Devolution poll
Some intriguing suggestions as to public attitudes from our poll, commissioned by BBC Scotland to mark a decade since devolution.
Looks like Scots want Holyrood to run the show when it comes to domestic issues - even those that are currently reserved to Westminster.
But there's an obvious exception: defence and foreign affairs.
Views flip over when it comes to that sector with people in Scotland seeming to favour Westminster control.
No surprise that folk fancy Holyrood control over the health service: it's already devolved.
At the very least, it would seem to confirm support for the settlement in that field.
But how about income tax and pensions? Tax is almost entirely controlled by Westminster at the moment - with the exception of the never-used 3p variation. Pensions are wholly reserved.
Yet by margins of around two to one in each case respondents to our poll indicated their preference for Holyrood control.
John Curtice, the wizard of the figures, says this is in line with previous comparable findings which suggest, among other things, that Scots might be inclined to go further than Calman when it comes to transferring new powers to Holyrood.
They may not want to make changes to, for example, pensions and social security provision. But they appear to want such matters run from Edinburgh.
However, that pattern goes into reverse when it comes to defence and foreign affairs.
By a clear margin, Scots favour those decisions remaining with the UK Government at Westminster.
And there's more. Asked to choose between independence, devolution with no tax powers and the Calman-style option of devolution with some tax control, Scots seem to go for "more powers".
But, if a devolved Parliament with more powers is to be put forward, respondents to our
poll reckon this should only happen after a referendum.
Aha, the SNP will undoubtedly say.
That adds to the case for putting Calman to the test in a referendum alongside the independence option.
Among earlier broadcast findings, confirmation that Scots mostly feel Scottish rather than British, a feeling that Holyrood has given Scotland more clout in the UK and continuing disquiet about Scottish spending levels.
More tomorrow.
NB: The poll was conducted for BBC Scotland by ICM. They interviewed 1010 people between 22 and 24 June.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The BBC headline on the latest Devolution article (based on s BBC poll)focuses on Scots backing more powers.
However, the desire for a referendum seems far more worthy of a headline.
This from the article:
The poll of 1,010 people also suggested 56% wanted a referendum before Holyrood's powers are increased.
Complain about this comment
I'm a nationalist and if someone asked me if defence and foreign affairs should be a Westminster responsibility I would agree. It would be plain stupid for a devolved parliament in Edinburgh to have these powers. Can it be any surprise that most people would agree.
However, ask people if an independent Edinburgh parliament should have these powers - like every other independent parliament - then the answer would be quite different.
Complain about this comment
If there was no difference between what people in Scotland believed on defence and foreign affairs and the UK Government then this would make sense but on Trident there is a huge difference of opinion.
Clearly Britain wants to rattle it's sabres and pretend to be a world power. It also wants to act as a proxy to the USA and get involved in wars like Iraq.
I very much doubt this is the position of the Scottish people.
Complain about this comment
As I have said before, any BBC polls should be treated with the utmost caution.
The latest BBC article spawned from their poll contains the following paragraph:
When asked which scenario came closest to their view of how Scotland should be governed, 28% said Scotland should become independent, with the Scottish Parliament able to make all decisions about taxation and spending, while 47% backed Scotland remaining part of the UK, but with increased power of taxation and spending being handed to Holyrood.
The strangely 'woolly' wording makes it unclear what exactly the poll asked and how the question was framed. However, it is clear that the BBC are now willing to highlight a poll result that purports to show that independence support has dropped from 36% to 28% whilst support for the Union has increased from 39% to 47%, a 16% swing in around a fortnight.
The BBC article says:
ICM carried out interviews for the poll, which was commissioned by BBC Scotland to mark a decade of devolution.
Are interviews typical as opposed to simply putting a question to people? It suggests that the independence question(s) will have been loaded in a similar manner to the recent 'referendum' poll where a series of questions with negative connotations were asked prior to asking the respondent whether he or she wished a referendum on independence.
Without the loaded questions prior then the result was overwhelmingly Yes to a referendum.
Complain about this comment
By a clear margin, Scots favour those decisions remaining with the UK Government at Westminster.
Hold on there, I am suspicious as to what's going on here. The BBC appear to be asking questions from a devolution context and people are responding accordingly. They are then presenting the results, quite disingenously, as being the opinion of Scots outwith the constraints of devolution. These appear to be constraints built into the poll !!
If I am correct here then this is nothing short of disgracefull propaganda and a deliberate attempt at misleading the Scottish public.
I will wait for the poll to be published before coming to a definitive opinion.
Complain about this comment
#2, an excellent point; independence as such was not raised ... merely the option of a devolved parliament somehow being responsible for foreign affairs and defence! An interesting choice of wording.
Complain about this comment
Ok, instead of asking how Scots feel about Defense and Foreign policy, put a draft policy to them and contrast this with the current Westminster model, where illegal wars and unethical Foreign policy is actively practiced.
Here's one I knocked up; pretty easy if you follow other countries ethical approaches as models:-
The Government will promote a UN-led world order based on international law.
We will work actively to create a better, more secure world within this framework.
We will be at the forefront in the fight against poverty and international environmental efforts.
We will have a clear profile as a nation of peace.
We will be at the forefront of efforts to cancel the debts of the least developed countries (LDCs).
We will make a substantial contribution to the UN Emergency Relief Fund, and participate actively in efforts to combat the HIV/AIDS epidemic.
Together with others, we will work to ensure that all children have access to vaccines.
The Scottish Defence will be adapted to the new security policy challenges.
We will contribute Scottish civilian and military participation in UN peace-keeping efforts, with a particular focus on Africa.
The Scottish Government will intensify efforts to exercise Scottish sovereignty and to ensure the sustainable management of our rich fish and energy resources.
We will further develop our co-operation with England and our other partners in the Europe.
We will further strengthen these ties in the time ahead and pursue an active European policy.
The Government will pursue a humane and compassionate refugee and asylum policy based on Scotlands international obligations and the principles of the rule of law.
We will support countries that promote the interests of the poor countries of the world.
Complain about this comment
I agree with #2.
We don't know how the question was phrased, and I think the majority (including nationalists like myself) would respond no to 'Should defence and foreign affairs be devolved to Holyrood?'
Obviously it would be silly to devolve these powers while Scotland remains part of the UK.
On a related point, I'm surprised there haven't been cries of outrage over David Cameron's comments about the Trident state of affairs from Scottish politicians of all persuasions.
Polls have consistently shown, whether pro-independence or unionist, the majority of the Scottish people, the majority of MSPs, and the majority of Scottish MPs are against Trident.
So even if the UK decides to keep Trident, why is it being based at the Clyde???
Move it to the Thames and see the English politicians' opinions take a dramatic turn...
Sin'Dorei
Complain about this comment
interesting that defence is considered by the Scottish people (in the poll) and the SNP as being an area that should remain (even in an independent Scotland) for Westminster to preside over. But that the Scottish Government want total veto on where Scottish troops are sent, Trident (and nuclear weapons in general) in Scotland, etc. thus undermining the defence of the UK as a whole.
If we want to be defended by the UK should we not accept the decisions of the MoD? or opt out and defend ourselves (as i see Norway do).
It does look like the Scottish Government want powers over money raising and decision making (and rightly so) but not over difficult/complicated/expensive things like Defence and Foreign Policy
Complain about this comment
Calatibo:
#9
Have you suggested what I believe you have suggested. That Scotland, whilst independent should continue to have no power over defence? In an independent country, of course we should control our own defence, especially where our soldiers would be sent. Scotland would be paying the price in money and in bodies! To even suggest otherwise is ridiculous.
If Scotland was apart of the United Kingdom, then yes, we should continue to be defended according to our generals (who actually have a better idea then unqaulified MP's), but again, the Scottish National Party also have a responsibility to speak on behalf of their constinuents. If they do not want nuclear submarines, then should the SNP not represent that?
If Scotland was independent, then we would have a sperate military altogeter and the Scottish Parliament would decide if our troops went abroad.
Complain about this comment
There's always a wee caveat when it comes to these sort of polls and I always find it sorely tempting to dismiss these polls when they're favourable and treat them with caution with unfavourable. I find, in particular, any question regarding appropriate reserved and devolved powers to be problematic simply because one must cro-bar in the concept of institutional security. It is fairly easy to misconstrue an simple appeal to institutional security as support for, as an example, Scotland coninuing to have only a narrow remit for 'low politics', as opposed to the 'high politics'. Just say, instead, the question was asked as to whether people in Scotland should have a role in world affairs, or whether people in Scotland should have a voice on the international stage, then I would guess the figures would be very different. Suggesting, perhaps, the support for Scotland not having a voice on the international stage has far more to do with institutional security than can be teased out from these figures.
Michael Fry was on GMS this morning and he made a good job of describing the logical steps toward a belief in an independent Scotland. Firstly, start with what is appropriate and what is needed so that people in Scotland have a democracy and therefore a politics that serves them well. Secondly, what is the rational connotations of having such politics. Thirdly, look at what one is left with and you get an independent Scotland that is a democracy working within Europe and with all its neighbours. I simply find it hard to believe that the very best one could rationally and logically perceive for Scotland would be the hodge-podge that is being served up by unionism as some answer to the need to reconstitute Scottish politics. One can only come up with said hodge-podge when one is basing one's sole ideals on the need to limit Scottish politics to a narrow Westminster remit, which is in other words to pre-judge the outcome, and therefore one has to abandon rationality.
Jim Murphy consistently trails out this train of thought, usually prefaced with a detailed and unwarranted declaration of his love for Scotland, pretending somehow that Westminter remains something other than a significant portion of the absolutist anachronistic monolith. Murphy likes to use the words and sentiments normatively more suitable to be used of modern confederations based on interdependence and friendship. Quite why he indulges in such deception is entirely his to answer but his unionism, in terms of institutional security, will increasingly come to resemble Scotland standing before the monolith with little to do but navel-gaze. At that point in time, sooner or later, the figures based on the fantasy of insitutional security will recede and a more rational placing of 'high politics' and 'low politics', as part of an overall package of internationalist modern Western European statehood, will emerge.
Complain about this comment
Just ask people if they'd like Holyrood to have the same powers as the Norwegian parliament.
Complain about this comment
Under devolved powers, then defence and foreign affairs should remain at Westminster. Iraq/Afghanistan/Trident aside better placed there. I think it will be hard for any future Government to follow the USA and stat wars. However, now that the Bush administration has gone I feel the USA has taken a similar approach.
Under independence, we have to accept that Scotland will be a minor player with foreign affairs. yes, we can push for policies but I don't want us to be throwing money all over the place until we sort out some of the problems at home.
With defence, we need a clear definition and structure of the Armed Forces. Fishing and the North Sea oil/gas installations require a substantial investment. The other question is regarding membership of NATO and whether to contribute to the idea of an EU Defence Force.
The other point on defence is coordination with what be be England/Wales. There are various issues which need clarification.
#8 I can just see London loving Trident steaming up the Thames. Might help with the tourists!
Complain about this comment
#9
I would like to cite the Isle of Man as a response. They have full control over their own laws, speed limits and tax varying powers. They have an agreement with the crown to pay VAT and the aweful TV tax licence. They side with the UK government abroad and are defended by the UK army. I cannot recall, I must admit, what the change was to the Manx government in terms of foreign policy in recent months but I am sure it is still the same. Ask someone from the Isle of Man are you British and they say "No, I am Manx."
There is no reason to not be fully autonimous and maitain the status quo in regards to defense.
However, the last time I mentioned the army on this blog someone blubbered on about the British army saving Britain from Germany. I must remind those who would mention WW2 to also mention the dreadful defeat of the British army by the Japanese. I shall not mention Dunkirk, except in naming the place.
(This is not directed at #9 but to any who would be so kind as to read this.)
I see no reason to control our own matters. Once oil runs out, what will the UK have then? Will the countries of the UK decide "we should go our own way" when the time comes? I think that an oil deprived UK would be a hostile place for all concerned, especially with money being tight and no revenue with which to utilise or lay claim. I think it highly probable that there would be many arguments about who gets what and how much money goes where in the UK will become the precedence unless things are altered.
Greater co-operation is better than no co-operation!
Nuclear weapons will also not save us from a nuclear attack. I believe it is estimated that even a small nuke exploding some miles above the surface of the Earth creates enough heat to be upto 50 times hotter than the surface of the sun and would be enough to wipe out Glasgow and a vast region beyond. Think how hot the sun can feel even on a cool day and then try to imagine the sun much closer to you. Having a high factor sun cream is no defence. The only deterent to nuclear weapons is the sanity of those who have them. It is the insanity we must deter and I believe this can be done through co-operation, not proliferation. If I may also say, money speant on waging someone elses war would be better put too use in patrolling our seas against drug infiltration.
Complain about this comment
#8 SinDorei wrote:
"So even if the UK decides to keep Trident, why is it being based at the Clyde???
Move it to the Thames and see the English politicians' opinions take a dramatic turn..."
If Trident is moved from the Clyde, indeed I'd love to see the subs parked alongside the Palace of Westminster, where if there was an accident or a leak, it would do the least damage.
An alternative, which an arrogant UK government (they're all arrogant as well as incompetent) might find attractive, is to send them up the Bristol Channel to Cardiff Bay. Such an act might galvanise my countrymen into seeing how abysmally badly they've been treated as part of an Union, in which even legislative powers over the Welsh Language have been denied us in Wales. Those powers reside in an overwhelmingly English parliament where Wales has 6% representation. Even the unelected House of Lords has a veto on every request the Welsh Assembly makes for legislative competence. Can you beat that? So far virtually no legislative powers have been devolved, after two years.
Perhaps some of you might care to visit and contribute to the BBC's Wales political blog (Betsan Powys) where you will find some truly absurd comments made by the unionists and British nationalists.
Good luck to you Scots, I hope you achieve self-determination, and soon. Perhaps afterwards when things are bedded in, you might kindly loan us Alex Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon to assist us get the same for Wales.
Finally, I don't trust the BBC's sponsored polls either.
Complain about this comment
I am not convinced by the questioning in this poll. These woolly words come from a Unionist perspective.
Take for instance defence and foreign affairs.
All polls show that Scots are fundamentally against Trident and the basing of nuclear subs in Scotland. That national stance blows an immense hole in the UK's strategic defensive policy.
Also a huge majority of Scots now see themselves as Scottish (and NOT British). That national perspective is at odds with the FO projection overseas of a UNITED Kingdom.
I would take the results of this BBC poll with a large pinch of salt.
Complain about this comment
Is there any real point to having this " parliament " at Holyrood, it has no real powers, apart from tinkering at the edges (not very well) of Scotland's law, and redistributing the handout of cash it gets from it's overlords at Westminster. A vassal parliament was not what the wars of independence were fought for , and that is what we have however it is preented. It is a total waste of public money in its present form and must either be scrapped, or given total power in an independent country.Second rate gloryfied county councillors, failed lawyers and party faithful are hardly the best people to be running a country; better to cut our losses now and either have total independence or return to the union because this witless and powerless parliament does Scotland a disservice.
Complain about this comment
Greenockboy
You really need to focus your energy on positives. Thisis the best time for generations to be a SNP supporter, so we need to build on our sucess not wallow about in self pity. So the BBC are pro unionist, what a surprise to absolutely no-one.
We need to be pursuing a positive agenda for independence not continually decrying the opposition to our beliefs. We need to make bold positive arguments for the benefits. If the unionist community have no positive arguments then the electorate will see the vision and respond accordingly.
Problem is we are not making the arguments we are content with decrying the unionists, which won't win the war. The arguments for independence are weakest in foreign affairs and defence, so we need to work harder at sorting these issues out.
But we will only win with positive argument, not be moaning all the time. We are a fair bit away form winninng just now, we cn continually dismiss these type of polls at our peril, so for all our good be a little more positive please.
Complain about this comment
#17 kaybraes - "Second rate gloryfied (sic) county councillors, failed lawyers and party faithful are hardly the best people to be running a country"
Just as well there aren't any such people at Westminster.
Er....
Complain about this comment
#17
I agree with you on the point that this Parliament is limited in power, and relies on handouts from London, but that is no reason to get rid of it.
You say 'Second rate gloryfied county councillors, failed lawyers and party faithful are hardly the best people to be running a country...' but the fact is, the MPs at Westminster could be placed in the same category!
At least with a devolved Parliament we can make our own mistakes and hold our own politicians accountable for them without having to sift through Westminster bureaucracy. And so far, with a few exceptions, I think the Holyrood politicians have proven to be at least slightly more trustworthy than the London lot.
But I will agree with you that independence would be a more sensible option than the current situation.
Sin'Dorei
Complain about this comment
greenockboy Re your various posts.
It is surely now a sign of the desperation of the unionists that they have to go to all this trouble to produce their propaganda, and instruct the state broadcaster to show it.
It must be obvious to everyone now that they have lost just about every argument against independence, including the economic one, as Calman did not produce the outcome it was supposed to, and the final throw of the dice is to be defense and foreign affairs.
Defense is easily answered, by asking how many times Ireland has been invaded since their "isolation". In foreign affairs the answer may be "who cares" as a previous poster asked, is the UK vote on the security council the talk of the steamie? I think not.
Polls, public opinion, and most importantly elections, have continued to show the rise of the SNP. The Euro vote was like a dagger in their unionist heart. All that propaganda, all the newspaper headlines, SNP in meltdown etc, have had no effect, and now the final fling.
The Scottish public are not stupid, and more and more of them are seeing that there is only one party that has the interests of Scotland as their only consideration.
Complain about this comment
Re 14
I think you have a very good point, one which ties in to the nub of what will be the independence debate come any referendum. We will always need to have good co-operation with the other inhabitants of what is the UK. Good positive co-operation is always better than fighting and bickering. When the oil revenues run out as a nation we will need to work harder and create a new economy. We will not benefit form additional borders.
Also when logical thought is applied what is the advantage of our own defense and foreign policy? And more importantly how much would it cost. Unlike Viking freedom I think people in Kirkwall, Springburn and Kent all feel pretty much the same on a range of issues.
The trident question will resolve itself, simply we can't afford it.
Complain about this comment
I am indeed very suspicious of the poll simply because the BBC carried it out.
I am very suspicious of the findings of the poll dripped in the order the BBC want to announce the findings.
I watched Brian's programme last night and I can smell a BBC set up. It is a Labour driven organisation.
Today we have quotes from an army chief no less, to use an old saying, big guns no less. Things must be getting desperate; the people must be enjoying their Scottish government too much. The people must have too much faith in their Scottish government. I smell fear.
Look back to the time 10 years ago when Scotland was insisting on separatism, look at the media reports and you will find the same nonsense. We got devolution as a sop to the determined, to attempt to deflect the determined, that tells you the determined were truly many. Blair admitted as much, you do not submit to the will of the few.
I think they all believe we have not the intelligence to discern bias when we see and hear it. I think they all believe we can be brainwashed.
The trouble is Labour and the BBC believes Scottish people are not worth the bother. They are only worth using the income from. They have no importance, their will is not important.
The silliness from the Calman Commission and the eventual cost of the tax proposals in this current and future recession to the Scottish people proves that. Tax comes from working people. The tax from all things Scottish that will make money goes to Westminster coffers.
If the English government want trident let them have it, it is after all their choice, but let them put it in England. Let their families be in danger from leaks and explosions and all other problems that come from Trident.
Finally give a thought to how the English people on the street see the Scottish people. The BBC have your say allows every comment that states the Scots live off the English and the rest of the UK. Ask yourself a simple question if this is true why try to keep us from independence. Why not please the English people and voters and let us go. Could it be we are still some use to them financially?
Complain about this comment
vikingfreedom re your 18
I think you are wrong. Greenockboy highlighting the one sidedness of the media is a vital part of our small effort to counter the media bias.
I also think you are wrong with your point about persuing a possitive agenda for independance. If wanting to be a normal country in the world is not a possitive I am not sure what is. I think rather that the boot is on the other foot, there have been no possitives to retaining the statu quo from the unionists, only negatives. Remember the 5000 pounds bill for every family. Now we get, we will be invaded by someone, sometime, about something unknown, and this will never happen if we remain part of the union.
Complain about this comment
The BBCs take on devolution has been sorely disappointing: the usual concentration of unchallenged unionist dogma and cliché 'Scotland is financed by English taxpayers).
We all know that fiscal control is the minimum required to end the pathetic bickering over funding, responsibility and accountability. yet the myth gets pushed at EVERY possible occasion. If Scotland is subsidised PROVE IT. Its the same ols: one message North of the border and a different one South.
Brian, your limp, low brow, interviewing of the usual unionist apologists giving a platform for unsubstantiated and unchallenged drivel, not the mention the naked tartanry displayed in your report on devolution really is a low point in your career. A cringing embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
@24 don't worry dubbiesde, greenockboy is way too shrewd to be taken in by the "helpful" suggestions from vikingfreedom. I just read it and laughed.
Complain about this comment
So we now have the craziest of situations, we now find a poll which appears to create a totally new situation within the United Kingdom, a poll result that nobody actually wants, until you think about it.
This poll has now got the media and you Brian in a fix, you have all collectively been pushing for what you have assumed was what the people want, but now find that the people want something entirely different.
So we will have to sort this out, the people of Scotland want (note not wish) more devolved powers a whole lot more than even Calman is offering. But they want a bit less than the SNP want, they do not want Tory or New Labour not even Old Labour, nor do they want the LibDems offerings either.
No the people of Scotland want something that has been on the shelf for over a century, they want rid of one size fits all, what is good enough for London and the South East is good enough for the rest of England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Great Britain has lost its Empire, it presented the World that it once ruled and plundered with a system that has been proved to work elsewhere but has never been considered here, so we now have the people of Scotland pointing in the direction that should have been the compass bearing we should have been following since 1945, what is it? you all should be asking by now, guess?
Complain about this comment
Kaybraes:
#17.
The people of Scotland voted for this Parliament, yes, even with the clear flaws. You have no authority or will to demand the Parliament be demolished because you do see it as value for money. However not perfect, it's perfect when we compare it to Westminister.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Pity they never interviewed 2010 people.
By the way, interviewing people in Scotland doesn't necessarly mean they are Scots.
Can we see figures for nationalities please, and can we see the full wording of the questions?
1010 is a pretty small sample on which to base to opinion of the entire population, don't you think! Of course, maybe you only spoke to the people who "really matter", just like Calman.
Complain about this comment
#18 viking
Good point very well made. There are a few of us on here who have been saying much the same thing for quite a while. The argument still has to be won and the quality of the argument (on both sides of the debate, although, to be fair, I wouldn't be too unhappy if the Unionists fail to raise their game) needs to be raised.
For too long, the independence argument has been little more than responding to the constant deluge from the Nat-bashers. It's time for a step change where by we start to lead the debate rather than let the Unionists continue to attempt to dictate it on their terms.
Even on this forum, where there are many reasoned and intelligent posters, the debate all to frequently descends (frequently all to quickly) to the 'yah boo sucks' playground level of insult swapping. Granted, the UK's adversorial form of goverment promotes such behaviour but perhaps we could show a little more maturity in our deliberations and accept that, if someone doesn't agree with our point of view when we are being reasonable and stating the case as fully and factually as we can, hurling insults at them isn't really going to make them change their minds either. By all means, point out the errors, inconsistancies and misrepresentations, in their arguments but do it in a way that adds value to the debate instead of dragging it down to the level of a drunken street brawl as is all to often the case.
I should point out that, having been involved in a number of, shall we say, heated debates on these pages, I'm aiming these comments at myself as much as anyone else. I should also point out that I am NOT aiming them at any particular individuals or to any one side of the debate. If anyone takes offence at what I've written, all I can say is, if you think what I've said applies to you, then maybe you need to learn to think a little bit longer before pressing the 'Post Comment' button.
Anyway, back to the original point; yes, there is a need to be more positive, start promoting what we CAN achieve and leave the pro-Union lobby to carry on with the negative, you can't do this or that, type of commentry that they specialise in. Let's be proactive and lead the debate (difficult, I know whith the less than impartial media we have in this country but that just means we have to make more of an effort) and not allow complacency to set in.
Complain about this comment
And if my previous post achieves nothing else, it should, at the very least, demonstrate the dangers of not proof-reading what you have typed before hitting 'post'...
Ho hum. Some days I am clearly more dyslexic than others.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Instead of making up some fluff about what the survey tells the BBC, how about showing us the actual questions asked and the % of respondents that selected each answer to the questions? Not that we want to do you out of a job, but as a famous leader reportedly once said "I consider it completely unimportant who in the party will vote, or how; but what is extraordinarily important is this who will count the votes, and how". Not that I am suggesting that the BBC would count a vote for keeping defence in Westminster as a vote against independance...
Complain about this comment
Yet another article from the death throws of the discredited union.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/5681632/Voters-remain-indifferent-to-the-dogs-breakfast-of-Scottish-devolution.html
The comments are worth a look, though the grammar and the spelling are shocking.
Complain about this comment
#18 vikingfreedom
The arguments for independence are weakest in foreign affairs and defence
And the majority of Scots viewpoint on Trident is reflected how in the present UK defence policy? The stand of many Scots against the war in Iraq was echoed in the abandonment of that foolish enterprise by Westminster? The Russian cartoons that showed Britain as the lackey of the Imperialist Uncle Sam contained not one grain of truth? Sorry, I don't agree.
The arguments for independence are weakest in areas of shared social responsibility.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/tayside_and_central/8124875.stm
To this sad, bitter, twisted man (Murphy) patriotism - presumably of the "British jobs for British workers" variety - is a positive, and nationalism a negative.
Complain about this comment
Heard Brian Taylor on the radio claiming that "the full details" of this poll are available on the BBC website.
I've had a look and can't find them, it struck me that Brian may have been alluding to the BBC article where the results of the poll are available but the details aren't.
The more I hear of this poll the more I am convinced that it is indeed a set up, Brian's own wording when speaking on radio about the independence section of the poll mirrored the incomprehensible language of the article - something isn't what it seems.
I remarked around a week ago that these BBC programmes were sounding like 'Calman - the TV series'. What has been aired and published thus far has only strengthened that view. This looks like an attempt at conditioning or brainwashing the public into constraining their ambitions to within devolution.
As I stated earlier, the BBC are presenting answers to questions that were asked in a devolution context (pre set) as though they had been asked with no pre-conditions. I note that full fiscal autonomy hasn't (yet) been reported as having been presented as an option/question.
So, who did the BBC ask and exactly what did they ask?
Finally:
Johnston press have been given two months by their bankers in order to address their financial plight.
Complain about this comment
Ask the people if they think of Scotland as more like independent Norway or the "mere State" of Texas!
Complain about this comment
Hey Bryn, good to have you comment.
I have visited and commented on Betsyns blog , but was rapped over the knuckles by some snotter who told me to take my talk of independence and stuff it where the sun don't shine!
Wales , apparently ,need no lessons from the likes of the Scots!
I did manage to congratulate the rugby team without giving offence!
If anyone gives credence to a poll run by BBC Scotland /England or Wales they need their heads looked at!
I will now return to the wine bottle from whence I came.
Complain about this comment
#18 Viking & 30 Fit like
I agree totally with the calls for a positive approach to the benefits of independence - when we say its a fantastic opportunity - lets say why.
It has taken me 10 minutes to list my personal top 10 positives to be won from independence Im sure other will come up with a lot more and by the way oil is only a subsection of one of them
1. Efficiencies of a micro state smaller countries have faster more flexible and more efficient decision making processes due to reduced levels of decision making, better communication between individuals key players on any stage are more likely to know one another, and a reduction in the scale of government leading to a reduction in Quangos.
2. Opportunities for a fairer society along Scots social equality traditions were a Jock Thampsons bairns independence would be an opportunity for more open government with a redistribution of decision making closer to or by the people those decisions affects along the lines of the Plan for example.
