internet? Or is simply another example of the negativety that (some) Unionists bring to the table?
Either way, perhaps someone could paraphrase the jist of Maddox's argument. It seems strange, to me anyway, that whilst the vast bulk of Maddox's anti-nationalist rants are freely available on the Scotsman's blogs, this one is not. Could it be that the Scotsman knows the last people who are likely to have a Premium Content Subscription are the very peole the article attacks?
Complain about this comment
#448 greenockboy
This is probably the same story that is running in the Guardian.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2009/may/01/scotland-labour-snp-blog-smears
Complain about this comment
#450 re blogs and Ian Grey "The first minister should rein in SNP activists and their cyber-nat campaign and demand they drop it now." aww diddums. This has been discussed here before but whos to say that the blogger who tried to discredit Ian Grey was actually an SNP supporter. My first thoughts were that it might be Labour trying to take the flak away from their own cybershenanigans by trying to paint the nationalists as bile filled hatemongers.
Complain about this comment
#450 - Perhaps by conspiracy detector is set too sensitive but this is really smells. Leaving aside the fact that any smear against Gray has a (lack of) credibility factor (what do you mean he does more than drink camomile tea when he gets the party started!), Gray hardly poses the type of threat that would lead any opposition to even contemplate targeting him with this sort of trash campaign.
Having looked at the website in question, it is obviously a parody of that well known Scottish red flag site, a Leaky Chanter (a site that has recently run a concerted and continuing campaign to smear Salmond). That isn't an attempt to justify the parody, the accusations levelled at leading Labour MSPs are crude and disgusting.
However, they do look to be the work of one blogger and I can't find any part of the site where this blogger declared his allegience to the SNP (his dislike of Labour is as obvious as the the Leaky Chanter's dislike of the SNP). Why, then, has Grey (and the Labour party) automatically link the site to the nationalists? Many of the Linked blogs are Unionist in nature (some of them are positively hostile to the independence cause).
But far be it for me to suggest that this site has been set up by Labour to divert from the ongoing Damien McBride / Derek Draper stuff (perhaps divert is the wrong word, more to tar opposition parties as being as bad as Labour, ala our very own Mr Barking's attempt to tar all politicians as being as bad as Labour in terms of claiming expenses).
Complain about this comment
449 - Johnstone Press are now in the same mess as the Glasgow Herod and Daily Retard and are cutting back on Hootsmon ( + on Sunday) journalist staff as fast as they can to stay afloat because of collapsing circulation and advertising income.
Funnily enough it appears that none of the owners / Editors appear to