Not impossible - but difficult
Another day and things move on apace.
Alex Salmond has now set out more info about his plans for independence: he will publish a White Paper on St Andrew's day this year, with a referendum Bill to follow in 2010.
More intriguingly, he has suggested the eventual referendum ballot paper to go before the voters, Holyrood permitting, might include a "Calman option".
This is smart thinking by the FM. His opponents in the Scottish Parliament are opposed to holding a referendum next year.
Whatever they may say, I suspect that, privately, they understand that this is a tricky place to be, politically.
Not impossible, you understand. But difficult.
It is one thing to advance a case against independence. It is another, entirely, to be depicted as standing out against the people choosing.
Folk tend to like being empowered.
Weeping buckets
Mr Salmond knows all that - and so Mr Salmond is out to be Mr Reasonable when it comes to his referendum.
You don't like asking about independence? Well, then, put in the option of your Calman Commission proposals.
As I have written before, he won't exactly weep buckets if his Referendum Bill is blocked.
He would use it as a tactical issue at the next Holyrood election.
There's another, more immediate tactical problem for Mr Salmond's opponents.
They say that they aren't entirely against the concept of a referendum. It's largely about timing.
Not now. Economy in crisis. Too disruptive. Wait. Defer.
In which case, why pursue the Calman agenda so enthusiastically and urgently? That involves, does it not, substantial change including fiscal transfer.
Difficult position
It is sufficiently substantial, at least, for the business organisation, the CBI, to warn against it.
Why the hurry, then, from those who are so utterly resiled against an independence referendum? Now, I understand. Independence is rather different from Calmanised devolution. I get the concept.
I simply say again that it seems to me to make it rather more difficult, intellectually, for Labour, the Liberal Democrats and the Tories to be so against Mr Salmond preparing a plebiscite when they are eagerly pursuing a constitutional agenda of their own.
Especially when he is now prepared to absorb their option.
In response to Mr Salmond's remarks today, the comments are coruscating.
It is, apparently, a "cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics". (Author: the Tories.)
Or it is "another red herring". (Labour). Or it is a "pointless waste of taxpayers money" to have a referendum. (LibDems)
The chutzpah
All of which may or may not be true. I know not the species of fish involved but I feel sure that the leader of a political party is, wittingly or otherwise, engaged in politics.
However, it still does not answer the underlying point. For a democratic, elected politician, it is a tricky thing to have to advance a case against a popular choice, against a referendum.
Our opposition leaders at Holyrood plainly feel they have the stomach for the fight, the chutzpah. I shall watch with growing fascination.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~57~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian
How unfortunate for the Onionists that they didn't consider their exit strategy when they advanced into Calman; just like Tony Bliar and Iraq. Oh well, if it comes back and bites them on the bum, shows what poor politicians they are. In fact makes you wonder what use they are?
Complain about this comment
1. Calman proposes an increase in powers for the Scottish parliament.
"Lib Dems and Labour are smiling and looking notably content."
2. First Minister Alex Salmond says the option to increase the Scottish Parliament's powers could be included in an independence referendum.
"Lib Dem and Labour smiles notably absent."
Priceless. :-)
Complain about this comment
There's no way the country is actually ready to vote for independence - I think we're at least another decade from that becoming a reality, although I am a pessimist - so in a way, I almost hope the referendum bill doesn't get through so that the SNP then have another four year term to show people that independence would be good for Scotland. If it does go through and people don't choose independence, then I wonder how long we'd have to wait for another chance. Opposition parties and the media would surely then be up in arms if the SNP placed an independence referendum in their next manifesto, but without independence on the cards, then what happens to the SNP's identity? Especially as Labour are surely going to swing back to the left once they lose the next general election.
Hopefully a vote for further powers would allow the SNP to frame the argument as people wanting a more gradual change, allowing them to hold another referendum in perhaps the following parliamentary session. Whatever happens, hopefully Salmond has no plans of retiring for at least another decade and a half.
Complain about this comment
Sometimes you see a politician exhibit sparkling flashes of virtuosity. Such is Salmond's riposte here.
What next? Picking flies off Iain Gray's shoulder with an epee?
Bravo!
Complain about this comment
Those fish Brian would be rotting fish as that is all that emanates from the unionist parties.
Complain about this comment
BT, this statement is a disgrace
This is smart thinking by the FM. His opponents in the Scottish Parliament are opposed to holding a referendum next year.
Whatever they may say, I suspect that, privately, they understand that this is a tricky place to be, politically.
Not impossible, you understand. But difficult.
When we do get independance are you expecting a pension from the people you have tried to shaft for so long, i.e. your own people !
I doubt it, you'll be in surray living off your ill gotten gains !
ps I'm on a contract in a communist country and you and the bbc make them look like amateurs !
pps sorry, still the japanese keyboard !
Complain about this comment
"Folk tend to like being empowered."
Brian -
Try to keep up.
After the Westminster expenses scandal (no, we haven't forgotten it, sorry) politicians are the ones who will be looking to be "empowered" and we are the ones who'll be doing the "empowering."
Complain about this comment
The various unionist pLeaders comments may have been 'coruscating' for you Brian but I think nauseating or just plan boring is nearer the mark.
Overall however your analysis looks spot on, not that it is very difficult to see where this is all going. Aren't you just a wee bit behind the curve on the Unionist stance against a referendum. I was strangely under the impression that the thumping they received during the EU election had reoriented their attitudes here somewhat?
Mind you with the unionists it alwayds depends on the way the wind blows. One minute its all 'no chance', then its 'bring it on', then its off again, then its we wont won't oppose a referendum, then its depends how the questions are phrased...
There will be a referendum it's just a question of wording and choices.
One thing is for sure the Calman Gambit crates a platform for discussion that the unionists can no longer just ignore and hope goes away. This is to everyone benefit but the hard core unionists, where FUD is bliss.
I do wonder what constraints the unionists will try to add:
Postal votes mandatory?
Dead people count against?
80% need to vote in favour?
70% turnout required?
Complain about this comment
More woe for NuLab in this website's Union threat to cut Labour funds, with a particularly apposite quote from Unison's General Secretary Dave Prentis saying Unison was "tired of feeding the hand that bites it".
Rather like NuLab's the Lisbon Treaty isn't the constitutional treaty we promised a referendum on excuse, I wonder if the Scottish electorate will feel much the same over NuLab's "Calman does not need a referendum. It is an extension of the devolution process" as quoted in the Times article linked to in dubbieside's #175 on the previous thread.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
It's difficult for a layman to see whether a political horse is a throroughbred until you put it alongside a cart horse and compare. Labour, Tories and Libdems look like a load of plodding donkeys next to Salmond.
Complain about this comment
Unionist politicians profess to be democrats but refuse outright to submit their constitutional proposals to the people in a referendum in case the people give the wrong answer!
He's got you banged to rights, chaps. Get out of that!
Complain about this comment
Interesting response from Labour, Torries and Liberals. I wonder sometimes if they think we are all thick, they are photgraphed smiling at the Calman report then come up with their views on AS proposals.
I am delighted with AS putting them on the spot so to speak, these so called main parties have had their day, I feel that we are seeing a change now in how people expect their elected representatives to govern. I think the Iraq issue of the inquiry will come back and haunt GB and I think the referendum issue will haunt all of them. I expect a referendum on Independence and I tend to agree with Gordon (3) that it would not kill us to wait a little longer so that the Labour generation of our country can see that we are more than capable of governing ourselves and Independence is the way forward. The SNP are not perfect but have done ok so far given that they are blocked most of the way by the others. Either way my money is AS, other than AG the others really are second rate party hacks with little to offer. The Torries have little to offer also but at least AG appears to be a smart leader unlike her boss DC.
Complain about this comment
Tories in Scotland really are a one woman show aren't they?! Whoever came up with this tripe "a cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics" should be fired on the spot.
One political party damning another political party at 'playing politics'! Priceless.
Complain about this comment
The ref should step in and stop the fight. Salmond has right-hooked this load of sad sacks onto the ropes. It's almost ugly.
Complain about this comment
#9 Brownedov
Again you capture the forward moment, yes! the trade union movements
wants the hand that it feeds to stop biting.
And another yes! to the two parted proposed referendum, it is the sensible and right thing to do.
It would be nice to hear you say that the Calman report is an extension of the devolved powers and most clearly a move towards a more responsible parliament.
Complain about this comment
I expect it to be either a repeat of '79 (I know you voted yes but, um, er, not enough people voted! yes thats it, sorry. Can we have all your money now) or a repeat of the recent EU elections (No, thats not right, try again)
The unionists dont want a referendum because they will lose. The SNP want one because (rigging aside) it will win. All this nonsense about timing, waste of money or playing politics is just a smokescreen.
I see it like Peterhead refusing to play Barcelona because the timing isn't right or its expensive or whatever. The truth is they are terrifed of losing so they dont want to do it.
See Gordon Brown's time as PM for an example of how it works. If there is a vote, i will lose, so lets not have one.
oh and lily, i agree, but the main reason the unionists are confused is that they have joined together with each other despite being diametrically opposed to each others princibles to defeat the popular vote. Its enough to give anyone an identity crisis. Cut them some slack, undermining democracy is a tricky job, but someone has to do it, how else would you get oil money to London?
Complain about this comment
Calman did his best to avoid the need for a referendum. Re Income Tax he makes several references to this simply being a variation of the 3p proposal voted on in the original referendum.
However, politically they are caught, since voters will contrast the SNP offering people the decision, and the Unionists denying the people a say.
In any referendum campaign, the core issues will be in front of the people, and the pro and anti campaigns will need to have equal time.
Complain about this comment
#3
Yip, Douglas, absolutely right, it's a perfect chance for a forward and progressive agreement on the process of the new parliament.
I think the nationalists should stop trying to turn every issue into a moral victory, Alex Salmond would happily accept the Calman report, if his Independence referendum was to fail.
It's not a get out clause for the SNP! it's a chance to further Scotland's
progressive choice of better governance.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#13 pattymkirkwood
"Tories in Scotland really are a one woman show aren't they?! Whoever came up with this tripe "a cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics" should be fired on the spot."
I doubt that nice Mr C will go quite that far, Patty, but after all his recent pronouncements on people's referenda, for once it could be Aunty Bella getting the earful.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Knowledge is realizing that the street is one-way, wisdom is looking both directions anyway.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
If you have direct access to it, Sky News could be worth watching this evening, as their Expenses Timebomb: Tick, Tick... reports that: Labour MPs are predicting that Jim Devine, Labour MP for Livingstone, is 'toast' after party managers confirmed that he appeared before Labour's 'star chamber' yesterday over allegations about his expenses claims.
With The Fees Office ... hopeful they can publish receipts Thursday, perhaps nice Mr C took his eye off the Scottish ball and gave Aunty Bella no party line on Calman.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
derekbarker re 18
Why should Alex Salmond accept something as second rate as Calman.
He is in the classic win, win situation. Calman does not go anywhere near the fiscal responsibility polls suggest most Scots want.
So the choice is clear,
1) No change
2) Calman watered down version of fiscal responsibility.
3) Independence.
The unionists do not have the bottle to face a referendum, so they vote down the proposals.