3. Any loss in English subsidies would be cancelled out by our hidden subsidies of taxpayers money being spent largely in the south east of England eg Olympics, huge defence R&D spending, large defence expenditure, BBC, Central UK government
4. Control over Corporation tax as in Ireland, Monaco, (even Jersey for gods sake) would act as a magnet for inward investment both in the financial sector and industry
5. Existing Natural Talent & the opportunity to develop it as national priorities
a. Education & academic research eg Dundee Uni Welcome Foundation has published more papers than Cambridge in Micro Biology
b. Bio based industries
c. Games Software
d. Renewable energy technology
e. Advanced electronics & robotics
f. Financial sector skills which will still be there when the pirates have gone & controls tightened
g. Tourism see below
6. More influence in Europe for our concerns
a. More MEPs with solely Scotlands concerns on their agenda
b. Opportunity to group with other MEPs /Countries with interests similar to Scotland
7. Natural Resources water, wind, wave and tide power, oil & gas, fishing, sophisticated agriculture who know how operate at the high quality and value added end of the market including whisky, tourism and adventure recreation
8. Foreign trade and investment would benefit from a higher profile on the world stage as a real country with stable government, well educated population and a good quality of life eg opportunities for golf & fishing
9. Participation on the world stage as an active participant at the UN, taking part in peace keeping forces etc would bring its own returns through contacts made at international level and goodwill generated for Scotland. Foreign aid could also be tied to trade deals with Scotland rather than to the UK
10. In total an increase in personal pride, through an end to the dependency culture - The vision should be a safe, stable, equitable self confident society flourishing both economically and culturally. No more excuses for the Scottish cringe, chips on shoulders, fighting other peoples (illegal) wars or having unwanted nuclear installations foisted on us if we dont want them.
No more being told we need looked after because . . . . . . . because why? - if you look its never actually stated why - lets look to our own interests Ive stopped caring what the London establishment think
Complain about this comment
#35 pmk
Patriotism, no thanks; shades of the Fatherland to die for, born and bred a Scot, wha's like us. I have chosen to make my life here in Scotland, in Scots civil society as it is closer to the values I hold. This makes me a Nationalist according to my reading of the SNP's idea of "civic nationalism" and, if so, I am content.
I am certainly not British as Global defines it; that requires me to have an ID card. I would contend that to obey the laws and pay my taxes is all that his British state can require of me and that my dislike of the very idea of a British ID card makes me more British than Brown.
Complain about this comment
This BBC poll is meant to muddy the waters and have Scots discussing a whole range of options about how much of this or how much of that should devolved. It is merely another hurdle put in the way of our progression to normal indpendence.
Let the devolutionists chatter away.
Ignore then. Don't get drawn in to a morass of half baked constitutional backsliding.
The clean break is the most logical, the most practical,the most satisfactory and by far the easiest solution to Scotland's constitutional ambitions.
Bring it on.
Complain about this comment
Odd that with defence and especially Trident very much in the devolution mix, this website's Cardinal attacks Trident renewal doesn't yet seem to appear on the main Scotland politics page. Cameron is probably too sensible but I still have hopes of Foulkes or perhaps Murphy repeating Stalin's "How many divisions has the pope?" soundbite.
Us expats have little chance of getting to see last night's programme but can hope that the Panorama programme will be broadcast on BBC World [ie everything exceptUK] News at the week-end.
Howver, aunty seems to be kind to us on this website with 8m of pure Boris on Devolved Scotland 'more remote'. Having seen it, I must agree with others that it's a great ad for the SNP. I particularly liked his: "There is an English parliament - it's called Westminster."
The Boris page also links to other snippets woth a look such as Tory warning to SNP over Trident
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#29 HughEdinburgh"
By the way, interviewing people in Scotland doesn't necessarly mean they are Scots."
It certainly doesn't, but ICM are a pretty reputable polling organisation and founder members of the British Polling Council. When the term "interview" is used, it doesn't mean face to face here, but a telephone conversation. All the calls will have been to landlines, which does raise questions of whether it's a representative sample. In "who will you vote for" polls, the question "how did you vote last time?" is always used to provide a basis for weighting.
Until we see the data here, we won't know what - if any - weightings have been used.
#36 greenockboy
"I've had a look and can't find them, it struck me that Brian may have been alluding to the BBC article where the results of the poll are available but the details aren't."
I'm sure you're right, and until we have the details and any weighting information they're merely propaganda. The less disreputable London media like the Thunderer usually provide on-site links to the details in PDF or XL format, but the BBC never do.
With any luck, the PDF should be available from ICM's Media Centre sometime tomorrow.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re the polling.
ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Those commissioning polls don't normally authorise the release of the data until they have milked it first. Reasonable, since they paid for it!
Brian has already said "more tomorrow", so it won't be released till tomorrow at the earliest - Wednesday, I expect. Only if it is not published (as the recent BBC/ICM Muslim poll has been) will the conspiracists start being joined by the rest of us!
Complain about this comment
#43 Brownedov
You beat me to it!
Complain about this comment
#30 Fit Like.
Good point about a more reasoned debate.
Speaking ss one whose backside is slightly tender from sitting on the fence regarding independence, it gets a bit tedious when people resort to personal insults when in disagreement with a point.
Being positive is the way forward. But you have to show facts to people to convince them on independence.
First of all, admit that independence is not some utopia. It isn't and never will be - although compared with the current situation it probably feels like that.
Once that's out of the way, state the positives of independence compared to remaining in the Union.
Then (swallowing some pride) show the benefits of remaining in the Union, but how these are balanced out by the positives of independence.
Using that method, you do not cause a confrontation and it is hard for someone you agree with in some areas to argue against you.
In fact, ScaraBraeSingleMalt at post 14 gave what is probably the best argument against staying in the union - what happens when the oil runs out?
That actually got me thinking more positive on independence (shock, horror). That on it's own is a great counter to when unionists ask nationalists the same question. Bearing in mind that when the oil does run out the UK's population will probably be much higher.
So, perhaps I'm starting to fall off the fence.
Complain about this comment
You have to hand it to the BBC for sheer cheek.
The article headed
Murphy admits Labour flag error
... is based on a claim by Labour that the SNP have 'monopolised' the saltire.
The article goes on:
Jim Murphy said his party had allowed the national symbol to be "co-opted as an image of nationalism".
Now, how do you fashion a headline 'Labour admission' from an attack on the SNP? ... cute eh?
Can you imagine a headline SNP admit mistake in not highlighting Unionist lies
The propaganda tap is full on !!
Complain about this comment
How can Scotland undertake its own tax affairs unless it disassociates from the swingeing costs of UK defence spending.
How can Scotland take on Pension administration, when, for so long, we have all been paying into a UK communal pot.
In principle the ideas may be good, but ..........
Complain about this comment
I thought Brian Taylors programme was pretty fairly balanced, though the suggested parallel between Scotland and Texas was tenuous to say the least. The Texas jaunt contributed nothing of any pertinence to the core subject of the programme.
I was, I must admit, particularly impressed by the party political broadcast from Boris Johnson on behalf of the SNP. Is he, perhaps, doing a spot of moonlighting by working as a recruitment officer for them?
Complain about this comment
NewsJock:
#48.
"How can Scotland undertake its own tax affairs unless it disassociates from the swingeing costs of UK defence spending."
It's possible that Scotland can contribute to the United Kingdom for defence, why not? The Scottish Government and British Government can come together and decide a reasonable spending plan.
"How can Scotland take on Pension administration, when, for so long, we have all been paying into a UK communal pot."
Aww, I see that someone here believes that somewhere out there, the British Government has a pile of money for pensions. The idea was to pay into and then receive once we retire, but it's not the case. There is no money and it's partly why we have a problem today. There is no money and we all are living longer so the Government must find it from somewhere.
Complain about this comment
#48 newsjock
"How can Scotland take on Pension administration, when, for so long, we have all been paying into a UK communal pot."
I wonder how the Czechs and Slovaks managed it?
Complain about this comment
I would like to thank Tony Blair for supporting the idea of bringing Great Britain into the European Union. The United States of America will be a super power for years to come, sharing the power with multiple nations such as China and India. In that world the United Kingdom is not a large nation and the European Union should take charge in our place.
I hope Tony Blair is as pleased when Scotland is an independent country and becoming fully involved in the European Union. After all in such a large politcal union we should be better off, right?
Agian I will stress. How does the security council seat benefit Scotland inside the union? Yes, it's a privilaged position of power but I am fed up with Great Britain pretending that we are some sort of super power. We're not and it's embarressing.
Complain about this comment
Hey Brian, I know this is an almost impossible ask for a BBC employee: but how about asking some searching questions of the assembled ignorant Generals, escaped war criminals (a la Mladic) and various diplomats?
Enough misinformation, let the campaign start: referendum, now please.
Complain about this comment
Poor Brian!
Gets to do a programme shown throughout the UK - but few will have seen him, as they would have been watching another Scot on another channel!
Complain about this comment
I see Panorama ignored the BBC's own poll showing 61% of people in England wanted an English Parliament.
Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth being told what the Scots want when not being asked my own opinion. It's time the English had a referendum on an English Parliament.
In fact let's have a UK-wide referendum on independence for each nation comprising the UK.
Polls show that more people in England want Scotland to leave the Union than Scots. Maybe this is why the English are never asked.
In England the Scots are called the "Macakeneatits", they want their cake while eating England's.
Complain about this comment
The Panorama documentary I just watched actually seemed more balanced to me than the BBC Scotland version last night. Perhaps it was helped by the absence of the pointless jaunt to Texas.
But I'll reiterate what people are saying about this poll, I hope the FULL details come out soon, because what BT is coming out with seems to be a little unionist-ised, to coin a term.
Sin'Dorei
Complain about this comment
#44 oldnat: ICM is a member of the British Polling Council and abides by its rules. Those commissioning polls don't normally authorise the release of the data until they have milked it first. Reasonable, since they paid for it!
Or rather unreasonable since we paid for it!!
Complain about this comment
#45 oldnat
"You beat me to it!"
My post would have long been visible by the time you posted if I hadn't dallied watching Boris for a third time. Real "you couldn't make it up" stuff.
Re hard responses to the poll, like you I will wait for the data or start complaining at its absence on Wednesday afternoon.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Sir Mike Jackson's comment amount the army reflecting the character of the UK was laughable. The British Army has essentially become a foreign legion, full of Fijians, South africans, West Indians etc.
Complain about this comment
#54 oldnat
"few will have seen him, as they would have been watching another Scot on another channel!"
In that respect I'm lucky if BBC World News aren't covering Breaking News about some non-event at the week-end.
And because Murray is playing "Stan the man", as he is known in these parts, it's being carried on TSR2 (French), TSI2 (Italian) and SF2 (German) as well, where all of them refer to Murray as "Scottish".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#52 Thomas_Porter
You make a good point. The UK has not been a superpower since the late 19th/early 20th century.
With the US remaining powerful as ever, and China's influence growing rapidly, I think this highlights the importance of the EU of giving Europe a voice on the international stage.
I also hasten to point out that this means Scotland should be even more keen to become independent...
Reason #1 - In England the right-wing anti-Europe parties such as UKIP and even the BNP are growing and starting to gain representation (a significant one in the case of UKIP) in the European Parliament.
Reason #2 - As part of the UK, Scotland returns 6 MEPs (used to be 7, but the UK felt the need to shed one from Scotland when the UK's total number reduced). If Scotland gained independence, it would be likely to receive a larger number, like Denmark (roughly 5.5 million population, similar to Scotland) which receives 13, as opposed to receiving the same number as Luxembourg (population under 500,000).
I think that negates Tony Blair's point completely. Yes countries are stronger when they stick together, but an independent Scotland could get a larger voice in the EU, as opposed to the wee whisper we have now.
Sin'Dorei
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#55.
"I see Panorama ignored the BBC's own poll showing 61% of people in England wanted an English Parliament."
And why should Panorama highlight a poll that shows support for an English Parliament? I thought the programme was about devolution and it's effect, not what you want. I suggest you write to your local MP because England dominates the British National Parliament and if you can not 'get your' way then it's not our fault!
"Frankly, I'm sick to the back teeth being told what the Scots want when not being asked my own opinion. It's time the English had a referendum on an English Parliament."
Again, write to your local MP as quickly as possible. You rant, whine and instead you should be protesting, writing petitions. Scotland made the effort and we were rewarded with our Parliament. It's your turn and I suggest you stop blaming the Scots for issues that your MP's are quite capable of taking control of and supporting.
The real question is, why the English are never asked, but why the English continue to vote in political groups that have no policy to create an English Parliament.
"In fact let's have a UK-wide referendum on independence for each nation comprising the UK."
It's not realistic. Your embarressing youself now. At least put forward suggestions that could actually happen.
"In England the Scots are called the "Macakeneatits", they want their cake while eating England's."
This is laughable. Oldnat, I understand now. You used to say that Scotland went through a time of having a chip on her shoulder and the English would pass the same phase. I suggest you grow up, if you are representing England, then it's no wonder your getting walked on.
I expect that you may never have been apart of the military. The military consists of men and woman from the United Kingdom, and the Commonwealth. Have you a problem with non-British nationals serving in the forces? I tell you so far that they are a much better qaulity of person then you, they do not have a problem with where we all came from because we are all here for the same show. As I said you have alot of growing up to do.
Complain about this comment
#62 Thomas_Porter
Thanks for the mention. I'm afraid that many people in England will embarrass themselves before this is all over.
It's quite nice to be part of a "grown-up" nation!
Complain about this comment
Brian T.
Go away, time for new host, I think.
Yir nae ees ata.
Stephanies gash - shuv yer cake!
Complain about this comment
Does anyone else feel vaguely uneasy about the direction Jim Murphy appears to be going with this Saltire nonsense? I see in an article in the Times he says that "Single identities can be a breeding ground for division, intolerance and agression"
Scots didn't vote in any BNP MSPs but I fear he is trying to paint nationaists in a similar light.
Complain about this comment
Brian
If there is a real possibility that there will come a parting of the ways between the Scots and the RotUK, should there not be a contingency plan? I was struck by this thought in reading about Obama's plans for regulating US banks which includes a provision that they shall make their own "funeral" plans and if too elaborate will require more capital. I am sure the UN and EU would be interested in the UK's equivalent, let alone the US and NATO, in respect of the capability of RotUK's ability to fulfil treaty obligations.
I feel the UK parties are so obsessed by the General Election that no-one is minding the shop on such long term matters let alone the restrictions on the UK Government's actions that the debt mountain is going to create.
Complain about this comment
#65
Here, didn't Mr Murphy get dogs abuse from union flag wearing (and waving) sectarianists in Glasgow? Surely he was talking about them?
Anent his other observation re Labour letting the nationalists grab the Saltire. I seem to recall various labour MP's, councils and associated lackeys refusing to fly the saltire on public buildings etc, and rubishing the idea. Own goal springs to mind!
Stick your red flag up your etc
Complain about this comment
#65 snowthistle
Murphy, I'm afraid, is simply reduced to peddling smears. It's been going on for a long time, but clearly Scots aren't fooled.
There's a reasonable debate to be had as to whether Scotland (and other European countries) should pool their defence and foreign policies (and within which groups of nations) or keep them independent. However, even Blair admitted on Panorama that the "UK is now a small country".
Complain about this comment
#64
poor young Jim - wrong type of unionist for some in the west apparently
Complain about this comment
God, that was a pretty poor programme. Really took the debate forward with that Brian...
So Brown says the Banks were a Scottish problem, Blair says that anyone with a view opposite to him is a nasty separatist, surprisingly the British General is a unionist, and Boris is allowed to get away with cliche after cliche. Well done son.
Complain about this comment
Getting a bit sick of BBC Scotland using my licence fee money to commission polls then using them to write "news" stories that tacitly promote the Union.
Complain about this comment
snowthistle re 65
This is just another example of how desperate the unionists are becoming.
Murphy has already warned of the rise of the BNP in Scotland, though in the Euro elections their vote in Scotland was very small.
When you see your ticket on the Westminster gravy train about to disappear and you are almost unemployable, you will lash out in any direction.
The problem for sunny Jim is the vast majority of Scots see through the Labour tories, and a lot of the rest are waking up to them as well.
Complain about this comment
Most Scots don't bother to leave comments on this blog, since a core group of SNP supporters have started to monopolise it.
The SNP's dream of independence is not shared by the large majority of Scots, and shouting on this blog won't change that.
I am happy to be part of both Britain and Europe, and I am for abolishing Trident, not the UK.
Lets have the referendum now and be done with it. I am a federalist, not a separatist, and the future belongs to us. Nationalism is an ugly idea in European history, and its time has gone.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Another reason for independance, we might get our sports stars back.
Very interesting article in The Times about Andy Murrays sponsorship from RBS.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6597798.ece
Andys mothers comments in the last paragraph are interesting.
He was happy to do it, his mother said. We have a very strong commitment to RBS because they have been sponsors of Andy and Jamie for a very long time. Now it is pay back time for RBS. For someone like Andy, who is very Scottish, is very patriotic, and who has been supported by a very Scottish bank, he is glad to help and, my goodness, we need a strong Scottish bank. It is a very positive match.
Complain about this comment
I see there are some stupid people who talk haughtily about being against nationalism and affect to be aghast at the Scottish variant whilst completely ignoring the suffering Scotland still endres at the hands of British nationalists.
Complain about this comment
#65
The folk of Glasgow and its environs are pretty quick at spotting a diddy and are merciless with them. Jim "never had a real job" Murphy falls exactly into that category and hasn't come up a with a fresh smear or a new scaremongering idea since he got the job. He's also drowning out Iain Grey - not dificult admittedly - but not doing Labour at Holyrood any good.
Complain about this comment
#73 VforVictory
"Most Scots don't bother to leave comments on this blog, since a core group of SNP supporters have started to monopolise it."
You have it exactly the wrong way round! That those supporting independence are the most common posters suggests that Unionists don't have arguments that can withstand being critiqued.
You advocate federalism - I've done that myself in the past. So persuade me that I was wrong in moving from that position. i'd be interested to hear your arguments.
Complain about this comment
VforVictory , and how would you explain independence as practiced by most countries of the world?
Is it a bad thing?
Where is your proof that " most Scots do not want independence"??
I'm happy to be an independent Scot and European, happy to throw off the shackles of Westminster and to let Holyrood state a proud Scottish case in Brussels.
I can see absolutely nothing abnormal with that, please explain just waht you find so terrifying about Scotland forging her own way in the big world.
Complain about this comment
Has the federalist European union been compromised by the recent election,will the right -wing alliances disrupt and halt the Eu's effectiveness?will we see nation retreat into self- protectionism against the recessions.Will the EU be just another league of failed nations.
Complain about this comment
#73 VforVictory
The SNP's dream of independence is not shared by the large majority of Scots, and shouting on this blog won't change that.
I don't know; I'd say their passing on independence to the local authorities has gone down well. I'd like to see how the independence for NHS boards goes but as a general principle it's done well so far.
If you wish an argument about "Nationalism" you will have to give a lot more information on the "Nationalism" that you consider to be an ugly idea as I fail to see what correspondance that has with the social democratic attitudes of the SNP. Your wish not to be British or European has been noted.
Complain about this comment
#77 - "i'd be interested to hear your arguments."
Ha, what arguments? He's a chip off the old Spud (murphy), claiming nationalism bad, Unionism good without a scrap of coherence to back up his claims.
Thankfully, most people in Scotland are too intelligent to fall for "SNP = BNP = Nazi" type arguments and it just illustrates how bereft of any sort of positive argument for the Union the likes of Brown, B.Liar, Murphy, etc. actually have.
Complain about this comment
VforVictory:
#73.
"Most Scots don't bother to leave comments on this blog, since a core group of SNP supporters have started to monopolise it."
I actually suspect most Scots never have commented on the blog, even while the unionists were here. I would also point out that it is clear many here support independence, but many do not support the Scottish National Party. It never works well by tarring us with the same brush, has it ever benefited?
"The SNP's dream of independence is not shared by the large majority of Scots, and shouting on this blog won't change that."
I agree, I have always insisted the referendum would be too close to call. However I believe independence can be won because Scots know that Scotland can do better, who would settle for 2nd best? I certaintly do not. Scotland has potential and Britain is not putting the effort ito releasing this potential.
"I am happy to be part of both Britain and Europe, and I am for abolishing Trident, not the UK."
I am happy to be part of both Scotland, Europe and the rest of the world, I am for abolishing trident and other forms of nuclear power (unless it's a last resort).
"Lets have the referendum now and be done with it. I am a federalist, not a separatist, and the future belongs to us. Nationalism is an ugly idea in European history, and its time has gone."
I am fed up with under educated comments such as these. The United Kingdom is not a federal state, no party is supporting a federal state, who is in the minority now? In fact the only party who may support the idea are the Liberal Democrats, but where are they these days, as usual no where to be seen!
Is Scottish Nationalism the problem? The problem in the world today, are people like you, you clearly have some deep rooted hatred for one particular group. In this case it's support of the SNP and those who support independence. How far will this hatred go? By the way what's the problem with Scottish Nationalism? If we all support the Scottish National Party, then we all are pro-immigration, anti-nuclear weapons, pro-european union and believe in the type of independence, democracy that many country's have fought for and still strive for even today. Is that not good?
Complain about this comment
#78 Diabloandco : #80 handclapping (and me)
See? We've just proved VforVictory's point! S/he complained that this blog is monopolised by Nats, and 3 of us dare to ask that s/he provides some supporting evidence for his/her assertions. what bad people we are!!!
Complain about this comment
Really quite sick and tired of seeing supposedly "impartial" BBC reporters trying to drum up support for Unionist tactics to stifle desire for independence like the Calman proposals, and resorting to tired old Unionist scare stories about Scotland needing to stay in the UK for defence purposes.
Has anyone ever asked the Scottish people if they want to take a neutral stance on defence - like the Swiss? I bet you'd find overwhleming support for that but strangely it never occurs to BBC Scotland reporters to ask people that! Perhaps they're too busy wasting our money making pointless trips to Texas?
Complain about this comment
I am amazed by the publicity and focus identity has became in the recent weeks. I have a theory, since Scots either feel Scottish or more Scottish then British, then British itself, are unionists attempting to gain support from the most likily of individuals who would vote for independence? I've heard some ideas that the referendum would come down to identity, even despite all the what if's involved. I can't explain it but voters for some reason or another, will vote pending on whether or not they feel Scottish or British. Is this the end to Britishness and the very small amount of culture and indentity that it has? Let's face it because Britishness is the Union Jack and without the Union Jack, Britishness would have no identity or culture ;-)
I do not want to disappoint, but voters will vote on the idea of what they want out of Scotland. Is Scotland going in the right direction? Has following in the shadow of Great Britain been benefiting for Scotland? Is the future going to be better as part of the United Kingdom or is the British Era finally coming to an end? Despite what we may believe the Acts of Union were passed on ideas. These ideas are not around today, I doubt England are seeking to secure there north border anymore ;-) but without fresh ideas, a fresh plan and with the European Union becoming ever more power, and in a world that will be shared by many super powers, is there reason for the United Kingdom?
Complain about this comment
#83 oldnat
You speak for yoursef, I'm too busy polishing my halo so it will light the way to bed. And I get extra "green" stars for that too! 8-)
Complain about this comment
Re Brian's "However, that pattern goes into reverse when it comes to defence and foreign affairs. By a clear margin, Scots favour those decisions remaining with the UK Government at Westminster." it looks like it was lucky for him that the poll was taken a week ago.
This website's new UK 'must slash defence spending' from the Institute for Public Policy Research suggests this week might not have produced the same result.
Roll on ICM's publication of the poll details but for now goodnight all.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
73. At 11:15pm on 29 Jun 2009, VforVictory wrote:
"I am happy to be part of both Britain and Europe, and I am for abolishing Trident, not the UK."
Shame you are going to be disappointed then, because there is absolutely no way a British PM will abolish Trident or it's replacement. They will not give away the one thing which ensures we keep that UN security council seat and the prestige on the world stage this accords. Think I'm wrong? Ask yourself how many Labour MPs are/were members of CND and they were dedicated to the abolition of nuclear weapons, right up until they gained power, even Old Labour in the shape of Brown are planning it's replacement. In the 80's Faslane came under West Dunbartonshire, you may remember they were a "Nuclear Free Zone", always made me chuckle at that. Now it's Labour foisting not just Trident but ALL nuclear submarines on the Clyde, because they can't justify a Safety Case to continue operation in Plymouth(only 7 miles fron city centre). Luckily we don't have any big urbam centres near the Gareloch.....or not any that matter in Westminster it seems.
Complain about this comment
#87 Brownedov
Is that IPPR report, that you refer to. the reason that the think-tank has been closed down? :-)
Complain about this comment
#89 oldnat
News to me; just checked their website - still going?
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor in Texas looked oddly familiar in that six-gallon stetson, but I couldn't quite put my finger on it.
Then suddenly it came to me.....he was the spit of "Boss Hogg" from the "Dukes of Hazzard"! :-)
Complain about this comment
#90 handclapping
Any New Labour think-tank that invites Guido has got to be at death's door!
http://order-order.com/2009/06/30/paramount-wake-for-new-labour/
Thought you were off to bed?
Complain about this comment
#92 oldnat
Thanks, some nice snide comments.
You thought it was all over ... well it is now! Sweet dreams.
Complain about this comment
There has never been a better time than now for Scotland to gain its independance with a Scottish PM driving the charge. The Scots have only ever considered themselves Scotish, never British.
I have been to 60 countries in the world but never to Scotland. The Scots for some reason hate the English so I never wanted to go there.
The English should all club together, buy all the Scots in England a rail ticket and repatriate them all, including Gordon McBrown.
Then quickly dig up the rail line, build the wall higher and only let them back in on an expensive daily visa (then they wont come).
After that we dont have to listen to them whingeing on about the English anymore.
Complain about this comment
Re #94 ShepBushie
It's a pity that you have swallowed the propaganda and believe that Scots all hate English, we really don't have this universal malice you seem to think we have.
I for one, have many English friends and would probably even support English sports teams in international events if I didn't have to listen to the likes of Jimmy Hill (now mercifully retired, I believe).
What you seem to miss is what was so clearly captured by some of the English people interviewed by Brian last night: they made comment of how they were jealous of the things the Scottish Government had achieved on health and education, and of course this was then followed by rants by politicians about Scotland getting a favourable settlement (not very subtle there, Brian), however the real reason is that the Scottish Government is focused on the priorities in Scotland and is spending the money on our priorities.
You too could have money spend on your priorities if you had an English Government instead of having to put up with the constant compromise that is Westminster. See how it works: every country has it's own government that is focused on delivering the priorities of the people of that country, simple really, and no need for train tickets.
Just write to your MP telling them you want independence for England, then persuade as many of your friends a possible to do the same
Let us know how you get on
:-)
Complain about this comment
#73, "Nationalism is an ugly idea in European history, and its time has gone."
...So explain why are the Tory's going to win the next general election and they are for retaining UK nationalism from Europe then?
Saor Alba!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
BIG conclusions to be constantly broadcasting based on a tiny minority, and a potentially very selective minority at that.
Scotland gave Westminster it's powers under licence, and Scotland can revoke that licence at any time. All we have to do is realise it.
We are a union of equals after all, and no one nation has control over any of the other 3, does it?
The amount of reporting against independence is really showing everybody that the argument for independence is being rapidly won, and there is no way to stop it, especially when various idiots start attacking Scotlands national flag as being too Scottish.
That is the trouble with the current arrangement - we are not allowed to call ourselves Scots, even on the BBC, as English sports stars are reported as being English, while Scots are reported as being British while they are winning, and quickly become Scots when the are losing.
We don't have Scottish passports either, so when we go abroad, people don't identify us as being Scots, rather they assume we are English.
It's time to put Scotland on the map again people, and let the world know that Scotland is here.
Complain about this comment
And it's time for BBCi to get its menus right, don't you think.
We are not a UK Region, we are a Nation.
Complain about this comment
Re 77 old nat
That is a very arrogant post, even for you. The reason the number of Non-SNP supporters is dropping on this blog is not because the arguments are wrong or weak, it is because the nature of the debate is frankly stale and boring. Irrespective of the subject each thread is a tirade against Jim Murphy and ian gray, several rantings by Greenock boy against the BBC and any other press, followed usually by personal attacks on anyone offering a non SNP opinion.
There is little if any debate of any substantive issue. Essentially this blog is now dominated by those at the extreme of the argument, meaning debate is in reality worthless. I look in form time to time to see if things have improved only to find they haven't and have usually sunk further.
Take a read of the last 5 or ten threads. There is little in the way of debate. However for the non ultra nats that is good. Continue slapping each other on the back, wait for the glorious day. The lessons of Glenrothes have obviously been lost.
Complain about this comment
#99 northhighlander
"The lessons of Glenrothes have obviously been lost."
... Along with the voters' register, presumably?