Alex Salmond does not need to wait until the 2011 Holyrood election to go to the Scottish electorate and say the unionists though your opinion and a vote is irrelevant. He goes with this argument at the general election in 2010, or whenever bottler Broon calls it.
Increase in MPs in 2010, call me Dave in Drowning Street, happy days for Holyrood election 2011.
Who will be the Labour leader in the 2011 campaign?
Complain about this comment
#15 derekbarker
"Again you capture the forward moment, yes! the trade union movements wants the hand that it feeds to stop biting."
I really do feel your pain, but it's time for you and the trade union movement to look for a party that better represents your views than NuLab.
"And another yes! to the two parted proposed referendum, it is the sensible and right thing to do."
Personally, I'd also like return to direct rule from London and full fiscal autonomy on the ballot paper, but it certainly makes sense to offer Calman as an option for the people to decide.
"It would be nice to hear you say that the Calman report is an extension of the devolved powers and most clearly a move towards a more responsible parliament."
Afraid you won't quite get that from me. The re-reserving of existing powers is plain daft and the fiscal / taxation proposals are a dog's breakfast, but the other proposals are a very small step forward.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#18 derekbarker
I don't want a moral victory. I just want a referendum.
If I thought the Calman proposals were desirable, I would say so, but my opinion, one way or the other, will not count for very much if the Unionists block a referendum.
That is the point: disenfranchisement. Not acceptable.
Complain about this comment
The unionist parties at Westminster have been fiddling their expenses again only this time they have diverted tax payers money to their own half baked, half witted policy review, £500,000 no less.
Half baked as it refused to consider independence as an option, a bit like forming a committee to find out the answer to 2+2 but ruling out 4 as an answer before you start.
Half witted as they are playing straight into Alex Salmonds hands no you cant have a referendum (even though it was in your manifesto when you won last Scottish election) as we have decided to change things without reference to the needs and wants of Scottish people.
They also opposed the SNPs local income tax plans claiming they would be overly difficult to implement (even though it was in their manifesto when they won the last Scottish election) but they want to bring in an unworkable, completely complex income tax change that no has voted for, which after the new Tory Gov cuts our budget will force who ever is in the Scottish Government to increase income tax! (Poll tax anyone)?
So, we bail out the rest of the UK with Oil revenues for two generations and then the Westminster parties decide to implement a policy that will guarantee we pay higher income tax for the next two generations!
This is the absolute definition of Narrow Minded Unionism at its undemocratic worst.
GMK Glasgow
Complain about this comment
#23 dubbieside
"The unionists do not have the bottle to face a referendum"
According to Brian Taylor they do: "Our opposition leaders at Holyrood plainly feel they have the stomach for the fight"
Bring it on!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#23 and #24
If the position taken by the both of yous represents the official party line, then neither Calman nor Independence will see the light of day under a conservative government.
Look, if you are prepared to dig the trenches and don the tin helmets, then I believe you must bring forward your proposed referendum, which parliament will block! under the current party lines, leaving Scotland in the same position. (the status quo)
I think you have to be more reasonable and realistic as to where Scotland is and where it goes from here. Just to say that you offered a referendum is neither here nor there. It's only words! right here! right now! Scotland's needs a firm diplomatic consensus. By all means shoot for the stars and if you land on the clouds it's still forward progression.
Complain about this comment
It's a small point but, as Orwell knew, accuracy matters in language. 'Coruscating' means sparkling, flashing. I think from the context you meant to use 'excoriating', meaning flaying, and metaphorically, attacking severely.
Complain about this comment
An interesting take on Gordon Browns part in the global financial crisis from The Wall Street Journal.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html
Complain about this comment
"you must bring forward your proposed referendum, which parliament will block!"
This stuff is starting to sound positively schizophrenic.
Complain about this comment
Brian all this dithering by the unionists is very annoying.
one minute its no we dont want any change.
then its we want calman to look into it
then its bring it on
then its take it off.
then its we will force it on scotland no refendum required.
So why did we need two yes thats right two referendums (three if you count the tax raising question) to implement constitutional change in scotland.
This stance by the unionists would also seem to imply that if scotland votes in an snp majority in the next westminster election then no referendum on independence is then required?
okay then unionists go ahead set that precedent......
Complain about this comment
# 28
It is strange that my posting has been referred to the mods as it was about Jim Devine who has been deselected by the Labour party. The news was from the BBC so I don't know why it was moderated unless it was the bit where I said: 'Bye bye Jim.'
Complain about this comment
#30 apedantwrites
What was actually "coruscating" was Salmond's response to the Unionist Calman report.
Not for the first time Salmond's tied the Unionists in knots, as derekbarker's schizophrenic "you must bring forward your proposed referendum, which parliament will block!" demonstrates only too clearly.
Complain about this comment
derekbarker
If you are happy to accept what is second rate that is up to you. I do not, and as I want a say in my countries future I will call long and hard for a referendum.
If the unionists refuse, then they will suffer the consequences at the next general election.
They have learned nothing from the Euro elections, its just a blip, SNP honeymoon period etc etc.
They can run but come June 2010 latest they can no longer hide. Bring it on as they say.
Complain about this comment
Devine latest: Claims row MP cannot stand again
How helpful that will be in Murphy's sales pitch on Calman!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#29 derekbarker
"If the position taken by the both of yous represents the official party line, then neither Calman nor Independence will see the light of day under a conservative government."
You're losing the plot and forgetting again, Derek. The nearest thing I have to an official party, let alone a party line is the Liberal Party, leadership of which is famously said to be like herding cats.
They have not commented on Calman as yet and, in any event, what I post here is my own personal opinion.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#34 gedguy2
"It is strange that my posting has been referred to the mods as it was about Jim Devine who has been deselected by the Labour party. The news was from the BBC so I don't know why it was moderated unless it was the bit where I said: 'Bye bye Jim.'"
If you didn't relate Devine's order of the boot to Calman or other matters in Brian's header, it could be argued to be off-topic, but it certainly wisnae me.
I see that there's no mention yet of withdrawing the whip, which might just provoke Devine into resigning and treating us all to another early by-election, when the multi-choice referendum question would certainly figure large.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
FAO Greenockboy
Hi, I noticed that over on the Calman thread you said you caught the last 10 mins of Morning extra this moring. I've just listened to all the programme and the rest is really worth listening to.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b0074hg5
Everyone with an interest in the hugely changing face of Scottish public opinion (especially over the last few weeks) should listen to it. The expenses outrage has really driven a knife into the Scottish psyche with regard to Westminster.
Margo Macdonald phones into the show too and she is excellent. I admire her so much.
Complain about this comment
For the proposed referendum next year, what exactly will be the wording?
The other point that must be considered is what happens if a "No" result happens. It can happen. There is a full twelve months to go, and anything can happen.
I still feel the SNP would be better gaining more powers, governing for a further 4 year term to prove what they are capable of and then going for full independence.
On the other hand, if the result is "Yes", what happens next? There is no simple switchover.
Complain about this comment
#20 interesting thought Brownedov, but does Mr C's apparent zeal for reform extend north of the border; and do the peoples' right on referenda extend to questioning the Union?
I suspect the Tories new "democratic" bent has its limits.
In any case, it looks to me like a Bill Aitken or similar influenced pronouncement above (I doubt Ms Goldie would be quite so silly as to sanction the release of something like that).
Complain about this comment
I simply do n0t understand the SNP's agenda. Alec Salmond a few years ago left the SNP and then, rejoined once Devolution came into being.
He is so Autocratic and seriously, I think his main agenda for Independence is that he sees himself as the next King of Scotland. He is seriously delusional.
The latest report of proposed changes to the Scottish Parliament are ones which King Alec has called for over the past few years. Of concern is that the SNP did not participate into the enquiry and thus their views were not included.
I live in N/W England but we have friends and family in Scotland who worry about Alec Salmond and his (and his party's) apparent lack of input to the inquiry into changes for the Scottish Parliament. Some have attended meeting of the SNP and say that Alec Salmond is pre-occupied with Indepdence for Scotland.
It would be interesting to get a view from him on the latest proposals.
Alas any comment from him or indeed Scotland was sadly lacking in today's programmes.
Complain about this comment
44. belovedJollyEngland
I think you should have stopped typing after your first five words:
"I simply do n0t understand."
I'm afraid your friends and family in Scotland haven't informed you very well. Have a look at the comments on some of Brians other blogs to catch up a bit.
Complain about this comment
belovedJollyEngland:
#44.
"I simply do n0t understand the SNP's agenda. Alec Salmond a few years ago left the SNP and then, rejoined once Devolution came into being."
Alex Salmond never left the Scottish National Party. Alex Salmond left the group at the Scottish Parliament but returned for reasons I suspect of being because of internal issues inside the Scottish National Party. Infact Alex Salmond signed up for devolution and served the first term in the Scottish Parliament before leaving to focus on Westminister Parliament.
"He is so Autocratic and seriously, I think his main agenda for Independence is that he sees himself as the next King of Scotland. He is seriously delusional."
You claim that Alex Salmond sees himself as the next King of Scotland and you say he is delusional? Does the Scottish National Party not insist that the Queen would remain our head of state after independence too? It does you no good by assuming such tosh.
"The latest report of proposed changes to the Scottish Parliament are ones which King Alec has called for over the past few years. Of concern is that the SNP did not participate into the enquiry and thus their views were not included."
It was not that the Scottish National Party never participated, but the Calamn commission ruled out looking into independence and full fiscal autonomy before they even got started, how can the Calman commission looking into what's best for Scotland by ruling things out before bothering to look into them?
"I live in N/W England but we have friends and family in Scotland who worry about Alec Salmond and his (and his party's) apparent lack of input to the inquiry into changes for the Scottish Parliament. Some have attended meeting of the SNP and say that Alec Salmond is pre-occupied with Indepdence for Scotland."
Scotland has faced terrorist attacks and foot and mouth (plus more issues) and you believe Alex Salmond to be pre-occupide on achieving independence for Scotland? What evidence do you have or is this just more tosh?
It would be interesting to get a view from him on the latest proposals.
Alas any comment from him or indeed Scotland was sadly lacking in today's programmes.
Complain about this comment
44.
The SNP tried to start their "National Conversation", encompassing all options for discussion.
The Calman Enquiry was hastily arranged to combat this.
Complain about this comment
#44
You have no idea what you are talking about.
Mr Salmond has never left the SNP. Your subsequent remarks reveal further erroneous and infantile notions of such enormity that one is embarrassed for you.
You should have done some homework before venturing into this space. Have you never heard of looking before you leap?
Complain about this comment
You always know Salmond has hit the back of the net when the personal attacks start again (as with belovedJollyEngland's #44).
It's great to see these personal attacks on Salmond.
It's the desperate reaction of the panic-stricken when they can't come up with a rational counter argument.
belovedJollyEngland's claim that Salmond has not given a view on the Calman report is denial of reality.
Anyone can read Salmond's view for themselves on this website: "Mr Salmond branded the report 'fundamentally weak and flawed in a number of areas'."
Of course this isn't what the Unionists want to hear so it doesn't register on their radar.