Complain about this comment
#99 northhighlander
"There is little if any debate of any substantive issue"
I totally agree. Those of us on the side of independence don't need to debate the issue with each other. We are in agreement on that issue. The paucity is due to the lack of argument from those supporting the union.
To reverse your point.
We have the extreme language from such as yourself - "arrogant", "ranting", extreme, "ultra".
Of RE and derek, the less said the better. The occasional "spoof" posting as in #94.
Where are the positive arguments for the Union? Where are the issues of substance? I post less now, too because there are none of these from the unionist side to engage with.
Complain about this comment
100. lol
101. oldnat I think there are more from the unionist side on here to engage with than is superficially apparent.
For some reason they seem to think getting into the tent with the nationalists and p*ssing out is a cleverer option than honestly arguing the unionist case.
The almost tortuous attempts of some to subtly spread fear and doubt about independence whilst purporting to be supportive/ ambivalent/ open minded about it are worthy of a medal.
As for the recent singling out of greenockboy, well obviously he's hitting a tender spot.
Complain about this comment
The Institute for Public Policy Research (IPPR) report says
Britain cannot afford much of the defence equipment it plans to buy. In short, the IPPR is saying the UK is bust and indeed todays awful GDP figures confirm that.
I now need someone to explain please why when we have the option Scotland should remain a member of a union with policies over which it has little influence and which consistently makes us poorer.
Complain about this comment
This poll is actually fairly similar to previous poll results in most respects. Typically on a straight choice, polls show roughly 40% for independence, 40% for the status quo and 20% don't know. The difference in this poll seems to be that half the "don't know"s swung for the union, giving an unusually low "don't know" count of 10% or so.
The "don't knows" are the swing voters in any putative independence poll, and this suggests to me that the traditional Labour "fear" pitch against independence (which has had a fair wind lately) has traction for about 10% of the electorate.
There are few political questions more subject to subtleties of phrasing and presentation than this. A 4% swing is shown on a minor wording variation. And these wording differences can have a major influence: Should the UK deal with defence and foreign affairs? "Yes", say many. Should the London Government have sent Scottish troops to invade Iraq, or buy new nuclear missiles to be based in Scotland? "No", say many....
The findings overall suggest that a "devolution max" settlement, in which Scotland controlled all of its domestic affairs including all taxation, welfare benefits, pensions and so on, and sent an agreed sum to London annually as a contribution to joint defence and foreign affairs costs, would be highly popular with the electorate. This is quite feasible and seems to work for Catalonia, and the Isle of Man come to think of it. You have to ask why this is not the preferred option for Unionism...but remember the remit of the Calman Commission was to avoid anythng that might weaken the Union. If Scotland was to raise all its own revenue and run its own aconomy, they might then realise by comparison how well the Union has actually served them over the last 50 years...and that would be very troubling indeed for Unionists.
Complain about this comment
101. At 09:22am on 30 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
Where are the positive arguments for the Union? Where are the issues of substance? I post less now, too because there are none of these from the unionist side to engage with.
---------------
Oldnat he does have a point regarding lack of debate. There is a danger that this blog is reverting to a Scottish version of the Have Your Say blog, where there were so much anti-Scottish bias that I got fed up with it. (I even got my tuppence worth on QT a couple of years ago!)
But Trident, Oil, PFI and nuclear power aside, there are still some areas that do have serious questions to be addressed. The SNP can win the argument on the first three and probably the fourth, but the electorate at a referendum will almost certainly want answers on a few others.
Some examples, in no particular order:
DSS Benefits - how will these change
Income Tax
Defence
Europe
Currency
These are probably the most common, there are others but will not be of interest to many people, such as public sector organisations, based in Scotland which serve the UK, such as DFID.
I'd say the DSS benefits might be a biggie, especially if we are still in recession.
What is needed is a large scale poll. That might give a more accurate picture.
Complain about this comment
#94
That would be funny if it were the truth...
I know no people up here who have anything against the English, however when I watch London-based TV, all I hear about is the Scottish Raj and wonderful Panorama episodes called 'Will the Scots ever be happy?'
And you can keep Gordon 'McBrown' (that must have taken you all of 12 seconds to come up with...) and his cronies, because it is they who love London rule so much.
Oh and it was the Scots who built the wall, and if the English all share your attitude (which I hope they don't) maybe we SHOULD rebuild it.
Sin'Dorei
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Re Jim Murphy and his ridiculous complaint that the SNP are "monopolising" the saltire.
Aside from the fact that it was Scottish Labour (sic) who chose the red rose of England to use across all their publicity in preference to the saltire or even the thistle, the pertinent question surely is why are labour in Scotland and Jim Murphy afraid to embrace the union flag?
It represents what they insist is best for Scotland, why don't they use it more?
Complain about this comment
If pro-Labour stories was not so common in Scotland then surely the independence figures would be even higher?
Look for pro-Labour and poor wee Scotland stories to intensify in the run up to elections and the referendum. Already the seeds are being sown.
Complain about this comment
I'm a Nationalist, but I had a thought.
Is there a way to Independence within an integrated defence policy with (rump) UK? Let me explain, if I can.
If you take the current UK defence policy, they wouldn't take unilateral action without the approval of the USA. So effectively, the UK doesn't have an independent defence policy (apart from procurement). So would an independent Scotland take action unilaterly? Are there benefits to this scenario. Either nuclear or non-nuclear?
Now it is obvious that the issues of Trident, Security Council seat, The Clyde base are completely woven together. The arguments for retaining a Security Council seat are very strong for some. So, could Scotland gain a trade off by using leverage?
The other way of viewing this, in light of the think tanks defence findings, are that Westminster requires Trident, not for a security Council seat, but to retain a base on the Clyde. With a nuclear base on the Clyde, you retain Scotland, have access to her economy, her natural resources and thus ensure that England's economy (which may be a basket case) is kept floating.
Some left field thoughts, but hopefully I've articulated where I'm going with these.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#105.
It's quite impossible to answer your questions. The Scottish National Party have plans, but the other parties do not and they would be apart of an independent Scotland and may support something different from the nationalists.
Income Tax. I guess it may rise depending on our plans to repay the debts brought over from the union days.
Defence. The nationalists plan for a force of 20-30,000 with a budget of between 2-3 billion pounds. If so, it would be enough to have quite a modern force. Look at other country's for a rough idea on what can be done on that type of budget.
Europe. In the European Union.
Currency. The nationalists plan on staying with sterling on the idea of converting to the euro after a referendum.
:-)
Complain about this comment
#108.GrassyKnollington
"Aside from the fact that it was Scottish Labour (sic) who chose the red rose of England to use across all their publicity in preference to the saltire or even the thistle, the pertinent question surely is why are labour in Scotland and Jim Murphy afraid to embrace the union flag?"
A white one might be more honest.
Complain about this comment
#111 Thomas
Not meant as a critisism but please can you learn the difference between 'a part of' and 'apart from'?
Complain about this comment
112. cynicalHighlander, indeed, Skeletor could hang it off his sickle as he walks up the Royal Mile!
Complain about this comment
I am pretty fed up with all these 'skewed' BBC polls. They are put forward as being typical of the views of all the people of Scotland. How can even the most ardent of pollsters regard a survey of just over a thousand as even remotely representative. The only real poll is a referendum with clear and 'unskewed' wording. When that happens, I think the BBC and all the other union loving mob are in for a shock. Get real BBC, stop wasting my money on pointless exercises or if you have to have a poll, go the whole hog and at least ask a fair representation of the population.
Complain about this comment
During the journey through the past ten years of Scottish legislative devolution, it has been as if Scotland constitutionally has embarked upon a journey through space and time. In this journey the traveller, although conscious of having travelled for no more than ten years, has in fact been travelling, from the perspective of those who remained behind on planet England, for ten times as long.
Consequently, at the end of the period, the traveller finds that the world he left behind no longer exists. The England that Scotland waved goodbye to when it entered the devolution journey has changed much more than might have been expected to be the case if the journey had not taken place. A century of change in attitudes has occurred in a period of ten years.
Devolution has made England aware of the administrative privileges that Scotland had been quietly enjoying all along, and it does not like it. The reconvening of the Scottish Parliament has awoken a slumbering giant. England is arising and objecting to Scotland's legislature at a time when Scotland wants it to become stronger. So what happens next?
A process will occur which will eventually produce an English parliament sitting alongside the Scottish Parliament with all powers devolved to both except defence and foreign affairs? How would they be dealt with? An inter-governmental council of "the greater construct"? How long would it be before Scotland fretted at the lack of adequate representation in the EU and at the lack of influence in the evolving EU defence structure that we may expect to see in due course?
Let us face it. That is the direction in which both England and Scotland will be travelling when they set off together on the next phase of constitutional reform, as, during the past ten-year devolution journey, what remained of the Union entered its dotage and has become too weak to survive.
Complain about this comment
re 111 or anyone else:
Genuine question: what is the SNPs policy toward NATO?
By virtue of geography the key part that Scotland plays for NATO is defense of the Iceland - UK gap through which air / naval forces from Soviet Union / Russia must travel to enter North Atlantic. Clearly threat of war here is of course reduced but not eliminated and flashpoints could occur over control of natural resources in or around these areas.
Would an independent Scotland look to contribute to this defense directly (which requires expensive hardware) or would we allow the basing of other NATO forces on Scottish soil to do this?
This is not meant to be a provocative or point scoring mail but although a 2-3 billion budget sounds a lot it depends on what you want to do with it.
Complain about this comment
I think Defence and Foreign Affairs managed by the UK would be an unmitigated disaster. Defence would work fine by itself and would be much easier to manage, but we all know it's not about defence. It becomes tangled into Foreign Affairs and overseas deployment of troops and assets. That's where it becomes a mess, what happens in 10 years time? We get Jeb Bush as US President he wants to sort out the leftovers from Bubba and Pappys eras so we make up a case to invade Iran and off we go, mass protests in UK cities but we have the latest incarnation of Blair who goes along with the idea because he wants to cosy up to the US.
I seriously doubt it would be that straight forward but for all people advocating UK control of Foreign Affairs and Defence, just ask yourselves is this what you really want? The main argument drawing me toward Independence is the accountability of a smaller parliament and country, looking out for Scottish interests and being accountable to the Scottish people and that includes the use of our Armed Forces and our relationships with the rest of the world.
America does not operate it's carrier fleets for defence, they project American power far from it's own shores, which is precisely why we are building some. We don't need carriers to defend these shores, we need them to threaten foreign shores. I understand the best defence argument, but is it relevant and can we afford it? What are the threats to this country within the EU? Russia? China? Our forces acting alone would be run over, so why are we pretending we are still a major player on the world stage?
Complain about this comment
Further to:
#99 northhighlander -
"There is little if any debate of any substantive issue."
and:
#111 Thomas_Porter -
"It's quite impossible to answer your questions. The Scottish National Party have plans, but the other parties do not."
Isn't this partly the problem? That Unionists refuse to debate how well Scotland might or might not function as an Independent Nation because they refuse to accept that independence could ever happen - therefore there can be no debate?
I think this is a tactical error on their part. (Not that I'm in any hurry to see them correct it)
Independence will be difficult, it will be hard and for some there may be no clear benefits - other than than those we'll all gain from being a nation free to choose its own course.
There is a lot of work to be done and if the Unionists were willing to engage on a detailed policy level and debate the 'hows' and 'whos' - they might be able to win more people round to their side of the argument.
But they won't, of course. And by refusing to enter the debate - they're going to lose it. Which is how we've ended up with a consensus of belief on the Nationalist side and little more than sniping from the Unionist ranks.
Complain about this comment
The BBC poll suggests a desire for more power up to and including fiscal autonomy. This is independence. However there is a nervousness over defence where alliances exist where the practice is for many countries to cling together for safety. There is safety in numbers. Note that Milliband sought the EUs support in the case of the Embassy staff arrests in Iran, this was no super power acting individually and that is how defence is.
An independent Scotland would have defence alliances with NATO? EU? and England and Wales?. The clear way forward would be to settle for independence with close strategic alliances starting with England and Wales and the other defence communities. Would England and Wales declare that they would have nothing to do with an independent Scotland , probably, but that is politics. Calman and the BBC poll and Camerons hectoring over Trident moves us forward.
Complain about this comment
105. At 10:04am on 30 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
The problem is, until you actually know what money you have available to you and what your liabilities are it's impossible to work out with any accuracy. Independence shouldn't be about whether we will be personally richer or poorer in the short term, but you're totally right, that's precisely how a large section of the electorate will view it.
Complain about this comment
#104 minceandmealie
"The difference in this poll seems to be that half the "don't know"s swung for the union, giving an unusually low "don't know" count of 10% or so."
With the details still neither available on this website nor the ICM one, we'll have to wait and see, but you could be right. About all that can be deduced from this website's Scots 'want an independence vote' is that the BBC's favourite psephologist, Prof. John Curtice, has firmly nailed his trousers to the unionist mast [as Sir Humphrey so aptly put it] with his: "It seems as though a third option of increasing the tax powers of the Scottish parliament, but remaining part of the Union would be by far the most popular option."
"The findings overall suggest that a "devolution max" settlement, in which Scotland controlled all of its domestic affairs including all taxation, welfare benefits, pensions and so on, and sent an agreed sum to London annually as a contribution to joint defence and foreign affairs costs, would be highly popular with the electorate."
On the little data available, that would certainly be my own preference as the next step, but it's not going to be viable unless England takes control of its own affairs so that the current Westmidden parliament can be reduced to a very small [con]federal rump. Despite the small progress being made by the English Democrats, they're a long way away from achieving that. At the same time, the eurosceptics seem to be on the rise both in the official unionists and with parties like UKIP and the BNP. Not only do they reject any federal ideals but their ascendancy will certainly prevent UK entry to Schengen and could well result in complete withdrawal from the EU. In that context, the practical choices available to Scotland may exclude devolution max as an option.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Having an independent Scotland with defence run by Westminster simply wouldn't work because Westminster's values have always been different.
I really suggest a trip to Norway.. There's a country that has a terrific set of armed services... A highly competenent airforce, a Navy which includes some really smart vessels and small coastal subs and an army that is extremely well trained. Norway still has national service and that helps considerably because it provides a large reserve of well trained people.
The other place to look at is Sweden...... They recently built one of the world's first "stealth" warships...... Now wouldn't that be a good thing for us to build in Scotland?
Complain about this comment
When considering Foreign Affairs and whether it's a good idea to allow these to be conducted under a UK umbrella, it's worth reading up on the history of Diego Garcia. This is a perfect example of how the "Big Picture" can affect local areas, from the initial depopulation to rendition flights recently. Does anyone seriously think a UK wide policy would be any different?
Complain about this comment
#123 Wee-Scamp
"I really suggest a trip to Norway.."
As long a my licence fee money isn't wasted paying for it this time I don't care if it's a trip to Timbuktu.
Complain about this comment
Why wont Mr Murphy champion the Union Flag? Surely he should be proud to embrace the flag of the "country" he believes in and the "relationship" (domination) that he claims keeps Scotland safe?
Perhaps this is a tacit admission on his part that the Union Jack is an imperialistic symbol, the main purpose of which in modern Scotland is to encourage sectarian hatred?
Either that, or Skeletor just isn't too bright.
Complain about this comment
As a Scot and nationalist working in England. I find a lot of the views above, about ''Scotland being intergated with this and having a joint that with the UK'' as myopic. If we are to be independant the first thing we have to admit is there will be pain and upheaval and get through it.
Scotish independance will mean an inevitable English backlash. English politians will make merry) There are two 5 billion pound aircarft carriers being built in Scotland and the the thousands of jobs that come with it, 90% of it being payed for by the English taxpayer (they would understandably start demanding that defence contracts come back to England). Scotland makes up 6% of the UK population but over 25% of the armed forces. These numbers would be unsustainable if Scotland had an independant armed forces, so bases would have to close and soldiers made redundant.
As much as I might not want to admit it there has been some advantages to being in the UK. RBS was bailed out with British taxpayers money. Scotland on its own, would not of been in a position to do that and would of ended up much like Iceland having to go to the IMO for money and the fiscal restraints that the IMO would of imposed upon us.
What I'm trying to say is that you have to break a few eggs to make an omlete and there will be upheaval as we find our feet but we shouldnt hide these facts.
PS the old argument about having control over oil doesnt wash anymore, I work on rigs there isnt much left within 12 miles of Scotland and after that its free game with Holland (Shell) quietly pumping away for the last 30 years.
Complain about this comment
On defence matters, the problem that NATO now has is Iceland and to a lesser extend, Greenland.
Iceland is skint, but Russia has been making aggressive moves to claim territority which is expected to be highly rich in natural resources. Iceland and Russia have been cosying up in the past year, and Russia wants that gas and oil.
A few criticisms about USA military policy. Certainly justified but take the USA out of the equation and peacekeeping and humanitarian aid lose the logistical support needs. No other country bar Russia and China can provide such levels of support.
--------------
121. At 11:51am on 30 Jun 2009, spartans11 wrote:
The problem is, until you actually know what money you have available to you and what your liabilities are it's impossible to work out with any accuracy. Independence shouldn't be about whether we will be personally richer or poorer in the short term, but you're totally right, that's precisely how a large section of the electorate will view it.
Exactly the point I was getting at. Surely Alex Salmond has access to the total liabilities that Scotland would have should we go independent. In any debate he would have to come up with a figure, and what effect that would have. Any uncertainty in financial terms is a danger. Likewise, any unionist argument must come up with similar figures.
Bottom line is how many people will choose the option that loses them money? And loss of income affects the entire economy. You spend less at the shops, so they make less profit. Staff hours reduced, so they spend less and so on. We already see the effect on the high street.
The referendum will be decided primarily on economic terms.
Complain about this comment
Did anyone hear Jackie Bird on the news there?
"Scots appear to be turning against independence, according to poll."
That's a bit of an overstatement, considering the same poll asked whether "the Scottish government should negotiate a settlement with the government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state" and recieved 42% for this, and 50% against.
Hardly the nation turning against independence, in my book.
Complain about this comment
"Either that, or Skeletor just isn't too bright"
Yup! *;o)
It just goes to show that the Unionists only weapon is propaganda.
Accusing the SNP of 'Monopolising' our national flag is the daftest thing he has said yet (and that is quite the feat). I suppose all those pesky Scottish Football and Rugby fans also stole the flag from under the noses of Nu-Labour, not to mention those crazy Runrig fans?
I would have thought that with Labour in a complete mess and with more doo-doo about to hit the fan with regards MP's second jobs, Skeletor would have some more serious work to do than spreading muck, of which I'm sure, there will be plenty.
The inconvenient truth for Murphy is that the Saltire is Scotlands' National Flag, the Scottish people are proud of it and Labour are subsequently left refusing to fly the Union flag (at least in Scotland), as they dont want to portray to the Scottish electorate that it represents what they are. Which begs the question, are the ever dwindling band of Scottish unionists, proud of the Union?
I can't even see The WLPIS using the Saltire... it just wouldn't look right with a red rose on it!
Complain about this comment
#127.
I'd like you to consider several points.
There is a contract signed by the MoD concerning the aircarft carriers. To cancel that contract the MoD would be forced to pay compensation.
I disagree and I would like you to provide figures on your Armed Forces figure. I understand Scotland to be contributing far more per head then England, but 25 percent is very doubtful but I may be wrong, and would be interested to know the exact numbers. Please consider the Republic of Ireland, why are they allowed to be apart of the British military? The chances are that Scots will have an optional choice when it comes to the military, so do not insist that bases would close because that is a basless claim.
The banking services were bailed out by the very people who benefited from the taxes that these banks brought in. Let us not pretend otherwise. If anyhting, it has shown that Scotland is not immune from the world economic problems and we should watch our step.
Complain about this comment
#127, "Scotland makes up 6% of the UK population but over 25% of the armed forces. These numbers would be unsustainable if Scotland had an independant armed forces, so bases would have to close and soldiers made redundant."
Not true. There would be nothing to stop individuals retaining their jobs in an English force... just like the Gurkhas.
"There are two 5 billion pound aircarft carriers being built in Scotland"
The UK procures many defence contracts over seas, such as the Euro-fighter partnership with the French and Germans. Why should this be any different, Scotland has the ability and expertise to bit for contracts not just in England, but Globally. Indeed, an independant Scotland could position itself as a strong market player.
"RBS was bailed out with British taxpayers money. Scotland on its own, would not of been in a position to do that"
RBS is a huge bank, England would have suffered massively if it went under. An English government would have had no option but to protect it's population from the demise of such an integral part of its' economy whether within the union or not. In any event, if Blair/Brown had not de-regulated the financial system, maybe RBS et-al would not have come to grief in an independant Scotland.
Essentially, I agree that there will be some upheval and it should be remembered that independence will be a process, not an event.
Complain about this comment
#127
The transition to independence would certainly not be without its challenges, all of which will demand to be handled with great skill and vision - however, the scenario you paint seems markedly loaded with wholesale unionist rhetoric - not least the old hoodoo about the banks being 'our responsibility', as opposed to private, international institutions with global markets and outlets well furth of Scotland.
The very idea that the Scottish taxpayer might have been expected to secure their future is preposterous.
As to oil - the only rigs inshore of any '12-mile limit' are the ones in the maintenance dockyards. In which sector of the North Sea is this 'free game' lark, and what are they doing with the 'free' oil? :-\
Complain about this comment
Looks like we a bit of fresh debate going on now. Hurrah!
Wee Scamp:
You should see Sweden's rail network, unbelievably up to date and efficient; you should also see the bridge that connects Copenhagen to Malmo; a project like that wouldn't get off the ground in the UK.
I would also suggest that both Norway and Sweden will run their defense procurement sanely! No over-spends, no poor project management, or delays. In fact, Sweden has a very healthy defense industry.
Something to aspire to for Scotland.
Re Strontiumdog007; love the user name; I was a Rogue Trooper fan, myself. Your comment about omelettes is spot on. If I were the SNP I would consider offering several potential defense and foreign policy feelers to Westminster. Trade for concessions. Take the initiative with a view to forging a a fresh approach regarding the relationships within the British Isles. Look at The Faroes; isn't Defense handled by Denmark. We could go better and offer bases (preferrably non nuclear) in return for control of Foreign policy.
Or keep Defense but tailored to a Scottish dimension; protection of fishing and natural resources (remember we will have tidal and off shore wind to consider in the future), but allow an integrated Foreign policy with England and Wales but with caveats thrown in; e.g. no insane foreign adventures like Iraq and ethical approach to the 3rd World.
Independence is going to involve horse trading, better to start now and test the water.
Complain about this comment
119 Bandages_For_Konjic
Unfortunately I disagree. The tactic of avoiding any lengthy debate concerning independence and instead using fear, doubt, veiled job threats amongst others, obfuscation and ignorance of the masses is a tried and successful tactic used since decades in contemporary UK. It mirrors quite well the role of the church in the distant past through control of information, knowledge and power.
In support of my argument there are some examples which highlight this.
Calman: Says 'No Fiscal autonomy for Scotland' as it would endanger the union. This endangers the union as the myths of who subsidises whom would be dispelled overnight and former obfuscation would be abundantly clear. Revenue collection and budgets would also be much more efficient. If Scotland was in a bad way we would be more inclined to remain in the union. However if the population see that Scotland is better off then the Union Ends and this is the conclusion Calman easily made at an early stage. He now is saying its too close to independence. Coward.
Reporting: The major press outlets in Scotland are clearly in favour of the Union and its continuance. There was very little independent investigation until recently especially on the financial side. Unionist dogma and unsubstantiated opinions go completely unchallenged. Brians 'interviews' a very recent and notable example. There is therefore very little else that people hear or see from any broadcast sources. There is no counter message except from what can filter through the cracks.
Mixed Messages: The same news is given completely different slants whether it is north or South of the border. This is very strange in a single political state. There is hardly any info about Scotland at all in the South. Neither is there any interest of course. Yet, we get a dogs breakfast about why the union is good and (recently) that devolution is the best we can expect.
Scotland does not get debate. What do we get?
We get lectured: You will have Nuclear and Trident;
Misinformed: GERS, revenue, identifiable/unidentifiable extra regio mumbo jumbo.
Pontificated, put in our place: eg. Everything any Scottish Office Minister has or will say about Scotland.
Patronised: 'I will respect Scotland',
Deceived: There is no oil, it will run out in 10 years, it is a burden, volatile, only the UK economy can handle it, Scotland cannot finacne itself.
And last but not least, belittled: Tony Blair 'Scotland would be more like Albania' etc etc.
A constant stream of negativity and one overall message. Scots get 'told', not informed, about how we need to remain in the Union. Day in, day out. The effort to keep us in the union is a constant and concerted effort.
Unfortunately, it all works.
Complain about this comment
I'm still chuckling at post 127, read it and you'll all see why immediately.
The BBC line today is that most Scots are against independence, only 38% wish it apparently.
This is the biggest propaganda push against the independence movement since the seventies. We are being force fed 'news' that is no more than highly suspect 'results' from a poll commissioned by the state broadcaster - itself dependent on the continuation of the Union in order to continue to function in Scotland.
Scots are being told what they 'want' based on the views of a tiny minority of news controllers and their interpretation of answers to questions that they alone set.
Unionist politicians are being given air time in order to agree with these spurious figures, claims are being aired that are not challenged by presenters and journalists, opinion is being presented as fact and falsehoods are being peddled
Figures from the Unionist establishment are adding their own 'seasoning' to this carefully crafted dish. Army generals tell us that Scotland will be 'vulnerable' and former PM's tell us that we need the Union.
Our national emblems are rubbished and described in terms normally associated with far right organisations. The desire to be seen as being Scottish is subtlely conflated with xenophobia, racism or facism.
Labour party spokesmen/women are now routinely to be heard describing the use of the national flag as evidence of intolerance. Anyone displaying the flag who is not of a Unionist persuasion is to be demonised. Interviews are being broadcast where individuals are being asked to justify and explain why they are Scottish and not British.
Welcome to Scotland 2009.
Complain about this comment
I am seething with rage !
How dare the BBC news report their pathetic poll of 1010 people as turning against independence.
Does anyone know from whence they dredged the 1010 folk?
John Smith House?
I reckon I could gather 1010 to alter their results with ease.
One thousand and ten, that proves so much does'nt it Brian?
I want a referendum , then I'll accept the results.
Until then , BBC and CO you can get raffled.
And don't use your results of pathetic polls as a story on national tv.
Utterly bent , utterly beyond risible and I am utterly beyond disgust.
Complain about this comment
#105. At 10:04am on 30 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147
I was agreeing with him about the lack of debate!
What we need are some Unionists who will take your list and try to use them to justify the Union! Then we can have a debate.
Complain about this comment
#127 "RBS was bailed out with British taxpayers money."
It's a British bank though. RBS paid very substantial taxes to the Treasury - not Scotland. We'd of been a great deal richer.
The collapse of RBS is an argument for independence.
We can be debt free in five years (source: oilofscotland) taking control of our resources, whilst the UK drowns in debt from here to eternity.
Complain about this comment
Murphy is annoyed about the flags issue, because Labour took the Internationalist view then favoured by socialists, of a homogenous world where national identities were not just an irrelevance but a hindrance to the progress towards a workers paradise. Unfortunately they forgot to ask the "workers" what they actually wanted. The grand international scheme is rapidly falling apart because the one size fits all style has been shown not to work. It's not about real freedom or empowerment, you can have it if you agree, but if you don't you're not mature enough to understand.
Complain about this comment
A question for everyone.
Am I being too cynical in thinking there is something fishy about the two aircraft carriers story.
We are getting the headline like this one in The Herald,
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2517267.0.Clyde_carrier_costs_put_jobs_in_jeopardy.php
Is this being set up so in the run up to the Westminster election the BBC can run a series of stories about "Jim Murphy saves 2000 jobs on the Clyde and in Fife" we could not have saved these jobs said union official I.A.M. Mc Numptie without Jim fighting for us. Jim said it was not easy but I always fight for Scotland.
I always thought that Labour "gave away" these carrier contracts without extracting the propaganda value from them.
Complain about this comment
RBS, HBOS and the rest were companies owned by their shareholders, not the state. What normally happens if a company goes bust? Usually, if there is a viable business, another company comes along and takes the place of the company which has failed due to it's errors. In this case depositors would have been protected and the viable business taken up. All the toxic loans and debt would be sorted out by administrators and a settlement reached. Instead the taxpayer has stepped in to bail out some very reckless businessmen, because Global was worried about being blamed and looking like a dummy
Complain about this comment
Hi, has anyone seen the way all the questions on this survey were put ?