Complain about this comment
It is curious that Calman's main proposal on the fiscal side should be to increase the tax varying power on income tax. Especially as the tax varying power already contained in the Scotland Act had been so comprehensively rubbished by Labour, the Conservatives the Lib Dems and a spokesman for HMRC when it's use had been suggested by the Scottish Government.
It can only be hypocrisy on the parts of the opposition political parties in Scotland to now support the more complicated proposal of the half a cake income tax so soon after they talked down the 3% variance.
However the position of HMRC is more curious in that apart from saying it (3%) was complicated to administer, HMRC went further to say they would not administer such a change. How could this be possible? The UK government had enshrined the ability to vary income tax by up to 3% but the unelected department responsible for the collection of the tax can refuse to do so?
Of the other taxes - landfill tax is essentially a local government funding procedure to encourage recycling, air passenger duty would unfairly penalise Scottish air passengers who already effectively pay additional premiums for not living near a so-called airport hub (there are also a high rate of exemptions for small and specialised flights to the islands) - only stamp duty might be a realistic option to collect any substanial amount of tax but again for collection the scottish government would essentially be dependent on a UK institution (HMRC) which has shown itself unwilling to cooperate in operating an 'independent' system of taxation.
Complain about this comment
Interview with Margo Macdonald from this morning:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rwr8QTjlZnU
Complain about this comment
#30 apedantwrites
In response to Mr Salmond's remarks today, the comments are coruscating ...
a "cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics". (Author: the Tories.)
"another red herring". (Labour)
"pointless waste of taxpayers money" to have a referendum. (LibDems)
I would defend Brian's use of coruscating to describe these gems of considered response by the Onionists. As I cannot imagine the First Minister's reputation being so severely damaged by these less than lacerating comments to make it sensible to use "excoriating", I have come to the conclusion that Brian was indulging his advanced sense of irony acquired after so long an exposure to Scottish politics to twit the Onionists on the inadequacy of their response. Of course, he has not allowed sufficiently for the fact that when you are between a rock and a hard place it is difficult to think of anything else to say but "HELP!" and that their comments in this light have a lot to commend them.
Irony does not play well on the Internet, unfortunately
Complain about this comment
"Why the hurry"?
So that Brown can perpetrate a fix on Scotland's economy before he is kicked out of office. He must have had the plan in place to expedite this some time ago as Murphy is now off his mark, like a rabbit out of a trap, to get it done before the election. Who is actually playing cynical politics?
Hell mend them!
Complain about this comment
#43 pattymkirkwood
"I suspect the Tories new "democratic" bent has its limits."
I'd be astonished if you're wrong, and I'd lay money on Mr C not having a thought in his head about about Calman when he recorded his referenda soundbites.
"In any case, it looks to me like a Bill Aitken or similar influenced pronouncement above (I doubt Ms Goldie would be quite so silly as to sanction the release of something like that)"
That's exactly what I would have expected, but if the direct quotes can be believed, it was Aunty Bella who said....
BBC: "This is a cynical attempt by the SNP to play politics with the serious recommendations from the Calman Commission."
and
Times: "Unlike Mr Salmond our position remains unchanged - we will not support Salmond's Referendum Bill"
Perhaps Mr C has had too much on his mind preparing for Thursday's expense revelations, but it certainly doesn't bode any better for joined-up government than Bliar, Duff Gordon and the rest of NuLab have.
As I remarked a month or so ago to Dean, it would give the Scottish Tories much more flexibility to provide different strokes for different folks if they were allies of the English Tories like the UUC rather than a wholly-owned subsidiary. Without it, we're bound to hear quite a lot of scizophrenia in forthcoming Tory party political broadcasts. That's fine by me!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#50 pro-loco
"However the position of HMRC is more curious in that apart from saying it (3%) was complicated to administer, HMRC went further to say they would not administer such a change. How could this be possible? The UK government had enshrined the ability to vary income tax by up to 3% but the unelected department responsible for the collection of the tax can refuse to do so?"
It's not curious, it's plain stupid. As was remarked on these threads re LIT and the budget, HMRC had a full decade after the referendum and the 1998 Scotland Act to sort their systems out, and even as an expat I have to complete a tax return and know how much their systems have changed over that decade, throughout which Duff Gordon was their boss.
Yet when the for once sensible LibDems and the SNP wanted to implement it, it was too complex but now magicially because Calman has decreed it nobody is making waves. A mixture of the politicisation of the civil service and continued appalling IT design they dare not mention to their masters, I suspect.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#31 dubbieside
Excellent article, thanks for the link.
The traditional sources of Britain's economic strength, the mining and manufacturing industries, shrank during his term as chancellor. Total mining sector output, including oil and natural gas, dropped by 31% between 2000 and 2007. Total manufacturing production was stagnant during this period. The gross value of output from all production industries fell by 3% between 2000 and 2007. Their employment level dropped by nearly 1.1 million. These trends were not an inevitable result of shifts in comparative advantages that are said to occur in advanced economies. Real manufacturing output rose in the U.S., Germany and France between 2000 and 2006, according to the World Bank.
So it's not just Scotland that he's ruined; and there was I thinking that it was his animosity to Cowdenbeath that spurred him on.
Given his "success" as a politician in power, what joys will he foist on us in the guise of his "acceptance" of Calman's report? A 50p a month levy on all benefit claimants to pay for the changes needed for HMRC to be able to handle a Scottish income tax? It's bound to include another stealth tax, he can't stop fiddling; if I'd the wit to train as a tax lawyer in 1990, I'd be a multi-millionaire by now.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Folk down here in England would like to be empowered as well. But the topic of devolution is off limits at Westminster and the BBC.
Did anyone see how quickly the Calman "Have your say" forum disappeared?
The elephant in the room is recognition for "the proud historic nation" of England. No representation whatsoever. Despite what a lot of SNPers think - it is no English parliament. There is an embargo on the word England there. The "Prime Minister" dare not utter its name for fear of invoking the WL/English question.
Complain about this comment
Livingston was the place to be today, a day which started with The First Minister and the National Conversation and ended with Jim Devine, the national disaster! The mystery is, how did the CLP manage to back him unanimously when most of them have been openly berating him for his expenses, and his shocking treatment of his constituency staff.
The protestations of the opposition parties to offer of the inclusion of Calman's proposals in the Independence referendum are hollow. Had they included independence within Calman's remit, we could have had an open debate on Scotland's future. As it is, Mr Salmond's offer to provide a two-option referendum will afford us all an opportunity to assesss the options with a fairer degree of balance - media permitting!
Bring it on, as someone once said!
Complain about this comment
Mr Salmond knows all that - and so Mr Salmond is out to be Mr Reasonable when it comes to his referendum.
I've emboldened the word 'his' myself. This is not Salmond's referendum, this referendum has been called for by many people, some with no political allegiance to the SNP.
To present the referendum as belonging to Alex Salmond is to personalise it. Brian's motives for this are unclear but the wording is very deliberate.
On the subject of adding the more powers option to any referendum, it was always going to be the case from the moment Calman was hastily cobbled together. The pressure is on the Unionist parties to agree what exactly the powers will be.
It's one thing for Unionists to trumpet the Calman proposal as 'substantial', 'radical' etc and present fake smiles suggesting they are all in agreement. It's quite another to agree that these should be the only new powers offered in opposition to independence.
.... they understand that this is a tricky place to be, politically.
Yes Brian, but the 'they' you refer to includes every journalist and political pundit in Scotland - including yourself Brian. What line do you take, do you go through the forthcoming debate insisting, as you did yesterday, that that the proposals from Calman are substantial and stand back as London tries to railroad them through without consulting the Scottish nation?
Or do you find your cojones and articulate the frustrations of those Scots who pay your wages and who's values and rights your profession is supposed to defend?
Complain about this comment
#55 greenockboy
Honest Jim got in at the by-election in 2005 so he hasn't served a full Parliament. Are you sure he gets the pay-off for loosing his seat? I thought they were graduated according to length of "(self-)service".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The North Lanarkshire Council land scandal is at last being reported by the BBC. I say at last because this story originally broke late last year.
The sum of money lost by North Lanarkshire could be as much as 60 million after a company exercised it's right, on 8th October 2008, to buy council land for half a million pounds as it's lease allowed.
One interesting fact about this story is that the company involved, Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd, was the subject of an action the day before:
Notice is hereby given that on 7 October 2008 a Petition was presented to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by North Lanarkshire Council, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell ML1 1TW, craving the Court inter alia to order that the said Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd be wound up by the Court and that an Interim Liquidator be appointed in which Petition the Court of Session in Edinburgh by Interlocutor dated 7 October 2008
So, the council raised an action aginst this company the day before the land was sold. The day after the land was sold it was re designated from leisure land to private housing, thereby causing it's value to rocket.
So, who drew up the lease and how long was it for?
Why was an action raised the day before the sell off?
Why was the land re-designated for housing one day after it was sold?
Did someone tip off Multi-Link?
Multi-Link leisure have apparently no offices and the registered address is the offices of The North Lanarkshire Council land scandal is at last being reported by the BBC. I say at last because this story originally broke late last year.
The sum of money lost by North Lanarkshire could be as much as 60 million after a company exercised it's right, on 8th October 2008, to buy council land for half a million pounds as it's lease allowed.
One interesting fact about this story is that the company involved, Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd, was the subject of an action:
Notice is hereby given that on 7 October 2008 a Petition was presented to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by North Lanarkshire Council, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell ML1 1TW, craving the Court inter alia to order that the said Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd be wound up by the Court and that an Interim Liquidator be appointed in which Petition the Court of Session in Edinburgh by Interlocutor dated 7 October 2008
So, the council raised an action aginst this company the day before the land was sold. The day after the land was sold it was re designated from leisure land to private housing, thereby causing it's value to rocket.
So, who drew up the lease and how long was it for?
Why was an action raised the day before the sell off?
Why was the land re-designated for housing one day after it was sold?
Multi-Link leisure have apparently no offices and the registered address is the offices of The North Lanarkshire Council land scandal is at last being reported by the BBC. I say at last because this story originally broke late last year.
The sum of money lost by North Lanarkshire could be as much as 60 million after a company exercised it's right, on 8th October 2008, to buy council land for half a million pounds as it's lease allowed.
One interesting fact about this story is that the company involved, Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd, was the subject of an action:
Notice is hereby given that on 7 October 2008 a Petition was presented to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by North Lanarkshire Council, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell ML1 1TW, craving the Court inter alia to order that the said Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd be wound up by the Court and that an Interim Liquidator be appointed in which Petition the Court of Session in Edinburgh by Interlocutor dated 7 October 2008
So, the council raised an action aginst this company the day before the land was sold. The day after the land was sold it was re designated from leisure land to private housing, thereby causing it's value to rocket.
So, who drew up the lease and how long was it for?
Why was an action raised the day before the sell off?
Why was the land re-designated for housing one day after it was sold?
Multi-Link Leisure have apparently no offices and the registered address is the offices of Hannay Fraser Solicitors in Glasgow. Multi-Link's Company Secretary is solicitor Calum Fraser, a partner in the same legal firm who specialise in property development.
Company Director Brian Morton holds 499 ordinary shares in the firm while the remaining 501 shares are held by investor John Kinnaird.