Does anyone actually know someone who filled it in or answered the questions ?
Still nothing positive from the Unionists , just more scare story's!
Still waiting on the "first minister ate my hamster" story or
"Nicola sturgeon is really an alien" story or any other stupid utterance's.
Sid
Complain about this comment
oldnat:
It seems to me that, where the question of altering the status quo arises, it is for those who seek to make the change to make a case justifying it, not for those who oppose it to produce a defence.
On the wider point of why so few "Unionists" bother to post here, I suspect it is because, no matter how reasoned, restrained or polite their post, they are inevitably rewarded by some inteperate replies from some. There is no doubt that this blog has been colonised by some nationalist supporters, among the more moderate nationalist posters, who will not accept anyone airing views with which they disagree. Polite debate is to be encouraged; offensive rants and name-calling are not. Just trawl backwards through this thread and you may see what I mean. That is not to say that there have not been one or two "Unionist" posters who seem deliberately to spray petrol onto the flames, and they are just as bad. It all leaves many people feeling there are better places to express a view.
Politics is by definition the presentation of opposing views. If everyone on here accepted that theirs is not the only respectable and honourable one, we may see a better reflection here of public opinion in Scotland (and elsewhere). As long as posters are treated as idiots, and worse, traitors, if they reject the nationalist ambition for Scotland in favour of something else, we are unlikely to see that. In which case continue to talk amongst yourselves.
Complain about this comment
132 BoNGO_1 et al Aircraft carriers
Its only the hulls that are being built in Scotland - the cheapest part of a warship - the really expensive bits like communciations and electronics, propulsion systems and aircraft are bieng built in England - I don't knowe the figures but i'd wager that the Scottish share of the 5 billion is relatively small. If this was a Scottish warship being built (of whatever type) we could source the equipment and agree joint manufacturing contracts like other smaller countries do with aircaft like the F16 - gaining access to technology, R&D and other contracts.
117 wee_ninny You've hit the nail on the head wityh the strategic importanmce of the Iceland Greenland gap - its probably one of the reasons the London establishment want to reatin the Union - having those strategic bases in scotland gives them more clout with the US - if we were independent it would be our clout - to use as we wished
Complain about this comment
Yet more desperation in The Telegraph. Independence is closer than we think. You can almost smell the fear coming off the page. The comments are good though.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/5695063/Lets-give-Alex-Salmond-and-his-separatists-the-fight-they-pretend-to-want.html
Complain about this comment
The bailout of RBS was a godsend for the unionists. Gave them a chance to give us (some of) our own oil money back and talk about how benevolent the almighty union was. It was right up there with using anti-terror legislation to destroy Iceland's economy as a cheap political points-scoring excersise
The Westminster government will do anything to discredit nationalism, lie, cheat, steal, and they wouldn't be that desperate if they didn't neeed us, nor would they actually subsidize a seperate country that wants independence for hundreds of years, thats just stupid.
Only answer is they need us, we don't neeed them so batten down the hatches and pepare for an avalanche of bile and slander over the next year followed by an Iranian Style referendum which will prove 350% of scots favour giving up devolution, self government, freedom and prosperity and becoming a race of serfs for our London Masters.
P.S. If your looking for an evil, amoral propaganda mastermind Karl Rove is out of a job just now, he seems just the guy to help the unionists out...
Complain about this comment
#145, I was quoting #127 with this - "There are two 5 billion pound aircarft carriers being built in Scotland"
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
It's strange. You first start your comment complaining about certain independence supporters ranting and name calling, then you accept that some unionists do the exact same thing. Overall you accept that neither side behave well.
Then your second paragraph is a direct attack on nationalists and independence supporters. Feel free to correct me if I am wrong, but have you not came onto these blogs and accused Scottish National Party supporters to be anti-English and anti-English party itself?
Would you accept that you are just the same as the nationalists who are immature on these boards by accusing the SNP supporters of being anti-English, all the time?
You are acting like a child. You are trying to address quite an important issue that occure son these boards, yet your posts are always the same. SNP this, that. They're bad, your good.
Should your opinion not be balanced in this case to keep the high moral ground?
Complain about this comment
144 MalcolmW2
"It seems to me that, where the question of altering the status quo arises, it is for those who seek to make the change to make a case justifying it, not for those who oppose it to produce a defence."
Quite true. However, once the balance of opinion has moved so significantly towards the alteration of the status quo, it seems strange for those who support it to stay so strangely quiet! (Not that I mind, of course).
However, I was responding to northhighlander's complaint that there was no debate, and offering an explanation. As to the more rabid posters of any persuasion, I tend to skim over their contributions, as I am unlikely to learn anything new, rather simply to see a repetition of assertions.
One should be able to make positive evidence-based arguments for the UK Union. That would result in intelligent debate. (I'm sometimes tempted to present them myself, just to get a debate going!)
I think that we are past the stage when those supporting the Union can continue to expect the status quo to survive when much of the reason for that status has gone. If you haven't seen it, Have a look at "Thatcher and the Scots" on the BBC Parliament site http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b00g9qr8/Thatcher_and_the_Scots/. Non partisan, and an interesting analysis of how the institutions of "Britishness" were dismantled under that PM.
Complain about this comment
Anyone know anything about William Bain, selected to fight (Free) Martin(a)'s seat? (gedddit?)
Have you read "Building Britain's Future?" Aside from the introduction on page 3; Go to page 24, then scroll down to National strategy, regional expertise, local delivery part 4.28.
This reads like a purely English agenda, although the publication is pitched as a UK national document at the introduction and certainly sold like that through the media.
In short; the way Westminster policy is pitched almost acknowledges that there is a seperation that is growing.
Complain about this comment
#144 quote; "It seems to me that, where the question of altering the status quo arises, it is for those who seek to make the change to make a case justifying it, not for those who oppose it to produce a defence."
Those who oppose change are actively attempting to avoid having to defend the status quo by refusing a referendum.
Complain about this comment
#46 Neil
"In fact, ScaraBraeSingleMalt at post 14 gave what is probably the best argument against staying in the union - what happens when the oil runs out?"
Turning that on its head, will Westminster be so keen for Scotland to stay within the Union when the oil does finally run dry? What will become of the pro-Union movement inside Scotland when Westminster decides that Scotland has served its purpose and is no longer required?
There again, I'm forgetting, Westminster will always want somewhere to house its WMDs and Nuclear power stations along with the alcohol duty from our whisky sales that flows straight into the Treasury's coffers but, strangely, despite having the wors 'Scotch' on the label, doesn't count as taxes raised in Scotland. Perhaps the Scottish Unionists won't have the entire rug pulled out from beneath them.
Complain about this comment
Ah the wonders of modern democracy (Westminster style)!
"The Vice-Chamberlain of the Household reported to the House, on behalf of the Prime Minister, that the address of 22 June 2009 to Her Majesty, praying Her Majesty that she will be most graciously pleased to confer some signal mark of her royal favour upon the right hon.
Michael J. Martin for his eminent services during the period in which he has, with such distinguished ability and dignity presided in the Chair of this House, has been presented to Her Majesty, and Her Majesty has been pleased to receive the same very graciously, and has commanded me to acquaint this House that Her Majesty is desirous, in compliance with the request of her faithful Commons, to confer upon the right hon. Michael J. Martin some signal mark of her royal favour."
Doesn't that make all you Brits out there so proud to live in the 18th century?
Complain about this comment
94. At 07:00am on 30 Jun 2009, ShepBushie wrote:
There has never been a better time than now for Scotland to gain its independance with a Scottish PM driving the charge."
Response: Well I could disagree, the better time would have been long long ago.
"The Scots have only ever considered themselves Scotish, never British."
Response: Not true, my Granda was a proud scots man, but was a big promoter of the "Buy British" era. That is a phenomenon of more recent times for reasons often highlighted on this board.
"I have been to 60 countries in the world but never to Scotland."
Response: I've been to 20-30 (lost count after a while)including England. Pretty decent folk I found in the whole, that more often than not changes for the worse when they get up here as they get their larid of the land hats on.
"The Scots for some reason hate the English so I never wanted to go there."
Response: Refer back to last response.
"The English should all club together, buy all the Scots in England a rail ticket and repatriate them all, including Gordon McBrown.
Then quickly dig up the rail line, build the wall higher and only let them back in on an expensive daily visa (then they wont come)."
Response: Well you've got me there...duh! Except, NO we don't want him either!
"After that we dont have to listen to them whingeing on about the English anymore."
Response: Ah..comon..pls god.
******************************
Footnote: With friends like this who needs enemies? This is just a typical example why being ruled from westminster is bad bad influence man.
Was thinking, tsokay al stop quick. But if Wales, then Scotland, then Ireland and lastly England (because they have been calling the shots in a UK) called the shots for say 5-10 year or so that would maybe be a Union. And whats this nonsense about England needing a Parliament, can't quite get that one, I thot it was called westminster?
Complain about this comment
I would like to echo the point made earlier about the reason why more Unionists don't post on here being because of the vitriolic abuse, illogical conspiracy theories and general unwillingness to participate in open debate.
I think there are several points of importance here.
The first is the different outcome in the poll results from the different wording of the question. When asked straight out there were more people against than there were when asking Salmonds "negotiate a settlement".
Now obviously Salmond wrote that question with the knowledge that it would win over a few less than brigth voters by pretending it's something other than what it is.
Also, obviously the labour party and others will advocate the use of harsh words to try and achieve the same.
Whatever happens if there is ever a referendum on this subject it is important that it must be conducted openly, with a fair, non-loaded, question like;
"Do you agree that Scotland should leave the United Kingdom to become a completely independent country in which the Scottish Government takes sole responsibility for all Scottish Affairs"
Haggle over the wording a little bit but I think things should be as honest as possible.
The second one of interest to me is this idea of a multi-question referendum.
I could not think of a more ludicrous idea if I tried.
Why Salmond supports this I'm not really sure, as a third option would almost definitely win. I suspect it's because he knows he doesn't have a chance of winning and hopes he can use it as a claim of "progress" to justify his continued campaigning on the subject. I don't know. The point however is that there will never be serious debate about this third option in such a climate. It will get voted for by all of the people who aren't vehemently in either camp and get past through as the compromise option. That's the worst reason I can possibly think of for change. The Calman commission changes are serious, practical, changes in the way that certain matters are run. They don't need to be voted on by the electorate, get a majority vote in both parliaments for the changes and that's more than enough.
The final thing which has really angered me this week is the SNPs behaviour over Trident. We elect our MSPs to deal with the responsibilities that MSPs have to deal with, this does not include defence. We elect our MPs to deal with the responsibilities that MPs have to deal with, this does include defence.
The scenario can therefore come about that a constituency can have an MP from one part and an MSP from another party because they agree with one on domestic issues and another on foreign issues. As such the MSP has no right to claim to be more representative over such things.
A good example of this is, wait for it, Argyll and Bute. The constituency has an anti-nuclear weapons MSP and a pro-nuclear weapons MP.
Given that we elected these men to deal with their own remits, how dare our MSP stand up and claim to represent us on an issue that we elected someone else (with a different opinion to him) to deal with.
Outside of the constituency in question why is this a "Scottish" matter? Clearly it affects the people of the west of Scotland, but they overwhelmingly voted for MPs that support Faslane. Why do the people of Aberdeenshire, or the Shetland Islands have more of a right to a say about this than the people of Newcastle or Carlisle who would be much more affected by any potential problems?
Even more hilariously, why are Nationalists willing to demand that policy should be changed on the basis of polling evidence (I assume thats where their Scots don't want Trident arguments come from) in this instance, but aren't willing to listen to the fact that they've never had 50+ percent support for their cause which, given the number of polls conducted should probably tell you something.
Complain about this comment
2. At 1:20pm on 29 Jun 2009, johncmcdonald wrote:
I'm a nationalist and if someone asked me if defence and foreign affairs should be a Westminster responsibility I would agree. It would be plain stupid for a devolved parliament in Edinburgh to have these powers. Can it be any surprise that most people would agree.
However, ask people if an independent Edinburgh parliament should have these powers - like every other independent parliament - then the answer would be quite different."
You had me worried for a minute there. So I take it you'll be a yes vote then?
Complain about this comment
#148 My mistake I meant #127 & then #132 re possible spin off for Sxcotland from our own defence contracts as in your #132 - must be the hot weather
Complain about this comment
13. At 2:17pm on 29 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
Under independence, we have to accept that Scotland will be a minor player with foreign affairs. yes, we can push for policies but I don't want us to be throwing money all over the place until we sort out some of the problems at home."
Blah blah blah blah blah....
I OK neily, we tak yir point! I just can't wait till we "have" to accept it. Oh and don't worry at least will nae be throwing it away on Trident!
Complain about this comment
141. At 2:31pm on 30 Jun 2009, dubbieside wrote:
A question for everyone.
Am I being too cynical in thinking there is something fishy about the two aircraft carriers story?"
Probably not, what about the timing of the devolution prog and veterans day?
Complain about this comment
Thomas Porter:
"You are acting like a child. You are trying to address quite an important issue that occure son these boards, yet your posts are always the same. SNP this, that. They're bad, your good"
I could have predicted your response! I think that you make my point for me!
1) I have never accused the SNP of being anti-English, just some of their more extreme supporters. I am neither for nor against the party, or independence for that matter, (although my bias is towards continued union) and have never posted otherwise. My post at 144(read it again) does not criticise the SNP or its supporters, merely those individuals on this blog who use personal attacks on those who disagree as a default position. As far as I am aware they are not official spokesmen for the SNP, although sometimes a new reader could be forgiven for thinking otherwise, so I don't apportion blame to the party. I was addressing oldnat's complaint about lack of debate. Your reply is a classic example of why many don't bother.
2) It is possible to enter into debate without being offensive. You really should try it. That would exclude comments such as the one above. Calling someone a child because you don't agree with their point of view is exactly what I was talking about. Indeed, a good many of your posts display an intolerance and naivety that betrays your lack of maturity.
Like it or not, I am exactly the sort of person that you need to persuade if you are to win an independence vote - something that will never be achieved by reading insult into every post and responding with intemperate replies. That just makes the undecided voter feel that the nationalist cause is populated by bigots. I know that to be untrue, but that is hardly the point. And before you bother to overheat your keyboard by replying, read what has been written, think about it, then read it again. I suspect that you are in the habit of speed-reading and often miss the point being made.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#156.
The question of the referendum should reflect the reality of the situation. The Scottish Parliament has no authority and the wording of the Scottish Governments proposal reflects that. The wording is asking the public, if the Scottish Government can negociate a settlement.
I would also disagree that a referendum should happen for the Calman commission. Scotland voted for a Parliament with certain powers, then again for tax raising powers. Scotland did not vote for powers that Calman proposes. It is clear that Scots would like more powers, but does Calman represent that? You can not bundle together a few ideas and expect Scots to accept it. It was not even in other groups manifesto promises, and the sole reason we have Calman is because of the Scottish National Party. Gordon Brown tried to retreat from the idea before it actually took off, remember?
The real worry is that Calman looses. I personally see Calman as useless that will bring no difference to Scotland. If put forward in a referendum the unionists will have to argue why it's better then the status qou and independence, and I would be suprised if that can be done successfully. I'd be amzed if Scots voted for it, more tax raising powers that will never be used along with being able to set our own speed limits.
Final point. It should be no suprise that the Scottish National Party are prepared to take on trident, but are they alone? No, and they have a right to deal with trident by using the powers they have at the Scottish Parliament. That's the plan and no amount of spin an paint the picture of the nationalists simply picking a fight.
But we've seen several by-elections in Scotland, what did the other local parties campaign on? Many campaigned on local issues despite the elections being for Westminister... no wonder the unionists have kept quite in recent weeks when they continue to comment in such a way that shows them simply as anti-SNP chip on the shoulder lot.
Complain about this comment
#156 quote; "A good example of this is, wait for it, Argyll and Bute. The constituency has an anti-nuclear weapons MSP and a pro-nuclear weapons MP."
...not for long mate, soon they will both be anti-nuclear!
Complain about this comment
Thomas
I note that you haven't actually replied to my argument, pointing out that my MSP does not represent my constituency on Defence issues whereas my MP does. As such my MSP has no right to claim to be representative of me. He can say whatever he wants as a private citizen, using the Scottish Parliament however is using a privilege which we have given him for other reasons for his own personal agenda. This is wrong.
Complain about this comment
As for the point about the Calman commission. It's a perfectly fair point to say that any changes to the Scotland Act should be done by referenda but I think really that sometimes it's just a bit un-necessary.
It certainly should not be in the same vote/debate for reasons which you have just articulated. Who would campaign for it? A fair, reasoned debate requires all sides to be equally heard.
That said I don't really see why we need a debate on Calman. Obviously all the conspiracy theorists on here see it as a ploy to try and stop their 30% majority support for independence but, in the real world, it was just a commission looking at the best way for the status quo to work, looking back at how well it has worked over the last ten years. Whatever the reasons it's a tidying up exercise.
The only thing of note in it is the tax raising powers which I'll deal with in a second.
Firstly, can we all agree that the Scottish people don't need, or want, a vote on whether the Scottish Parliament deals with Speed Limits or Pension levels or whether Westminster deals with whatever little thing was moved back the other way?
If so then the only real debate as I see it is whether we change the tax powers of the Scottish Parliament. In my view we already voted for this, in the original Scotland Act referendum. It's just that the way it was implemented made it effectively lame duck. I don't actually know how good this current policy is, but frankly I think that it's best if the MSPs and MPs sit down and have a proper debate themselves, because this isn't an issue, it's a means of implementing an issue. We already voted for it, why do so again?
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
#161.
There was no debate, I agreed with the point you made. I disagreed in which the manner you went about expressing that point. You accepted that nationalists and unionists alike are both to blame when it comes to the immature comments on these boards and the offensive comments. I was with you there.
Then...
"As long as posters are treated as idiots, and worse, traitors, if they reject the nationalist ambition for Scotland in favour of something else, we are unlikely to see that."
I felt that this was simply an attack on nationalists. You kept a balanced approach and many here would agree with you, then you lost it. You can kick up a fuss and say that I am being offensive, but I call it as I see it. In this situation I felt you were acting as a child and unwilling to accept that unionists are an issue too.
"Indeed, a good many of your posts display an intolerance and naivety that betrays your lack of maturity."
I am still young, I do not have the experience or education levels that many here have gained throughout their lives. It can hardly be used as ammo against another person, is it my fault that I am the way I am? In 10 years time if I am the way I am still then we may have a problem.
By the way am I one of those extreme supporters that you spoke of? I remeber you implying that I was against the HBOS takeover because it was apparently being taken over by an English bank? In fact you said that I welcomed the takeover by anyone apart from an English bank?
Complain about this comment
Quick on on the banks.
The Government dare not let a major bank fail, since many public sector organisations use banks to pay their employees, as do private companies.
If a bank is allowed to fail, then you have a potential nightmare scenario where business literally stops.
And can you imagine the reaction of the unions if tens of thousands of their members did not get paid?
Complain about this comment
#156 NCA999
I'm afraid that your comments on the proposed referendum wording are totally wrong. Any referendum requires to be within the competences of the Scottish Parliament, and not deal with reserved powers.
The constitution is a reserved power, and I imagine it took some very clever lawyers to come up with a form of words that would not be struck down.
Complain about this comment
#167 Neil_Small147
And if you want to be really, really scared, how about the Government going bust? No pensions, no benefits, unpaid nurses, local government ( just how much does the rates actually raise as against the money from Gov't? ). Seems ridiculous? Then why won't Global let anyone else see the books? You always suspect the bookkeeper who doesn't take a holiday so no-one else can get to see the books when they are not there. So why are we not having a Spending Review? My antennae are twitching and I have spent a lifetime looking at the seamy side of money and it's misuse.
Complain about this comment
#156 NCA999
"a multi-question referendum. - I could not think of a more ludicrous idea if I tried."
What an unimaginative person you are! Most of us could think of many more ludicrous ideas :-)
I have no idea what the thinking of the Scottish Cabinet is, but from the point of view of those wanting to force a particular concept through, the best way is to force it through without asking the people (the current Unionist stance on Calman), then to allow a vote on opposite stances (thus polarising choice - c/f European politics in the 1930s, or UK politics in the later 20th century), then to allow a wider choice of options for the people to express preferences on. That's an unusual concept called democracy.
Complain about this comment
167. At 5:55pm on 30 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
That's precisely my point Neil, very few businesses just stop trading. They go through a process generally over a period of many months. If a company goes into administration, the debts are frozen and business continues where possible, while a decision is made on it's viability as a going concern. As it is the major banks have been partly nationalised, we haven't actually lost anything, just taken a share in their future earnings for digging them out of a hole.
Complain about this comment
#156 NCA999
"The final thing which has really angered me this week is the SNPs behaviour over Trident. We elect our MSPs to deal with the responsibilities that MSPs have to deal with, this does not include defence. We elect our MPs to deal with the responsibilities that MPs have to deal with, this does include defence."
Not good for your health to get angry!
For those who believe that Scotland is not a separate polity, and should only think about those issues devolved within a Scottish context. For those of us who believe that Scotland is a separate polity and is entitled to take a communal view on all matters, then such comment is normal. Don't get angry just because everyone doesn't share your view of the world!
Complain about this comment
All anyone really needs to know about the BBC poll is the fact that the three unionist parties are still running scared of the Scottish people. If they thought the results on independence were credible the ballot papers would be getting printed as we speak.
When will the BBC stop pussy footing about with the unionists and ask them straight "why are you so terrified of democracy" what is your fear of people having a vote.
Will anyone in tomorrow nights "invited" audience be allowed to ask that question?
Complain about this comment
#165 NCA999
An interesting post - and pure Calman!
He specifically said that his proposals should not be seen as a package, and the SNP suggested that those on which their was all-party agreement (as you mentioned) should be immediately implemented. This was turned down by the Unionist parties - who ignored Calman (for some strange! reason) on the issue, and declared his proposals to be an indivisible package.
I'd be interested to hear your views on whether the SNP and yourself are the reasonable people, or if it's the Unionist parties - with whom you clearly disagree.
Complain about this comment
@ Thomas_Porter #62
A lack of arrogance isn't your strong point obviously. I don't know if you are a Scot, but your obvious sense of hubris points to you being one.
FYI I've stood in elections with an English Parliament as a core policy. The English Democrats have just made a breakthrough by having a Mayor elected in Doncaster. Not bad seeing as they have only stood in elections for 5 years.
I've experienced the kind of censorship surrounding an English Parliament, particularly by the BBC. In 2007 I went to Edinburgh as part of an edition of Newsnight on the Act of Union. The whole programme was from a Scottish viewpoint. Robin Tilbrook was invited to speak, then told he was not wanted because, allegedly, there were too many men. Robin suggested the English Democrats vice chairman Christine Constable attend in his stead. They could hardly refuse. Scilla Cullen, chairman of the Campaign for an English Parliament was invited only to be told, after arriving, there were too many English people there (you could have fooled me on that observation). So Newsnight were simultaneously sexist and racist.
When the producers were asked to do a similar programme from an English viewpoint centred on polls showing most people wanting an English Parliament, we were told "not a snowball's chance in hell" or words to that effect.
The BBC has pushed the Government's agenda for England's regional carve-up, and this is even written into the BBC's Royal Charter.
The Welsh never pushed for a devolved assembly, but were given a referendum on one nevertheless. 50% of a 50% turnout voted "yes" so the Welsh had an assembly established on the basis of 25% of the electorate wanting one. Meanwhile the English are denied a referendum even though around 65% want an English Parliament.
The ONLY reason MPs at Westminster oppose an English Parliament is because one would put them all out of a job, just as the Scottish Parliament made them redundant in Scotland.
Before you smugly and sneeringly tell others to "grow up" check your facts, otherwise you come across as a smug, sneering Macakeneatit.
Complain about this comment
I do hope that NCA999 is going to come back on the various responses to him/her. That would be real debate!
Complain about this comment
169. At 7:10pm on 30 Jun 2009, handclapping wrote:
You always suspect the bookkeeper who doesn't take a holiday so no-one else can get to see the books when they are not there.
I was just thinking the same thing earlier, but discarded the idea. I'm not sure Global actually knows/cares how bad it is. Either that or going on past history, they've lost the books.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#164.
"I note that you haven't actually replied to my argument, pointing out that my MSP does not represent my constituency on Defence issues whereas my MP does. As such my MSP has no right to claim to be representative of me. He can say whatever he wants as a private citizen, using the Scottish Parliament however is using a privilege which we have given him for other reasons for his own personal agenda. This is wrong."
I have no problem with MSPs or MPs expressing their opinion. In fact the Conservatives believe that the Westminster Parliament should also be debating on devolved issues, why not? It's simply a matter of opinion and at the end of the day, they've got no powers to change the situation and the situation will carry on regardless what MSPs or MPs say.
"That said I don't really see why we need a debate on Calman. ...in the real world, it was just a commission looking at the best way for the status quo to work, looking back at how well it has worked over the last ten years. Whatever the reasons it's a tidying up exercise."
It's important because I need to be assured that the Calman commission will not bring a bag of problems. I personally do not see it as an improvement, but full of half-baked ideas. Is it a tidying up exercise? Are you suggesting this is it and no more? Is this the end result for devolution, for you?
"Firstly, can we all agree that the Scottish people don't need, or want, a vote on whether the Scottish Parliament deals with Speed Limits or Pension levels or whether Westminster deals with whatever little thing was moved back the other way?"
I disagree. Scotland voted for this Parliament, with these powers and at the moment without our consent these powers are either being removed or changed. Is this what we voted for? The Scots had to agree to tax raising powers (vary 3p in pound), why are we being handed more? Did the small print include that it may be changed in the near future? I would never agree to handover local planning permission if Westminster decided to take it back, so I am not going to accept anything else unless the public backs it.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat
I would yes make my point again that we should debate the administrative changes outlined in the Calman report and if both the MPs and MSPs are agreed, which I think they really are, then we should make appropriate changes.
I don't think it's an indivisible package no.
My point, to go to all those "oh you're evil and denying the people a voice" posts, is that a three option referendum isn't actually that democratic. It stifles debate about the main issues. Who would be running the campaign for the status quo? Would the SNP support both options two and three? If you had all parties advocating one option, and one party advocating the other, there would be absolutely no debate whatsoever on the increased powers point.
What I said was that if we really did have to have a referendum on the change in structure stuff then it should be a completely seperate one. I think you would find that once that point had been agreed that none of the political parties would really consider the proposals to be serious enough to warrant a referendum, but if thats what the majority of MSPs want to do then thats their choice.
To dubbieside, you call a referendum when there is evidence of majority support for a cause that you wish to gain legitimacy for. There is no such evidence and there never has been. If it really was a pressing issue for the people of Scotland then the SNP would win more than half of the seats, but they haven't done so. A referendum isn't about the debate, the SNP have been having their debate for 40-50 years and in that entire time they've still never had a single poll in which more than 50% of the country have said they want to leave the UK and thats not including the 20% of our population that live and work in England who are probably good advocates of the benefits of Great Britain (side issue).
If the SNP win a majority of seats then they get to push through their manifesto commitment, until then the policy should reflect the commitments of the majority of MSPs, as we elected them to do so.
Finally to your point about Trident oldnat. It's got absolutely nothing to do with whether you consider Scotland to be a righteous political entity or not. The fact is that we aren't, when it comes to defence. So long as the country keeps electing more unionist MPs and MSPs, and continues to clearly show that it has no interest in leaving the country then this is the way it is.
Q1. My question about what effect this has on the people of Aberdeen that it doesn't have on the people of Newcastle is still un-answered.
Q2. Secondly I have a really simple question for you. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for a person to vote for one person as an MP who supports Trident, knowing that thats the person who will have to deal with it, and another for their MSP who doesn't support Trident, knowing that this MSP represents their views on health, but isn't responsible for Trident?
Yes or no, really simple.
I know that you guys think that Scotland should be independent. Unfortunately the rest of us Scots don't. The point of a debate isn't to state our opinion repeatedly at each other, it's to discuss the issue. I've made some points, particularly a couple of questions, and would appreciate it if people would actually engage with those points rather than responding with "oh but Scotland is an independent country" and thinking that rhetoric can be disguised as actual arguments.
Complain about this comment
StephenGash
I think it's an interesting point that you raise and I would say first off that I definitely support in principle the idea of federalising the UK, with regional parliaments, like our devolved assemblies already but extended properly, all holding roughly the same powers and a clear delineation over whether it is the national government or the regional government which has the power.
With regards to an English Parliament. I support the right of the people of England to have that if they want but to me it doesn't seem particularly purposeful. The success of things like the Welsh Assembly and Scottish Parliament have been their ability to localise how they deal with things. England makes up the majority of the UK and so you would basically have a second parliament doing exactly the same thing that Westminster does just now, ergo paying two people for the same job.
I get that the Regional Assembly idea was opposed in the North East, but I really don't think the idea has been dealt with properly and is worthy of future consideration. Thoughts?
Complain about this comment
#101 Oldnat
Couldn't agree more. I would dearly love to see some unionist posters bring some real ideas to the table here and open up some actual debate. If you're out there, we'll no bite, come hae a blether!
Complain about this comment
#175 StephenGash
Sorry mate! That's what happens to minority political groups - no matter how valid your argument! Those of us who have been campaigning for a Scottish Parliament since the 1960s, don't need the reminder of the oppressive behaviour of the British State.
I'm afraid you need to to what we did. Form branches, raise money, develop arguments and policies, pound the streets and persuade people.
We are generous folk, and quite happy to give you a leg up by focussing the question for your people - "Whither the UK?". Would have been nice to have had some support for the idea of national Parliaments from south of the border over the last 50 years though!!
Complain about this comment
#156 NCA999
Are you sure that your comments reflect the reality of our electoral process? I do not think the stance of the Labour candidate at Glenrothes on Trident even came into the frame. The battle was won and lost over Fife Council's change to care charges. I think your claim that We elect our MPs to deal with the responsibilities that MPs have to deal with, this does include defence. is more theory than practice, otherwise where would such urban myths as the monkey with the red/blue rosette come from?
The other major problem with your analysis is that, even if every minister, lawyer, professor, councillor, MP and MSP in Scotland was to oppose Trident, Westminster can still insist on it although it may be for such a banal reason that the head of a political party wants to be assured of a place at what s/he thinks is the "top table" in his/her political world view. Who cares about the IPPR review or the taxes voters must pay, I want my seat on the Security Council. Not good.
Scots could do better if they put Scotland first; charity begins at home.
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#175.
Do you believe that by using 'Macakeneatits', you are expressing yourself in a suitable and mature manner? It's not that I disagree with your views or opinions, so why the immaturity? It appears you have the wee chip-on-the-shoulder. I don't know either what facts you expect me to search for, you still come accross as childish.
;-)
Complain about this comment
#179
"I know that you guys think that Scotland should be independent. Unfortunately the rest of us Scots don't."
So, you come out with this ridiculous distortion of reality, trying to make it sound as if a small minority of Scots support independence, whilst "the rest of us Scots" don't, and you expect people to engage in proper debate with you?
Why don't you start by showing a bit of genuine respect for the Scots who don't believe what you do?
Start by asking yourself how on earth the "small cabal of true believers" as you clearly want to falsely portray nationalists, voted in an SNP government at the last Holyrood election?!
On second thoughts, since your many distorted and unreasonable posts in the past show you are incapable of showing such genuine respect, don't bother!
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#175.
"The ONLY reason MPs at Westminster oppose an English Parliament is because one would put them all out of a job, just as the Scottish Parliament made them redundant in Scotland."
I do not see why, Scottish MP's are still paid the same, but do less work and an English Parliament would receive powers similar to the Scottish Parliament. Then Westminster will still take overall control on many issues. The Westminster Parliament will remain will overall power, will they then decide to sack themselves?
How do you see the future? Do you see Scotland and England as seperate nations or do you simply want England to be treated like Scotland?
Complain about this comment
#179, 180 NCA999
It may be difficult to have an argument with you, as you appear to hold opposite views simultaneously, viz If the SNP win a majority of seats then they get to push through their manifesto commitment, until then the policy should reflect the commitments of the majority of MSPs, as we elected them to do so. and I get that the Regional Assembly idea was opposed in the North East, but I really don't think the idea has been dealt with properly and is worthy of future consideration.
Can you explain to us why you think Scots may not consider their next steps whereas Geordies should be required to?
Complain about this comment
# 180. NCA999
Polls show that 78%+ of the English want at the very least English votes on English laws. Every poll has shown only 9-16% want English Regions.
The Tories started regionalisation under Major (most troubles go back to the Tories) who gerrymandered the borders to suit them.
Labour regerrymandered the borders to suit them. We don't want regions, but we have them, but we want an English Parliament, but don't have one.
Any subdivision of England, after an English Parliament, is a matter for the English with no input from the rest of the UK. The English were never consulted about the devolved governments for the rest of the UK, so I consider the opinions of 'fellow Brits' outside of England to be valuless concerning England's home rule.
Nobody outside the mind-numbing slaves of Labour doctrine identifies with the regions of England. I've not heard anybody yet describe tthemself as a "North Westerner". The English identify most with their counties, but stand together as Englishmen. This is exactly why EU-philic parties are hellbent on abolishing the counties and indeed, England itself.
I fail to see why England should be carved up and eradicated for the sake of a laughably named 'Union'. Scotland could just as easily been regionalised into Highlands, Lowlands and the Isles.
In fact an honest approach to regionalising the UK would have been to abolish the nations and regionalise accordingly. However, the Scots wouldn't have that, but they demand the English do. If England is regionalised and disappears as intended, then Scotland and Wales go independent (within the EU, naturally, they don't have the guts to go it alone), that will leave the English powerless and stateless. This is the intention for the most EU-sceptic nation, of course.
Like the Union itself, devolution was founded on dishonesty and continues dishonestly with the wishes of the English people continually being suppressed.
I'm a firm believer that the expenses scandal is merely the final straw for the English people. We have seen post-devolution Britain discriminating againbst the English in healthcare, education, social welfare, indeed everything. We have had regionalisation imposed against our will. We have seen council taxes rise when the rest of the UK has theirs frozen. Not content with this, MPs see fit to fiddle their council tax claims.
We are fed up with Scotsmen disadvantaging us to ensure their own countryfolk benefit. England is not represented directly in Europe or on the British-Irish Council. The latter distributes English taxes across the UK without a single Englishman sat at the table.
Wgere is the BBC in all this? Asking the Scots what they want. What is the BBC for? Most of its money comes from England, but it robustly ignores and suppresses English opinion.
Complain about this comment
#179 NCA999
Thanks for the response. Good to have a debate at last!
I know the mechanics might be difficult since, on the constitutional issue, we only have two stances available from our four main political parties, but isn't democracy actually being stifled by the alliance of Lab/Con/LD on the constitution?
Judging by the BBC poll (and I was surprised by the extent to which large number of Scots who seem to have embraced "Devolution Max") the majority(?) wish of the Scottish people is being denied expression through the vehicle of any party.
I see no reason why democracy should be limited by the machinations of the Unionist parties. If they want to be as one on this issue, let them be that.
The Scottish Parliament does not have the powers to organise a referendum the way it should be done, but my preference would be to have a referendum which represented the broad strands of opinion that can be discerned, and to have a run-off referendum between the top two.
Options to be -
1. Complete Independence (outside the EU)
2. Independence within Europe
3. Fiscal Autonomy (Defence and Foreign affairs to be shared with the rest of the UK)
4. The status quo with minor adjustments(Calman)
5. Abolition of Scottish institutions (including the Parliament), and full merger with the UK.
I have a serious dislike of having my choices limited by various groups of politicians. Let us have a real debate, and move forward on the wishes of the people!
Complain about this comment
As usual these debates on "independence" are akin to the 15th century vatican debates around "how many angels can dance upon the end of a pin".
This debate is meaningless without reference to the European Union. Where's the independence for a country that cannot even determine its' own tax policy? Or what level of investment goes into public services? Or where economic investment is to be targeted? And so on...?
New labour and the SNP are two sides of the same coin - they both need each other (the Tories and Lib Dems are irrelevant).
Complain about this comment
#179 NCA999
"Q1. My question about what effect this has on the people of Aberdeen that it doesn't have on the people of Newcastle is still un-answered."
And what effect does this have on the people of Dundalk that it doesn't have on the people of Newry? - except that the people of Newry, are obliged to pay for decisions made outwith their polity. The fact that Aberdeen, Newcastle and Newry are all citizens of the UK, does nothing to diminish the fact that WMD will be supported by the parties voted for within the polity of England. I fully understand that makes no difference to you as a Brit. You, in turn have to realise the legitimacy of alternative views.
Complain about this comment
#180 NCA999
Have you really considered your response ... so you would basically have a second parliament doing exactly the same thing that Westminster does just now, ergo paying two people for the same job.? Surely with English only issues like education, NHS, trains no longer on the agenda there would be less for Westminster to do and it would be more clearly deliniated just as in Scotland with MSPs and MP so you would have MASPs and MPs in England. (Anglo-Saxon as MEP is already in use). Different jobs, but, like you I assume, I doubt Westminster would become cheaper.
Complain about this comment
# 184 Thomas_Porter
The poll which is the subject of Brian Taylor's article shows that Scots what greater powers for their parliament, but want to remain in the UK. Calman says that the Barnett Formula should remain, but in an altered form.
If that isn't having your cake while eating England's I'd like to know what is.
To be accused of immaturity by a Scot beggars belief. Tell us the one about how the English call Scottish sportspersons 'British when they win and Scottish when they lose'. How about telling the rest of us how the Scots 'made/make a disproportionate contribution to the Union'? Of course that isn't insulting to the English, Welsh and N. Irish is it?Tell us how the Scots 'ran the empire and still run the UK, but have been oppressed by the English'.
The fact is, Scotland owes everything to the Union, but have whined for 302 long years about the English, in a truly immature manner.
One thing devolution has proved is that fair play is not a British characteristic, it is an English one. I honestly believe the English would not permit Scottish students to pay top-up fees when English students did not. The English would not allow cancer drugs to be freely available in England, but not in Scotland. Certainly English MPs would not permit it. However, all we hear from Scots are excuses for why Scotland needs such privileges.
One thing that will never be allowed since devolution is England having more spending per capita than any other nation in the UK. Indeed the distribution of money is based on population sizes of nations, but defence of Scotland getting more is based on certain regions of England getting more than Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland. This argument is false. The Shetlands receive different funding to Edinburgh for example.
No 'Macakeneatit' is not only a mature assessment of the Scottish position, it is entirely accurate.
Complain about this comment
175. At 7:46pm on 30 Jun 2009, StephenGash wrote:
@ Thomas_Porter #62
A lack of arrogance isn't your strong point obviously. I don't know if you are a Scot, but your obvious sense of hubris points to you being one.
FYI I've stood in elections with an English Parliament as a core policy. The English Democrats have just made a breakthrough by having a Mayor elected in Doncaster. Not bad seeing as they have only stood in elections for 5 years.
------------------------
I'd advise everyone to read up on this new mayor. He managed to upset quite a few people within minutes of taking up office.
Not a good example for the English Democrats party I'm afraid.
Complain about this comment
# 186. Thomas_Porter
I want England to be independent.
Scottish MPs have the least workload because they have no say on domestic affairs in their own constituencies in Scotland. Therefore, many claim some of the highest expenses in order to interfere in England's affairs.
An English Parliament would mean the UK Parliament would be vastly reduced in the number of MPs. The Tories are talking about this already, but an English Parliament would necessitate it.
The UK Parliament would manage foreign affairs and defence. Some argue that it would control funding of a federal UK. However, a better mdel would be fully devolved parliaments funding the UK Parliament. Devolved parliaments would have full fiscal and spending autonomy.
Transparency, the buzzword, would prevail.
However, as I say, I prefer full independence.
Complain about this comment
NCA999 re 179
That is exactly the same argument against a referendum you used when you were posting as reluctant/Derek.
You may have changed your name but it is all the same old stuff.
As has been pointed out to you often, a referendum is on one specific point, a election covers a range of issues.
Time for FEARDOM to make a comeback I think.
Its amazing how many names from the Scotsman pop up here.
Complain about this comment
#193 StephenGash
I used to meet people with views similar to yours in the Scottish National Movement 40 years ago - I might even have shared some of them then (no doubt there are still some around). Honest, you will grow up!
You will learn that the problem doesn't lie with the Scots, Welsh, Northern Irish or English. The Brits are the problem, and if you disentangle the confused concepts of "Englishness" and "Britishness" within your own polity, it will become clearer to you.
Complain about this comment
#195 StephenGash
Now that's far more sensible!
A point for you (and the large number of Scots who seem to agree with you) - why should a wider defence and foreign affairs alliance/union be restricted to the current UK? At the least you might want to involve the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands - who currently have taxation without representation in these areas.
Complain about this comment
The BBC is filled to the brim with British Nationalists all clinging furiously to the fanciful belief of GREAT Britain.
Every word they utter, every statistic they give is carefully crafted to downplay the idea of Scottish Independence. They avoid downright lies where possible and use a subtle blend of half truths, innuendo and Brian Taylor's favourite ploy of reducing everything to a couthy matter of no real importance. Thus the title of his 'POLITICAL' discourse:
BLETHER with BRIAN and his TV ADIEU OF: Toodle Ooo The Noo
But despite all their efforts, Brit Nats watch in despair as the idea of Independence just grows and grows and grows whatever the BBC's spurious figures say.
Complain about this comment
194. Neil_Small147
He is a superb example of the English Democrats. He stood on a ticket of halving the Mayor's salary and reducing the number of councillors. He's done that.
He promised to spend council tax payers' money carefully in this recession and that the council would not fund the 'Gay Pride' parade. BBC Radio Sheffield's Toby Foster lied (I repeat lied, he can sue me if he wants) by accusing Mayor Peter Davies of wanting to ban the parade. Foster also said that removing translation services (something the Labour Government promised to do, but as usual didn't) is illegal. Peter Davies wants to replace them with English lessons. An eminently sensible thing to do.
If we have 3rd rate politicans in the UK it is because of 5th rate people working in the media like Toby Foster, in my opinion.
BTW since when has upsetting people been something politicians have not done? Those infesting the Palace of Westminster, of all political persuasions, have upset millions of people, but are still attempting to deflect peoples' attention from the expenses scandal. For some reason they believe we should accept them messing with our constitution. They have forfeited that right and are the last people to be let loose on reforming anything.
Peter Davies is the polar opposite of those people as proved by him reducing his salary.
Complain about this comment
All those who imagine that "British" Governments are the best people to handle defence might like to read "As soldiers die, the MoD is stockpiling for the cold war" http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/jun/30/british-army-soldiers-equipment
and note the comments of Nigel Griffths (yes I know he has other interests!) on the World at One on BBC today "I've got no doubt of the popularity on the backbenches and within the party [for scrapping Trident], and I believe we could carry the argument within the country," he said.
But he said that given previous Conservative commitment to renewing Trident, concerns about media coverage had made it a "machismo issue" for the Prime Minister.
"I happen to believe that's one of the reasons why we decided to invest in Trident," he said.
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#193.
"Tell us the one about how the English call Scottish sportspersons 'British when they win and Scottish when they lose'. How about telling the rest of us how the Scots 'made/make a disproportionate contribution to the Union'? Of course that isn't insulting to the English, Welsh and N. Irish is it?Tell us how the Scots 'ran the empire and still run the UK, but have been oppressed by the English'."
Is it true? Does England encourage Britishness so long as it provides something good? How about those banks, it was British untill it failed, or at least till the people of England decided to happily let us Scots have it.
I have never said that Scots contribute unfairly.I believe that Scotland has greater potential that Britain is not using, so what's your point? See, it does not work when you tarr Scots all with the same brush.
I've never boasted about the Scots and the British Empire. It's nothing I am proud of and would prefer to forget that part of history, I also have never claimed to be oppressed by the English. Independence or not, England will always be my neighbours and I hope for nothing apart from good relations.
"The fact is, Scotland owes everything to the Union, but have whined for 302 long years about the English, in a truly immature manner."
This is debatable. However you have provided no evidence, are you going to mention that Scotland was bankrupt and England saved her? Go on, you have my attention now. Did Scotland save England during the 1970's? It may not be as important but oil was used to transform the economy. Do you, as a person, not be thanking Scotland for everything England has these days?
Personally, the past is not important. It's one thing you can not change and I am far more interested in the present and future. However please explain yourself more, I am interested now.
"One thing devolution has proved is that fair play is not a British characteristic, it is an English one. I honestly believe the English would not permit Scottish students to pay top-up fees when English students did not. The English would not allow cancer drugs to be freely available in England, but not in Scotland. Certainly English MPs would not permit it. However, all we hear from Scots are excuses for why Scotland needs such privileges."
Is it Scotlands fault that English students pay top up fees? Just remind me how many English MP' sit at Westminster please? The English have lower waiting times then Scotland. Is that fair? It sounds as if you have something, that we in Scotland have not. In fact devolution was suppose to create differences to encourage the different parts of Britain to try new things.
"One thing that will never be allowed since devolution is England having more spending per capita than any other nation in the UK. Indeed the distribution of money is based on population sizes of nations, but defence of Scotland getting more is based on certain regions of England getting more than Scotland, Wales or N. Ireland. This argument is false. The Shetlands receive different funding to Edinburgh for example."
Is there evidence for the last part of your comment?
"No 'Macakeneatit' is not only a mature assessment of the Scottish position, it is entirely accurate."
I am suprised you are defending name calling. It should be clear now why England suffers worst when this is the best you can offer ;-)
Complain about this comment
#193 StephenGash
Scotland in total has 59 MPs, there are ~650 at Westminster. It is entirely up to the "English" what the Scots Parliament is given and this is written into the Scotland Act. It is also entirely up to the Westminster Government, which has had a majority of "English" seats since Jim Callaghan, whether they want still to use the Barnett formula. The fact that the Scots have used the money they have been given in a different manner to the English, the Welsh and the Irish is upto them. If you don't like it then revoke the Scotland Act.
Were I in England, as an Englishman, I would get incensed at the obscene sums lavished on London.
Complain about this comment
Wow, I layed down an unbelievably simple challenge and not a single person was able to meet it.
To answer the earlier question posed about lack of debate, I present to you the Nationalist Conspiracy Theorists that rant on this forum as a pose to participating in debate.
Dubbieside, rather than coming up with a response (which I'm guessing he was unable to do), resorted to, wait for it, verbal attacks. I'm not sure if claiming that I'm the same person as someone else you dislike is meant to be offensive but i'll confess to not caring that much.
There's only be one sensible response to either of my questions posed and that was from handclapping who claimed, although it is actually an assertion because we don't really know, that the voters in Glenrothes voted labour because of a poor performance by SNP councillors.
Regardless of whether this is true or not, it still doesn't change the fact that that MP is representative of his constituents on the issues that are his responsibility. Democracy relies upon the idea that we trust the electorate to choose who represents them. Clearly this doesn't always work at the minute level but overall it's considered the best system. So long as we use this system our MPs represent us and no MSP has a right to claim to be more representative.
I make the point because apart from claiming that my MP isn't very representative of me on this issue, although I suspect thats different in Argyll and Bute, you haven't actually answered my question. Surely my MSP by that argument is even less representative of me on the issue, ergo my point.
The only other amusing contribution was from oldnat, the only person to attempt to engage with my other question.
You brought up a factually incorrect and irrelevant point. I'm quite sure you understood the point I was making, so I've no idea why you bothered to talk about something different.
The people of Ireland don't have a say because Ireland became an Independent country. Obviously this is not only to do with the people of the constituency in which they are based, nuclear weapons are a broader moral issue for the whole country as well as a defense issue for the whole country, but these issues affect everyone in the country equally. My question therefore about what effect it has on the people of Aberdeen compared to Newcastle stands because, it has exactly the same effect. It doesn't have exactly the same effect on the people of Southern Ireland because they're not a nuclear state, their country doesn't store and threaten to use nuclear weapons, we do.
Why you raised this point, which is completely irrelevant, rather than answering my question I do not know. I refer you therefore to the point I made at the top of this post.
Complain about this comment
# 197. oldnat
Patronising aren't you?
This 'blaming the Brits' argument is somewhat hackneyed.
Brits in England are like Liam Byrne and Claire Short who go out of their way to proclaim their Irish ancestry, or in Nick Clegg's case his Russo/Dutch ancestry. In other words, like Andrew Murray it's a case of 'anybody but trhe English'.
Scottish Brits are like Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell, who both signed the Scottish Claim of Right, promising to make 'the interests of the Scottish people paramount'.
The British establishment is institutionally Anglophobic, just as is the BBC. This is why English interests are so ill-served in post-devolution Britain.
Meanwhile the rest of the UK is doing well at England's expense.
Complain about this comment
179. At 8:16pm on 30 Jun 2009, NCA999 wrote:
"Q1. My question about what effect this has on the people of Aberdeen that it doesn't have on the people of Newcastle is still un-answered."
It's unanswerable because there is no clear question, no definition of what you consider an effect nor who you consider the people affected. Maybe we should leave it to the UK Govt, people living in the local area, people who live near the convoy routes from Aldermaston to Coulport, or the route to sea for the submarines. What about their patrol areas? Should we ask the IOM, NI, ROI, Western Isles, Orkney, Shetland.......The point I'm trying to make is this affects a lot of people in the UK, directly and indirectly. However, by clear association with Scotland because it is based in HMNB Clyde. I would say the people of Aberdeen are more likely to feel associated to Trident by national identity than those in Newcastle. Those in Newcastle, but so too could Carlisle, may be near a convoy route but they are probably unaware of this.
"Q2. Secondly I have a really simple question for you. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for a person to vote for one person as an MP who supports Trident, knowing that thats the person who will have to deal with it, and another for their MSP who doesn't support Trident, knowing that this MSP represents their views on health, but isn't responsible for Trident?"
Yes it's possible, but I'm not sure of your reasoning on this. I don't believe the Lib dems are pro Trident, certainly not having heard Nick Cleggs latest utterings and the MP was elected in 2005. The MSP was elected in 2007 and won the seat from the Lib Dems. So the answer must be yes it's possible and may be true in a few cases, but you could also draw the conclusion that opinions have shifted between 2005 and 2007 and the MSP may reflect the wishes of the people. Certainly seems like Nick Cleggs tune has changed. It's also pretty strange to say Alan Reid will have to deal with Trident. The LibDems are nowhere near being the official opposition never mind in power
Complain about this comment
Does westminsters little brother holyrood evoke a more receptive response for the Scottish electorate in terms of voters turnout?.
If there was an Independent Scotland, would we need another chamber to scrutinise the parliaments legislation?.
If there was a referendum on Independence, along with the Calman package! would there also be a question on the single currency?.
Complain about this comment
p.s Stephen
How can it possibly be the fault of the Scots that the English don't have free tuition fees.
Apart from the fact that this is because in England they spend more on certain parts of the NHS and on schools etc than in Scotland, the whole point is that we are supposed to take our own decisions.
The Scottish Parliament gets given a block grant, over which it has no control. Their job is to spend that as well as possible. You can contest that they're not doing that but you can't BLAME them for doing it better than in England. Thats not their fault.
Scotland gets more funding per head of population than the South East of England, but comparable amounts to London or the North East of England. The reason is twofold, one because this is where the largest amount of poverty is so the largest need for welfare and two because more people live in more remote areas so it costs more to deliver basic services.
This isn't one portion of the country stealing from another, it's a government ensuring that everyone has equal access to basic services like emergency healthcare. It costs more to provide ambulance cover to islands than it does to the most densely populated areas.
London is the most heavily funded area of the UK per head of population because of its poverty levels. The people in the South East however still have a far higher standard of living. The people in poor areas of Glasgow, where all of the Scottish surplus is spent, also have pretty shit standards of living compared to richer areas.
Basic, sensible governance requires the re-distribution of funds with more going to poorer, or more remote areas. This makes sense. Since the average life expectancy of someone in Devon is around 20 years higher than of someone in the East end of Glasgow or Newcastle, I'm glad that more money is spent there.
Also, whilst the rich areas of a country obviously do pay more per head than they get back, all of the successful people from all the "receiving areas" migrate there. 20% of the UKs Scottish population live in England, the vast majority of them living in London-South Coast area. The taxes that these people pay, probably amongst the highest earning Scots in the UK is probably more than equivalent to the increased per-head spending. The same can be said for the people of Newcastle, Manchester, Liverpool all of whom migrate to the richer areas of the country for work, then pay taxes which get distributed in the poorer areas of the country, where they are needed.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#204.
I actually made a comment on the use of political groups using lcoal issues despite it being a Westminster by-election. (see my #162)
I also made another point. The Conservatives would like to see devolved issues debated at Westminster. I see no reason as to why not, MPs and MSPs have little power over issues outwith their remit and I would be interested to learn more about what MPs and MSPs believe in.
Complain about this comment
During last week's Calman debate at Holyrood, Labour never missed an opportunity to award themselves maximum credit, as ever, for the 'granting' of devolution to Scotland.
By direct contrast, they have never once accepted responsibility for their unilateral decisions which brought about the debacle of the Parliament Building project, and were at desperate pains to distance themselves from their blundered handling of the 2007 election - both of which brought abject shame upon our parliament and nation.
We now have Iain Gray and his fellow culprits seeking to rubbish the National Conversation, whose purpose is to directly engage the Scottish public in debate and decision-making on our country's future - whilst brazenly peddling the interests of the Calman review, unilaterally concocted and perpetrated behind closed doors in order to "cement Scotland into the union".
Little or no effective attempt has even been made to disguise the crass self-interest of the Calman parties, or the skewed unionist mantra that anything which promotes the union is "legitemate", whilst anything which opposes that view is not - a stance wholly underlined during Brian Taylor's devolution program on Sunday by a string of comments from unionist figures including Blair, Brown, Cameron and Boris Johnston.
Bluntly, while it is decreed eminently "legitemate" to bind Scotland into this awkward and eccentric union by whatever unilateral or extreme means necessary, the viewpoint which advocates and envisions a future for Scotland as an independent nation is deemed as inherently illegitemate, to the point where those who believe in that vision are "legitemately" repressed, disdained, and ultimately disenfranchised, in order to preserve the union.
This is exactly what we are witnessing in the current 'gerrymandering' by the Calman parties, backed by Westminster, with the aim of bulldozing their rigged proposals into constitutional law, in direct defiance of the policy and aims of the elected Scottish Government, and in bare-faced denial of the sovereignty of the Scottish people.
Prior to the Westminster expenses scandal, at least one insider stated that many MP's believed they were "sovereign unto themselves".
Therein lies a stark warning.
Scotland's constitutional future, whatever shape that may take, is righly a matter for our people alone.
On no account must we allow any self appointed group to impose its will, either against our serving government, or over our heads as a people.
Such arrogant defiance of democracy, as advocated by Gray and his minority alliance, demands to be challenged by every self-respecting Scot.
It is entirely, in the words which so appositely concluded Brian's tv programme: Scotland's Future, Scotland's Choice.
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#205.
"Scottish Brits are like Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell, who both signed the Scottish Claim of Right, promising to make 'the interests of the Scottish people paramount'."
They may have promised, but is it so? If it were the case, why are the nationalists the largest political group at the Scottish Parliament? The nationalists have became increasingly popular, why? If Gordon Brown did put our interests first then should Labour not be more popular at the moment?
"The British establishment is institutionally Anglophobic, just as is the BBC. This is why English interests are so ill-served in post-devolution Britain."
I disagree. The problem with the BBC is that it's British and slightly British leaning at our expence. In some cases it's clear, sometimes offensive. You've got the same problem as we do ;-)
"Meanwhile the rest of the UK is doing well at England's expense."
I don't believe that the UK is doing well at all.
Complain about this comment
# 202. Thomas_Porter
Before devolution Scotland was even more overreprested in MPs than it is now. There was a Scottish Office with the Scottish Minister part of the Cabinet. The latter was not always the case, but efforts were made to redress the difference in populations.
Without devolution the English wouldn't be moaning about top-up fees, foundation hospitals etc because they would be happening in Scotland too. I've asked this question numerous times with no satisfactory answer: "Please tell me one law that disadvantaged Scots compared to the English, before devolution?"
The North Sea oil argument exposes the basic dishonesty of Scottish nationalism.