Complain about this comment
"Gordon Brown Helped Cause the Crisis British voters have figured it out. Will Labour Party leaders"
By Keith Marsden From today's Wall Street Journal Europe.
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124500992205413331.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
ECONOMIC RELAUNCH COLLAPSES IN SHAMBLES
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/107387/-Economic-relaunch-collapses-in-shambles
They just don't have a clue!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#55 greenockboy
"The BBC again report the matter without using the name Labour in the headline"
Odd indeed, but odder still that the BBC has two near identical stories with Claims row MP cannot stand again for "Scotland politics" and Expenses row MP dropped by Labour for "UK Politics".
Either the BBC are developing the scizophrenia I forecast above we will soon see in the "official" unionists or perhaps it's just that the BBC are backing horses for courses in the hope of retaining unionist media hegemony. Re the man himself, it is just possible that the police will act.
As others say above, the expenses scandal has darkened the name of politics and must have an impact on actual voting behaviour. England can only hope to clean up their politics by voting for less sleazy MPs but Scotland and the other "home" nations will have a very real choice between attempting the same and deciding that enough is enough and voting for the real constitutional change which Calman does not represent.
In that respect, the more the unionists attempt to deny the people their say on the issue, the more likely they will drive voters away, but their must be a danger of some - hopefully small - scizophrenia over the two possible approaches in the electorate themselves.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
My #63 has been moderated merely for MENTIONING Jim Devine!
This trying to protect the reputation of Labour MPs is getting utterly ridiculous now.
For god's sake let's have an independence referendum before we've got to the point where we're not allowed to say anything at all.
Complain about this comment
#31 Dubbieside, thanks for the link. For the past six months Brown has been saying it wasn't his fault and that he saved the world. Nice to see he isn't fooling anyone.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
Exams are all over so I can come here again!
Why could we not have a Referendum that is simple, i.e. The question would be "Should Scotland become and independent nation?" Yes/No.
This you give the SNP their referendum (which I think there has to be, while I am opposed to the idea of Scottish Independence), and would give a fair, accurate representation of the country's opinion.
With respect to the Calman Commission, can the MSPs not decide what recommendations to adopt. I think most of the major policy ideas make sense, but do we need a referendum for that? This all kinda reminds me of a line from a TV programme ( I think its the West Wing):
"Every time we have a referendum, we neglect our duty as a representitive just a little bit."
There are things we do need a referendum on, e.g The Euro, Scottish devolution, Scottish independence etc etc, but to further the process of Devolution, to make it a kind of Devolution+, I don't think it is of the same level. "The people"/undecided don't care (particularly) what powers the SP will gain, or lose, but what they will do with the powers that they have.
Complain about this comment
Yet again Salmond has outthought and outmanouvered his opposition, no wonder Brown wants to stay at Westminster
Complain about this comment
"Every Briton with a fixed-line phone will pay a "small levy" of 50p per month to pay for faster net access."
Thanks Gordon! Just what everybody needs in the middle of the worst recession since the 1930s: you squeezing every last drop of blood out of the British taxpayer. Would it be okay if we claimed back this "small levy" against our tax? Oh, I didn't know I wasn't allowed to ask, sorry!
Complain about this comment
#59 englandrise
"Folk down here in England would like to be empowered as well. But the topic of devolution is off limits at Westminster and the BBC."
I don't think anyone posting here - even the hardline unionists - object to at least discussing it. But the real problem is that you only have yourselves to blame because of your long love affair with the unionist tweedledums and tweedledees coupled with a voting system that was not fit for purpose when it was last tinkered with in 1872.
"The elephant in the room is recognition for "the proud historic nation" of England. No representation whatsoever. Despite what a lot of SNPers think - it is no English parliament."
With MPs from English seats vastly outnumbering those from the other three "home" nations combined, England could decide to do whatever it wants if it had a mind to. The reason it's not on the menu from either tweedledums or tweedledees is that an English government would leave the UK government and Prime Minister with very little to do.
That's as it should be, since apart from defence and foreign representation there would be very little for a UK government to do, and that would have to be minimalist based on the lowest common denominator among the "home" nations. If that cannot be achieved soon, then the break-up of the UK into four nation states seems inevitable, perhaps with a Council of the Isles including Ireland, Man and the Channel Islands to share the few essential supra-national functions.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#56 Brownedov
I do not think the Senior Civil servants that form the board of HMRC are stupid. Your point that their systems are not up to coping with the kind of variation that either 3% or 50% to the main rates poses seems much closer to the mark.
However that is not the point - how can a government department say that it would not carry out an act passed by a Scottish parliament? This poses difficulties for the whole of revenue collection proposals depending on HMRC - if that department will not or can not respond to the requirements of the devolution settlement where does that leave the pronouncements of Calman, or even Westminster?
Complain about this comment
Interesting political dilemma for the Unionists I'd have thought. If Con,Lab and LD all love the Calman proposals, then they have an overwhelming combined vote to push this through in the next seesion of the UK Parliament. That would avoid any need for a referendum on the issue.
But what of the English dimension? Calman makes no suggestion of cutting funding for Scotland - which is clearly what a lot of opinion in England supports. Any amendment to the Scotland Act will inevitably raise thw West Lothian question again - clearly an unfair situation for England exists at present, but a tricky item for the Unionists to negotiate./
If they fail to do anything in the next Parliamentary session, do all 3 Unionist parties go into the next election with identical policies for Scotland? and how do they explain doing nothing when they could have?
Interesting times ahead I think!
Complain about this comment
You know how the Chinese are blocking internet access in case the wrong truth gets out?
Well it appears that the worst internet connection in Scotland is in Gordon's constituency - according to a BT exec speaking to my Rotary Club tonight.
Devine has gone, Harman is painting white wash all over the shop, Labour are apparently now 'cleaner than clean' according to her and Gordon.
Yet still no criminal arrests by the police of politicians who have knowingly defrauded the public purse yet alone criminal action being taken against those politicians who are in clear breach of PPER 2000.
Wee Eck simply needs to keep on pointing up the amazing inaction over Marshall's £500,000 of claims by both Unionists and the Police which puts his £500 of pies in its true frame of reference.
The Unionists need to deal with the substantive issues such as why 'Calman's report is good' yet it brings up the same issues of taxation that means the SNP's LIT is bad.....
What have the Unionists to loose if they go along with the Calman Option as part of the 2010 referendum since they are so confident that they and Calman are right?
Go on Unionists put your votes where your mouth is!
Complain about this comment
Just for the record: several of my recent posts have been moderated for no reason at all. They break the BBC's house rules in no way whatsoever.
Clearly the BBC is indulging in the worst sort of poltically-motivated censorship of my comments and I want to say that is absolutely disgusting.
Complain about this comment
#44
Classic.
Salmond is of course preoccupied with independence. That is the reason for the existence of the SNP.
Complain about this comment
70 GlasgowViewer
You can't have a simple question because the question has to fall within the powers of the Scottish Parliament, as defined in the Scotland Act. The proposed wording for the referendum question is the closest that very clever lawyers could get to what you suggest. Hope the exams went well btw.
Complain about this comment
#75
An over rated reaction to an under rated performance of the 33 Bn Scottish budget oldnat.
The argument Calman makes concerning the 10 pence tax return to Scotland is to dilute the allegation that Scotland drip feeds on English taxation.
It was the labour party that gave the Scottish parliament it's re-birth.
Do you seriously think that any new conservative admin would grant any future Scottish admin the right to implement the Calman report without tinkering around with the report first?.
I think we are now! at the position where Scotland must decide whether she continues with an advanced devolved parliament or a Independent parliament, I believe that a referendum with the two parted options should be brought forward if possible before any GE.
The idea that the SNP can play the blame game if any future Independent referendum is blocked is nothing short than an admission of failure.
The Scottish government should call for the referendum on any proposed tax raising powers to combine the Independence issue to.
Complain about this comment
"Another day and things move on apace."
Looks like a stressful day for some tomorrow, as it seems that the office of Speaker Michael Martin has confirmed that details of all MPs' expenses will be released officially then on the UK parliament's website.
Complain about this comment
Out of interest, what is the latest that Gordon Brown can hold off for a general election?
If it is later than June next year, he might risk a referendum, since a Labour government, however shambolic, will probably be more popular in Scotland than a Conservative one.
For that reason, I think Salmond is better off focusing on securing a majority at Holyrood, have a good couple of years in Government and then push for independence.
Complain about this comment
#82
Neil the west lothian question has been answered by the Tories any future conservative government will not allow Scottish MP's a vote on English matters that coupled with the new boundary acts and representational quotas.
Complain about this comment
Brian
Also in the realms of not impossible - but difficult is how our MPs could justify a statutory maximum redundancy payout for one of us, an over 60 with 20 years service of 30 weeks of a limited pay or £10,500 when they vote themselves a minimum of half their salary £32,383 of which £30,000 tax free after theoretically 1 days service at the minimum age to be an MP. One rule for us and one, two, three, for them? Guess what rule our pretendy wee follows and guess what Calman didn't say.
Complain about this comment
Seems that Derek feels that he has something to argue, given that his immature lashing out has stopped (or at least paused).
I have one question for db and other members of the UK fan-club who now support a 3 question referendum.
How can the current financial climate support a 3 question referendum when it was far too "unstable" for the simple yes/no version?
Have I missed something? Has the FTSE crashed through the 6000 mark, the banks repaid all government debt and unemployment on the wane?
Or is it, that you now think you have a chance of avoiding defeat? Is it a calculation that this sop to the SNP will attract enough undecideds to put us in ourplace (for now)?
FYI Not sure if this poll info has been posted previously. Holyrood voting intentions YouGov poll with 1048 sampled.
Constituency Vote
% Vote % Change
SNP 39% +6%
Lab 26% -6%
Tory 14% -3%
Lib 14% -2%
Oth 7% +5%
Regional Vote
% Vote % Change
SNP 34% +3%
Lab 26% -3%
Tory 14% 0%
Lib 13% 2%
Gre 7% 3%
Oth 6% -5%
2. Analysis by Weber Shandwicks predictor would give the following result:
Total Change Con. Reg.
SNP 52 +5 49 3
Lab 36 -10 15 21
Tory 16 -1 3 13
Lib 16 - 6 10
Gre 7 +5 0 7
Oth 2 +1 0 2
The SNP would gain 28 seats on this polls findings and only require 3 list seats. As the kids say, LOL!
Complain about this comment
#83 The tories wont have much Scottish MP's to help them anyway Derek so it wont really affect them like it did Labour !
Complain about this comment
This is like watching chess. Check.
Bravo, Eck.
Complain about this comment
Difficult......but not impossible
The Calman Commision has proposed sixty three recommendations,it has no remit or mandate on implementation,I suspect the gang of three are now struggling on how best to approach the conundrum they now find themselves in. Is it possible they could ask the people of Scotland, as Salmond has suggested, but risk losing, alternatively,ignore the public and brace themselves for the election backlash that will surely follow.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
Tavish and his mates can hardly refuse a Referendum on Independence if they actually endorse their parties Constitution...I grabbed this section of their Constitution from Wikpedia...Its quite clear they abandon their principles when it doesnt agree with their Unionist Dross...