Before it was discovered we were all in the same boat and resources shared. The North Sea oil of 1707 were the East India Company and the colonies. These were opened up to Scotland who took full advantage, especially in slavery.
The Scottish navy was 6 ships while England's was 240 ships.
Scotland's shipbuilding would be nothing without the Royal Navy. Why would England, already a superpower, buy ships from an enemy like Scotland than it would from an enemy like France?
However, when Scotland finds oil in its territory the Scots say to the English, Welsh and N. Irish 'it's oor oil'.
You made a bad choice in choosing the banks as an example of "British success, Scottish failure".
When the puny insignificant RBS took over one of England's largest and most respected high street banks without even a counter-bid being made (very suspicious) Fred Goodwin and the rest of the Scottish directors reportedly played the theme tune from 'Brave Heart' at the next agm.
Alex Salmond crowed about 'Scottish financial services' and Edinburgh being a major financial centre rivalling London. It was 'Scotland' all the way.
Likewise BOS and the Halifax.
BTW, where are all the joblosses happening? 7,000 so far in the Lloyds Group, the vast majority in England.
The English have bailed out Scottish failure once again. I predict RBS and BOS will return to Scottish ownership again, even if it means them being gifted to the Scottish Parliament as nationalised banks. Meanwhile the English concerns will be sold to the highest foreign bidder, to impoverish England even further.
The Union with Scotland has held back England and Wales for 302 miserable years.
If you think the Shetlanders and Edinburgh folk receive the same funding then you are deceiving yourself. I just chose them as an example, but not even the most ardent of Scots nats believes every Scot receives the same amount of spending. Ask the Shetlanders about the price of petrol, not exactly public spending, but it shows exactly how Scotland differs in resources and spending.
One of the feeblest excuses given for the disparity in spending between Scotland and England is because Scotland is so rural. Yeah the lumberjacks are really busy on Queen's St.
Waiting lists - huh! The hospital car park in Carlisle is full of Scottish ambulances bringing patients who receive treatment for free that is denied to Carlisle residents on England's Health Service. They go on the same waiting lists as the English.
The Welsh are whining because English hospitals are putting Welsh patients to the bottom of the lists. The Welsh believe they should get free prescriptions and other benefits the English don't get, but should be put to the top of the waiting lists too. The Welsh Health System has failed to pay its bills to English hospital trusts, but the Welsh still whine.
Complain about this comment
#204 NCA999
I didn't know I was meant to answer your questions but here goes. An MP does a different job from an MSP, however in your #180 you assert that if we had MASPs and MPs we would have two people doing the same job, in which case there is no problem with MSPs sounding off about Trident. It looks as if your argument here is with yourself and I will leave you to find your own salvation.
As to Aberdeen and Newcastle it will depend on which way the wind is blowing; do you want to die soon or linger longer? This will not matter to the people of Inverclyde, Helensburgh or Glasgow; you will be able to gather their thoughts on the subject next time you open a packet of pork scratchings. I think oldnat feels sorry for the folk of Dundalk as they are nuclear free, apart from the little bits of Sellafield waste that wash up on their beaches, but they will be badly affected if the wind is in the "wrong" direction. However a better argument would not be Aberdeen and Newcastle but Glasgow and London and particularly, "Why should Glasgow be risked when the "determining hand" is in London?".
If you have more points you wish me to argue, you'll need to remind me.
Complain about this comment
To answer the question raised Alan Reid, the MP representing the constituency is supportive of the Nuclear Submarine fleet in Faslane, as a pose to the SNP.
He welcomed the news that all of the submarines were being transferred to Faslane.
He, and other Lib Dem MPs voted against the decision by GB to announce a renewal of Trident because they felt it would de-legitimise our attempts to make progress at future NPT talks. He advocates that we should reduce the number of bombs we keep, and postpone a decision on renewal of the missile system until 2014.
This is the viewpoint that the people who are actually affected by this voted for.
That deals with your second response Spartan which I'm sorry to say is just, well, wrong.
As for your first point, I listed a number of effects that it could be said to have on citizens who don't live in the constituency in which they are based. Those are basically moral ones, along with perhaps funding issues (spend money on hospitals not nukes). Issues like increased threat of attack or radiation leaks or whatever are only really felt by those in the constituency/immediate area. As such it's not a "Scottish" issue where they are based because it's not something which affects Scotland. Any nuclear attack on the west coast of Scotland would have more harms on the North of England than on the North of Scotland. As such when defence is a UK issue, why should Scotland as an entity have an overriding say in where the weapons are based.
There are geographic reasons why they are based where they are, seriously good ones like our ability to protect them. Having them in this location is one of the safest, probably the safest location to store them in.
More importantly however the people who are directly affected are happy to have them. Why should some people who are indirectly affected have the right to override us, and force them onto other people who are indirectly affected?
Complain about this comment
handclapping
Are you seriously suggesting that everything that is "dangerous" must be based in the capital in the vicinity of parliament purely because they are taking the decisions?
You place your submarine base in the location thats geographically best for it. This is determined by a number of factors, survivability, availability of necessary space, seclusion for protection, local economy etc etc.
Placing a submarine base in London would be a ludicrous idea. The US government doesn't base it's submarines in New York (I was going to say DC but thats not on the coast!).
Complain about this comment
#204 NCA999
On the question of questions and answers, I would be interested to hear your views on my #187
Complain about this comment
Might I sugged that Stephen Gash's posts do not merit any sort of reply.
Complain about this comment
That 42% of scots would support independence in a referendum despite the continuous and accelerating barrage of vicious anti SNP campaigns right across all of our media is magnificent.
We have not even engaged in an independence campaign yet.
In my judgement those who can think for themselves and the politically literate are already on board.
Those in favour of independence will vote in proportionately higher numbers that those who have reservations or don't give a t*ss.
All things being equal I would expect a small majority or independence on these figures - which is exactly why we wont get a referendum this time.
Complain about this comment
StephenGash:
#212.
"Without devolution the English wouldn't be moaning about top-up fees, foundation hospitals etc because they would be happening in Scotland too. I've asked this question numerous times with no satisfactory answer: "Please tell me one law that disadvantaged Scots compared to the English, before devolution?""
Have you accepted that England has vital differences too? Their budget is different too, are you accepting all these? The poll tax was introduced in Scotland one year before England ;-)
"The North Sea oil argument exposes the basic dishonesty of Scottish nationalism. Before it was discovered we were all in the same boat and resources shared. The North Sea oil of 1707 were the East India Company and the colonies. These were opened up to Scotland who took full advantage, especially in slavery."
First of all the Acts of Union was never popular with Scots, we were not all in the same boat and sharing resources at this point of time. Scottish nationalism and the politics involved existed years before oil was discovered, last but not least Scotland never directly had involvment in slaves. Scots, yes but Scotland no, we did take advantage of the resources created through slavery. If I am not mistaken indentured labour was quite common in Scotland at this time too, so perhaps you can read up on that before boasting about Scotlands success in this part of history.
"Scotland's shipbuilding would be nothing without the Royal Navy. Why would England, already a superpower, buy ships from an enemy like Scotland than it would from an enemy like France?"
If Scotland and England went seperate ways, who is to say that Scotland would have shipbuilding at all? You can not rewrite history so I suggest you avoid creating what if's and paint a different story altogether.
"You made a bad choice in choosing the banks as an example of "British success, Scottish failure"."
I gave a perfect example. I have never seperated it into Scottish and English, but again people like yourself, and the media in particular want to pretend that Scotland was responsible, but hey, never mind that these banks flooded the treasury with money and no one suggested it should all go to Scotland because the banks Scottish...
"Alex Salmond crowed about 'Scottish financial services' and Edinburgh being a major financial centre rivalling London. It was 'Scotland' all the way."
Scottish financial services and who was setting the rules? The regulations? Gordon and Co? The British Government? It was a British failure ;-)
"The English have bailed out Scottish failure once again. I predict RBS and BOS will return to Scottish ownership again, even if it means them being gifted to the Scottish Parliament as nationalised banks. Meanwhile the English concerns will be sold to the highest foreign bidder, to impoverish England even further."
There's no making this one up. It's only Scottish once it fails. If Scotland was independent tomorro, England would be in control of these banks. I have never said anything different either.
"If you think the Shetlanders and Edinburgh folk receive the same funding then you are deceiving yourself. I just chose them as an example, but not even the most ardent of Scots nats believes every Scot receives the same amount of spending. Ask the Shetlanders about the price of petrol, not exactly public spending, but it shows exactly how Scotland differs in resources and spending."
I wanted to know your sources because you either were suggesting the British Government hands Shetland it's own amount of money or that the Scottish Government does not share spending the same way across Scotland. In fact London and Edinburgh receive extra money because the British and Scots Government believe that they should because both are capitals. I don't agree with it, but it's how the country works. Glasgow receives alot of money compared to Aberdeen apart from the differences both generate in revenue, I am from Aberdeen and you do not hear me complaining.
You've lost the plot, apart from setting the tax rates who else controls the price of petrol? What exactly is your point here? I would have thought getting the petrol there the first place would effect the price.
"Waiting lists - huh! The hospital car park in Carlisle is full of Scottish ambulances bringing patients who receive treatment for free that is denied to Carlisle residents on England's Health Service. They go on the same waiting lists as the English."
Hey did I mention that we get free parking at our hospitals? I am sure that it's more important that people who may need medical attention recieve it as fast as possible, regardless it being in England, Scotland or elsewhere in the world.
I am not Welsh, so what's the point your trying to make? It's none of my business what goes on between Wales and England, but I
Complain about this comment
#215 NCA999
Yes, I am. I think Battersea Power Station would make an excelent site for a nuclear power station and they are absolutely safe, the Government keeps telling us so. As to your "military" suggestions, why then not Ullapool? Far quicker access to open waters, no worry about Ulster becoming Irish, etc., etc. FYI Newport News is just down the Chesapeake Bay from DC. I do feel that given the surprising sums of "nice" money spent in London on Olympics, HighSpeed 1, the Dome, Crossrail, the M25, widening the M25, Heathrow and MP's expenses, they should share in the "nasties". If that Londoncentric expenditure was shared out over England, we'd hear a lot less from the StephenGash's of this world.
Complain about this comment
#218
There must be at least some of you uber-nationalists that realise how laughably terrible comments like this are.
You guys really can twist anything to mean what you want it to.
The fact that you can only get 42% support, on a loaded question which would never be the question in practice, and have had minority support in every poll ever conducted ever would make your conclusions seem a little unlikely.
"We have not even engaged in an independence campaign yet"
Right, i'm really genuinely falling off my seat laughing at this point. The SNP have spent the last 50 years campaigning for Independence, if you're seriously going to suggest that we're not perfectly well informed of their views by now then you truly are deluded mate.
Why the SNP will listen to one poll in claiming that we're against Trident or against Nuclear Power but aren't willing to listen to 200 polls that show that we don't have any desire for Independence I don't know. You call a referendum on a subject either when you want to push something through or when there is evidence of majority support.
There is no evidence of majority support and never has been. As for wanting to implement their policy, well their entitled to do that, but nobody else supports them and since the Scottish people didn't elect them with the power to take the decision, they're not going to be able to do so.
In response to your #187 handclapping it's a fair point but I think you misunderstand me, perhaps my fault, I don't have time to trawl through the posts and see :).
I think that federalism is a good idea and were I living in the North East I would have voted for a devolved assembly. Furthermore I would advocate that the issue should still be looked into as other regions may want it, or perhaps the whole of England. Also I recall the NE assembly was opposed for certain specific reasons. If these can be resolved then it would make sense to ask the peoples thoughts because there would be evidence that if a debate on the subject took place the people might want it. I don't know enough about the subject but if there's any evidence that a NE Assembly could be what people in that region want then it should be offered to them. If not, as I suspect is the likely case then no I wouldn't call a referendum on the subject there either.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#214.
I have a point to make, since MPs and MSPs have different roles and you appear to hope that both groups mind their own business, right? However since spending is set at Westminster over weapons and at the same time the block grant Scotland receives, then should MSPs not protest against trident because it may appear that our block grant is being cut in favour of weapons and our MSPs have little control over it, even though they will get the blame for the cuts to come at the Scottish Parliament?
Complain about this comment
#204 NCA999
"The people of Ireland don't have a say because Ireland became an Independent country."
Ooh! You understood the point! Did you want us all to make some "damaging admission" that under the current constitutional arrangement that certain powers are reserved to Westminster? Pretty pointless question then, don't you think. Is there anyone here who doesn't know that defence is currently a reserved power?
You want that situation to remain largely the same, on our side of the argument we want that to change.
Do you think you have made some meaningful point?
Complain about this comment
NCA 9999
I found your simple question - so simple I didn't think it worth replying to - but if you insist (I trust you will similarily respond to my points above?)
"Q2. Secondly I have a really simple question for you. Do you acknowledge that it is possible for a person to vote for one person as an MP who supports Trident, knowing that thats the person who will have to deal with it, and another for their MSP who doesn't support Trident, knowing that this MSP represents their views on health, but isn't responsible for Trident?"
Of course. Now here is an equally simple question for you to answer -
Do you acknowledge that it is possible for a person to vote for one person as an MP who is against Trident, knowing that that's the person who may be allowed to vote on it, but will probably be whipped into voting for it if a vote is ever allowed , and another for their MSP who doesn't support Trident, knowing that this MSP represents their views on Trident, but sits in a Parliament which is allowed no voice on that issue?
Of course, if you believe that many people cast their vote on a single issue, you have a simplistic view of political behaviour.
Complain about this comment
so after watching both versions the upshot is ,ooh the big boys will beat you up if we don't stay together mmmm as one poster above posted a perfectly reasonable manifesto for Scotland`s own defence I would be glad that we were no part of illegal wars for dodgy reasons being lent on by Uncle Sam because he knew some stuff that forced our hands.
Sir Mike Jackson (Darth Vader) really convinced me (not) and Tony well whatever comes out of your mouth is a pack of lies, Cameron doesnt care and Murphy is a puppet, simple answer to this, instead of a plastic poll that gets reported as fact in all the papers , lets have a vote, that way it wont represent the 1000 it will represent the 5 million +
Complain about this comment
#221 NCA999
I am worried by your insistence that a referendum should only be undertaken when it will produce the "right" answer. I would judge from your comments that you feel that at present a referendum on "independence" in Scotland would produce, what I assume for you would be, a "right" answer. In the light of that, supported by the polls, why not go for one. Delay will only give more time for the SNP to brainwash the poor deluded Scots that as they have been the Scots "Government" since 2007 and the sky hasn't fallen in, then independence will be wonderful and, suddenly, Britain will be broke and all the Queen's horses and all the Queen's men ... . Bendy Wendy was, temperamentally, a very good deputy for Global at Holyrood but she did at least have the political wit to "bring it on" and we would have been done and dusted with it for at least another 10 years, but the Unionists bottled it and we got Calman instead.
Complain about this comment
Well,the debate's livened up a little.
Few points aimed at all areas.
Nationalists
Nuclear free - does that include isotopes used in medicine?
What is the view on the recent news that Govan shipyard may shut in 2014?
---------------
Unionists
How much is the PFI debt in total?
How would the economy fare if oil is taken out of the equation?
---------------
StephenGash
Exactly what free treatment is it that Scottish people get but not English? Last time I checked the NHS was free in England as well. (sorry snecked but I couldn't let him off with that piece of nonsense).
How is Wales holding England back? How is Scotland managing it? We've got some nationalists up here believing they repressed up here. Can't be both ways.
------------------
Complain about this comment
#205. At 10:31pm on 30 Jun 2009, StephenGash wrote:
# 197. oldnat
Patronising aren't you?
Afraid so! Selective quoting of documents, normally indicates a relatively low level of political debate, and I must admit to finding that amusing.
Let's look at your post in a little detail -
"Brits in England are like Liam Byrne and Claire Short who go out of their way to proclaim their Irish ancestry, or in Nick Clegg's case his Russo/Dutch ancestry. "
Are you suggesting some mythical "ethnic" definition of being English? Let's take Nick Clegg as an example. His paternal grandfather was Russian, his mother was Dutch. He was born and brought up in England. Quite how describing his parentage is "going out of his way" is quite beyond me. Exactly how many generations of "born in England" do you require people to have before you will accept them as English?
"In other words, like Andrew Murray it's a case of 'anybody but trhe (sic) English'."
We used to take political slights out of sporting rivalry too! Welcome to the 1960s!
"Scottish Brits are like Gordon Brown and Menzies Campbell, who both signed the Scottish Claim of Right, promising to make 'the interests of the Scottish people paramount'."
Now I see where you're coming from! You really believe that all those English and Welsh Labour and Lib-Dem MPs allowed these signatories to the Claim of Right to become the party leaders in order that they could rip off the rest of the UK in Scotland's interests. Good lord - you are really too naive to be allowed out in the political world!
"The British establishment is institutionally Anglophobic, just as is the BBC. This is why English interests are so ill-served in post-devolution Britain."
Of course, it's Anglophobic - that's what I was telling you! It's also Scots phobic, Welsh phobic, and Irish phobic! They act in the interests of the British political class. Until you understand, you'll understand nothing.
"Meanwhile the rest of the UK is doing well at England's expense."
Try looking at the balanced figures, where income to and expenditure in the "UK" is removed from the data. Are you happy with the distribution of expenditure within England?
I was wrong to be patronising of you. Given your ethnicity arguments I should have been contemptuous.
Complain about this comment
Despite there being no reliable evidence in the BBC poll sample for any significant decline in support for independence, it comes as no surprise whatsoever to find their meaning manipulated as such by confirmed unionists, media hacks and supposed 'neutral' commentators alike.
In fact, when account is taken of the underlying discontent amongst a vast majority of Scots towards many factors of the union, even those who nominally support it, let alone the gradual progression of opinion from initial scepticism towards'more powers', which itself represents the last unionist ditch against the growing tide of national self-confidence - the trend is very much in the direction of independence.
Meanwhile, Newsnight Scotland reports the popularity of Alex Salmond's leadership at 52% - vastly ahead of either Brown or Cameron, and much to the apparent perplexity of unionist apparachiks such as Gordon Brewer.
A pointer or two to assist such individuals as Mr Brewer, who struggle to accept this concept:
Alex Salmond is both sincere and capable in his commitment to stand up for Scotland's best interests without fear or favour. He articulates an unfailingly positive vision of our national potential and appeals to our inherent sense of individual and collective self belief.
Contrast his message with the grinding negativity and 'more of the same' offered even by the 'brightest' harbingers of unionism.
Factor in such contributions as that of StephenGash on this thread - who implores us to support his own perspective, but cannot help but relentlessly put the boot into Scotland in 'retaliation' for all of Britain's ills - and it isn't hard to see yet more reasons why any sense of Britishness, and the case for the union, continue to erode.
There is little if any positive case left for the union, and fewer still able to articulate it.
Complain about this comment
#208 NCA999
I agree with you here. Within the UK state, equity is an important issue. I actually believe that's also true within the EU (ideally in the world - but lets not try to go too far yet!)
Do you have a view on Calman's version of "Social Union" with regard to the Isle of Man and the Channel Islands?
Complain about this comment
#215 NCA999
Quite right. Washington DC isn't on the coast - though it does adjoin the tidal waters of the Potomac Estuary. It's also only 143 miles from Norfolk Naval Base which is the world's largest, and home to lots and lots of nukes!
That's 40 miles less than the distance from London to Plymouth.
Complain about this comment
Pretty vacant! stuff Neil, if you want to give the dog a bone make sure there's some meat on it!
At what point does it become unacceptable to accept a representative that fails to be endorsed by the public or do you accept the hidden agenda of preference voting.
Complain about this comment
#221 NCA999
OK Now you have impressed me!
"i'm really genuinely falling off my seat laughing at this point." And you are typing while falling! Impressive!
Complain about this comment
#227 Neil
Apparently, at least for tonight, I am now a Nationalist spokesperson! I thought I was just commenting on points I found interesting in the blogs and posts, however yes we can do without medical isotopes but it is cheaper to use them and people think they are being cured by using them. This is not neccessarily the case, they are not precision instruments.
The loss of heavy industry and the throwing of skilled men on the scrap heap is always a disaster, however I do think they are being used on fools errand building the QE class. They are too small; with only one capital ship you need to be able to fly AWACS type planes from them so they carry their own radar cover. Look what happened to HMS Sheffield and the Atlantic Conveyor in sailing to the Falklands, and that was with a pretty simple Exocet. Also these ships are not defensive they are aggressive, designed to show "British" power around the globe. What power? We are broke. If the Chinese stop lending to us, let alone withdrawing their money from us, we couldn't even support our troops in Helmand.
Complain about this comment
#233 oldnat
Hey! Hey! my my, it's better to burn- out than fade away oldnat.
Was that the red-mist answer?.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
I have this problem with the Unionist position. On the one hand they tell the Scots bigger is better, even better yet our social policies are the same and you don't want to worry about defence and foreign affairs, so stay in the Union. On the other hand the EU is bigger again, wants to align its social policies too and has aspirations in the areas of defence and foreign policy but there is no way that they want to join that Union.
It may be that the above is not your sort of Unionism but, as the closest we have to a thinking Unionist, ( that hasn't come out right but if you know the posting of RE and the late unlamented briga-DearJohn you will see what I mean ) can you explain what are the differences in principle that cause such a violent difference in response between these two similar situations? Maybe I meant a Unionist who will argue a reasonably coherent case; if I have offended sorry but it is late.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
Your point about Independant Ireland completely, and again I suspect since you're probably not that un-intelligent deliberately, misses the point.
I was talking not about your fictitious future of Scotland but the status quo in which we're part of the UK.
My protest was not over whether Scotland should be independent, as you seem to think every conversation should be about, but whether in the current situation it was right for the Scottish Government to claim to be representative over us on an issue which they weren't elected to be, and somebody else was is flawed and highly wrong.
The only responses I've had to this are to claim that people don't vote in politicians based on such issues. I would point out however that if we don't all vote for our politicians based on the things they represent us on, this would still make my MSP less representative than my MP on defence issues since I'm assuming that my momentary stupidity in casting my vote doesn't only take place at general elections. Aside from that the stupidity of the voter is not an argument, because democracy works upon the premise that deep down somewhere we are all making informed and rational decisions.
This isn't an argument and whoever it is that keeps making it should give in.
The point Thomas just made however was actually quite interesting about financial accountability, saying that the spending on Trident affects the block grant therefore does affect our MSPs and their issues etc etc.
To that I would say three things,
1. it still does not change the fact that they do not represent our opinion on the issue, and therefore claiming they do is wholly wrong as they have no elected mandate to do so.
2. Whilst that might be a justification for them spending time on the issue, that would be purely in talking about it in that way, so arguments like "we don't want it based in Scotland" and "we're concerned about the nuclear waste" wouldn't be relevant and acknowledging this as their justification for talking about the issue would equally acknowledge that I'm correct in saying they shouldn't be using taxpayers money and their platform to claim a mandate for talking about such things.
3. If you acknowledge that that is their justification for discussing the point, then you acknowledge the same right to every council and government body in the country. I raise that because what that actually means is that every council who wishes to oppose it has the same amount of legitimacy in doing so, thus highlighting the limited credibility/legitimacy that the Scottish Government has on the subject.
That aside, I don't actually think that the pernickity details of how much money they get are an issue for our MSPs to discuss. Fair enough they should be able to ask for more but again, it's my MP that I elected to decide what the block grant was, not my MSP. I don't therefore think it's a justification for, for example, blocking nuclear power plants, which would not just be a case of crying over not getting enough pocket money but of throwing the toys in the pram and smashing up your parents house in retaliation to not getting what you want.
Complain about this comment
#237 NCA999
But why should we have these perfectly safe nuclear power plants in Scotland when we already have enough power in Scotland and have to export the electricity to England at a higher cost than a nuclear plant built in England where the demand is? If the Scots Parliament drags its heels over the matter then the first costs of the plant will rise as well and hopefully someone will see the light and say the sensible thing to do is to build it/them in England where the demand is and where it will cost less and still be perfectly safe. Battersea Power Station?
Complain about this comment
handclapping
just saw your post, and remembered your earlier one about referenda.
I didn't say you only hold a referendum when you'll get the "right" answer but that you should only hold one when there's some sensible reason to believe the people will vote yes, which realistically there really isn't here and never once in our recent history has there been.
To move onto your question.
I'd first like to say before I start that I don't consider myself "unionist". Thats a title slapped on by Nationalists who like to perceive themselves as being in some grand titanic two-sided struggle which really they aren't. People who support our country have no reason to "defend" it as often challenged to do so on here. It's the status quo, and it works, and the people quite clearly support it. If you want to try and persuade us otherwise then feel free, thats what free speech is about, but realistically nobody is convinced and most people don't care, as is shown by every single poll thats ever been conducted on the issue. The point which was made by dipstick Murphy rather badly the other day about the Scottish flag is the reason why I mention this.
I don't consider myself Scottish first, or British first. In actual fact I, like the vast majority of us, think of myself as both, in a non-conflicting way. I attend Scotland football matches, I own a Kilt which I proudly wear. I have an unhealthy obsession with Irn Bru and Fish Suppers. I'm as Scottish as they come. Unfortunately over the years it's been painted, for whatever reason, that being opposed to the SNP is being opposed to Scotland and I've sat and listened to people, who don't represent the majority opinion in my country, claim to be more Scottish than I am just because of their political views. This I resent.
To answer your point I would say this. An EU superstate in any form would always be different from a large country. Because of the massively different cultures and national histories it would always be a sum of members as a pose to a single country. Such a large, poorly run organisation would never represent anyone.
I think that the UK works because we have common cultural ties, common interests, common history etc. We can work together to achieve things for us all and as a result the UK is most definitely greater than the sum of its parts and Scotland has played a major role in that.
The position the UK currently holds on the global stage, on the security council, with the second largest navy in the world, with the commonwealth, as one of largest countries in the EU, is one that might have come about for a million different reasons but which nonetheless benefits us in ways that wouldn't if we were to break up into our constituent parts.
Bigger is better yes, but in the context of reality. We would never have anything close to the level of representation as part of an EU super-state as we do in the UK.
I support membership of the EU, I support being in the UK and I support devolution. Local representation is a good thing, hence devolution, because it allows for making sure that the people are best represented. Being part of a big country is a good thing, because it means we have the muscle to stand up for our interests, because nobody at the EU, or the UN would listen to Scotland. Being part of a large organisation like the EU in the way we are allows us to get all of the "bigger is better" benefits, without throwing away the ones we want to keep ahold of.
I hope that answers your question, as you say it is very late :)
Complain about this comment
#237 NCA999
"Your point ... misses the point."
Interesting use of language! Your point becomes "the point". To attempt to define the issue of political debate is the classic definition of "political spin".
I'm afraid it doesn't work that way. You choose to define all issues within the existing constitutional settlement. I choose to demonstrate that it can be different.
You prefer a structure within which defence decisions are made by the ruling British party - regardless of whether that accords with Scots views or not. I prefer a structure within which these decisions are made by the views of Scots voters and their representatives - although I am open to persuasion that defence and foreign policy are better organised on a European than Scottish basis.
That is "the point". We all know what the current situation is. Should that remain inviolable? At which level of government should such decisions be taken. These are the real political questions.
You choose to ignore other possibilities. "What is, must continue to be" appears to be your stance.
You criticise those who don't answer your simplistic questions, but fail to answer questions directed to yourself. You offer no evidence that your preference for the current structure is, in fact, the most appropriate.
Unfortunately, you don't actually engage in debate at all - simply make assertions that certain issues are currently reserved. Try justifying the current arrangements instead - that would be a new tack for a Unionist!
Complain about this comment
#239 NCA999
As to terminology, "Unionist" you may not like - but it is the shorthand for those who support the continuation of the UK Union. As is "Nationalist" for those of us who wish to see the repeal of the Act of Union. Not terribly appropriate for me, as I'm a "Scottish Independist" and a "European Unionist" - but I'm not fussing over the terms.
Finally you have suggested some benefits that you see for the UK as opposed to Scotland or Europe. Worth looking at tomorrow, but as both handclapping and yourself have said "It's late". We'll resume later today!
Complain about this comment
237. At 01:58am on 01 Jul 2009, NCA999 wrote:
Regards the MP/MSP issue, I would agree with you if the SNP had not clearly stated their position on nuclear weapons/power. Should they address the issue if it's a reserved power, I believe they should as it will be of concern to their constituents one way or the other. I also disagree that electorates in general vote on one particular issue. This may be true in very localised areas, but I doubt this would extend to the whole of Argyll & Bute. The question of how to make your views clear to the MP & MSP is basically a moot point. They will act along party lines and represent the view of their constituents as they interpret them and in a manner they hope will get them re-elected. If you disagree with their interpretation of their responsibilities, tell them.
Complain about this comment
Re 239
I think you have summed up the feelings of a sizeable portion of Scots. I am happy to be Scottish and British, I see no need for this to be in anyway unpatriotic.
I can think of no time in History where those advocating change don't have to convince the majority of the merits of the proposed change. In reality whatever OLDNAT thinks or not that is the challenge nationalists must face and win if they are to see there dreams become reality.
Many Scots are wary of more government. I for one look at the independence argument and see a lot of costs associated with the exercise with no attempt by those proposing change to quantify or explain how these will be minimized.
The principal of Independence has some merit, aspects of this I feel comfortable with, however I don't feel comfortable handing Holyrood another re-organisation blank cheque.
Also the defence debate shows there is an alternative, a more federal structure. I feel that the independence debate is not dealing with how we govern an independent Scotland, we need decentralisation of decision making so local people have decisions pertaining to local government made in sensible sized geographical areas that represent their views.
the draft constitution does not enshrine this basic requirement. therefore in the Highlands we would simply be replacing Westminster domination with Holyrood domination. Not really a vote winner where I live. This is a comment that I hear more and more as people begin to think through the issues.
The recent Education debate is a good example, the SNP government have made or appear to be making a perfectly sensible decision on the class size debate to drop this pledge. They are acting sensibly to the current circumstances. However this is portrayed by the opposition as a u turn etc. The opposition are doing exactly what the SNP would have done and did do when they were in opposition. In effect the real issue is lost in the Holyrood bubble, where it would have been sensible to leave this as a local debate where local solutions can be made, the issue in the highlands is more about composite classes than class sizes. We need a different debate.
that will only happen with a different decision making structure, which is not on the radar of any politician, because that would mean giving up power and not interfering, something none of them can contemplate.
So while I think most Scots would agree the current constitutional setup is not perfect, the majority need convinced of the need to change.
Complain about this comment
A version of this posting was modded, I will try again.
Brian Taylor Wrote:
"Looks like Scots want Holyrood to run the show when it comes to domestic issues - even those that are currently reserved to Westminster.
But there's an obvious exception: defence and foreign affairs.
Views flip over when it comes to that sector with people in Scotland seeming to favour Westminster control."
1. O jeez, well I would never have thot that, what a shock!
2.OH, aye we really enjoy the thought of Russia's nuclear arsenal pointed squarely at the heart of scotland, while all those who use nuclear detterent as a barganing chip, sit comfortably in their bunkers at the other end of the country!! And no, I don't think we want to be stomping over the world 'casue were not happy with the way "they" are evolving, or for their oil nor ficticious WMDs Also, I think we would fair pretty well, with our own foreign policy, as history tells.
3. What a complete cop out, just accept it. If you'd said "some views" it might have been more neutral!
Ooooh, and yet another poll revealing 51% of Scots want a referrendum, on independence - that's a referrendum not independence, mind ;)
"I do not believe" it for a second - I doubt the BBC Scotland would actually be allowed to print accurate news without a slant on it, I think the true figures will scare the hell out of our BTs, not even going to read it.
Just take yir tridents somewhere else FEELS like you're using scotland as a "Human sheild" please! Refer back to point 3
Complain about this comment
243. At 08:13am on 01 Jul 2009, northhighlander wrote:
Blah,blah,blah,blah,blah,blah (eh, you are not in disguise here are you?)
the draft constitution does not enshrine this basic requirement. therefore in the Highlands we would simply be replacing Westminster domination with Holyrood domination. Not really a vote winner where I live. This is a comment that I hear more and more as people begin to think through the issues."
Well...DUH! That's the whole point isn't it really, to be governed by your own country!
You are right tho that scots are wary of more government, Thats Why We Want Less! Oh my god, get your cape on and be done with it,
Complain about this comment
#239 NCA999
"I didn't say you only hold a referendum when you'll get the "right" answer but that you should only hold one when there's some sensible reason to believe the people will vote yes, which realistically there really isn't here and never once in our recent history has there been."
You seem to have a very "top down" view of governance, which is apparently completely at odds with the sovereignty of the people as expressed in the most recent Claim of Right and Scottish constitutional law generally.
Surely whether or not a referendum is held on any question should be up to the people themselves and not their political masters. Even Cameron seems to be coming round to that approach with loose talk of people's referenda, whilst in desperation Duff Gordon seems to be dusting off the broken promises of the '97 Labour manifesto and considering real constitutional reform.
The representative democracy very imperfectly implemented in the UK is necessary for executive governance, but without separation of powers is an inappropriate way of dealing with constitutional issues. We will not be in control of our politicians and they will not have our trust until that is recognised and addressed.
In a healthy democracy like Switzerland, the people delegate executive power to representatives at communal, cantonal and federal level but reserve the right to change for themselves, with about 2% of the relevant electorate needed to call a constitutionally binding referendum on any topic. Unsurprisingly, not only are the Swiss pretty content with their political lot but they don't even have a political class to talk down to them!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Oldnat was right about Wednesday for the poll details.
They are finally available in PDF from this website's Salmond 'more popular' than Brown although the size is misstated [104 Kb not 28Kb].
The sceptics among us will be happier when the same file is available from the ICM website, but they're undoubtedly worth a look and do give enough information to understand the weightings.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re 243 northhighlander
Hey you are in danger of posting a thoughtful and balanced piece!
I think a lot of reasonable people see there is a cogent argument for independence but know that the process to create two functioning national entities from one will be a drawn out and expensive one, and the end state isn't well defined. They want to see some more detail on how it would work and when this is not forthcoming (be it not available, simplistic or rhetorically thrown back in their faces) they are wary. As the proposers for changing the status quo, the Nationalist base need to go out on a limb more and provide a much more detailed model which is, I recognise, politically risky, but one gain them respect from some voters (at least me!).
For example, Trident:
If Scotland became independent tomorrow, the Clyde base would still exist and it would take years to construct an equivalent facility in "Brtiain"; we couldn't expect Britain to just give up their deterrent until it was completed. At the same time Scotland has much significant defense industry (nuclear and non nuclear), and Britain might reasonably base all of this in Britain depending on Scotland's stance.
Util some detail on the overall plan in this area and similar is forthcoming, a lot of people will remain to be convinced.
:)
Complain about this comment
#248 wee_nissy:
I partially agree with you about who has to do the persuading - this reminds me of Newton's First Law, aka the Law of Inertia: A body at rest stays at rest, and a body in motion stays in motion, unless it is acted on by an external force.
Unionists would say the Scots are "at rest", content with the status quo. Nationalists would say we are "in motion", momentum building for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. The ICM poll rather suggests the latter to be the true state of affairs.
I would venture that neither side can rest on their laurels. The Nationalists do need to argue positively for change...but if Unionists refuse to argue their case they might well wake up one day to find they've been sleeping too long.
Regarding the Trident base, after independence I don't see why we couldn't lease it out for a reasonable period, 10-15 years say, until the remainder of the UK has time to make alternative arrangements.
More generally, is there any reason that independence must be an event as opposed to a gentle transition? From a purely pragmatic standpoint a gradual adjustment to independence would be easier and less painful for all concerned. In particular the business world would be much happier if the uncertainty was managed in an orderly fashion. Perhaps this is what has actually been happening over the last 10 years!
Complain about this comment
Re NCA999, NorthHighlander et al.
"I can think of no time in History where those advocating change don't have to convince the majority of the merits of the proposed change. In reality whatever OLDNAT thinks or not that is the challenge nationalists must face and win if they are to see there dreams become reality"
This is a fascinating argument. Pro-independence supporters need to win the argument, and the pro-union supporters can just sit on the sidelines and snipe with no need to provide a justification for maintaining the status quo. The only problem is that it's virtually impossible for pro-independence supporters to provide a meaningful argument for independence that cannot be easily shot down by saying that we cannot afford it (the poor, subsidised Scotland gambit). We of course have little defence against that charge as we don't have the information to be able to present a realistic case. The information is held by Westminster and not released to us. Try to remember that the 'budget' granted to the Scottish Government is less than 50% of Scotland's GDP. Tell me, could you work out if you could afford a new house if you only had information on less than 50% of your income?
Unionists need to stop challenging people to provide definitive proof that we would be better under an independent Scottish government until they are willing to make all the information available to allow us to make the argument.
If you want reasoned debate, and a full justification for why the status quo should be changed, then you need to let the people have all the facts, and stop hiding behind secrecy and misinformation.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8127743.stm
Complain about this comment
#239 NCA999
"To answer your point I would say this. An EU superstate in any form would always be different from a large country. Because of the massively different cultures and national histories it would always be a sum of members as a pose to a single country."
You are fond of absolutes, aren't you? "always" "never". These are but unprovable assertions. History, however, suggests that you may well be right in that the EU will never form a single centralised state like France. Scotland (like every other nation) is formed of people from smaller, earlier nations that have become subsumed into a common identity. The same process was taking place in the 19th and 20th century UK, but was counterbalanced by strong national resistance in Ireland and Scotland. It is reasonable to suggest that the same process is taking place within the EU, as happened within the UK. Growing centralism provokes a strong reaction within the various polities, so that an over centralised state is forced to deliver power back to it nations.
Rather like the UK in fact! The choice for those within these nations is whether to remain indirectly represented within the EU, or to be represented directly. That is a reasonable issue for debate.
"Such a large, poorly run organisation would never represent anyone."
Again - rather like the UK.
"I think that the UK works because we have common cultural ties, common interests, common history etc."
But we have the same ties with Ireland, the Isle of Man, the Channel Islands - arguably Gibraltar - and in the case of Scotland much in common with the Nordic countries. In any case, these don't disappear because of independent political representation. They are much more a function of ease of travel and common interests. The Nordic countries work closely together. Gothenburg is physically central to four nations, and provides a common cultural centre. Czechoslovakia "worked", but so do the Czech Republic and Slovakia.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8127464.stm
Hey beeb - how about instead of running with the obvious "Salmond more popular than Brown",
in fairness it is likely Measles and Swine-Flu are more popular than Brown - you point out some of the really interesting findings buried deep in the poll i.e. 33% think England gains more from the Union economically than Scotland, as opposed to the 22% who think the reverse.
Remember, this is despite all the agit-prop coming out of the BBC and the "Scottish" Print Media to the contrary.
Complain about this comment
#247 Brownedov: thanks for the link to the poll results. I've done a little bit of cherry picking, erm I mean analysis, over at Brigadoon. In summary, if we could only discount votes from the over 65s and the under 34s then we'd be independent pretty soon! Alternatively, if the unionists could reverse this they'd sleep easy in their beds! "Remember, it's just a bit of fun", as a wise man often said ;o)
Complain about this comment
250:
I can't comment on the availabilty, or lack of it, of financial data but clearly you are correct that you can't be expected to be able to run the numbers if you don't have all of the information.
However to use a business analogy, I would expect a detailed "straw man" to be created by the Nationalists stating all of their assumptions. The onus is then on the Unionists to state what is wrong with it e.g. if proposal assumed annual tax revenue to be 20 billion (a number I made up!), Unionists have to come back and say what they think the number should be, why 20 is wrong etc. Then it becomes reasonable debate.
No plan has everything down to the n-th level and a venture such as independence will still have uncertainty, but I think when such a proposal is published, and the tyres are kicked, the debate will have moved on - in my view in favour of the Nationalists as they will have something to show. If Unionists can't effectively challenge such a proposal they have lost the debate.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#239 NCA999 -
My #256 seems to have fallen foul of the moderators so I'll try this in chunks to see where their problem lies -
"The second largest navy in the world."
I don't believe, for a second, that the UK has the second largest navy in the world and the quick bit of research I did seems to agree with me, not you. Could you back this claim up with something a little more substantial?
Nit picky, I admit but it leads me on to a more relevant point -
"Being part of a big country is a good thing, because it means we have the muscle to stand up for our interests, because nobody at the EU, or the UN would listen to Scotland."
I don't believe that the EU or the UN listen to Scotland now. Scotland's MEPs are massively outrepresented (6 out of 72 UK MEPs) at the European Parliament and as for Scotland being represented at the UN - the UK Parliament seems to want Trident so that the UK can keep its seat on the Security Council. Scotland's (Which doesn't seem to want Trident) views don't seem to be represented in this in any way whatsoever.
So a move towards independence seems likely to improve our representation in Europe. Currently we're on a level with Luxembourg, Cyprus and Estonia (All 6 MEPs) whereas independence would seem likely to raise our profile up to that of Finland or Denmark (Roughly equivalent populations with 14 MEPs each)
Complain about this comment
Second part of my #257 - with direct quotes removed.
As for an Independent Scotland's 'profile' at the UN - I can sum up my opinion on this - and it is purely my own personal opinion with a few lines from the late but immortal Bill Hicks. I won't quote them, but they're at the top of the page here
Representation at the UN didn't seem to get Scotland out of a war with Iraq which Scots, I believe, emphatically did not support.
Representation at the UN doesn't seem to have lead to us delivering regime change in other states where there seems to be a clear cut human rights case - Zimbabwe, for example. Recently representation at the UN only seems to have lead to Scotland's sons dying in Iraq and Afghanisation thanks, in the former instance, to a conspiracy of lies and deceit which the UK Prime Minister still stands accused of covering up today.
If that's what greater representation at the UN delivers - keep it. I don't want to be one of the 'Bullies of the world' any more. I'm happy for an Independent Scotland to reduce its defence commitments to precisely that - defence.
If an Independent England, post separation, wants to keep its big nuclear stick so it can carry on playing with the 'big boys' let it. Not in my name, to quote a popular slogan.
You say - "Bigger is better yes," - I say it isn't, unless you accept that machismo, chest-beating hubris is the best way to build our relationships with the rest of the world.
Complain about this comment
Typical BBC poll - biased and slanted in favour of Liebour as usual - anyway everyone with an ounce of sense and a little brain knows that Clown and his LIEBOUR party r finished in Scotalnd, and MOST definitely finished in the UK.
Complain about this comment
Re #255 Wee-nissy
"if proposal assumed annual tax revenue to be 20 billion (a number I made up!), Unionists have to come back and say what they think the number should be, why 20 is wrong etc. Then it becomes reasonable debate."
You would think so, wouldn't you, but there have been many debates on this blog where people have proposed how Scotland would work, financially, after independence, and they are constantly shot down by being asked to site their sources, so I suspect your straw man would be burnt to the ground with no alternative offered.
The real question is, why does Westminster not allow this information to be made available to the Scottish Government to allow the proposal for independence to have real financial substance?
If this information was available, there would then be no need for an 'detailed straw man' full of assumptions and guestimates, the veracity of which will end up being the argument rather than the real question of the benefits of independence.
Complain about this comment
#250 googlehoo
"We of course have little defence against that charge as we don't have the information to be able to present a realistic case. The information is held by Westminster and not released to us."
Spot on, and odd that it's not just home rulers who have the problem. The official unionists are now - rightly - complaining about the same problem over Treasury figures. Interesting times indeed.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re #261 Brownedov
Facts are the enemy of spin.
Complain about this comment
Citing examples like Iraq and Afghanistan, or saying that we haven't delivered regime change, or talking about nuclear issues or whatever are COMPLETELY irrelevant to the debate. In 300 years time the future Scottish government might well engage in an "illegal" war at some point.
Assuming that your independent country wouldn't be a dictatorship, we could elect any sort of government who could follow any sort of policies.
This repeated attempt to tie the policies of an Independent Scotland with the policies of the SNP, part of a wider disinformation campaign to persuade people that faults of Gordon Brown are a reason to vote for Independence, as a pose to a reason to vote for someone else.
If you don't like the policies of your government, vote them out of office, don't break up your country.
Complain about this comment
#257 BFK wrote:
"So a move towards independence seems likely to improve our representation in Europe. Currently we're on a level with Luxembourg, Cyprus and Estonia (All 6 MEPs) whereas independence would seem likely to raise our profile up to that of Finland or Denmark (Roughly equivalent populations with 14 MEPs each)"
Yes indeed, and in addition Scottish MEPs could represent Scottish interests soley and combine with other groups of MEPs with similar concerns eg Fishing quotas - giving us an even bigger bang for our buck -
Complain about this comment
Why should the government actively help the SNP to make their case.
The MAJORITY in the government disagree with your little cause, the MAJORITY in the Scottish Parliament disagree with it, the MAJORITY of the Scottish public disagree with it. What possible incentive is there for anyone to help you out? We don't care.
Why do we need to create a level playing field? We don't care about the debate and don't see any need for it. Do you really think that the SNP would be completely open and honest about the costs of their cause? A country with a massively disproportionate military size is really not going to keep employing all of those people in their new armed forces. There would be economic hardships in the short-medium term. You don't expect the SNP to go out of their way to help everyone else out, why should others do the same for them?
Back in the real world the Scottish public want the SNP to get on with governing, taking actual decisions. Thats the reason why you get such support levels for a referendum but not for the cause, because people want the SNP to shut up about it and move on.
Complain about this comment
So now I understand how to get on in British Society and how to get myself elevated to the highest echelons.
1. I become a Labour MP in Glasgow.
2. I milk my expenses for every last penny.
3. I tell a highly suspect message about the benefits of the Union to my constituents during the course of my career.
4. I become Speaker of Westminster and preside over a period of troughing that deifies belief.
5. I allow the troughing to continue under my watch and block attempts to stop it.
6. I get found out.
7. I get booted out.
8. I get appointed a peerage as a reward.
Great stuff, this British politics thing, isn't it. So fair, and a beacon to the rest of the world.
And I won't mention the chauffeur, the foreign travel, the taxi's for my wife's shopping trips. As long as my constituents are happy with less then I'm happy to :)
Complain about this comment
#237 NCA999
All you are really saying is that you are happy that your nation has no actual representation, in an unbalanced UK parliament, where all those decisions that you are so content to keep under the UK umbrella, are taken. How again can that make you proud?
You see no conflict between Scottish and British. Neither do I - if Scotland were independent:
I would happily (it is impossible to remove it) accept my shared British history. I don't need to be in the Union for that.
I would happily accept the term "British Isles" for the description of the land mass we're on (as Scandinavians siumilarly do). I don't need to be in the Union for that.
In summary you are OK with having your hands tied and your larger neighbour speak for you (I'd suggest there might be better ways of coping with the international question!) How is that making you proud again?
Personally, I'm better than that, and the next generation is to.
Complain about this comment
#237 NCA999
You know what people aren't going to like....a Conservative UK government voted in by more voters than there are Scots voters, who didn't vote for it, because it is unbalanced parliament. They won't like that one little bit. How does your argument for staying in the Union stack up then?
Complain about this comment
#263 NCA999 -
"Citing examples like Iraq and Afghanistan, or saying that we haven't delivered regime change, or talking about nuclear issues or whatever are COMPLETELY irrelevant to the debate."
I disagree. Here's why -
your #239 contained the assertion - "[N]obody at the EU, or the UN would listen to Scotland.". I note that, in so doing, you'd already moved the 'debate' on from a discussion of the current state or immediate past to speculation on what might happen in the future.
Also, you brought the UN into the debate, at this point.
You've subsequently chose to lambast me, in very general terms, on the basis that my assertions are in some way speculative. Please specify which part of my post you're disagreeing with.
As far as i can see; what I've written is based on relatively easily verified fact - the UN hasn't lead on regime change [to date]; the invasion of Iraq happened despite concerns raised in UN debates.
So; in reponse to your [speculative] assertation that "nobody at the . . .UN would listen to Scotland" - I've made my case for saying that I don't believe Scotland is represented at the UN now and that as an Independent nation our representation could conceivably be improved because we'll be represented on the basis of our collective wishes not the UKs (Where the two differ)
Please explain which part of this is "COMPLETELY irrelevant" to the point on the UN that you raised.
Complain about this comment
#237 NCA999
You don't lose your Britishness because we are independent you know.
You're right, close countries do club together for defence etc. where they have the same circumstances in common, always have. My query is that to do it we don't have to be mute onlookers, do we. We need to address the constitutional deficit between our nation status and our insufficient power or influence, which does not reflect it.
How about a "British Nations" system of four (or more, or else others?? What about the Scandinavians? Scotland has a lot in common there...) parliaments collaborating? I'd rather be a player than an observer. I think Scotland can do better than just be making up the numbers of Britain.
Complain about this comment
#254 forfar-loon
"thanks for the link to the poll results"
You're welcome. I'm flattered that at 60 you give me nearly 5 years to go before wrinkliness but sadly it isn't the case.
With the official PDF of the poll still not on the ICM website the PDF referred to in my #247 cannot be considered "final", but it is certainly something to be going on with and worth comparing with the latest TNS where the interviews were completed three weeks earlier.
Having had an look at the weightings of both, they seem to be fair "within gender, age, social grade and electoral region" as TNS puts it, but neither poll is weighted on either political allegiance or likelihood of actually voting if given the opportunity. Given that there's always one, there will no doubt a few Tory voters who would vote "Yes" to independence, just as there will be SNP voters who would vote "No" but these two factors are surely pretty relevant indicators.
Also, there does seem to have been some manipulation of the questions, to an extent that Sir Humphrey would doubtless have approved [see The Ministerial Broadcast]. In particular, on the Scottish Government's favoured referendum question: "I AGREE or I DO NOT AGREE that the Scottish Government should negotiate a settlement with the Government of the United Kingdom so that Scotland becomes an independent state"
As the sole question, TNS record 3 responses: Yes 36%, No 39% and Don't know 25%
As the 19th question out of 20, ICM record 3 different responses: Yes 42%, No 50%, Refused 8%
ICM's approach to this question is particularly odd, since every one of the other 19 questions has a Don't know option.
I frankly do not believe that not one of the 1010 respondees would not have chosen Don't know had the option been available, especially as on question 9: "I AGREE or I DO NOT AGREE that Scotland should become an independent country" had 7% Don't knows and 1% Refusals.
I am also extremely sceptical that when the quarterly TNS polls typically get over 20% Don't knows the level of indecision in ICM's question 9 should be low. My guess would be that ICM pushed much harder for a decision or perhaps they used telephone pollsters unfamiliar with spoken English in Scotland who mistook: "I don't know" for "I don't, No".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Further to my #269 -
#263 NCA999 -
You've accused me of a "[R]epeated attempt to tie the policies of an Independent Scotland with the policies of the SNP"
And yet you've also deliberately tied the policies of the Labour Party [Current incumbents and architects of the Iraq War] to those of the 'UK'.
Please understand my argument is not with the Labour Party, as you've tried to paint it, it's with the system that elevates the UK Parliament into a position from which it can dictate to the Scottish People on matters like the Iraq war.
"If you don't like the policies of your government, vote them out of office, don't break up your country."
If you can explain to me how I can vote the UK Government out of its unequal position of power, in relation to Scotland, I'd be very happy to listen.
Otherwise; I have to say - I actually quite like the policies of my government. I'm just not terribly keen on yours.
Complain about this comment
# 237 NCA999
How do you think we'd get on as a negotiating partner with say Norway? How is the (rest of the) EU going to deal with two oil rich, strategically placed partners like that? Think they may listen?
Complain about this comment
NCA999 RE:263
Your statement
"If you don't like the policies of your government, vote them out of office, don't break up your country."
has thrown up three thoughts in my mind
1. "break up your country" - we differ here, I like a fair number of Scots refer to Scotland as our country and the UK as the union our country is in. So we view this as leaving the Union not breaking up the country which is a very emotive and negative comment.
2. "vote them out of office" - you have to go back to 1979 to get a situation where the goverment majority has been less than the number of Scottish MPs (and that was under a Conservative goverment so you can still discount the Scottish MPs), so there has no way we as Scots can vote out the government. The best we can hope for is to hold some bargaining power in a hung or minority parliament.
3. "This repeated attempt to tie the policies of an Independent Scotland with the policies of the SNP" is as sensible as saying that to tie the policies of a United Kingdom to the policies of either the Tories or Labour.
Your last two paragraphs sort of contradict each other where you deride SNP supporters for attempt to persuade people to vote for them because of Gordon Brown but go on to suggest we should vote out the government, odd.
Complain about this comment
#263 NCA999
"In 300 years time the future Scottish government might well engage in an "illegal" war at some point."
Quite true, if the Scottish people are crazy enough to follow the example of the UK and have no constitutional safeguards whatsoever, with any parliament having the power to extend its own life and repeal any act that preceded it.
"If you don't like the policies of your government, vote them out of office, don't break up your country."
Quite how could the 59 Scottish MPs - likely to be reduced if the official unionists win - out of 646 do that unless we have a repeat of the first '74 election?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#271
Once again, the ability to translate yet another one of the 200 odd indications that nobody agrees with you into "we really secretly do have majority support" is nothing short of hilarious.
Do you guys genuinely fool yourselves all the time. If we had your referendum tomorrow would it have a "don't know" option? No.
Would you guys try to claim that the 30 or so percent of the vote that you got was a majority, quite probably yes.
Guys go back to school. Until then stop trying to persuade us that you have majority support, you don't. Go out and win a majority in the parliament, then maybe you'll get your wishes. Until then stop pretending to speak for the Scottish people when the Scottish people don't want you to.
Complain about this comment
#263 NCA999
"[N]obody at the EU, or the UN would listen to Scotland."
Oh, but that's exactly what they did do. A group called "Scotland UN" showed that a nation, Scotland (it fitted all the criteria!), was not afforded democracy, as was its right under the Charter, if it so willed it (which, it was shown, it did) by Westminster.
And in the light of all the former Soviet Union countries applying to join, and their democracy being scrutinised, the Westmister parliament was shamed, as it was embarrassingly undemocratic, into offering Scotland a referendum on devolution - why do you think it was so strangely at the front of Labour's legislative agenda? Not through Labour being magnanimous.
(Source Realm of Scotland website)
We can do things for ourselves.
Complain about this comment
265
Thank you for helping me make up my mind with regard to the independence question, yes the Scottish public want the SNP to get on with governing, taking actual decisions, and until they have a mandate to do so by having a parliamentary majority they will have to put up with the petty politicking of the current opposition parties who appear to have no real interest in governing Scotland but continue to try and score cheap points like yourself.
I have never once been polled for my opinion nor for that matter many of my friends and colleagues, all of whom are seriously looking at independence as the only way forward in which the political parties involved will actually be working for the benefit of Scotland and not for their Westminster overlords.
A previous Tory then Lib Dem voter, have seen the light and am now firmly in the independence camp.
Complain about this comment
By those arguments guys the people of the North East of England don't have the power to vote out the government.
Equally the people of the Highlands wouldn't have the power to vote out your hypothetical fantasy government.
The purpose behind democracy is one man one vote. Every individuals vote is even. Vote for one party and you are contributing to them winning. Don't vote for that party and you are contributing to them losing.
Complain about this comment
NCA999 RE276
"Until then stop pretending to speak for the Scottish people when the Scottish people don't want you to."
Nearly fell off my chair laughing at the comlpete hypocracy of this one statement.
Can you please stop pretending that you speak for all the Scottish people when the Scottish people don't want you to.
Complain about this comment
276 NCA999
"stop pretending to speak for the Scottish people when the Scottish people don't want you to."
Do you see the contradiction in your stating the above, with your contentment that the Scots should be represented by the UK? Who is speaking for us then? (Not us.)
Complain about this comment
# 276 NCA999
It doesn't matter whether Scots vote for increased powers (tax raising) or independence, in any upcoming referendum. Gaining tax raising as a Scottish concern will only make Scots wonder why we don't have all the other normal national powers. What's more important?
(As I've stated, the international question can be answered by having a voice and communicating for ourselves with our neighbours, where all the options can be considered, in a changing world. Right now we have one! And I'm not sure Britain is that "Great" now, as even Blair said on Brian's programme.)
So in both cases independence will sort the anomalies. There isn't a better solution, you see.
Complain about this comment
#281
Hey up! a blast from the past, aye-write still embodied in a past of long ago!
Grow up aye-write the debate is not about identity, it's about the future progress of the peoples of Scotland's.
Complain about this comment
Welcome to the Unionist nebula people.