"The Liberal Democrats' constitution speaks of:
..."a fair, free and open society, in which we seek to balance the fundamental values of liberty, equality and community, and in which no-one shall be enslaved by poverty, ignorance or conformity. We champion the freedom, dignity and well-being of individuals, we acknowledge and respect their right to freedom of conscience and their right to develop their talents to the full. We aim to disperse power, to foster diversity and to nurture creativity. We believe that the role of the state is to enable all citizens to attain these ideals, to contribute fully to their communities and to take part in the decisions which affect their lives."[11]
The party's presidential book of office, On Liberty, defines the harm principle:
"That the only purpose for which power can be rightfully exercised over any member of a civilised community, against his will, is to prevent harm to others."[12]
Complain about this comment
Theres little doubt that ECK has thought out this strategy before even winning the May 2007 Election...The mans a genius and will win this fight for freedom....It is now not "if we win Independence" its simply "When"...You cant turn back a flood...you just have to go with the flow...the flow is heading quickly towards a fully Independent Scottish Nation...Owned by Scots for Scots...Its the SNP for me
Complain about this comment
83 Derek Barker:
' Neil the west lothian question has been answered by the Tories any future conservative government will not allow Scottish MP's a vote on English matters.....'
Quite rightly so Derek,and on that basis,will the same mindset apply to Trident on Scottish soil?
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
#44 - don't worry, you're not the only person to have doubts. My family are preparing to emigrate if King Alec attempts to steal our British passports from us!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
The comment above may be prevented from being published by the mods, therefore I have broken it up into three parts just in case, the parts will appear below this comment.
Apologies if did actually appear and I have effectively double posted.
Complain about this comment
Part 1
The North Lanarkshire Council land scandal is at last being reported by the BBC. I say at last because this story originally broke late last year.
The sum of money lost by North Lanarkshire could be as much as 60 million after a company exercised it's right, on 8th October 2008, to buy council land for half a million pounds as it's lease allowed.
Complain about this comment
Part 2
One interesting fact about this story is that the company involved, Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd, was the subject of an action the day before the sale:
Notice is hereby given that on 7 October 2008 a Petition was presented to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by North Lanarkshire Council, PO Box 14, Civic Centre, Motherwell ML1 1TW, craving the Court inter alia to order that the said Multi-Link Leisure Developments Ltd be wound up by the Court and that an Interim Liquidator be appointed in which Petition the Court of Session in Edinburgh by Interlocutor dated 7 October 2008
So, the council raised an action aginst this company the day before the land was sold. The day after the land was sold it was re designated from leisure land to private housing, thereby causing it's value to rocket.
So, who drew up the lease and how long was it for?
Why was an action raised the day before the sell off?
Why was the land re-designated for housing one day after it was sold?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Can't believe Macwhirter on Newsnight last night. What a load of nothing he said.
Well done Alex Salmond. Just keep giving them enough rope by showing what a bunch of undemocratic charlatans they are.
Oh and loved Kenny Macaskill upsetting Glen campbell on the Politics show by rubbishing the laughable idea that Scotland should be "protected" from its oil and gas revenues. You couldn't make it up unless you did that is.
Complain about this comment
92 Glasgow Gooner.
Do you think the European Parliament is a threat to your British passport? if so, good luck with voting Conservative in Glasgow.
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
92 GlasgowGooner
It would be interesting if you could frame your doubts for us, then we can debate and answer them, where possible.
Please :)
Complain about this comment
We in North Britain wish those in South Britain , more power to follow policies which suit them.
Only problem I see for South Britain is the variation in need.
Perhaps you require to think along the lines of East/ West / South Britain.
No matter!
Pitchforks at the ready , and go for it!
Complain about this comment
GlasgowGooner re 92
You may now be getting an idea how a lot of us have felt about being ruled from Drowning Street.
We did not run away, but by knocking on doors, delivering leaflets etc, we now see what we want for our families within our grasp. As some other post here said not if but now when.
Haste ye back.
Complain about this comment
How nice of auntie to provide a link to this website's BBC boss being questioned by MSPs [last updated Tuesday, 16 June 2009 00:56 BST] this morning, just too late for anyone to contact members of the Holyrood Education, Lifelong Learning and Culture Committee with any concerns we may wish them to air on our behalf with the BBC's Mark Thompson [Director-General], Ken MacQuarrie, [Director, BBC Scotland] and Donalda MacKinnon [Head of Programmes and Services, BBC Scotland]. Pity we didn't get a little more warning.
Unfortunately, I'm off out now but even expats can watch the fun from 10:00 BST on holyrood.tv.
I for one hope that this issue of biased coverage over Calman and the aftermath Brian discusses above is covered as well as issues like the non-investigations of the Glenrothes register and MP expense claims.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
It would appear that Pravda North British branch do not like people talking about the MP for Livingston (better not name him) People might find out what party he is from.
My post was also censored for mentioning him.
Does anyone see the irony in Pravda mentioning restrictions on reporting in other countries.
Complain about this comment
#92 GlasgowGooner
I'm sure that you'll have no trouble getting EWANI (England, Wales And Northern Ireland) citizenship if that's what you want, and as citizens of a fellow EU nation Ewanis will have the automatic right to residency in Scotland. Emigrate if you want, but your prospects will be better north of the border I think.
Complain about this comment
Is it just me or is anyone else missing Dean the Tory?
Come back Dean many of us did not agree with your posts, but valued your opinion.
Complain about this comment
Re The MP for Livingston.
"I have been hung out to dry"
If he truly believes that he should resign today and stand as an independent.
If his constituents believed that they would re elect him in a landslide.
Complain about this comment
#97 greenockboy
Maybe if you use Morse code?
Complain about this comment
Yesterday Alex Salmond was speaking at a National Conversation even in Livingston. This even was attended 170 people (This is more than Labour had at their conference in Dundee if you exclude the post office privatization protesters)
I must have missed it, but I can find nothing about this on the BBC website.
Censorship by omission maybe?
Complain about this comment
I am new to this and have only been reading this blog for a couple of weeks but a few things strike me. Can someone answer these for me?
1. What reason has the U.K. got to keep Scotland in the union if it is as claimed such a huge drain on its resources? I mean surely this would be the perfect time, (recession etc) to offload such a burden wouldn't it? There must be some reason to keep Scotland? There must be something in it for the U.K.?
2. If some interpretations of the Mcrone report are true, the parts about the oil making Scotland finacialy secure and without it the U.K. bankrupt in the 1970's why has this not been pushed forward by the S.N.P.? To strenghten their case? Could it be that they need to continue with the rest of the U.K. thinking that Scotland is draining their resouces, to aid Independance? I understand the tactic. But many Scots are also convinced of this and believe that an independant Scotland would fail financialy, so would not support indepandance. How are the S.N.P. going to convince both sides to go for it?
3. There appear to be discrepancies in the financial reports of Scotlands performance, or at least the way they are fed to the public. E.G. the £ per capita claim that the Scots get more. Yet when the figures are looked at more closely there are regions in England and Northern Ireland that are paid more per head. Why is this not put into the public view more clearly? Other such annomalies appear to exist. Such as figures inluded in Scotlands spending that are nothing to do with Scotland. Was there not something about the Olympics or the London Crossrail or somethng like that being added (partly maybe I cant remember offhand) to Scotlands figures? Why are these things not researched and broadcast or debated properly for the public to see? I mean objectively. The discepancies in the information create suspicion.
Things like this create an air of suspicion between the public and politians, like there was any help needed there at the moment! There are many cases of this sort of thing moving the boundaries in the North sea is another. Has anybody tried to get these things explained or corrected?
4. The claims that the press are controlled and being told what they can and cant broadcast. Who is contolling them and how? The way the press operates these days scandals etc surely somebody would have blabbed by now, wouldnt they? What could make them stay quiet?
5. The Calman comission set up by parties completely opposed to the S.N.P. looked suspicious right from the start. Almost like they set it up to back their view. Why was it not set up involving all parties? Would that not have given it more credability? Even better set up independant of any political party.
6. If Scotland is part of the U.K. and it contributes to the U.K. via taxes etc etc why is the revenue from the oil not included in the contributions? Why is this part singled out and regarded as a U.K.wide contribution? Is this consistant with fishing for example? Both in Scottish waters I mean? Is there an accurate and independant assesment of exactly what comes out of Scotland to the treasury and what is paid back? Including everything that comes out of the geographical area regarded as Scotland? How does this balance out? In short do we pay our way?
7. The Calman commission recommending tax powers and changes to allowance to Scotland. What is the point in that? Who in their right mind could afford to lower taxes right now? Who would be brave/daft enough to raise taxes right now? It seems a pointeless gesture to me. If these changes take place will the amount of money Scotland recieves be more or less than at present?
For my part I am disheartened with the political process in this country. Long before the expences scandal. To be frank it didnt surprise me at all. I see so many inconsistancies in what is reported. GERS report, Mcrone, Calman, etc. The press at large.
The way labour behaved since the S.N.P. took over in Scotland is pathetic. It is like watching a four year old child who lost a game and is crying in the huff. Murphy? He looks like a character from a beatrix potter story, a weasel I believe!!! Gray, Alexander etc Salmond seems to out fox them every time.
Anyway I digress. The whole thing appears to be playing into Salmonds hands. Good? bad? time will tell I guess. But the way Labour are behaving the S.N.P. will be far stronger at the next election.
It seems inevitable that the conservatives will win the next westminster election and wont win in Scotland. After the damage Labour have done I dont see them winning is Scotland either. So Conservative in Westminster and S.N.P in Hollyrood? Cameron will have to be careful how he treats Scotland if he wants to avoid Independance. Maybe that'll be no bad thing? Or am I being bit naive?
How good were Labour and the conservatives? One group of liars exchanged for another. Would the S.N.P. be different???
Independance? Not convinced just yet, watching and listening. The feeling that we are being shortchanged in the union is getting harder to ignore month buy month. Mind you the lack of faith in polititions grows with it.
Complain about this comment
Interesting little article on Alex Salmond in Livingston.
Ironic when you think Calman had to cancel meeting as even his invited audience would not come.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/politics/news/display.var.2514775.0.Ecks_blether_on_the_future.php
Complain about this comment
The changes proposed do seem footling and inconsistent. By all means can we please have a referendum in Scotland on whether they wish to accept the changes or leave the Union. We are supposed to live in a mature democracy. The only proviso must be that all other member countries should also be allowed to vote at the same time on whether they wish to stay in the Union. I can see no logic in only one country having a voice.
Complain about this comment
More intriguingly, he has suggested the eventual referendum ballot paper to go before the voters, Holyrood permitting, might include a "Calman option".
Which is a smart move because a referendum will require a close examination of the Calman Commission report beyond the enthusiastic cheer-leading and received wisdom that it is somehow a radical shift towards financial autonomy in the Scottish Parliament or an increase in the powers it can wield.
If you read it, it boils down to this:
Part 2
The UK is all one country
Part 3
The Scottish Parliament gets no extra funding but raising it becomes more complicated.
(Reduced Block Grant) + (Proportion of Scottish Tax Revenues) = (Current Scottish Barnett Funding).