An increase in Unionist traffic to coincide with the BBC's propaganda.
I note that presenters both on radio and TV have been 'encouraged' to report that Scots are abandoning independence, strange that they also reported support for the same was around 20% around the time of Calman.
So how 20% moving to 42% means that support is falling is beyond me.
I note that the most important question in terms of devolution was not asked: Namely full fiscal autonomy.
The BBC's poll is loaded in that it forces the respondents to think in terms of devolution befor starting to ask a series of independence questions. The first is so ambiguous that the 28% result was predictable, the second and third are less so and give results of 38% and 42%- roughly in line with recent findings.
The lack of a don't know is indeed strange and seems to want to force the issue. People will be naturally reticent to opt for one or other until they have more information, however the fact that by the time of asking the questionaire has already established in the respondents mind a devolution mindset. Not surprisingly most of the previous don't knows will have taken the less radical route.
Still, 42% is a figure that I'll take with great pleasure at this moment. The independence movement have yet to show their hand whilst Unionists have used up virtually everything in their arsenal.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#276.
"Guys go back to school. Until then stop trying to persuade us that you have majority support, you don't. Go out and win a majority in the parliament, then maybe you'll get your wishes. Until then stop pretending to speak for the Scottish people when the Scottish people don't want you to."
There's is little to support that the union has a clear majority. Have you decided that know best, and the undeciders would all vote against their independence in a referendum?
If polls are final, why do we need elections? The Irish 'No' win was suprising because polls showed a different picture.
Political parties are not one-issue groups. Each party has multiple ideas and we vote for the party that best represents us. Just because I may vote Labour, Conservative or Liberal Democrats does not suggest I support the union, it simply says I support most of which they stand for.
Complain about this comment
# 279 NCA999
So get rid of all nations/countries then? Why keep Britain???
What do all those other nations want? Why don't they just club together, as a minority group, joined with a larger neighbour? What, they'd lose sovereignty? But their neighbour's more voters could speak for them. Not an issue, would you agree? (They can retain their pride?)
Or why can there be one person one vote for the UK parliament, but not one person one vote for the same Scottish parliament, where it also has status (as opposed to none now) over the most important issues? It must be less significant? Are we/you less significant? I'm not.
How do you square it and remain proud again?
Complain about this comment
#263 NCA999, quote; "If you don't like the policies of your government, vote them out of office, don't break up your country."
The union is not a country, it is more than one country (3 country's + 6 NI counties to be precise). Scotland is a country and a nation. Please get your facts right.
Complain about this comment
#282 wrote
" (As I've stated, the international question can be answered by having a voice and communicating for ourselves with our neighbours, where all the options can be considered, in a changing world. Right now we have one! And I'm not sure Britain is that "Great" now, as even Blair said on Brian's programme.)"
Well! aye-write a voice does help, when it comes to communicating however your rather rind bland tone is of no help.
Care to tell the people why! the 2008 GERS report tell us that Scotland would have faced a deficit of 3Bn under Independence.
Complain about this comment
You know guys you can keep claiming that every single poll ever conducted was rigged against you and that it's entirely possible that some people stated their opinions "wrongly" when asked.
Alternatively you can just look at two facts.
One, the SNP has never won majority support in Scotland.
Two, there has never been a single poll that showed more than 50% of the Scottish population supporting independence. In contrast to the hundreds of others disagreeing with you would make even a primary school statistician realise that you're probably deluding yourselves.
Complain about this comment
Bongo
No it's not. The current factual position is that our nation state and country is the UK.
Scotland is recognised by historical convention, notably the way the UK was set up, as having "country" as a title but it's not practically or legally so.
I understand entirely your emotive feelings on the subject. I too consider Scotland to be my home nation/country/culture.
Please don't however claim that calling Britain a country, which it is, a factual innacuracy.
By your argument abover the Republic of Ireland isn't a country, I'm quite sure if you said that to any of them however that they would disagree with you.
Complain about this comment
289
"you're probably deluding yourselves"
Probably? Don't even have the courage of your own convictions then? Seems clear to me that you are running scared.
Complain about this comment
# 278 skintybroko
I for one really appreciate your posting that.
There is still, as you can see, a lot of difficulty in breaking from the "blankie" of Britain. But it's all propaganda.
It was only since the mass media that "Britishness" has entered our consciousness, before that it never impacted our daily lives, we never really heard about it, we were just Scottish. (Even in the Empire, Scots toiled for Scots, and were found really irritating for it!) It's a recent thing (last 50 or 60 years). No, I'm 34 ;-)
It's Gordon Brown's biggest card against independence of course, but his arguments even sounded tired on Panorama. More and more clearly now, it sounds like an excuse to keep him more power, than a legitimate, credible proposition for a modern Scotland in a modern world.
Complain about this comment
Another masterly performance from Brown at PMQs. We can all look forward to 0% growth apparently!
Brian, 'fess up - have you been giving the PM remedial maths lessons?
Complain about this comment
#292
Wow! aye-write and the picture on a biscuit tin approach to Scotland's political intent. Singing national songs under a tree isn't going to help the economy?.
You clearly are, opposed to devolution and the demographic and democratic means of the parliament.
If hope' was a white dove you probably would have shot it with your Air Gun!
Complain about this comment
292
Cheers, all I want is for our politicians to be honest (fat chance) and whether or not I agree with SNP policies they certainly appear to be trying to tell us the truth, something sadly lacking from the opposition parties. I am fed up with spin and counter spin, the union only serves to muddy the waters and I truly believe that the people of Scotland whatever their political persuasion would be better served by their parties working in Scotland for Scotland
Complain about this comment
#265 NCA999
"The MAJORITY in the government disagree with your little cause, the MAJORITY in the Scottish Parliament disagree with it, the MAJORITY of the Scottish public disagree with it. What possible incentive is there for anyone to help you out? We don't care."
I can't quickly lay my hands on the turnout figures for 1931 when the National Government won the general election with 67% of the votes cast, but certainly no UK or national government since then has had the support of the "MAJORITY" of its electorate. Do you have any reliable data to support your knowledge of what the majority of the Scottish public disagrees with?
Data is hard to come prior to '97 but ever since then NuLab have been promising to provide audited WGA accounts and still currently promise to do so in 2010/11. Obviously the fact that the auditor isn't independent but appointed by Duff Gordon will detract from their value but even so it demonstrates that his party knows what "honour" is even without possessing any.
Your "we" is ambiguous. Which we?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#276 NCA999
It really is easier to respond if you quote the poster's moniker as well as the number in accord with common blog etiquette.
"Once again, the ability to translate yet another one of the 200 odd indications that nobody agrees with you into "we really secretly do have majority support" is nothing short of hilarious."
Had I made the claim you "quote" in my #271, it would certainly have been funny, although probably more peculiar than ha ha.
I note you repeat your assertions of "200 odd indications", but as you provide no references or time scale for them it is impossible to agree with you. Opinion polls before '99 are unlikely to have any current relevance at all, and only polls since '07 are likely to have much current relevance. If there are more than a dozen or so of the latter, I'd be very surprised.
"Would you guys try to claim that the 30 or so percent of the vote that you got was a majority, quite probably yes"
If you had read many of my posts, you'd know I'm pretty much alone here in desiring a confederal UK, at least as a stepping stone, so your you guys is a bit wide of the mark, but I do acknowledge that the idiocy of both wings of the unionist party and the illiberalism of the L-Ds does mean that my views are closer to the SNP's than they were.
Anyway, you seem rather unfamiliar with the way in which opinion polls discount those who won't vote or refuse to say. By ignoring or factoring them, they make the percentages quoted for the parties add up to 100%. In the same way, had the referendum been held at the beginning of June without a formal campaign the TNS results (of Yes 36%, No 39%, Don't know 25%) would have translated into something like 48% Yes vs 52% No votes actually cast, making it too close to call given the poll's margin of error.
Were it much different, why would both wings of the unionist party plus the formerly federalist L-Ds be so against letting the people decide?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#290 NCA999
Please don't however claim that calling Britain a country, which it is, a factual innacuracy. Oh dear, there is a sovereign state of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. Country may refer to a state but can also cover other entities such as England, the West Country or Constable Country. Britain of itself does not exist but is sometimes used as sloppy shorthand for UKGBNI, GB, the largest island in the British Isles or UKGBNI with the Channel Islands and the Isle of Man according to the whim of the user of the term. So, unless you are prepared to be more accurate in defining your terms, I must take issue with you on your assertion.
Complain about this comment
#284 greenockboy
"I note that the most important question in terms of devolution was not asked: Namely full fiscal autonomy."
Spot on. The 62% Edinburgh answer to Q.11 ["Who do you think should make most of the important decisions for Scotland about income tax, the Scottish Government in Edinburgh or the UK Government at Westminster?"] gives us a very big hint that a great many people would want to go far beyond Calman, even with the favourable media coverage Calman has had and before the debate itself properly starts.
"The lack of a don't know is indeed strange and seems to want to force the issue ... Not surprisingly most of the previous don't knows will have taken the less radical route."
Spot on again, and as the 19th question in an oral interview there will have been an element of not wanting to "disappoint" the interviewer. At the very least, Qs 9 and 19 should have been consecutive.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#40, sorry handclapping didn't see your reply until just there, agree absolutely - though, officially at least, you no longer need an ID card to be British (until they reach the secret threshold level via employers, passport controls etc ...).
Complain about this comment
#289 NCA999
"You know guys you can keep claiming that every single poll ever conducted was rigged against you and that it's entirely possible that some people stated their opinions "wrongly" when asked."
Yet again, you're misrepresenting what's being said here.
I have yet to see anyone on the BT threads claiming that the quarterly TNS polls are other than scrupulously fair in showing a marginal lead for a "No" vote and a large proportion of "Don't knows" on a single question that can reasonably by asked by the Scottish Government. That sets a scene of "all to play for" in the referendum campaign proper.
That no doubt explains why the other parties are so reluctant to hold one, despite the 58% of the Scottish people who appear to want one from the ICM poll's Q.8.
If you and those parties are so sure you will win, why the reluctance?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#290, NCA99, Sorry, but it is you how is wrong.
Quote: "No it's not. The current factual position is that our nation state and country is the UK.
Scotland is recognised by historical convention, notably the way the UK was set up, as having "country" as a title but it's not practically or legally so."
The Act of Union, was simply the joining of the Privvy Councils of the two countries... not the joining of two countries into one Country. Law, Education, the churches of Scotland and England were all kept separate. The sharing of a parliament is simply not the main issue which defines nationhood.
Your Unionist belief that you can wipe out the culture and the nation of Scotland is quite simply laughable. Scotland is a country and a nation, not the UK. You may cry in your soup at that fact, but it won't change a thing.
Complain about this comment
#290 NCA999
In fact Britain is a political construct, has no history of culture of its own. Scotland and England remained culturally separate, as the Union had minimal impact on them (until very recently, post WWII). Scotland retained the pillars on which its community was built - its education, religion and Justice systems - for all those years since.
For the vast majority of its 800 year history as a nation, Scotland has been independent.
You were born into the UK instead of an independent Scotland on the basis of a majority of no more than 4 proxy votes in the English parliament. (In a vote driven by lack of support as early as merely six years after the Union came into effect!)
"Superstates" which cobbled nations together, sooner or later always fail. A future as an independent nation is the only ordinary normal way.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
You may need the construction of the British state around you to feel important enough, but I don't.
Complain about this comment
#288 Derek
"Care to tell the people why! the 2008 GERS report tell us that Scotland would have faced a deficit of 3Bn under Independence."
And how much of a deficit did the UK have in 2008? If it's ok for the UK (and most other 'developed' nations to run a budget deficit, why would it be so bad for an independant Scotland to run one as well?
Since you seem to enjoy commenting on the hypothetical, if Scotland had been independent in 2008 and had its geographical share of oil and gas revenues, how much greater would the rest of the UK's deficit have been?
Complain about this comment
#289 NCA999
"there has never been a single poll that showed more than 50% of the Scottish population supporting independence"
Fair enough but, at the same time, can you tell me when was the last time that a poll showed more than 50% of the Scottish population supporting the continuation of the union? And, no, you can't claim the don't know/don't care respondants as being pro-union.
Complain about this comment
I have a suggestion
If the media really is so unbelievably biased against you and un-representative of the people why don't you set up a newspaper to rival it and provide your own personal "balanced" coverage. Given how you guys apparently represent that majority opinion I'm sure you'll have no problem gaining circulation.
An even better suggestion, why don't you run for office, win a majority and do something about your opinions.
Clearly people keep watching the news, reading the newspapers etc so obviously don't have a problem with the quality of media they choose to use.
Clearly people keep overwhelmingly voting a majority against the nationalists so can't possibly be clamouring that much for your cause.
Yes I may have made up a number of polls, I've no idea how many have been carried out, but I can tell that it's quite a lot.
The important statistic is that they consistently come out disagreeing with your opinion. Combined with the fact that the SNP have never had a majority of the vote and there is no evidence whatsoever to imply that the people want Independence and that time should therefore be wasted on the issue.
The best that you've been able to come up with is one poll which, when you twist the figures, can be shown to provide 48% for.
You rant on about Scottish self-determination but refuse to respect it.
Clearlythe majority don't want it. There's maybe a quarter of voters questioned who seem to change their mind, but thats never enough to push you over 50%.
Even if you were able to get 50.1% once, and it wouldn't be any higher, and even if that was in a referendum, there's quite clearly a consistent and long term dissaproval of the idea.
Complain about this comment
Bongo
"Your Unionist belief that you can wipe out the culture and the nation of Scotland is quite simply laughable"
And here we sum up entirely the deluded little beliefs of some people, not all Thomas I know :), that post on here.
If you had read anything that I've said you'd have realised that I'm unbelievably proud to be Scottish and have no desire to "wipe out" the culture of Scotland.
In actual fact the Scottish culture and history has had it's most secure times as part of the UK. The only times in our history when our culture was suppressed by the 'evil English' was when we were Independent and in conflict with them. The fact that we still have a unique cultural identity after 300 years of union is perfect evidence that there is no cultural or social need to break away, as being part of the UK is doing no harm to sales of kilts or uptake of bagpipe playing.
If you ask the majority of scots they, like me, consider themselves to be both British and Scottish and don't consider the two to be mutually exclusive.
#304 Aye_write
Thats nice. Why do I care?
Complain about this comment
#305 Fit Like
You want some really basic maths here.
If the UK had a total deficit of some number in 2008, I don't know but lets say for discussion sake it was 15 billion. If we were to break away and our deficit would remain at 3 billion, then the rest of the UK deficit would be 12 billion, which is less, not greater.
What a silly point.
Complain about this comment
Re GERS.
Why was there a difference between the previous more gloomy GERS, and when the SNP could look at it? Were they making up all the oil revenues Scotland has??
And as for the supposed years in deficit :-)
I can hear other countries with oil laugh incredulously! "You'd have to spend a heck of a bl**dy lot to get yourself that way!" they'd quip!!
Now, which government do we know has been spending a heck of a lot lately??
It's obvious. Other countries don't see our dilemma (they are independent).
Complain about this comment
#306 fit-like
It the nationalists that continue to argue that Independence and full fiscal control would see a dramatic change in the finances of Scotland.
So far the "arc of insolvency" is all that has been proved?
Fit-like, if there is some magic button to press that would mushroom Scotland's finances, then lets hear it?.
Complain about this comment
#307 NCA999
The point is, after some time with fiscal autonomy, or steps towards it, with increased tax raising, or varying, powers, how many Scots aren't going to want full control, i.e. independence?
How are you persuading them they shouldn't/can't have it?
Complain about this comment
#306 Fit-Like
I don't need tom, it's not me who's wanting to waste time on this it's you.
It's the SNPs job to persuade people that their views are wrong and that we need to seperate from the rest of the country.
If they ever get a majority vote or have some compelling evidence to show majority support for their little cause then they will have the ability to call a referendum on the subject and do something about it.
Until then, it's not my problem mate.
Complain about this comment
"there has never been a single poll that showed more than 50% of the Scottish population supporting independence"
'Majority of Scots want independence, survey finds'
http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2007/jan/12/scotland.devolution
'An exclusive TNS System Three poll has found that 41% of Scots want the SNP government to negotiate an independence settlement, compared to 40% who are opposed to breaking up the UK'.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2192965.0.0.php
Complain about this comment
#308 NCA999
I care because it's my childrens' future everyone is bickering over. Do I want them to feel proud, or cringe?
Re asking about national identity. Someone already did!
You may be interested in this pre-devolution study of identity from 1999 -
Scottish not British 33.7%
More Scottish than British 35.6%
Equally Scottish and British 23.4%
More British than Scottish 3.5%
British, not Scottish 3.7%
You will note that only 7.2% felt that their primary identity was British.
We are ten years post devoution now.
Complain about this comment
#309 NCA999
Think it's your arithmetic that's slightly askew.
If the UK deficit was £15bn including the oil revenues, take away those oil revenues and the deficit grows, not shrinks.
Those revenues are now reducing Scotland's deficit down to £3bn from what would be a higher number if we didn't have those revenues. So, your sum becomes:
UK deficit including Oil Revenues = -£15bn
Split out 'Scottish Deficit' of -£3bn gives you -£12bn as you said.
But the Scottish deficit assumes that we also take the oil revenues so the UK deficit now = -£12bn - oil revenues = an awful lot more than £12bn.
Complain about this comment
#307 NCA999 -
Firstly, an observation - you seem to be shyng away from answering the difficult questions.
Secondly, an attempt to be helpful - I've collated a couple of the questions you seem to be struggling with below -
#296 Brownedov -
"I can't quickly lay my hands on the turnout figures for 1931 when the National Government won the general election with 67% of the votes cast, but certainly no UK or national government since then has had the support of the "MAJORITY" of its electorate. Do you have any reliable data to support your knowledge of what the majority of the Scottish public disagrees with?"
#301 Brownedov -
"If you and those parties are so sure you will win [a referendum], why the reluctance [to hold one]?"
#306 Fit Like -
"When was the last time that a poll showed more than 50% of the Scottish population supporting the continuation of the union?"
Lastly, a polite request - could we have your answers to these, at your convenience?
Complain about this comment
NCA999,
"If you ask the majority of scots they, like me, consider themselves to be both British and Scottish and don't consider the two to be mutually exclusive."
Hmm.. most Scots do consider themselves as Scottish and British, but they feel more Scottish then British. Do you not see the political benefits from encouraging Scots that they can be Scottish while apart of Britain? It's a theory, I believe that the referendum will become an issue surrounding identity and the unionists are reaching out to Scots by saying, "Hey, you can be Scottish while apart of Britain and still be patriotic."
I believe it's a long-term gain for nationalists. I can now be Scottish, whilst apart of the United Kingdom, but I do not have to be British. Do you believe that British and Britishness must be apart of our identity for the political union to remain? You mentioned that you are Scottish and British equally, must we, in future remain British in order for the union to survive?
I would also like you hear your opinion. I, and another poster were discussing the benefits of independence and the union (suprise, suprise). They made a point, that Scotland can survive as an independent country but will be unable to continue as we are and would raise taxes. I said that Scotland, while apart of the United Kingdom will take similar action. Gordon Brown and Co can spin, spin, spin but we know cuts and tax rises are on their way. However thing poster claimed that Scotland would never manage to lower taxes in the future and doomed with high taxes, but the United Kingdom will manage to recover and lower taxes... I asked what's the difference between the two but as you expect the poster simply repeated the entire discussion.
Do you believe as I do, that this poster was talking nonesense and independence for Scotland might lead to tax rises (as similar to the United Kingdom taxes) and in future (if the Government was that generous, keep dreaming eh?) lower taxes once the economy returns to normal (as the United Kingdom tends to do)?
Complain about this comment
I'm confused. Doesn't take much, I know but I address post 305 to derekbarker and NCA999 replies and I address post 306 to NCA999 and derekbarker replies.
I've had a long day but all thesee split/mixed-up personalities are beginning to get the better of me :-)
Complain about this comment
#307 NCA999
"Yes I may have made up a number of polls, I've no idea how many have been carried out, but I can tell that it's quite a lot."
Thanks for that admission. Personally I try to stick to facts wherever I can.
"The best that you've been able to come up with is one poll which, when you twist the figures, can be shown to provide 48% for."
I suspect you're referring to me, but you're quite wrong about "one poll". The TNS poll I link to above is merely the latest in a quarterly series coming out at least since September 2007. At the time it came out, R-E made a thing over a small decline compared to the February one and seemed quite pleased about it.
"Even if you were able to get 50.1% once, and it wouldn't be any higher, and even if that was in a referendum, there's quite clearly a consistent and long term dissaproval of the idea."
Bliar started his all his dubious adventures with a lot less than 50% of the votes cast, but that's beside the point.
Are you suggesting that ICM are misleading us all by suggesting that 58% of the Scottish electorate want the referendum?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#311 derek
I never claimed there was a magic button or that there was some additional finace available, I was just using the GERS figures that say that, if independant, Scotland would have had a deficit of £3bn, to make the point of, 'Well, so what?' The UK runs a budget deficit (in 14 of the last 20 years according to the same govenment figures).
My question was, if the UK is allowed to run at a deficit why should it matter if an independant Scotland had a budget deficit? As I said, most other industrialised nations run at a deficit so why should it matter overly if an independant Scotland ran at one as well.
But, more to the point, that was in post 305, not 306. 306 was me asking for someone to tell me when the polls showed that more than 50% of people in Scotland supported remaining within the union (without including the don't knows in your figures)
Complain about this comment
#313 NCA999
Not your problem? No it's not a problem if you don't wish to make a case for keeping the Union that isn't based on our being inferior and needy. "It's bigger" is about the sum total of your arguments. Well, what conclusions...?
Complain about this comment
#313 NCA999
So, what you are saying is Independence supporters need to be able to justify their claims but union supporters do not?
In otherwords, you can't demonstrate that more than 50% of Scots want to remain within the Union so, ergo, neither side has an outright majority with the current polls showing the pro-Union camp as currently being the slightly larger minority group.
Given that it's that pesky 25% of the population who claim to don't know how they would vote that will, in all likelihood determine the result of any future referendum, I'd say the onus is on both sides to try and convince as many of those waverers as possible to join them. If the pro-Union camp don't want to engage them, that's fine by me. It's potentially their loss.
Anyway, game on. It's still all to play for...
Complain about this comment
re oil revenues
BBC documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R1cyNItHkF8
Teasury have received £230 billion tax from oil companies since 1968.
In 2008 treasury received £4.8 billion corporation tax, £3.4 billion supplementary tax, £1.7 billion petroleum revenue tax, £30 billion fuel duty and vat
A 90% share of £40.9 billion a year according to this programme.
Scotland yearly pocket money from Westminster = £30 billion.
Independence isn't just about money.... but I think we would do just fine managing ourselves rather than have someone else do it.
Scottish and British my @rse. British always comes first for people who say that. You look at all the 'Scottish' Unionists voting records, all they care about is British Imperialism - voting for wars, nuclear weapons, improvements to service London. Lets put all that money in to education and medical research and pioneering technology. But we can only achieve something better by giving Holyrood more decision making power.
Complain about this comment
£40 billion a year. Thats surely not right.
Think I need to watch that programme again. Isn't it meant to be about £12 billion a year?
Complain about this comment
Re Scottish & British
It is not possible to feel "as much Scottish as British" or vice versa, unless you accept that "Scottish" has less status, as one talks at international level (and has normal sovereign powers) and one doesn't, and don't mind.
I do mind. "Scottish" is not a second class nationality, superseded. Yet that is what from "Britishness" results.
No wonder many Scots think we can't do things without Britain, without England. It's why Brown and "the Brits" keeping beating it home to us, Britishness. But it completely gets in our way in engaging with the world.
It's a part of history, not a part of our future.
Complain about this comment
#326
Your so far off the mark aye-write.
It's our Scottishness that has helped to develop our Britishness.
You seem unable just to say it as you see it! your an out and out nationalist and separatist.There i've said it for you.
Complain about this comment
Why do other countries not use their national identity to develop another one?? Maybe their own nationality is sufficient.
I am a normalist, unless every other independent country is wrong and and by rights they should join their larger neighbours....???
Complain about this comment
Regarding your comment about the nationality of Tony Blair on your Panorama programme - you described him as 'an Englishman born in Scotland' - Hmmmmmmm, how does that work then?
Blair was born in Scotland. His father Leo is Scottish and his mother, Irish - so where does the 'English' bit come from then?
Blair is a Scot, end of. And what's more, he's a posh Scot - you only need to look at where he was educated to realise that.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #320
I just spotted this direct quote from Aunty Bella in the Scotsman's Pressure on parties to drop opposition as most Scots back independence vote: "The latest opinion polls confirm support for independence is at an all-time low and support for Scotland as part of Britain is at an all time high."
Honest, at least, and more convincing than the bluster from Gray and Scott over why a referendum is a bad idea.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#329 Alfred the OK
I think though he'd rather be referred to as a Brit ;-)
Complain about this comment
#328
Yes! you are a bit of an abnormalist and most certainly a minority pessimist.
What happened to politics and delivering on manifesto pledges?.
Ditched for a one party policy of Independence, shame on you!
Complain about this comment
Why are other countries not ashamed of their independence?
Complain about this comment
Fit Like? re your 319
No need to be confused they are all the same person.
Anyone wanting an answer from from reluctant nca999 will wait a long time. His usual post is to present his opinion as fact then disappear when asked to justify what he has posted. Just go back over all the posts on this thread for justification or facts to back up his opinions and you will find none.
Its strange since reluctant was laughed off here for REARDOM he has disappeared and nca999 has taken his place.
Complain about this comment
#329 Alfred the OK
"Regarding your comment about the nationality of Tony Blair on your Panorama programme - you described him as 'an Englishman born in Scotland' - Hmmmmmmm, how does that work then?"
It's very simple really. Your national identity and the country of your birth are not always the same thing. People can be born in England and consider themselves to be Scottish and vice versa. My mother was born in Somerset, her mother was born in India, my partner was born in London but grew up in Germany (her father is German) and Thailand before returning to britain and living in Edinburgh for more than half her life. All three count themselves as Scottish, and why shouldn't they? It is the country they identify themselves with. Similarly, arguably Scotland's most successful Rugby coach, Ian McGeechan was born and lived most of his life in England but, as far as I am aware, he is as proud of being Scottish as any of the players who pulled on the Blue Jersey under his leadership.
Yes, where you are born has a bearing on your nationality, but it isn't the be-all and end-all.
By your argument, you can keep Alasdair Darling as, by your definition, he is as English as jellied eels and warm beer.
Complain about this comment
#333
You just a bundle of explosive aggression.
So you think that every coup d'e'tat is justified and dictatorship is acceptable.
Grow up! aye-write.
Complain about this comment
Re national identity
According to the the writings of Mazzini, the philosopher of Italian nationalism (he explored many factors which he thought might explain why people felt themselves to be "Italian"), he finally concluded that "a nation consisted of those who feel themselves to belong to it".
Complain about this comment
#337 aye_write
""a nation consisted of those who feel themselves to belong to it"."
A very succint way of putting what I was trying to say in my slightly more rambling #335 :-)
Complain about this comment
#333 derek
"So you think that every coup d'e'tat is justified and dictatorship is acceptable."
That came completely out of leftfield. Where on earth did you get that from what a_w posted?
Complain about this comment
#333 Derekbarker
Naw completely barking
Complain about this comment
derekbarker re 336
That is probably the most intelligent, though provoking comment you have ever made on here. Then again maybe not.
Complain about this comment
Has Dereluctant been on the juice?
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
Remember - way back on this thread! - you were concerned that there was no debate? I suggested that this was because of the paucity of the Unionist arguments?
Having logged back in, I find that NCA9999 posted assertions. These were challenged by many posters, and reasonable questions asked oh him/her. S/he replied to no questions, and degenerated into inventing data and making ludicrous attacks. I noted no attacks on him/her as a person - simply the rigour of debate applied.
My original point is, I think, amply demonstrated. The Independistas are keen to debate - the cowardice lies in the other camp.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else noticed the HYS on devolution?
It's quite disappointing, since when did the Scots pay no taxes? It's the same story. Scots are subsidised, can't run their banks, Shetland and Orkney will leave too!
It's quite clear that regular Scots and England have trouble getting along, perhaps the focus should be on mending the social problems between both country's?
Complain about this comment