The Reduced block grant proportion being continually reviewed and altered dependent on received tax revenues from the previous year or years.
The Scottish Parliament can raise or lower tax rates in Scotland (Not a new power)
The Scottish Parliament can impose additional Scottish Taxes on Scotland
The Scottish Parliament will have the power to borrow money on par with a local authority.
Part 4
The Scottish Parliament and the UK Parliament should work more closely together.
Part 5
The Scottish Parliament gets control airguns
The Scottish Parliament gets control of drugs for addicts
The Scottish Parliament gets control of drink-driving limits
The Scottish Parliament gets control of the national speed limit
The Scottish Parliament gets control of nature conservancy
The Scottish Parliament gets control of the Deprived Areas Fund
The Scottish Parliament gets control of its own elections
The Scottish Parliament appoints the Scottish Member of the BBC Trust
The Scottish Parliament works more closely with HSE
The UK Parliament takes back control of the process of insolvency
The UK Parliament takes back control of Scottish Charities
The UK Parliament takes back control of food content and labelling
The UK Parliament takes back control of the Regulation of Health Professionals
The UK Parliament keeps control of compensation and funding for diseases like Foot and Mouth
The Crown Estate should listen a bit more to the Scottish Parliament
Part 6
The Scottish Parliament should make some internal changes.
Gordon Brown described the report as, "imaginative and bold", but it's neither. It's a dog's breakfast where funding is concerned and Scotland gets no more money nor control of its own resources. Many powers go back to Westminster while Scotland gains control of speed limits and airguns. Whoopidy-Whoop. That'll take them to the barricades.
Examination of Calman in a referendum campaign would show it to be what it actually is, full of big empty words and unable to propose anything radical for fear of helping the move towards independence.
Complain about this comment
Maybe I'm missing something, but what would happen under Calman if Holyrood chose to CUT income tax in Scotland by the full 10%? Would the block grant simply increase to top funding up to the Barnett block grant level? Just a thought...
Complain about this comment
#110 maolbeatha
Good fundamental questions always worth revisiting - my initial comments
Item 1 - Ive always thought it was a reluctance to rock the boat on the world stage - What would Englands position be on the Security Council, and what about bases in Scotland which were strategic in terms of the NATO alliance in the cold war
Now also we have natural resources - not just oil but water (a diminishing resource in SE with overpopluation and global warming plus wind, tide and wave power
Item 2 & 3 SNP Have made an issue of the lack of an oil fund as in NorwayA lot os spending is fudged including the huge spend on defence R&D which principally takes place south of Birmingham - could be viewed as a "hidden" subsidy - I think the politicos and the media's preoccupation with soundbites mitigates against what would need to be a complex dicussion
Item 4 - Particulalry with the BBC it's self preservation - what would be the position of the BBC in an independent Scotland - so they go for the status quo and are consciousl;y or unconsciously pro union
Item 7 I think they went for ncome tax so it gave the appearance of action, knowing that it would change nothing. If they had gone for corporation tax then Scotland would have had an opportunity to attarct corporate head offices etc as in IOM, Jersey - which isn't allowed apparently by unionist parties
Complain about this comment
According to Brian Taylor of the BBC: "Our opposition leaders at Holyrood plainly feel they have the stomach for the fight."
According to Robbie Dinwoodie of The Herald; "(Salmond's) foes are running away from the fight."
The cracks are obviously starting to appear...
Complain about this comment
#114 mmarsattacks
....But a very interesting thought :0)
Is this an excellent loophole that the unionists...errr Calman, has not thought about?
Complain about this comment
Brian - try and keep up. Devine gets the bullet - NOTHING, but no surprise. Police should be investigating him - there is a funny smell about dodgy bill, false address, false VAT No, and he gets the cash for alleged repairs. It would not do to have an article like this on Liebour would it - no use to Bias Corp or u.
Complain about this comment
# 110 maolbeatha
You will get a lot of different answers to those questions that you have put to us, but I'll be surprised if the Unionists will answer any of them. I'll try to shove my own halfpenny's worth in as well. This is not an SNP answer but my answer.
1: 'What reason has the U.K. got to keep Scotland in the union if it is as claimed such a huge drain on its resources?'
I believe that the Unionists believe in the principle of the union and do not want to see it taken apart. I believe this is their prime objective. They have every right to think that way and I would fight for their right to be wrong on this matter. The part about Scotland being a drain is just politics; they are trying to show that we (Scotland) are not able to take care of ourselves therefore, we NEED to stay within the union.
2: 'There appear to be discrepancies in the financial reports of Scotlands performance, or at least the way they are fed to the public.'
Good point. If you wanted to have Scotland remain in the union, and you controlled the access to the figures that may, or may not, show that Sxcotland is capable of taking care of itself; then wouldn't you try to massage the figures? If the unionists really believed that Scotland wouldn't be able to take care of itself then wouldn't you have no worries about showing the correct figures to show that the Scots NEED the union?
3: 'The claims that the press are controlled and being told what they can and cant broadcast. Who is contolling them and how?'
Personally, I don't believe that the media in the UK are being 'controlled', as you put it. However, there is always an however, the media in the UK has grown up in the union and it would be ridiculous to believe that the majority of the media have not got the personal view that the union is good for Scotland, and the rest of the UK for that matter. Most of the media are reliant upon the good will of the media machine at Westminster, if you don't behave then you don't get to have the interviews and you don't get invited to press conferences. This has always gone on and always will. This information is then fed back down the media system where all the other journalists take up the information that they have been fed from the major hacks. There are very few independent journalists out there who still retain the respect of the Westminster media machine. Sad, but true.
5: 'The Calman comission set up by parties completely opposed to the S.N.P. looked suspicious right from the start. Almost like they set it up to back their view.'
No sense in me answering that one as you have already done so.
6: 'If Scotland is part of the U.K. and it contributes to the U.K. via taxes etc etc why is the revenue from the oil not included in the contributions?'
The UK needs every penny it can get to play at being a leader on the world stage. This does not come cheap.
7: 'The Calman commission recommending tax powers and changes to allowance to Scotland. What is the point in that? Who in their right mind could afford to lower taxes right now? Who would be brave/daft enough to raise taxes right now? It seems a pointeless gesture to me.'
I refer you to my answer to your # 5 question.
Complain about this comment
115. Aikenheed
I never thought about the U.K. position in the security council if Scotland left. Would that make such a difference?
Why would this not be made public? I mean the only reason given to keep the union are History, stronger together etc.
So I guess what it boils down to is who gains or loses if Scotland goes?
If the one side is going to lose then it would make sense for them to convince all involved that it would be bad for everyone.
There is something that doesnt ring true here. We are continualy being told by the mainstream media that Scotland is being supported by the U.K. If this is true who does it help?
I mean our cousins down south will be annoyed about that and want to see us go. I wouldn't blame them.
The Scots would be against independance as they believe we couldn't make it.
The pro independance side of the argument would want to portray it slightly differently.
They would want to convince the Scots we could make it on our own and still leave the rest of the U.K. convinced they were being bled dry by the Scots! Not an easy trick to pull off!
The pro union parties are adamant that they want the Union to stay together but I am unclear of their reasoning. They dont want to allow a referendum to allow clear debate and freedom of choice, claiming
"a waste of taxpayers money"
Do they not see the irony in that statement coming from a polititian?
Both sides need to put their cards on the table and prove their arguments. Allow them to be tested and verified. Then let the voters decide. I am fascinated at the thought of how the debate will be played out.
Surely the ONLY way to allow that is a referendum?
Independance argument: England we are bleeding you dry let us go. Scotland we are rich, just dont tell the rest of the U.K.!
Motive: get us and our resources out of the union.
Pro Union argument: England, we are stroger together. Scotland you cannot survive without the union.
Motive: Security Council? Nato? History?
What am I missing here because the pro union argument seems weak to me.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8104911.stm
How many spending commitment lies can Brown force into one appearance at PMQs?
Why is the disgraced member for Livingston allowed to hang on to his seat until the next general election on the basis of pure personal gain? (Golden Handshake)
Why does an unelected government get to decide when the next general election will be [and indeed when Glasgow North East and Norwich (North?) byelections] are held?
Britain is clearly no more a democracy than Iran.
Complain about this comment
You sometimes wonder about the political nous of the unionist politicians in comparison to that of our First Minister. With one stroke he has virtually backed them into a corner as far as voting on the Referendum Bill is concerned. Having opted for Calman are they seriously going to deny giving the Scottish electorate the democratic opportunity to vote on it? If the SNP can get their Bill through, they have a very realistic chance of winning the referendum. If the predicted Tory landslide arrives in England at the next UK general election, I can see more than a few Labour politicians opting for an independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond seems to have all the strong cards at the moment.
Minority government. Any ideas he puts forward if blocked will look like he was blocked by the Westminster controlled parties. Gaining more voter support. Look at Labours childish behaviour in Holyrood.
Labour implosion. Losing them the government, Conservative
win. Conservatives will do nothing in Scotland. S.N.P. majority in Holyrood.
After the next general election, If Alex Salmond is clever, and he has been so far, he will have a majority in Holyrood. Then he will have time to prepare the country and call a referendum when he is ready.
Only then will we be able to judge him properly.
It would be nice to see all the facts and figures fromboth sides of the argument, Independantly corroborated. Because I think this will come down to a financial argument in the end.
Complain about this comment
Look lets cut to chase, the sooner Scotland becomes a Republic the better. Then if we fall on our faces the rest of the world can have a good laugh. But it's this word accountable that made me chuckle in reference to politicians, when are MP's or the likes ever accountable, as per the word honourable it's pretty loosely linked with politicians. But either way its a Win / Win for them as they'll find other ways to fleece the electorate!
Complain about this comment
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/opinion/Longterm-planning-is-threatened-by.5371689.jp
Perhaps this lot trying to sell newspapers.....or is it brace yourself for tomorrows routine propoganda ?
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
maolbeatha
What I was looking at was the personal motivation of career politicians - I think they see the status quo as providing a bigger world stage to strut on and they shy away from change - eg the strategic positioning of the UK off europe is weakened by the absence of Scotland so what effect would that have on the "special relationship" with US and influence in Nato - and other geopolitical considerations - best not open that Pandoras Box and keep the status quo
I agree it doesn't ring true - if we're such a drag on England why keep us in the union? I personally have never seen a convincing argument from that point of view, so have always supposed it was more personally motivated.
I am not sure what the implications would be for England's permanent seat on the security Council - certainly countries such as India would be keen to make a case for replaceing it, and france & Russia would no doubt enjoy the opportunity to stir things up - so better not go there eh?
I also agree that these matters should be looked at more closely - but what are the chances in a sound bite media culture?
A referendum would certainly provide the opportunity.
Complain about this comment
#114 mmarsattacks
#117 Angusblogg
The answer is no. Have a look at the worked examples and scenarios on page 113 of Calman.
The top up block grant is based on the unaltered estimated tax take for the year the top up block grant is given.
If the Scottish Government want to increase the tax burden on Scots for that year by upping the tax rate to raise more money or if they decide to reduce the tax burden on Scots and reduce the amount of money they recieve for that year then that's up to them. It doesn't affect the block grant at the next review which is based on the Scottish Government setting the same tax rates as the rest of the UK.
The interesting part is that however the Scottish Economy performs it does not alter the amount of money the Scottish Government gets over the long term.
A strong economy with more jobs and higher salaries and a therefore a higher tax take will ensure that the block grant is cut at the next funding review. A weak economy with a low tax take will have its block grant increased at the next funding review. It's actually favours Scottish governments who do nothing. Whatever they do for the Scottish Economy the Scottish Funding will be reduced or raised to the Barnett Formula levels at the next review. A Lib-Lab happy heaven.
Complain about this comment
From the Telegraph, Cochrane near to tears as the end of the union is near.
Read the comments, no great rants.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/columnists/alancochrane/5556905/With-Unionist-parties-like-these-who-needs-Nationalists.html
Complain about this comment
Wansanshoo re 125
I think it is more a case of Calman was like a well know hamburger "wheres the beef"
On Monday it was bold, etc yawn.
Tuesday falling apart.
Wednesday the wheels have come off.
Rest of week, unionists backed into their own corner.
Next week, happy days.
Complain about this comment
#127 DougtheDug
I see... An incentive for Scottish governments to do nothing. And we're asked to believe that these proposals will lead to more accountability. A recipe for stagnation.
So the choice remains: Renewed democracy, more focused governance and increased accountability with independence; or more of the same old union malaise with Calman.
Complain about this comment
#121 pattymkirkwood
"Why does an unelected government get to decide when the next general election will be [and indeed when Glasgow North East and Norwich (North?) byelections] are held?"
As far as I know, it's simply House of Cards convention re Norwich as NuLab won it last time, but unless we've been mislead and Martin simply retires to the back benches as an "independent" until the general election, then convention won't apply since it's never happened before and Martin was not a Labour candidate in 2005. My view would be that as they were in second place last time, the SNP should call the writ on Monday as soon as the new speaker is elected.
Off out again now, but back tonight, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
# 128 dubbieside
Just read the article. I wouldn't be surprised if the Calman Commission's recommendations were quietly dropped into oblivion.
I wonder who has paid for this report? Has this report come out of Scotland's funds or from the UK's funds?
Complain about this comment
#128 Dubbieside
Good article - a lot more objective than the Scottish media - take a lesson Brian -
Who would have thought we'd be relying on the Torygraph for a proper update on Scottish affairs?
Complain about this comment
Comment 132:
I wonder who has paid for this report? Has this report come out of Scotland's funds or from the UK's funds?
The half million (at last estimate) came out of Scotland's funds.
Complain about this comment
I have just received an e-mail from the BBC explaining why my # 28 posting was removed, regarding the BBC news over Jim Devine. They informed me that, as far as I can make out, I should have used 'deselection' instead of 'struck off' as it could be regarded as defamatory. Personally, I would have thought it was the same thing. However, that is their judgement and I have no recourse to this.
Complain about this comment
Cochrane's pointed out that: "Unionist parties say a referendum is not necessary for the Calman proposals to be implemented, arguing that the commission's proposals do not amount to major constitutional change".
In one breath the Unionists claim the "radical" Calman proposals amount to "a major constituitonal change" and in the next breath they claim the "radical" Calman proposals "do not amount to major constitutional change."
Salmond's got them so tied up in knots they don't know what they're saying!
Complain about this comment
Now that the SNP are about to announce SFT funding could this scupper any plans to make it the focus of the forthcoming Springburn by-election?
If so, it will be interesting to see what the media and Labour will choose to attack the SNP with? Even though it is a Westminster by-election the focus will be on the SNP at Holyrood.
Anyone else hear Andy Kerr being interviewed on Good Morning Scotland? At last, a real interview as opposed to the fawning tripe we were subjected to with Calman.
A refreshing change to hear a Labour politician being asked uncomfortable questions on both PFI and Jim Devine.
Complain about this comment
# 134 greenockboy
So we have paid for a blatant unionist report that was not asked for by the Scottish people. I hope the unionists remember this when AS asks for a referendum in 2010.
Complain about this comment
#136bighullabaloo
Cochrane is irrelevant, the Prime Minister never ruled out a two parted referendum when asked by the SNP at PMQ's.
I would like to see a referendum, I believe the SNP are secretly terrified of a referendum.
I say bring it on! and put the nationalists on the spot.
Complain about this comment
I don't often have the time to comment on Brian's blog - even though i am a regu;lar reader of it - I only have internet access at work.
so forgive me if this is one of those issues in which my struggle with numbers doesn't work but isn't there a basic problem with a 3 question referendum
ie 1 status quo
2 calman
3 independence
isn't it possible for the whole thing to come out a third, a third a third
if that happens who "wins"
Complain about this comment
Scottish Questions is a revelation:
The Scottish Government, which represent the Scottish electorate, gets only two questions! These questions are suitably positioned so that Murphy can grandstand to the MPs assembling for PMQs. Murphy is almost unintelligible, a grey character, unable to string a coherent argument together. Except of course when he trots out the same old guff about Scotland being better off as part of the UK. This is what represents Scotland in Westminister! Another Union dividend.
Scottish Questions needs to be moved so that it is not clash with PMQs. The Commons becomes more and more of a rabble as MPs take their seats for the main event so that the last few questions of Scottish Questions are almost drowned out. A farce!
Complain about this comment
#138 gedguy2
Any idea what the cost of a referendum would be? There must be precedents in the 1979 and 1999 ones but where the figures might be, I don't know. Probably more than Calman but still less than the trams though.
Complain about this comment
#139
Good to have you on board ;-)
You do realise though, that you'll have to abide by the result?
Complain about this comment
Scottish Questions is a revelation:
The Scottish Government, which represent the Scottish electorate, gets only two questions! These questions are suitably positioned so that Murphy can grandstand to the MPs assembling for PMQs. Murphy is almost unintelligible, a grey character, unable to string a coherent argument together. Except of course when he trots out the same old guff about Scotland being better off as part of the UK. This is what represents Scotland in Westminister! Another Union dividend.
Scottish Questions needs to be moved so that it is not clash with PMQs. The Commons becomes more and more of a rabble as MPs take their seats for the main event so that the last few questions of Scottish Questions are almost drowned out. A farce!
Complain about this comment
I've got an idea......it is quite clear that a minority (but admittedly very vocal!!) of people in Scotland are calling for a referendum on independence......why don't we then have a referendum that asks the question...........wait for it........."Do you think Scotland should have a referendum on independence?".......what do you think?.......ah know, probably not worth the bother, the waste of money, the waste of civil service resources etc. etc.......seems really silly doesn't it......I feel it is my sovereign right not to be subjected to referendums on issues that clearly don't carry the view of the majority people......what on earth is the point? FREEDOM
Complain about this comment
#138 gedguy2
Any idea what the cost of a referendum would be? There must be precedents in the 1979 and 1999 ones but where the figures might be, I don't know. Probably more than Calman but still less than the trams though.
Complain about this comment
#146
It looks like a bug has hit Post Comment after using Preview, sorry.
Complain about this comment
#139 derekbarker
"I believe the SNP are secretly terrified of a referendum."
If the Unionists reject Salmond's offer to have Calman as a referendum question you'll have to come back on here and admit the Unionists are secretly terrified of public opinion.
Derek - tell me you aren't so thick that you can't even see that your shower of Unionist dullards have been totally outfoxed by Salmond.....again!
Complain about this comment
Alex Salmond has played"call my bluff" to often.When someone threatens his cabinet, Mr Salmond threatens us with resignation.
Alex Salmond is now! well and truly behind the black ball after calling for a choice between an advanced devolved parliament and Independence.
Go for! bring it on! let the people of Scotland tell AS and his amateur bunch, NO HOW AND NO WAY!
Complain about this comment
#145 salmondella
Are you another alias for derek, or, as he has gone sensible, have you two swapped monikers? (Respect, derek)
Complain about this comment
Is it not amazing that when the unionists are in a hole and still digging that yet another "name" from the Scotsman website pops up.
Samondella makes an appearance.
Question is this Reluctant? or does he email them and shout help.
Interesting that his view on the referendum on independence numbers is identical to reluctant, conveniently forgetting that every poll has shown the vast majority of people want a referendum.
Complain about this comment
#149 derekbarker
"Alex Salmond is now! well and truly behind the black ball"
Oh dear. You really do believe that don't you?!
Please read what even your own Unionist press is being forced to admit: "The Union will not be saved by the opposition dealing Alex Salmond one winning hand after another".
Derek, sometimes it's better just to put your hands up and say "you win". This is such a moment.
It just shows the grip your illogical and indefensible arguments have got on you that you aren't able to do that.
Complain about this comment
#148bighullabaloo
Mr Murphy told the SNP contingency at Westminster today, that it is unbelievable that an SNP government has refused to engage in a programme of more powers for the Scottish parliament and he also reminded them that the nationalists don't hold a majority for Independence.
Yes! bring the referendum on! give the public the choice!
Bighullabaloo, Alex has entrapped himself, by refusing to endorse the Calman report.Alex may just have ended the Independence issue for ever.
Bring on the referendum!
Complain about this comment
#152bighullabaloo
I have no problem with accepting the democractic decision of any future referendum, that's not the issue! I think the real issue here is whether the SNP truly believe in their Independence call and whether they have the bottle to fight for the right to an Independent Scotland.
I think your constitutional man Mike Rusell is against separation! after all he did say those words on the daily political show the other day?.
How many of the SNP's MP's truly want an Independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#153 derekbarker
"SNP government has refused to engage in a programme of more powers for the Scottish parliament"
Salmond did agree to "engage" in a programme of more powers for the Scottish parliament.
He's offered to let the people vote on it!
Complain about this comment
Ignoring me might make me go away , given that I have a life and a job to do, but it will not answer my question. Who wins if the "answer" is split 3 ways?
Complain about this comment
derekbarker re 153
Even the SUN is now saying the unionist leaders have bottled it. Auntie Bella must regret getting involved with these losers.
http://www.thesun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2485105/Alex-Salmond-challenges-rivals-to-referendum.html
Looks like everyone is wrong but you Derek.
Murphy is a joke, even Iain Gray would not waste his time listening to him if he was not under orders from "The Great Leader"
Greenockboy
Possible headline tomorrow "Calman Collapses" Totally unworkable says the SUN. "Bold and forward thinking" says the BBC and the Daily Record.
Complain about this comment
Brian, I had a look at the title to this blog and thought it neatly summed up the daily struggle of Scotland's media to find something fair or positive to say about the SNP.
Not impossible but difficult.
The near rapturous reception given to this costly , pointlesss, piece of unionist stalling is as tedious as it's predictable.
Which other country in the world would have it's opposition Parties and tame media in ecstasy over a stultifying review whose remit from the start was to stymie independence by pretending it wasn't there, ignore the express wishes of a large swathe of the electorate and to ensure no meaningful change could occur?
Incredibly these people are yet again cheerfully welcoming proposals which condemn Scotland to more of what mmarsattacks aptly describes as "the same old unionist malaise"
Greenockboy @137, could we send someone round to GMS studio to check they're ok, that doesn't sound like them at all.
Maybe Glen will have be sent round to respectfully remind them that it's the SNP that are meant to be put on the spot.
Complain about this comment
@154. derekbarker wrote: 'How many of the SNP's MP's truly want an Independent Scotland. '
I am going to go out on a limb and say most of them if not all. It's fairly key to what the SNP stand for.
It's similar to the following:
How many football fans want to see their team win?
How many big brother contestants want to be famous?
How many Labour MP's want to see Gordon Brown stay as PM...... erm maybe not a great example there.
Complain about this comment
#154 derekbarker
BBC website Thursday 5th March, 2009: "Mr Gray said Scotland needed a referendum 'like a hole in the head.'"
Derek -Is your call to have a referendum official Labour Party policy?
Please read Gray's words three times and think really hard before you give your answer.
If your answer is "no" we'll take it you may have the "stomach for a fight" but Labour clearly doesn't.
Complain about this comment
#156 msSupertramp
To put you out of your self-imposed misery: if Calman was one of the options then obviously "status quo" wouldn't be on the ballot paper.
There is no logic in spending a big wad of public cash just to ask people if they want things to stay the same as they are now.
Complain about this comment
#155bighullabaloo
I also want the people of Scotland to vote on the future of the Scottish parliament.
Unlike you! I will accept the democratic outcome what ever it may be.
Complain about this comment
msSupertramp re 156
I am no polling expert but it may be the old first past the post, question with the highest number of votes wins, and as our American friends would say second is nowhere.
There are people who post on here who know how polls work so you should get a definitive answer.
Complain about this comment
#160 msSupertramp
No one, we all live to fight another day and waste even more electricity posting on Blether with Brian! 8-)
Complain about this comment
#160bighullabaloo
The Prime Minister nor Jim Murphy have yet to officially decline a referendum, Mr Gray has yet to decline a referendum as called for by Alex Salmond yesterday.
It's not an official party line, it's my opinion.
Let the people decide!
Complain about this comment
#159
Stewart Hosie seem to to settled in London, he even has a mortgage on a flat.
And how many of your said above list, would be happy to give up their very well payed jobs?
But hey! if it's a principle point you make, then why are they at Westminster in the first place?.
Complain about this comment
#162 derekbarker
It's a pity your beloved Labour party dullards haven't got the same bottle you've got derek - or is it just the foolhardy bravado of a cornered panic-stricken animal?
Complain about this comment
#165 derekbarker
"It's not an official party line"
So your answer is "no" and we can take it YOU may have the "stomach for a fight" but Labour clearly doesn't.
The SUN appears to have got it spot on then: "ALEX Salmond yesterday challenged his rivals to a referendum fight between new tax powers for Holyrood or full independence and they all BOTTLED it."
Complain about this comment
#165 derekbarker
Let the people decide. Hey! That's my line!
Can we shelve this now and get on to the shelving in the next thread? Another embarrassing topic for Labour.
Complain about this comment
#167bighullabaloo
At this giving time in history, I don't think the people of Scotland would be convinced to support an Independent Scotland.
I'm pretty sure they would opt to vote for the Calman report at this giving time.
Actually the proposed referendum would also help to restore confidence in the political system after the disastrous last couple of months, given the people a say on the future of the Scottish parliament is in my books, re-engaging with democracy and the people.
Complain about this comment
#166 derekbarker
"(...) why are they at Westminster in the first place?"
To represent their constituents and obtain independence, of course.
Admit it. You are just wittering on witlessly here so as to avoid the new thread on shelving. Go on, enter the fray, even if you will get slaughtered.
Remember to put the lights out when you leave.
Complain about this comment
derekbarker re your 166
Stewart Hosie seem to to settled in London, he even has a mortgage on a flat.
He is an MP Derek thats why he is in London. He has a mortgage as he does not get a free house in Drowning Street. I believe some politicians get a free house in London but still get a mortgage paid for. Why I heard some even get a mortgage paid for them when they have no mortgage
He is an MP at Westminster as that is where Scotlands colonial governors meet. Until we achieve our aim of breaking free from them we need to keep sending people there. Its called democracy, Labour once believed in democracy, but that was a long time ago.
Complain about this comment
#171 Lily Hammer
Sinn Fein are also a separatist group that never sent any MP's to Westminster because they didn't believe in Westminster and the British parliament.
Lily are you officially saying that the SNP believe in the British parliament?.
Complain about this comment
I really have no idea why contributors here keep replying to the inane comments of derekbarker
Complain about this comment
125. At 12:44pm on 17 Jun 2009, Wansanshoo wrote
I think Brian got the wrong end of the stick, maybe the "pointless waste of taxpayers money" (LibDems), was actually referring to the Calman Commission proposals.
Complain about this comment
#173 derekbarker
You are forgetting that earlier Irish Home Rulers sent MPs to the UK parliament. This did not mean that they had no intention of establishing an Irish state, as the existence of the Irish Republic testifies.
The SNP clearly believes in reducing the number of MPs at Westminster by 59. The fact that it adopts an approach to this which is different from that of another contemporary party which would prefer to have no representation at Westminster does not, of course, represent a declaration of faith in the institution itself. You need to take a course in logic, if you think you are up to it.
Now stop hiding in here and face up to the Labour Party's shelving embarrassment in the next thread.
Complain about this comment
#176
But Lily it's illogical for a party that was formed to oppose the UK, to send MP's to Westminster, who swear an oath of allegiance to the parliament and Queen, while still pertaining that they support separation?
If they accept the West lothian question and accept the Scottish parliaments rule, do they vote on British only matters?.
Complain about this comment
# 177 derekbarker
'#176
But Lily it's illogical for a party that was formed to oppose the UK, to send MP's to Westminster, who swear an oath of allegiance to the parliament and Queen, while still pertaining that they support separation?
If they accept the West lothian question and accept the Scottish parliaments rule, do they vote on British only matters?.'
I do not accept your premise that it is illogical. You are assuming that the SNP is opposed to the UK parliament; it is not. It is for an independent parliament for Scotland. That may seem to be a contradiction but if you follow the logical argument then it becomes clear (sometimes as mud ;-) ). If Scotland gets its independence we are not going to vote against the UK (as they will surely keep that title) in the EU, UN, NATO or wherever just because it is the UK. We will act for the benefit of Scotland, and if that means voting with the UK then so be it. We do not wish ill of our southern or western neighbours, far from it. It would suit these islands if we all did well. What we don't want is to be a part of a structure which we think is detrimental to our well being.
As to the 'West Lothian' question; that has always been a red herring. Prior to, and even with, the current Scottish Parliament, the amount of English constituency MPs have always been in a position to outvote the rest of the UK whenever it suits them. When the next General Election comes and the Tories take control of the UK you will, undoubtedly, see that happening. If the English want to have a vote for English matters only (and I don't object to this) then let them have their own parliament.
As to the oaths to the Queen, check out how many of the sitting MPs in parliament are confirmed Republicans. It may surprise you.
Complain about this comment
So it's now official the Scottish future trust scheme is PFI in another name, come on gedguy how many pledges will your part break?.
Complain about this comment
#179
Of course, SFT was developed to provide a critical alternative to the financial black hole that is PFI - to allow our essential schools and hospitals to be built without laying the burden of perpetual debt upon future generations.
If the Calman Commission had actually been serious about improving Holyrood's capacity for effective government, it might have proposed the removal of some of the legal barriers that have impeded SFT from the outset, potentially saving millions on the cost of future building projects.
Similarly, if Labour gave a damn about promoting the interests of the Scottish people, instead of shoring up those of Westminster, they might even attempt to make a positive contribution to such initiatives, instead of clumsily trying, and abjectly failing, to oppose the SNP at every turn.
Complain about this comment
#177 derekbarker
Operating within existing constitutional arrangements, whether they approve of them or not, is what political parties do which declare themselves to be dedicated to achieving constitutional change by constitutional means as a matter of principle. (Sorry to use a word there, 'principle', with which you may not be familiar.) As the SNP declares itself to be dedicated to achieving constitutional change by constitutional means, representation in the legislative assembly where power over the constitution lies would appear to be perfectly logical.
Within the existing UK constitution the UK parliament ultimately holds all the levers of power (over all matters whether defined as reserved or devolved). Therefore, there would seem to be not very much to be gained by attempting to ignore it. It is obvious that the unionist parties would prefer there to be no SNP presence in the UK parliament for numerous reasons, but, you know, the SNP is not really in business to make unionist parties happy, as you must have noticed.
If you ever start coming up with logic, Derek, as opposed to this puerile sophistry that you keep spewing out all day long, I'll consider taking you seriously. Until then forget it. Your vocabulary needs work too. Only trying to be helpful.
Get yourself a good night's sleep now. Tomorrow is a special day. Speaker Martin is supposed to be letting all the cats out of the bag before disappearing over the horizon.
Complain about this comment
Have just watched "Scottish Questions" at Westminster (BBC2), which comprised entirely of soapbox propaganda for Calman, and against the Scottish Government.
Feigning the customary "opposition" to all things Tory, Jim Murphy was quick enough to embrace Tory contributions from any available quarter to endorse his own blinkered zeal for Calman - entirely obdurate to any hint of the self-contradiction or unworkability inherent to its design, or the sheer opportunism of its concoction and delivery - and crassly indignant to the last in his dismissal of the democratic will of the Scottish people.
Complain about this comment
120.. maolbeatha
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2005/april/index2.aspx#note1
One possible reason for staying in the United Kingdom.
Complain about this comment
#183
ESRC to the rescue!! ;)
Complain about this comment
184...
Of Scotland as well as the UK if thought about :)
Complain about this comment
#185
Does Iain Gray know about these statistics?
We know he'll clutch at anything, and might be able to abuse them at the next media opportunity. :)
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor wrote:
"Another day and things move on apace.
Alex Salmond has now set out more info about his plans for independence: he will publish a White Paper on St Andrew's day this year, with a referendum Bill to follow in 2010."
A yirsel big eck. But I'm sure he'll be taking into account the point made on post 3 of this threed. He's nae a gype, I think we can't trust his tactical instinct to protect us - so to spik.
Complain about this comment
183. At 12:35pm on 18 Jun 2009, only-thought-is-free wrote:
120.. maolbeatha
http://www.esrcsocietytoday.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/PO/releases/2005/april/index2.aspx#note1
One possible reason for staying in the United Kingdom."
Are you being serious or taking the big time P?
And by the way, I'm not so sure about thought being free, some people have paid a pretty hefty price for it!
Complain about this comment
187. If Salmond does include the 'more powers' option in a referendum, then that's any remaining possibility of a 'Yes' for full independence gone for good.
Complain about this comment
#189 RE
So what? If you're a glass half full type, it's another step on the road, if half empty it's just delaying the inevitable. Do I see a pushover try coming?
Complain about this comment
189.
Getting brave are we?
Complain about this comment
#189
No, RE
That's any remaining possibility of a yes for the status quo gone for good.
The object of Salmpnd's clever exercise is to trap his opponents in a referendum box. But, as he is assuredly aware, they will abandon Calman rather than concede a referendum. It's called "getting taken to the cleaners" in the patois of the streets.
I am willing to bet right now that nothing will come of the Calman Report
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS