Turning up the heat
Remarkable dual approach at Holyrood over climate change.
Accusations of political manipulation offstage. Unanimous backing in the chamber.
Versions of how they got there differ. But our MSPs are now committed to a target of reducing greenhouse gas emissions by 42% by 2020. That's up from 34%.
Firstly, the offstage stuff.
Labour accuses the Scottish Government of lacking ambition.
By contrast, ministers reckon Labour are at it - late political opportunism to irk the government.
Lib Dems and Greens say both the big parties are missing an opportunity to drive real change - with annual targets instead of a single, longer-term ambition.
Argument, irritability, claim and counter claim. Then they all vote unanimously for the deal.
Contradictory? No.
Quite often, political deals go to the wire. Look at the negotiations over the budget.
This consensus reflects the fact that all parties reckon they've arrived, collectively, at the best agreement possible in the circumstances.
The key point about the new, higher target is that it includes get-out clauses. Ministers will be able to vary the 2020 target in certain circumstances - most notably linked to wider efforts to tackle emissions by the EU.
But the minister, Stewart Stevenson, promised that there would be only one change at most; that it would not cut the target for 2020 below expert advice; and that it would not be needed at all if the EU went for ambitious targets which, in effect, offer Scotland a helping hand.
So, targets we have. Now, as to implementation.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~55~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Brian
It is nice to think that, although we have lumbered our children and grand-children with debt, we are doing something to leave them a planet to live on.
Complain about this comment
Have to agree with the ministers - Labour are at it. Aren't they always?
Complain about this comment
This is a lot of political gamesmanship from Labour (although admittedly its what politicians do). Argue that the SNP are not ambitious enough (although current targets are more stringent than any other country in europe) and then Blame the sitting government for failing to achieve the interim targets. If and at the moment its a big if, Labour regain power in Scotland they will say that the current target is unacheivable due to the poor progress by the previuos administration. The SNP on the other hand would be foolish to vote against such plans given that they may need further support from the Greens and Lib-dems on future holyrood powers and renewable energy subsidies, and considering there are substantial get out clauses it would not do to look unambitious as regards to Scotlands future.
I dont think there are any winners or losers from the main parties here, but a palpable win for the greens
Complain about this comment
"By contrast, ministers reckon Labour are at it - late political opportunism to irk the government."
We know they're at it too Brian, but it's good to see Gordon Brown is doing his bit for the environment by having solar panels installed. Just a shame he charged us for it. Obviously he couldn't have a how green is my valley argument without it.
"This consensus reflects the fact that all parties reckon they've arrived, collectively, at the best agreement possible in the circumstances."
But as this is one of the current political hot potatoes or should that be tatties, they couldn't effectively do anything different. As you say targets are all very well, the problems lie in the implementation. I'll do my bit if you can point me in the direction of a good expenses account
Complain about this comment
Any move to reduce greenhouse gas emissions should be welcomed. Labour should have been more positive rather than the usual opportunist criticisms.
Two things:
What is high level strategy to reduce the emissions?
My personal view is that the Government - if possible - should get every home insulated. That in itself would probably reduce energy consumption and hence gas emissions. Cost is obviously an issue but it might be beneficial in the long run.
The other concern is landfill. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe the SNP policy is to have NO waste collections at all, only recyclable materials. I forsee a tax on the horizon, as has been touted in England. Part of this stems from the EU where countries are fined for excessive landfill. The end result is more council tax. I'd be interested in the plans for dealign with this, as it has a direct economic effect on individuals.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This is a risky but needed set of goals, yet something is a wee bit strange here.
If British Labour in Scotland think 42% is the appropriate target why is the same political party adamant that UK targets are correctly set at 34%? Answers from a Labourite please (If there are any left).
Also, these Scottish targets include emissions from aviation and shipping even though, currently, the SP has no control over policy for these sectors. Big Risk.
Hmm...so why did the SNP change tack?
Maybe something been brokered because Salmond was pretty keen on keeping to the 34% at last weeks FMQs? Is Salmond going to ask for the additional powers required to give the SP the effective control it requires to meet these new targets?
Complain about this comment
7. At 5:27pm on 24 Jun 2009, EphemeralDeception wrote:
"Is Salmond going to ask for the additional powers required to give the SP the effective control it requires to meet these new targets?"
Looks like you've got the gist of his strategy.Shame the Unionist parties are so politically inept they can't see this banana skin coming
Complain about this comment
If there ever was a perfect example of politicians jumping on the over-hyped band wagon then man-man global warming is surely it.
This legislation is a joke.
I can't believe how many usually right thinking people have committed themselves to this as yet purely speculative theory that CO2 is going to wipe out the planet.
Everyday we get told the same thing.
"Carbon dioxide is causing global warming, and it has reached record-high levels in the atmosphere after growing at an accelerated pace in the past decade."
"Carbon dioxide is produced mostly from burning of coal, petro-chemicals and other fossil fuels, it is a gas that traps heat that otherwise would radiate into space."
"Global temperatures increased by about 1 degree Fahrenheit (0.6 degrees Celsius) during the 20th century, and international panels of scientists sponsored by world governments have concluded that most of the warming probably was due to greenhouse gases."
Sadly this is all rubbish.
CO2 is not the major greenhouse gas (water vapour is followed by methane - curiously the easiest of these to tax is CO2.)
Carbon dioxide accounts for less than ten percent of the greenhouse effect, as carbon dioxide's ability to absorb heat is quite limited.
Only about 0.03 percent of the Earth's atmosphere consists of carbon dioxide (nitrogen, oxygen, and argon constitute about 78 percent, 20 percent, and 0.93 percent of the atmosphere, respectively)
The sun, which you may remember is not a gas, is primarily to "blame" for global warming -- and plays a very key role in global temperature variations as well.
Most of the carbon dioxide in the atmosphere does not come from the burning of fossil fuels. Only about 14 percent of it does - 40% comes from volcanoes.
As for the oft cited the United Nations' Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, we should note that the IPCC report itself (the part written by scientists) reached no consensus on climate change. What did reach a conclusion was an IPCC "summary for policymakers" prepared by political appointees. Most reporters quote only the summary, being either too lazy or too undereducated to understand the actual report. This does not explain, however, why reporters don't more frequently interview scientists who helped prepare it - scientists such as IPCC participant Dr. Richard Lindzen of MIT, who says the IPCC report is typically "presented as a consensus that involves hundreds, perhaps thousands, of scientists... and none of them was asked if they agreed with anything in the report except for the one or two pages they worked on." Lindzen also draws a sharp distinction between the scientists' document and its politicized summary: "the document itself is informative; the summary is not.
Interestingly in response, more than 700 international scientists have made clear their dissent over man-made global warming claims.
There are now more than 13 times the number of UN scientists (52) who authored the media-hyped IPCC 2007 Summary for Policymakers.
See http://www.climatechangefraud.com/content/view/3562/218/
Additionally, more than 30,000 American scientists have signed onto a petition that states, There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earths atmosphere and disruption of the Earths climate.
See http://www.petitionproject.org
But no, why let evidence or lack thereof get in the way of a headline grabbing policy.
And no I am not a labourite, I just don't like being lied to and taxed for no reason, especially when the proposal are based on conjectures that are no more scientific than creationism.
Complain about this comment
In the years to come, as we sit in our houses during the winter wrapped in our duffle coats, I'll be waiting to see the following headlines in the environmental sections of the press "Malawi farmers put at risk from over production of duffle coats in Scotland" "China demands a 40% reduction in production"
Yes I know its drivel but so has some of the outpourings and dubious pontifications from the greens, environmental editors and OXFAM that have appeared this week. Needless to say it was all supported by the usual suspects from pop groups, TV and the press In other words the well padded and cushioned.
Wholl pay for it yep Joe Public - nothing more certain.
And the thing I find the most annoying? Being lectured to by these overpaid, overprivillaged people who probably have consumed more carbon in a week than I have in a lifetime!
Meantime, while the SNP wake up to the fact its been had, here's some suggestions to help meet the targets:
a) all authors limited to producing one book per year and to supply only one copy per library
b) Total ban on T in parks, Glastonbury's, etc and a limit to one CD per pop group per annum
c) Limit on flights to one domestic, one international, one TV appearance and one article in the press per annum to all politicians
(and A and B above) - yes? Thought not!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#9 - Unfortunately, there is absolutely zero funding available to validate the accepted findings on climate change. Global Warming is now big business and the private companies who have hijacked the green movement (with governments playing catch up) only see dollar signs in encouraging people to sign up to greener measures.
The porblem the dissenters have is that there is some merit to green movement. After all, waste and polution are not good things even if they don't lead to global warming. Where the problem occurs, as you've already stated, is when goverments use global warming to increase taxes to fund measures that are likely to have a neglagible effect on global warming.
Complain about this comment
10. Robabody
"a) all authors limited to producing one book per year and to supply only one copy per library
b) Total ban on T in parks, Glastonbury's, etc and a limit to one CD per pop group per annum
c) Limit on flights to one domestic, one international, one TV appearance and one article in the press per annum to all politicians "
Your initial harshness put me off but I actually liked your three proposals. A thought struck me re (a) and (b) would be the relative carbon footprint of providing access to these materials via electronic media rather than the traditional formats. Anybody know?
Even if you don't believe in global warming, isn't it just good sense to minimise consumption?
Complain about this comment
#10 - A couple of additional suggestions for you, Robaboby:
1 - One light bulb per household, only usuable within specified restrictions
2 - Go vegan - methane from cattle contributes more to global warming than you or I and I hear that, with a little genetic modification, soya can be made to taste almost like anything (except chicken, for some reason)
3 - Solar panels and wind turbines on every house, subsidised through our taxes, of course.
Complain about this comment
#9 Blackivar, I am still undecided about the extent to which man is responsible for the current warming of the environment. However I have a different take on it.
It is simply this, Oil is a scarce commodity. The peak of global oil discoveries was in 1964... since then, we have discovered less and less new oil fields. It is suggested that the global peak of oil production (if not already), will be within the next decade.
The UK is now a net importer of oil (peak in 1999), Norway has peaked, the USA peaked in the early 1970's... it is only a matter now of when Saudi Arabia peaks. Also, the promised bonanza under the Caspian basin/sea turned out to be a false dawn... some small to medium fields and not as consistant as the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan merited.
...on the other side of the supply/demand equation, China and India are now scoffing down larger and larger quantities of the black stuff as are many other developing countries around the globe as they hanker for a western lifestyle. There is only one outcome when demand starts to outstrip supply... prices go up... and they go up for everything. Food, transport, medicines, construction, metals, clothes, shampoo... everything.
Google "peak oil" and do some research.
So in response to your post, you see that the 'global warming theory' doesn't really do any harm, as we try to cold turkey ourselves from our addiction to fossil fuels... as soon enough, fossil fuels are going to be too scarce and hence too expensive, to be any longer viable as our primary source of energy.
Hence, whether you believe in global warming or not is irrelevant to the real problem facing us, as we near the end of the oil age.
Complain about this comment
The cost of achieving this new target will be enormous and most of the benefit will go to overseas companies... Not very bright are we really.
Complain about this comment
Irnbru_Addict
re your #13 and my #10
please forgive the harshness over reaction on my part I'm sure but as someone who has lead a modest life whilst being encouraged to load myself up with debt, spend, spend, spend, and now being encouraged spend even more to get the country out of the clag, I'm a little upset (Incidentally I didn't fall for any of that guff and won't be spending any more than usual to help the country out).
I really do get upset and frustrated by the near hysterical outpourings I've read recently especially from people who have lead a very padded lifestyle at the public's expense.
I'm actually VERY sympathetic to the aims and agree wholeheartedly with you about reducing waste but just reducing waste won't cut it with a target of a 42% reduction . We'll need to do things completely differently and that's where the problems will lie. What are we - the people- expected to give up in order that the padded few can carry on regardless? Clue: a former labour transport minister in the (first?)devolved government, who was very vociferous in the recent debate, though that the solution lay in busses for all! To be fair she came from a gormless bunch of Edinburgh anti car politicians - several of which are now sitting in the House of commons.
To answer your question, electronic transfers of data would be good, however it requires energy to store and transmit. It may be cheaper than the CD or book idea but would need to be priced on a Carbon element by Carbon element basis (I just made that up that carbon bit up to get a bit of a green effect). I would say that the answer to flying off on domestic business would be electronic with Video conferencing etc but I doubt if any of the telecoms companies currently have the capacity.
re your #13 and my #10
please forgive the harshness - overeaction on my part I'm sure but as someone who has lead a modest life whilst being encouraged to load myself up with debt, spend, spend, spend, and now being encouraged spend even more to get the country out of the clag, I'm a little upset (Incidently I didn't fall for any of that guff and won't be spending any more than usual to help the country out).
I really do get upset and frustrated by the near hysterical outpourings I've read recently especially from people who have lead a very padded lifestyle at the public's exspense.
I'm actually VERY smpathetic to the aims and agree wholehartedly with you about reducing waste but just reducing waste won't cut it with a target of a 42% reduction . We'll need to do things completely differently and that's where the problems will lie. What are we - the plebs expected to give up - in order that the padded few can carry on regardless. Clue: a former labour transport minister in the (first?)devolved government, who was very voiciferous in the recent debate, though that the solution lay in busses for all! To be fair she came from a gormless bunch of Edinburgh Anti car politicians - several of whch are now sitting as in the house of commons.
To answer you question, electronic transfers of data would be good, however it requres energy to store and transmit. It may be cheaper than the CD or book idea but would need to be priced on a Carbon element by Carbon element basis (I just made that up carbon bit up for effect)
Complain about this comment
Nuclear power stations in Scotland anyone?
Complain about this comment
15. At 8:05pm on 24 Jun 2009, BoNG0_1:
Most sensible post so far.
Scotland might lead the way in reducing global warming, but what the Government must be wary of is the cost to the taxpayer.
Yes, we have the arguments about the next generation's future, but until someone can convince India and China to follow suit then any contribution by Scotland will be neglible.
Complain about this comment
17. Robabody
Thanks for the response, you seem a decent sort of guy/gal. To be honest, I agree with most of what you're saying. You always know with any jolly new wheeze like global warming that someone will be making money out of it somewhere (carbon credits anyone?).
As for me, well, on the good side I have an allotment, chickens, make my own bread and preserves and am fairly assiduous about waste separation and have a bike. On the bad side: I love eating Tescos cows/pigs and aforesaid chickens and have even had Kudu and zebra (not from tescos!). I love my car and also love Italy, to which I fly.
I try to live a fairly light lifestyle but alongside loads of others, I have my limits (I just can't get my pesto to taste like sacla!).
So, my solution? Live responsibly as you can and continue to make the points you make about the rich benefiting from the sacrifice of the less well off.
Complain about this comment
#18
No
Complain about this comment
Since the topic refers to political machinations by Labour, it seems apposite to note this little snippet on NR's blog.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/06/mervyns_done_it.html#P82024096
Complain about this comment
There's several points I would like to make here.
Firstly I broadly welcome this proposal, it's important that we take action to cut our use of oil and gas as there is quite clearly overwhelming evidence to say that it is causing harm to our environment. Secondly the point about how rapidly oil supplies are likely to run out as was made by #15 is very true. The summary that you so mock Blackivar was actually titled the "Summary for Policy Makers", the point being that it was the agreed summary of the results that should be used in taking decisions, such as this one, by governments around the world. The reality is that it's possible to twist the facts to say whatever you want, but when it comes down to it the overwhelming scientific consensus, as agreed now by almost every major world government also, is this;
Global Warming is taking place
Global Warming is harmful to us if allowed to continue
Global Warming is being contributed to by human behaviour
Global Warming can be mitigated by changes in human behaviour
The point being made about how we shouldn't lead the way because it requires everyone else to follow is in my opinion a logical fallacy. I understand that argument and why people make it, but realistically this is something which everyone needs to do, and an argument that everyone can and is making. The reality is that we all need to start taking these decisions. If everyone has a responsibility to do something, the fact that others haven't done so yet isn't a reason not to take action yourself.
The unwillingness of the SNP to agree to annual cuts is, I think, sensible. Realistically if they are going to achieve their targets it's not going to be step by step, but at an increasing rate, as it will rely on the development of new infrastructure, and the implementation of new technology. Whats important is that we get to the target, not how we get there.
On to a slightly different issue however. I asked the question on here quite a long time ago about how it wasn't a logical fallacy for the SNP to desire to base our entire economy on oil revenues, whilst trying to lead the fight in ending global consumption of oil. I received the reply from two different posters on here, and from one MSP that I asked this question to, that "it's ok because we can sell it to other countries". Upon further questioning, pointing out the fact that stopping global warming requires everyone to stop using oil/gas not just us, I received the reply that "it's ok, we can stop climate change in Scotland". Now evidently these were quite ignorant responses, but the fact remains that I've still never actually had a satisfactory response from anyone on this issue and am still genuinely keen to hear how the two policies align.
A similarly interesting contradiction is in the SNPs opposition to nuclear power. Nuclear Power now provides for up to 80% of energy supplies in many continental states, and has as a result virtually nullified their power based CO2 emissions. We can never realistically achieve such targets from wind power alone, as was recognised by many eminent green campaigners recently http://www.independent.co.uk/environment/green-living/nuclear-power-yes-please-1629327.html .
The problem I genuinely fear is that the SNPs position on global warming is just a populist one and, like they lied to students over debt, like they lied to parents over school building and class sizes, like they lied to first time home-owners over grants, like they tried to lie to victims of crime over police numbers, their lie in promising annual cuts of 3% in their manifesto will not be the end and that ultimately they will not come through on their promise when it comes to practical implementation.
A thought provoking article that I read which rather sums up the problem: https://www.scottishgreens.org.uk/site/4527/Top_Five_Reasons_Not_To_Vote_SNP.html
I personally think long term goals are a good thing, but given the SNPs history of making populist short term policies without a single care for how it will work long term in practice, so long as it helps persuade us of their single-issue politics, I have little faith in our success with these targets.
I sincerely hope that I am wrong about this and will support any genuine, non political-point-scoring, efforts made by the Scottish Government to achieve this goal. If we can achieve this 42% reduction by 2020 then I think it is something which our country will have to be immensely proud of.
Fingers Crossed.
Complain about this comment
Of course they're "at it".
Problem is everybody knows they are "at it"
So nothing they say is having any effect.
Nobody is listening.
They appear to have no tactic apart from attack on anything the SNP proposes and no constuctibve policies.
The SNP attacks nobody and is relentlessly positive.
Much has been made of Pauline McNeil's pretty pathetic contribution to Newsnight opposite Mike Russell. I have a degree of sympathy for Pauline and all the diminishing band of Labour MSP's who are willing to appear on these programmes against SNP figures.
When I was coaching football in Nigeria I picked up a very descriptive phrase. It was "make me shine". This was a description given to a goalkeeper who indulged in swallow-like dives for the ball when he could have collected it easily by just standing where he was.
This is what we get on Newsnight Scotland most of the time - a "make me shine" session for some Labour hack, supported by a couple of tame commentators and no SNP contribution. The interviewer gives him or her easy shots which he or she swoops on with delight.
Then, from time to time to present an illsusion of impartiality, an SNP representative is invited on and the unfortunate Labour hack gets eviscerated on air.
Such was Pauline's fate last night.
You see, they go in front of the camera unarmed. They have no arguments left. They can only perform without opposition. And it's getting more and more obvious.
The twin pillars of unionism have just tumbled. Gone is the trumpeted big,strong UK economy. Gone is the renowned probity of the "mother of Parliaments". The profound effect of this is just starting to work through.
So the question is "when will the penny drop"? Who will the first elected on a unionist ticket to realise the game is up?
Anybody fancy a little game?
Who would you like to see cross the floor?
Complain about this comment
Government debt: Thatll be £2.2 trillion, please
"And of course, every year you borrow keeps adding to what you owe. Right now, the Government calculates that it owes a total of £2.2trillion about £144,000 per household. The figure has trebled since the bank bail-outs. Some traders are beginning to wonder if Britain can actually pay its debts. If they start pulling out, then we really are bust."
Complain about this comment
I don't welcome this proposal at all because I know that we're in no sense able to make the industrial response. Converting French cars to run on batteries isn't very clever and we don't manufacture wind turbines or fuel cells or heat pumps.... We don't even build wood burning boilers even though Scotland is covered in timber...
This will be a free for all for overseas companies..... We must be stark raving mad....
Complain about this comment
#9 Blackivar ... Thank you for your analysis and for citing sources; all too often opinions are formed where facts are scarce and there is a political agenda ... Here we have the dangerous collision of two worlds (the Political and the Scientific) that belong at the extremes of the spectrum of methods - Science is about observation, hypothesis, test and theory - conducted openly and with results shared freely and without context or agenda (or rather with the widest possible context but no agenda - OK, that's an idealistic painting) ... Politics, as I've commented elsewhere, is about exactly the opposite; strictly controlled context to ensure only the 'right' (Party) message is delivered (the 'best' Politicians - cf People like your friends - do this seemlessly) ...
What's most intriguing is your last - minute reference to Creationism; you make an already heady brew positively explosive ... Politics - Science - Religion; all we need now is a pinch of Philosophy and we're cookin' !!! ... Seriously, I wonder how many readers will find themselves thinking that YOUR argument (well - articulated as it is) is compelling for that reason (by the previously mentioned, somewhere, Question Time effect) ... I guess very few readers of this blog are themselves Scientists, and of those few will be specialists in the Science of the Environment - my point is, in these circumestnces it's really very difficult for a layman to know who or what to believe, and so most believe who they trust to talk sense on OTHER issues (an interesting cross - over effect that can have disastrous consequences - see some comments following yours on the Bono - worshippers ...) ... And it's the same in Politics; we believe those we trust, who are generally those we like (for whatever reason) and accept their version of events (as opposed to any aternative view) ... Of course, this is strictly unscientific; we should (ideally) form views based on an objective analysis of the facts, theories, opinions and conjectures, and in the widest context, but we're far too lazy or untrained or uncaring for that level of effort - it's much easier to just 'believe' (perhaps like the Creationists ???) ...
Factor in naked self - interest (the hallmark of Man, especially Economic Man) and we have the ingredients for the Mother of all Concoctions - a veritable Pie in the Sky ...
PS bighullabaloo - two blogs ago ('A political career shelved'), latest (last ???) post (#496 anyway) - that was just rude and doesn't do you justice ... I am disappointed ...
Complain about this comment
#23
Depending on which theory on climate change you advocate - you can sculpt your argument accordingly.
Personally, I'm of the opinion that modern day conservationalism or "environmentalism" has it's roots in the fall of the berlin wall and with it - the fall of communism in eastern europe.
Not at all a coincidence that groups like greenpeace became militant almost overnight in the early 90's when neo marxist groups suddenly found themselves without a soap box to shout from - what do you suppose happened to the? Retirement? I wouldn't bank on it.
Thatcher did her bit of course - using conservationalist sentiments to underwrite the use of nuclear power as opposed to the Labour dominated coalmines that powered the country beforehand.
And lest we forget tell tale signs in history that show the planet to undergo natural heating and cooling cycles as time progresses. The Japanese made enormous gains in weening thier ecomony off petroleum products. Not because they cared about the environment - but because to continue consuming them at thier previous levels would have crippled thier economies.
Too many people have bought into the mantra of climate change with the fallacy that humans are somehow to blame for global warming. There is always an angle and at this moment - it's preventing economies from becoming crippled by the excessive price of petroleum products - nothing more.
Then again - to even question the greenies opinion regarding the cause of global warming incites zealot-like-hatred akin to that felt by and usually reserved for murderers, rapists, paedophiles & other assorted scum.
"Freedom of speech" you say?
"Only when it doesn't rock the boat" I reply.
Complain about this comment
#26 Wee-Scamp
and we don't make nuclear power stations or even coal fired ones but if we've got the energy people will come to use it.
#23 NCA999
but the Torys, Labour, LibDems et al have signed up to the SNP minority Government proposal so it won't just be an SNP failure will it? I like your touch of quoting a 4 year old document as "support" for your allegations; it's a pity that it was your Unionist parties that rammed through the Edinburgh trams since then. What are you Unionists going to do when the money runs out and Princes Street is still a building site?
Brian
It is all very well envisaging a clean all green electric future but, before we get totally dependent on it, we should think about the solar storm of 1859 and what it would do today. We have a partial answer in the paralysis of the Canadian power grid in 1989, but in a severe storm you'd get inductive effect in your house wiring too. Anyone for an Atlantic crossing in a fly-by-wire Dreamliner in 2011?
Complain about this comment
#25 cynicalHighlander
OECD - UK "fiscal deficit expected to rise to 14% of GDP in 2010". So according to RE and similar purveyors of doom, the UK can't afford to be an independent country!
It's going to be interesting to see which country they want to take over the UK, and limit its powers because its too weak to survive on its own.
Complain about this comment
#14 'Go Vegan' .. meat eaters going meat free for just one day a week would be a big help. Make monday 'meat free day' (id have suggested Sundays but the Aunt Bessies factory would have gone bust). Im 3/4's veggie and i have soya chicken pieces in currys and stir frys all the time and you wouldnt know the difference. Only problem with soya that i read somewhere is that it has high levels of Oestrogen and may lead to men growing 'moobs' !!
Maybe a 'lights out day' would be a good one too .... everybody go to bed early in the winter and switch off everything bar the fridge in the house.....that would save a load of electric although when this was tried before i believe birth rates, shot up 9 months later !
Complain about this comment
#30 oldnat
"Purveyors of doom?" Hmm the light hand of reality!
GDP is around 54% at this time, the conservatives want to cut the public spending to around 44% of GDP, within their first year. Yes! a WHOPPING 77.8 Bn cut in education, health, transport,etc!
Do you really want to see those types of cuts in public spending.
Complain about this comment
Climate.
I hope the ambitious targets set are achievable,if only Labour would address the financial crisis with the same urgency,seemingly that can wait until after an election.
It would be wrong of me not to mention Wimbledon,in 78 England failed to qualify for the football world cup,can anyone recall journalists asking John Lloyd is he wanted Scotland to win the world cup?.....I thought so.
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
32 Derek Barker.
''Do you really want to see those types of cuts in public spending.''
Could you please share your alternative fiscal plan ?
Wansanshoo.
Complain about this comment
Climate Change......and a change of Scottish Goverment it seems ?
Published Date: 25 June 2009
By Jenny Haworth
A RAFT of new powers to crack down on wasteful homeowners and businesses were passed yesterday, giving the Scottish Government blah blah........juxtaposed with an image of Iain Grey !
http://thescotsman.scotsman.com/latestnews/-MSPs-get-power-to.5399645.jp
No wonder circulation figures are in meltdown!
Wansanshoo
Complain about this comment
#23
On your point re oil revenues. It is reasonable to assume that there will be a global and national demand for oil for the foreseeable future, regardless of any climate policies the Scottish Parliament implements. Therefore, why not supply that demand while it exists? In the meantime, the revenues generated should be put into a fund to revitalise our economy and invest in our future. Currently, they are being used to help fund illegal wars, Trident and Labour's horrendous handling of the economy. I know where I would rather have that money put.
On the nuclear power option. this has been discussed ad nauseaum on previous blogs, so I won't revisit all the arguments pro and against. I will merely say that we have the potential for providing all our power needs through renewables combined with better power conservation. So why build expensive nuclear stations that generate waste?
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#23.
I enjoyed reading the first part of your comment, but to carry on to attack the SNP policies was ignorant and petty. Infact I am suprised you managed to go from talking about the use of oil and global warming which we can all agree is an issue to talk about 'failure' concerning SNP policy. Infact I believe you failed to mention LIT, you could have scored several more cheap and petty points if you did, but I guess you were on a roll and forgot too. However let us not go to mention the Edinburgh Trams which the SNP never supported or included in their budget, 500 miilion pounds is not that much afterall... or the cuts going to be imposed by the London Government because that may ruin your wonderful balanced opinion since you never included these factors. Also I guess the police numbers can still be used, the SNP has only been in power, what? 2 out of 4 years? I guess it would be reasonable to adopt a wait and see approach and I guess we can forget to take into account the other policy decions, the recession and economic problems facing Scotland that may drain resources from SNP policy, but I guess facts do not matter so long as you have a good rant!
Back to the reasonable part of your comment. The world population is on the rise, China and India consuming more and more energy, what's wrong assuming oil will be in use for decades to come? It's impossible to replace oil over night and would take decades, especially as we are still waiting for the technology to advance to ensure efficiency. For the time being oil is cheaper and easier to use. It's is still better to use rather then green technology, we still have a long way to go.
The SNP are not opposed to nuclear power but remain unconvinced. I dislike the idea of using nuclear power because it relies on resources that are not renewable, what's the point relying on oil to go to rely on other very limited resources? The wind may not blow all day but I can at least see the wind will still be blowing in 30 to 50 years but what about the nuclear resources, how long will they last? How long will the resources last if it becomes the solution instead of using oil?
Complain about this comment
I have tence pence in my pocket, so I have 5 times my 2p worth!
Nuclear power is a far worse sourec of energy to the environment than our current source. I cannot be bothered citing references but here is one such good page, it si old but is alright:
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/04/world/europe/04iht-sweden.2392237.html
There are lots of problems with nuclear that really do not exist with coal or oil:
- stability and security: nuclear power stations can never run at 100% due to the very high risk of melt-down (read the latter parts of this page http://www.iaea.org/Publications/Magazines/Bulletin/Bull492/49202796668.html)
- long lived and highly volatile contaminants: nuclear waste, after a 10 year life cycle, must be processed and put into a barrel. The barrel is then taken to an underground chamber, approx 3 miles under the sea bed of the Morray Firth, and stored indefinitely (250 000 years before the nuclear wast is safe to MANAGE - not shouting, just highlighting)
- everything that enters a nuclear power plant is regarded as waste. To the best of my knowledge, even human waste and uneaten food cannot be discarded into the publice domain. If you search for "cleaning Hunterston", you'll get the cost and what has to be cleaned
- people living near a power plant do have an increased risk of problems, some of which include lukemia (http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1892120)
Forget the cost to building them or the fact that, yes, highly professional jobs are created but the overall cost to the environment is alarming. The Ukrain, for example, cannot utilise over half their land for agriculture yet the EU states the land is safe to use.
I am going to stop and say that Uranium reactors are useless. Possibly a more viable form of nuclear power would be Throium reactors as the waste is not as long lived (around 2000 years) and certainly not as volatile. So why not utilise Thorium? Simple. Thorium does not produce weapon grade material, I believe. Simple as that. Where there are nuclear reactors, there are nuclear bombs.
CO2, by the way, does not adsorb heat and store it. Notice the word ADSORB and not ABSORB. CO2 in effect can reflect heat and stop heat from leaving the atmosphere. Today there are many issues affecting our world:
- heavily depleted ozone layer resulting in an increase in skin cancer
- high levels of ground pollution and acids
- quickly changing weather patterns due to melting ice and shifting winds - though shifting poles can also be attributed to these problems.
- an increasing absence of water and increasing droubts during hotter than normal summers.
Oops, best get back to work. Oh and I completely disagree with freezing CO2 and storing it. This creates porblems:
- large volumes of free oxygen molecules will be removed from the atmosphere (plants do not create O2, it is a by product from the catalysed process of photosynthesis)
- dissolving ice will create acidified water and create high concentrations of carbonates
- there is no scientific data to state that the local environment (local to frozen CO2) is not affected
Freezing and storing CO2 sounds like a good idea but if you think on a global scale and with the majority of countries freezing CO2, which contains a once free O2 molecule, and storing CO2 ice either by dumping in the sea or in underground chambers, the total volume of O2 lost and CO2 pollution being created for another generation of life on earth becomes a more realistic issue.
All in all, the methods to remove pollution remove it for us but create the problem for someone else. Hmm, here's the boss. What, get back to work? Not until 9:55.
Complain about this comment
I thought I should point out to NCA999 (and anyone else interested) that Norway generates over 99% of domestic electricity production from renewables, mostly hydro. I would entirely agree that you can't run a country on wind power alone, but Scotland is also blessed with rain, hills, tides and waves in abundance - with these things generally not seen as a resource until recently. We also have a particularly good potential setup for carbon capture from coal, with coal and gas fired power plants on the east coast not far from depleted deep oilfields offshore. (For some strange reason the UK government prevented the Peterhead carbon capture project fromm going ahead, remember...)
As far as oil production is concerned, roughly 40% to 50% of the total oil that will be produced from Scottish waters is still underground. That oil will sell for an average price per barrel well above that realised by the first 50%. A moment's thought will lead you to the conclusion that more than half the revenue lies in the future. That windfall can be used to set Scotland up for a century or more through infrastructure investment (including investment in renewable energy) and an oil fund. Or we could keep on sending the money to London to pay down the grotesque debts being accrued by the United Kingdom...I wonder which would be the better policy?
Complain about this comment
#23 NCA999
Post started off well enough but then goes down hill as you present half truths and even complete nonsense as facts.
Firstly, Oil and gas. You may not have got a satisfactory response from an MSP but you do not have to look far to answer the question yourself. Oil and gas and petroleum products are very useful in a myriad of activities, many of which are important to the Scottish economy. Petrochemicals a good example. There is a clear difference between using oil to generate electricty or driving our transport compared to the many other uses. Oil and gas will remain a valuable commodity. The 2009 UKOOA activity report still estimates 25 BILLION BOE to be extracted at a forecast extraction rate of about 2 million BOE per day.
Not to forget their statement: "The importance of this industry has never been clearer, evidenced by the fact that this year our industry alone will supply 70% of the nations energy needs and pay more than 30% of total UK corporation tax". This industry is VITAL to the UK. It would be a 10 fold benifit to Scotland per capita. T
his does not mean we can just continue to use fossil fuels as before,especially for heat and electricity production. It is interesting also that there are more Oil jobs in London than there in total Scotland. I wonder how that ratio would change with self determination?
There is big difference between exploiting our resources for Our benifit than exploitation and energy policy set by someone else for their benefit (current, ongoing situation).
It is beyond belief that people especially unionist politicians are still trying to say that control of our resources would be bad for us. The UK state lie. No, any sane person knows that control of OUR resources would plainly be bad for the rest of the UK - hence the obfuscation.
In any case Burning Oil/GAS/COAL/Nuclear to generate Heat, to convert to electricty, to then convert back to heat in the home is extremely wasteful. This is where your comments about 80% Nuclear = Zero net CO2 is complete and utter nonsense.
"80% of energy supplies in many continental states" Rubbish -France 76.8 and Lithuania 64.4 are the 2 highest. Yet France has CO2 emission problems of its own - 4th highest in Europe.
You also have to look at the full chain from recovery of fuel, to production to return to green field. Nuclear Fission is not Clean and neither is getting the Uranium in the first place and neither is it renewable. Unfortunately recent reports have the ITER project at Caderache further behind schedule.
Nuclear does have its place in Mixed energy policy for many States including the UK, since England has so few resources relative to population. Fortunately Scotland is not one of them - if you look at Scotland as a country that is; other than just a region within a UK energy policy.
Finally, of course the SNP is going after populist polices. However, the sum of the SNPs Energy policies are much more in line with what works for Scotland. Scotland is not even considered in UK energy policy outside of exploiting our resources for the benefit of the South.
Complain about this comment
#36 - "I will merely say that we have the potential for providing all our power needs through renewables combined with better power conservation."
The problem, though, isn't in power generation. Critics of the bill have already pointed out that we could ban both the internal combustion engine and fossil fuel driven power stations tomorrow and still struggle to reach the targets set. We need to find better, more efficient ways of storing electricity.
As others have pointed out, if these targets are the right ones, why aren't Labour at Westminster introducing them? This really smacks of a desperate party looking for yet another nat-basher weapon to hit the Scottish government over the head with (with full media coverage provided by the ever reliant beeb when they do so).
Many have already stated that global warming is this decade's Y2K scare. The science and the data do appear to support that assertion. This is more about a vocal minority group who are anti science/technology/human advancement, the type of groups who would prefer we were all back living in caves (they are now trotting out data which they claim proves bricks and mortar are heavy contributors to global warming due to the heat they trap). In 20 years, we'll look back and laugh at the gullibility of people in the same way we laugh at those that spent billions to stave off the millenium bug.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone tell me what a Chieftan tank does to the gallon? 2 feet?
What about a Tornado??
Seems to me that if we were not indulging in interference in other countries we might just save some finite resources and ,at the same time a wheen of pollution ,easing climate change.
Not to mention innocent lives by the hundreds of thousands.
Complain about this comment
#42
The current MBT of the British Army is the Challenger (having replaced the Chieftain quite a few years ago). Anyway, in answer to your question, on the road, the Chieftain did approximately 5 miles to the gallon, off road, it was approximately 5 gallons to the mile.
Complain about this comment
#41
I agree that storage is a vital component in energy production. I'd hope our scientists and universities work in conjunction with their international partners to provide better solutions. In the meantime, on a purely economic basis, it makes sense to use renewables and conservation to limit our reliance on fossil fuels.
As far as the comparison to Y2K, the reason that there was not a disaster was down to a lot of hard work and investment in IT. I know, I was a (small) part of that. If you want to laugh at that investment, then you are merely showing your own ignorance.
To make it clear, I'm not part of the vocal minority you mention. Science and technology have saved millions of lives, but must be used responsibly. We in the west are being far too wasteful and need to change.
Complain about this comment
Some good comments on reducing fossil fuels for household energy. However, therer is not yet sufficient renewables in place, and some of the projects are now starting to cause resentment.
The huge windfarm at Eaglesham was welcomed by most people. But, now that there has been the decision to widen the project, people are now concerned at just how big this will get, with the impact on the area. Nor are we likely to see prices dropping ( I can vouch for that!).
A balance has to be reached.
Complain about this comment
Thanks for the responses guys. I think it's fair to sum up the response I got as "but other people will still buy the oil".
My point is this. If Alex Salmond really cared about saving the environment, he would stop producing the stuff that he claims is destroying the environment. He can't have it both ways as they are mutually contradictory positions.
Both are populist policies and he's either lying about his position on one of them, or both of them. Which is it?
I personally happen to think that basing your entire economy on a single resource is stupid, especially one which the world is trying to stop using. Moreover I cannot think of a single worse reason why a country should become Independent. I think it's an absolute disgrace that the SNPs arguments for why we should become independent are "we're a better government than Labour" and "it would be financially beneficial just now". There are obvious benefits from sticking together and being in a stronger country also but, a country should become independent when the people of that country identify themselves as different in a sufficient way to fuel a desire for self-representation. We clearly don't have that now in Scotland, but if we ever do then I would wholeheartedly support it. All I'm hearing at the moment are reasons not to vote labour being disguised as reasons to break up the country, which they aren't. Not liking labour policies isn't a reason to break-away and form a different country, it's a reason not to vote labour.
On Nuclear Power I'll make several points.
Re: Norway. Norway is currently the 12th highest CO2 per capita emitting country in the world, compared to the UKs 37th, clearly they're not doing that well.
Re: France. France is currently the 63rd highest CO2 per capita emitting country in the world.
It doesn't take a genius to see which of them has gotten it right.
Re: Availability of resources. There are long term availability issues but nuclear fuel is considerably more available than oil and this would be less of an issue, although still an issue in a hundred or so years.
Re: The point about how we're all going to die from the radiation. The highest levels of support for Nuclear Power in the country are in the areas where nuclear power stations exist. Such regions are generally overwhelmingly supportive, having been briefed on the workings of the plant to a far higher level than you or I could ever be aware. If the locals, who are generally far more knowledgable about the subject than anyone on here, are happy with the risks, then I'm happy with the risks.
On the little side debate about manifesto commitments. The cost of the Edinburgh trams alongside the increased budget which the SNP received this year really do not equate to the complete scrapping of school building (as a pose to the promise to match the levels brick by brick), the complete lack of progress towards class sizes (fair enough councils are partly to blame but the SNP still promised something that wasn't in their power to deliver), the complete abandonment of the promise to scrap student debt (which I can assure you is a cost in the billions and was not stopped by a one-off capital investment project into trams) etc etc etc.
I highlighted these as part of genuine concern that the SNP talk the talk but don't walk the walk. This isn't an opinion it's an observable fact. They're gambling on persuading us of their independence cased by promising the world and then only failing to deliver it when it's too late. If I were in politics I would call their strategy fair game and actually quite good. As someone who cares about this issue in particular their lack of any reliability, as highlighted by the above examples, is of deep concern to me.
I really hope some of the people on here can get beyond their petty beliefs that everything is about a single issue, and anyone who disagrees with them is an evil unionist conspirator.
The SNP government has made a good promise, but we all know fine well they have no serious intent of implementing it long term (as seen from the steady pull back in their promises with things like no annual targets and linking it to EU levels which they know will not be met in time).
We have a duty to keep pressure on them to do so.
Complain about this comment
NCA999 you prove my point very well about the "lies" we are told everyday.
You state as fact:
"Global Warming is taking place
Global Warming is harmful to us if allowed to continue
Global Warming is being contributed to by human behaviour
Global Warming can be mitigated by changes in human behaviour"
To your first point - "Global Warming is taking place" - Is it really?
In actual fact global temperatures have been falling since 1998. Indeed, since then the troposhere -0.774 degrees centigrade, this is a similar drop to the so-called evidence that prompted claims of global warming. Indeed, today's temperature are little above 1979.
So, global Warming is harmful to us if allowed to continue - is it? What evidence do you have for this?
If rising temperatures are so terrible, how can you explain that during mid-Pliocene period, which experienced the most extreme warming over the past 3.3 million years with global average temperatures of 2.5°C, life thrived, indeed it saw the emergence of the first hominins.
"Global Warming is being contributed to by human behaviour" - can you prove this?
If you are going to cite CO2 production as the reason behind global warming then perhaps you can explain why increases in CO2 in the atmosphere lag behind changes in temperature? It appears the fundamental premise that CO2 causes warming is simply not supported by the paleo record, in every case a temperature preceeds a increase in CO2 - not the reverse! For example during the Roman Empire - Co2 production through human activity increase by around 50% - global temperatures fell and continued to do so up until 900AD - despite the growth in human population and thier activities.
"Global Warming can be mitigated by changes in human behaviour" - You can't even show how we are causing it, how do you know changing what we do will solve the "problem"?
This is what is wrong with this debate, there is none. We are constantly told "facts" and clearly very few of them hold water.
For a brief summary of the actual facts see: http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/monckton/temperature_and_co2_change_briefing.html
Complain about this comment
#46 wrote; "I think it's an absolute disgrace that the SNPs arguments for why we should become independent are 'we're a better government than Labour' and 'it would be financially beneficial just now'."
...conversely, "London is a worse government than we have in Scotland" and "We are financially poorer within the union".
...Heck, Thanks for enlightening me, I know why I vote SNP now *;o)
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#46.
Again, you appear to be remaining to the independence debate whilst attacking the Scottish Government over policy. The oil and global warming debate is far more important and interesting then retreating back to independence vs union debate, I will ask you refrain from going out your way to hyjack the discussions over energy.
"Both are populist policies and he's either lying about his position on one of them, or both of them. Which is it?"
Alex Salmond is currently First Minister of Scotland and should be looking out for Scotland's interests. It's important to exploit our oil resource which we are fortunate to have and at the same time develop our green technology, but what's the problem? Are you suggesting that Alex Salmond should campaign to stop the flow of oil altogether or stop developing green technology? He can, or anyone else in his position can have it both ways because both are in the interests of Scotland and I would be suprised if you were to disagree there.
"Re: Availability of resources. There are long term availability issues but nuclear fuel is considerably more available than oil and this would be less of an issue, although still an issue in a hundred or so years."
You'd have to provide evidence because I have no reason to believe this, at all. I am under the impression that Austraila is already under pressure to meet demands made by their Asian neighbours and as one of the worlds largest exporters of the ore that you need for nuclear power to exist, at least you admit we could have a hundred years before we have to worry. However what is the point of going nuclear just to dump energy problems on our children? It's a weak argument and honestly makes no sense.
"The highest levels of support for Nuclear Power in the country are in the areas where nuclear power stations exist."
If I were on the pay roll I would be bending over backwards to defend my interests too. I wonder why you take the side of the nuclear power station employee's but refuse to support my position over the issues regarding SNP policy, why, I am or could be a person from the SNP assuring you that we are not too blame, but here we are, you have disagreed ;-)
At least you have taken onboard that local councils actually control spending on education, but the Scottish Government have also gave councils more power over how they spend their budgets, you see it's more important for councils to combat their local issues and lowering class sizes certainly is not going to be a priority for them all. Look at the rural areas and then look at the inner city areas. The chances are the rural schools will be smaller themselves (no need to make them smaller) and the inner city areas will have higher levels of crime. I will admitt the SNP have dug themselves a hole, but overall in the long-term I believe it will be a better benefit to Scotland. Either with smaller class room sizes, or putting money intended for smaller class sizes into other projects.
Last but not least, it's a cut in our budget because we were expected to get a different amount but the London Government reduced that amount, that's a cut and will effect the decisions made by the Scottish Parliament because I suspect they planned a budget based on what they thought they were getting. There's no spin involved, it should be clear. The London Government is suffering financially and it will be rippling effects throughout the United Kingdom, so to call it a rise is almost lying unless you accept that the budget was expected to be alot higher and was reduced because of financial strain.
Complain about this comment
#46 NCA999
Of the top 20 CO2 emitting states UK 7th, France 14th, Norway not even on the list (http://cdiac.esd.ornl.gov/trends/emis/tre_tp20.html). Your sincerity is a give away.
Complain about this comment
#44 - "I know, I was a (small) part of that. If you want to laugh at that investment, then you are merely showing your own ignorance. "
I was part of it too, so I do know what I'm talking about. Supermarkets were charged thousands to ensure their freezers didn't stop working at midnight on Dec 31st 1999. Hospitals too spent large sums of money to ensure heart monitors (which contained no date data) continued to function into January 1st 2000. Yes, a portion of software (and a miniscule proportion of hardware) required updating to cope with the new millenium but do you not remember the scare stories of planes falling from the sky, life support machines killing people, the banking system crashing (okay, that one happened but it had nothing to do with the mullenium bug). Companies spent hundreds of thousands for solutions such as a simple batch file that simply modified the date of A PC, all because the doom mongers predicted armageddon based on the flimiest of fact.
Now, take these scare stories and doom mongering predictions and what do they remind you of in todays papers?
"We in the west are being far too wasteful and need to change."
Yes, but that is more a pollution argument than one of global warming. Unfortunately, the green movement have allowed the umbrella term of global warming to become the poster child of being green. When the populace realises that global warming exists but is part of the natural cycle of the planet rather than being man made, the entire green movement, including recycling and polution reduction, could suffer in any backlash. After all, why will people accept scientists, government and the Green party telling them that pollution is killing the planet when the same people made the same claims about global warming?
Complain about this comment
#46 Britain can base its economic recovery on oil ... but not Scotland (difference unexplained)
No reasons for a country being subjugated to another are necessary ... the following pro-independence arguments are invalid (cause I say so) ...
Surely these are the hallmarks of (supposedly) "reasonable" unionist "debate"!
Complain about this comment
I've added a poll on the subject of the emissions targets at Brigadoon. All votes welcome!
A lot of sound and fury on this topic, but particular mention to NCA999 for the following pearls:
#23 NCA999: ...the SNP to desire to base our entire economy on oil revenues...
#46 NCA999: I personally happen to think that basing your entire economy on a single resource is stupid, especially one which the world is trying to stop using.
If you would only rein in the hyperbole perhaps more people would agree with you. Statements like those highlighted just make you look knee-jerk anti-SNP. It really beggars belief that people genuinely believe a natural resource is some sort of burden to be gratefully passed over to someone else to take care of for us. The clue is in the name: hydrocarbons are a natural resource.
And regarding your per capita comparisons of France and Norway, if you expect anyone to agree with your assessment about who has "gotten it right" perhaps you might respond to the following: (a) Can you share your source with us? (b) How big a difference is there between the figures? (c) Why do you suppose there might be a difference? (e.g. Norway is a smidgin colder in the winter than France)
Complain about this comment
#46 NCA999 -
"I think it's an absolute disgrace that the SNPs arguments for why we should become independent are "we're a better government than Labour" and "it would be financially beneficial just now". There are obvious benefits from sticking together and being in a stronger country also but, a country should become independent when the people of that country identify themselves as different in a sufficient way to fuel a desire for self-representation. We clearly don't have that now in Scotland, but if we ever do then I would wholeheartedly support it."
I would argue that those aren't the only arguments in favour of building a consensus for independence been proposed by the SNP. More importantly; the SNP's arguments are not themselves the only arguments for independence.
My experience is that there are those amongst us ('Us' in this sense being the Scottish People) who are in favour of independence but are not necessarily supporters of the SNP.
My personal reasons for wanting independence for Scotland are firstly; that it's morally right (In both absolute and relative terms) for a nation to be self-governing and secondly that it is more efficient (And therefore more equitable) for government to be smaller and local rather than larger and distant.
I don't see that either of these arguments are represented by your "we're a better government than Labour" or "it would be financially beneficial just now."
Furthermore - where you talk about a country whose people "clearly do not . . . identify themselves as different in a sufficient way to fuel a desire for self-representation." - I don't recognise the Scotland I know, from that description. Obviously our experiences differ and I'd need to know more in order to understand why.
Many of the Scottish people I know most assuredly do - "identify themselves as different" - which, to my mind, explains why the SNP were returned as the largest party in the last Holyrood elections, why opinion poll results, regarding voting intentions at the next Westminster and Holyrood elections are what they are and why the notion of a "British" football team competing at the 2012 Olympics arused such ire north of the Border.
Complain about this comment
Some excellent debate on here about global warming, making for a great read.
I agree with the lack of scientific evidence comment. It would be great to hear this backed by MPs. I'd be far more enthused by an MP who pressed for less waste and less energy consumption based purely on the fact that it is wasteful, expensive and occasionally volatile.
Great point about electricity storage though. I'd like to see a more localised push for energy provision in order to increase transit efficiency (if I have a solar panel on my roof it would be far more efficient in transit than receiving from the grid). However energy provision is currently about making money for a large energy provider, who can charge whatever they like to provide power from one large base. In turn, as a terrorist, it's far easier to wreak havoc on a country if they have the decency to store all their power in a few large bases. It would be a real hassle to have to "take out" single solar panels from folks houses. If we can't use the constant threat of terrorism as a means of spreading fear in order to get backing for Tridentesque projects, then where will we end up?
In terms of carbon tax, why not? I think we should replace VAT with carbon tax, where tax is calculated based on the "CO2 cost" of producing a product or providing a service. This in turn would mean that we would have to go local for all our produce, and pay more for that which can't be produced in Scotland at the same time reducing CO2 emissions. I could also get a job as a "Carbon Accountant", where I would be employed to work out the "Carbon Tax" for products bought and sold. The world needs more accountants, and with more accountants you get more auditors! Would anyone like to employ me?
Complain about this comment
Just to add a little context to #47 Blackivar - it might be instructive, after reading the article referenced to visit here.
I think it's worth noting that the Science and Public Policy Institute is "primarily" the work of one man, Robert Ferguson - who is himself not a scientist (Degrees in History and Legislative Affairs) and whose previous career has largely been political (Chief of Staff to Congressman Jack Fields (R-TX) from 1981-1997, Chief of Staff to Congressman John E. Peterson (R-PA) from 1997-2002 and Chief of Staff to Congressman Rick Renzi (R-AZ) in 2002) rather than scientific.
Complain about this comment
#46 NCA999
You make a few possibly valid points, but your "blunderbuss" anti-SNP approach is wide of the mark in many places and your exaggerations subsume them almost to the level of R-E or the barking one.
"If Alex Salmond really cared about saving the environment, he would stop producing the stuff that he claims is destroying the environment."
I would agree to the extent that as renewables come on stream it may well make sense to limit oil extraction and keep much of the oil fund in situ, so to speak. I certainly hope that in the longer term oil and coal will no longer be burnt as fuel on a significant scale, but the use of petrochemicals for production of fertilisers, pharmaceuticals, paints, fibres, plastics, etc. will still be essential to a world needing to use more of its land to feed itself and for renewable forestry. In that respect, the "clean coal" technology we're now learning may have "clean petrochemicals" implications, but to suggest that the oil available should be ignored is plain daft.
"There are long term availability issues but nuclear fuel is considerably more available than oil and this would be less of an issue, although still an issue in a hundred or so years."
There are even more frightening long term waste storage issues, but ignoring them for the moment there is zero "availability" of nuclear fuel in Great Britain and none that I'm aware of in the EU, coming either from a long way away [Canada, Australia] or from countries that are hardly models of stability [Ukraine and eastwards]. If England won't invest in tidal renewables, there may be a temporary utility for nuclear energy there, but putting the energy future of the other home nations at risk is simply unnecessary. In fact, it is about as stupid as the UK government decision in the late 1950s to scrap modern steam engines using locally produced coal in favour of experimental and unreliable diesels reliant on imported oil in the days before North Sea oil. Apart from hastening Beeching's vandalism, that idiocy resulted in a UK railway network still not fully electrified half a century later.
"the complete scrapping of school building"
A slight overstatement, I think, but the $64,000 question is funding and the still to be revealed costs of PFI-PPP. While NuLab in Holyrood still extol its praises, I suggest you read this website's Treasury 'manipulating' PFI books and listen to the File on Four programme there linked to.
"We have a duty to keep pressure on them to do so."
Your closing is 100% correct, but we have an even great duty to keep pressure on the UK government over the lies, half-truths and misleading statistics which are their stock-in-trade.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
repetative, simplistic and productive to the last.
Oppinions based on millions upon millions of years worth of evedience.
Are humans causing climate change? No.
Can humans do anything about it? No.
If humans were to stop existing from this point in time would it stop the natural course of the evolvment of the solar system/universe? No.
We can no more stop the next ice age comming or the natural course of the planet going through its hot and cold cycles than, getting MPs up in court for fraud! That's a political issue, now.
This is not a political issue. I am insulted that it is treated as such. And your all tripping posterior over elbow with your usual reams of bull.
Complain about this comment
comment @46, Hooray at last some of that old time unionism. This board was looking a bit one sided lately .
Can you do a quick reprise of the historical innaccuracies of Braveheart, the arc of insolvency and the independence for Orkney and Shetland arguments while you're here?
They're old songs but we've missed them.
Complain about this comment
Further still to my #56 - it might also be worth noting that Lord Monckton of Benchley, the author quoted in Blackivar's #47 is not himself a scientist either.
His only qualifications (As referenced here) are a "degree in classics and a diploma in journalism and...no further qualifications."
Interested readers might also want to peruse the keynote address he gave to the 2009 International Conference on Climate Change (Text linked to at the bottom of the 'Sourcewatch' page - which starts off with the marvellously informed, scientific and reasoned query - "Where are they all today, those bed-wetting moaning Minnies of the Apocalyptic Traffic-Light Tendency - those Greens too yellow to admit theyre really Reds?"
Certainly sounds like a 'credible' expert to me.
Complain about this comment
[Even] Further to my #60 - in the same speech (About a third of the way down) - Lord Monkton declares, "If Thomas Jefferson were alive today, he would be turning in his grave."
The man's a genius!
Complain about this comment
#60 Bandages
Sweet reason will not do; ... Monckton was a close adviser to Mrs T!
Now people will give his utterances the credence they deserve.
Complain about this comment
46. At 11:24am on 25 Jun 2009, NCA999 wrote:
"Re: The point about how we're all going to die from the radiation. The highest levels of support for Nuclear Power in the country are in the areas where nuclear power stations exist. Such regions are generally overwhelmingly supportive, having been briefed on the workings of the plant to a far higher level than you or I could ever be aware. "
The environment in the Solway Firth has long been contaminated with plutonium from the Sellafield nuclear plant in Cumbria, and by radioactive tritium from the former nuclear power station at Chapelcross, near Annan, which helped service Trident nuclear warheads.
Monitoring for the Scottish Environment Protection Agency in 2006 found traces of radioactive contamination in milk, honey, fruit, vegetables, fish, grass and seaweed from the area. Studies in Germany and the U.S. have shown up to 21% increases in childhood Leukaemia.
Scottish health service studies in the 1980s revealed an increased incidence of childhood leukaemia around the Dounreay nuclear plant in Caithness. Other studies found similar increases near the Sellafield plant in Cumbria and the Burghfield bomb factory in Berkshire.
Childhood leukaemia statistics for every Census ward in Dumfries and Galloway were first requested by the Scottish Green Party in January 2005. After they were withheld on the grounds that they could enable the identification of individual patients, the Greens appealed to the Scottish Information Commissioner, Kevin Dunion.
Dunion ordered the release of the information, but was taken to the Court of Session in Edinburgh by the NHS. The NHS lost, so have now taken the unprecedented step of appealing to the House of Lords in London.
http://www.sundayherald.com/news/heraldnews/display.var.2246188.0.leukaemia_and_nuclear_power_whats_the_secret.php
"If the locals, who are generally far more knowledgable about the subject than anyone on here, are happy with the risks, then I'm happy with the risks."
Absolute rubbish, we know very little about the long term effects of low level radiation, nor can we rely on supposed impartial briefings, who like you always seem to have a hidden agenda. I live in this area and you do not speak for me or understand the concerns so stop using it as propaganda to suit you own ill informed agenda. Just because we have a Tory MP who will promote the idea of a new power station and most of the local labour councillors who are keen on the idea actually work at Chapelcross, does not mean there is wide support in the local community for one. You will also find a large proportion of the community who think it's safe because they haven't grown a 3rd arm or second head yet, so it must be safe! There are risks with this technology which we don't fully understand nor can we fully control all hazards. The hazards themselves may turn out to be negligible, we just don't know at the moment for sure
Complain about this comment
59. At 2:19pm on 25 Jun 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:
Can you do a quick reprise of the historical innaccuracies of Braveheart, the arc of insolvency and the independence for Orkney and Shetland arguments while you're here?"
Yes there were very many inaccuracies in Braveheart, for the convenience of Hollyshrewd.
There were also quite a lot of sickenning accuracies!
Independence for Orkney and Shetland? If that's what they want who has the right to deny them it! But that's just not the way Unis think is it? No respect nor consideration for anyones ambitions nor desires save that of your own.
Arc of insolvency? Feeble feeble feeble argument. No, I'm not going to insert reams of bull to support it - we all know it.
Bang!
Complain about this comment
O' dear Brownedov and his tin ear approach again. It was only last month that the SNP failed to reach their set carbon reduction rate.The very same SNP that campaigned and pledged to make Scotland realise it's full potential in wind and tidal wave renewable energy.It really is the talk of the town all this carbon reduction and new energy talk however so far the nats have only half delivered a very dubious and ever changing expensive tram-line, that solely serves the Capital.
Personally I would like to see a more committed SNP government expanding the idea of carbon capture and new fossil fuel power station. That would create the new employment so desperately required in Scotland.
Brownedov always reverts any financial question straight to Westminster, does he not realise the the Scottish government has a budget of 33Bn to spend, with an additional 2Bn in waiting for a new bridge crossing on the forth if ever the nats can get around to that idea.
It really is ridiculous Brownedov to rely on the EU to delivers Scotland low carbon economy! Jeez! do you guys, that support Independence, think that every other part of Europe holds Scotland's answers?.
Complain about this comment
Good posts 35 and 47. Wonder how long it will take for some jobsworths to turn us into criminals for overfilling our buckets - as they did in England? Chip and Bin here we come!
The really scary bit about Newsnight last night was Harvie stating he wasn't so much interested in technology helping with carbon capture (he'd take it if it came) but in changing people's behaviour (which will require legal and other reinforcement). Someone asked where the communists had gone....well it looks like they're alive and well and living in the Green party.
Looking forward to meeting you in a court near you soon!
Complain about this comment
59. At 2:19pm on 25 Jun 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:
64. At 3:04pm on 25 Jun 2009, waitingformyman
I did wonder as I was responding if you were taking the P. A quick look at your history proved you were.
Was doing my best to temper it incase you were, but scincere apologies if offence was taken.
Truth..., I'm just still seathing with this expenses carry on man. I see the word unionist and - BANG! Unis/Torries/NuLabs/Westminster, there all the same to me. And before anyone slings Salmonds 43GBP per day when he wasn't in london for food, about. Is he not allowed to carry out MPs duties in his BanFF & Buchan!?
Think I will just observe for a while before I stumble into the trap that NEEBOR was warning of.
Keep "fighting the good fight"
All the best,
awaiting.
Complain about this comment
@64 wrote "Bang!"
Yikes, I've been shot by my own side :O)
(note to self: ease up on the sarcasm.)
Complain about this comment
#63 Spartans11,
Agree 100%
Nuclear is not CO2 free... indeed it is extremely carbon intensive (based on whole process analysis rather than selective fudging of the facts and ignoring the dirty processes involved)
Nuclear has health risks.
Nuclear is extremely expensive (do you think the Nuclear corporations will pay for the long term (ie thousands of years) storage of waste? Of course not, it will come out of your kids and grandchildren's taxes)... or the de-commissioning of old plant?
Nuclear is old technology and contributes far less energy to the grid than you might think... It is not a guarantee of future power supplies.
The only folk I hear campaigning for it are London politicians and businessmen in the Nuclear Lobby...
...the rest of us have some sanity *;o)
Complain about this comment
Just like the long term effects of ionising radiation are not fully understood, we have little or no real understanding of how the planet is being affected by our actions. We've only been keeping accurate records for less than a century and are constantly discovering new information about every aspect of our planets history. Remember, we were heading for a New Ice Age in the 80s. The truth is we don't actually know for sure what's happening or why, so we should treat both sides of this argument with a pinch of salt. The idea of switching our own lights off early one night a year is great but will have no effect when our towns and cities are still lit up with street lights, advertising hoardings etc.
I think you will find that all politicians will use the current hot topic for their own ends without actually believing in it.
Complain about this comment
#63
Good post
The incidence of non-Hodgkins lymphoma and other leukaemias reached 8 times the national incidence in the Dunoon area when there was nuclear submarine base on the Holy Loch. Four people in my immediate little local area died of the disease and several others, mostly children, survived after years of chemo treatment and bone marrow transplants. A hardhitting fim called "Tin Fish " was made for the BBC on this issue, starring Emma Thompson and directed by a man whose kid brother had died of leukaemia in this area, but the BBC cut all the hard-hitting bits out of it before transmitting it which rendered it pointless.
One day we will get the truth, but I think we will have to be independent first as presently it is almost impossible to get the records.
Complain about this comment
Implementation Brian? Not a problem. There are dozens of foreign companies ready and eager to come in and take our money because with the support of their governments and their financial institutions they have already developed much of the technology needed to implement this plan.
Complain about this comment
An interesting opening sentence. The major oil companies have spent millions challenging the alarming expression "global warming" wherever it appears, and seeking to replace it with the much more reassuring "climate change".
It's very rare, now, to come across the expression "global warming", in any context.
Money talks. And, eventually, we parrot the sounds.
Complain about this comment
Further [again] to Blackivar's #47 - interested readers might also want to have a look at George Monbiot's rebuttal to Lord Monkton's arguments.
Complain about this comment
@67 waitingformyman, none taken :O). I like a bit of righteous anger and it was only a flesh wound....
Complain about this comment
#65 derekbarker
"Personally I would like to see a more committed SNP government expanding the idea of carbon capture and new fossil fuel power station. That would create the new employment so desperately required in Scotland."
Sorry if that part of my #57 wasn't clear enough, but I certainly have no problem at all with carbon capture being one of the technologies being developed and agree that it would likely help employment.
I think you should try again with the rest of your comment. Do remind me who insisted upon the "dubious and ever changing expensive tram-line, that solely serves the Capital", for example.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Flat or dry countries lacking in coastline may have few options other than nuclear power. (Belgium is probably stuck with it.) But countries with better energy resources are not. Luckily for us, Scotland is wet, windy, hilly and surrounded by seas. This was not previously seen as lucky, but nowadays.....
The main reason to avoid nuclear power if you can isn't safety. Safety can be achieved with adequate budgets and management. The main reason to avoid nuclear power is the cost. Try googling "Britsh Energy bailout". Remember that? For a guide to the costs of building a new nuclear power station, google "Finland nuclear cost". And the long term storage of and long term liability for the waste will inevitably revert to the taxpayer, as the government simply cannot walk away from the waste if the contractor shuts up shop.
New nuclear power stations may well be required to supply London. But having them imposed unnecessarily on Scotland is just so 1970s....
Complain about this comment
#73 Zootmac -
You're absolutely right about the link between oil companies protecting their interests and climate denial. There's a more detailed account of some of Monckton and pals' activities here
Complain about this comment
#76 .........
Carbon capture systems are already being built by the Norwegians so they are the ones that will get the extra employment not us.
Complain about this comment
#79 Wee-Scamp
Curious that the Norwegians, who discovered oil at the same time as us, have gone ahead and built carbon capture systems and we, part of the infinitely superior Great Britain, who invented metal bashing, haven't. Do you think it is something to do with size? Or are they just brainier than us? Or better organised? What have the Norwegians that we haven't?
Complain about this comment
#80 handclapping
Yes! why has this country become so empty of mass industrial measures and means, just who exactly pulled the plug on our innovation and creative industrial might.
Complain about this comment
#80 handclapping
"We, part of the infinitely superior Great Britain"
"What have the Norwegians that we haven't?
Ooh! I do love quizzes! Let me guess.
Can't be Independence (So last century!)
Can't be an Oil Fund (successive UK Governments rejected that as silly)
Can't be fjords (we have them)
Can't be a disparate population in rural/island communities (us too)
Can't be population size (reasonably similar)
Has to be - their neighbours!!! It's really the Swedes wot dunnit!
Do I get a prize?
Complain about this comment
Maybe we should return the Western Isles to the Norwegians and when they become successful we declare them back.''''''!
Complain about this comment
#83 derekbarker
That was almost a clever post!! If you had said the Northern Isles, it would have been intelligible too!
Complain about this comment
#84 oldnat
Ah, I remain a pawn among the greater chessman piece? Woes me!
http://www.chesscorner.com/tutorial/basic/pawngame/pawngame.htm
Complain about this comment
#82 oldnat
What a neat way to point out my stupidity! Of course, it's a sense of humour. What is the name of the Norwegian "Private Eye"?
#83 derek
Nice one, sport.
Complain about this comment
#86 handclapping
Clearly you still don't get it. Who cares about Norwegian "Private Eye"? Only Swedish "Private Eye" would have any validity!
Complain about this comment
Ah but Norway's not so clever. They haven't got a guy appointed by Sweden to undermine them called "The Secretary of State Against Norway" like our Skeletor Jim.
If they had that and a Swedish Broadcasting company that reminded them how cr*p they were every day and journalists to tell them the oil's Swedens/running out/ more trouble than it's worth, they'd be a proper country like us.
Complain about this comment
#86 handclapping
Additionally, I confidently expect Norwegian politicians to immediately vote that they dissolve their own Parliament, and join the Swedish Parliament to get the second home allowance, and being Norwegians they will all be duck hunters so they'll qualify for a second duck home allowance as well!
Complain about this comment
Anyone catch a trailer for a radio debate on the constitution on Wednesday afternoon (13:00 I think) chaired by Brian Taylor?
I only half heard it the other day and wondered if I am correct.
If true, I wonder if there are to be any prime time debates in the pipeline. I am also wary of the BBC's handling of these debates given their past record (Paxman, Campbell).
Will Mike Dailly of the Govan Law Centre make an appearance.
I would rather they were simply there to broadcast debates and not in control of the flow. There are verymany capable people who have no connection to the state broadcaster who would do an excellent job.
Completely off topic but just heard the BBC sport reporter covering Wimbledon say that Murray through necessity becomes "more British than Scottish".
Is it true?, has he asked Murray? and why did this reporter even feel the need to say it?
Complain about this comment
Wee Glenn relishing his new role on BBC Scotland reporting on the vulnerable children report that criticises a number of councils.
Very skillfull editing saw Iain Grey 'defending' the vulnerable whilst questioning the first minister.
Wee Glenn's voiceover follows with "but the First Minister ....", thus by beginning with the word 'but' Campbell gives the impression that Salmond is disagreeing with Grey and is against reform.
Salmond of course goes on to explain that these deficiencies are being acted upon and that Grey is once again seeking something that is already underway.
The BBC in Scotland, don't you just love them?
Complain about this comment
#90 - "the BBC sport reporter covering Wimbledon say that Murray through necessity becomes "more British than Scottish"."
I think he was referring to the need for a flag bearer for the LTA & British fans, rather than the state of mind of Murray.
Although Murray did appear on "This Week" last week (along with the Proclaimers" and they did all assert that the English are generally brilliant and we should be glad to have them as friends and neighbours.
Complain about this comment
#92 oldnat
I used to think that thee and me were the only two sane posters on this blog but there's you implying that the Swedes have a sense of humour; ... I'm soo lonely!
Complain about this comment
oldnat
My #93's 92 is 87.
Don't worry, Fife is working on a dementia strategy. 8-(
PS If I hadn't forgotten the prize was a week in Carstairs with two weeks for the runner-up. 8-)
Complain about this comment
Comment 92:
Ah, that makes sense then.
Just seen a new face on Scottish Newsnight destroy Labour MP Adam Ingram by revealing the extent of his jobs outside that of an MP.
Does this new guy known nothing? His career is over before it's begun.
Complain about this comment
#93 handclapping
I previously tried to post a Swedish joke, but it was rejected as not being in English. However, they do laugh at this -
UK!
Complain about this comment
#94 handclapping
LOL
Complain about this comment
#96 oldnat
Now there's you and frankly-franc both saying I'm part of a laughing-stock for other countries. I'm not sure that I like this, it's a bit creepy. Isn't there some way out? Do I have to vote Conservative so we get a change of Government and people stop laughing?
Complain about this comment
#46 NCA999
The highest levels of support for Nuclear Power in the country are in the areas where nuclear power stations exist. Such regions are generally overwhelmingly supportive, having been briefed on the workings of the plant to a far higher level than you or I could ever be aware. If the locals, who are generally far more knowledgable about the subject than anyone on here, are happy with the risks, then I'm happy with the risks.
In which case turning Battersea Power Station into a nuclear one solves a whole lot of problems like London's power deficit, balancing the Grid and getting rid of this ridiculous attitude to the risks of nuclear by winning over the 7.43 million Londoners, as opposed to the only 5 million Scots if you site another one in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who believes that somehow the Scottish media are slowly changing would do well to see how the report into the recent prison abscondment by Brian 'The Hawk' Martin is being presented to the Scottish public.
Remember that Labour and the other Unionists were openly calling for the resignation of Kenny MacAskill over this. Brian Taylor penned a particularly contemptable and snide piece that attempted to pour scorn on MacAskill.
Here is The Herald headline:
Blunders that allowed violent inmate to abscond
Here is another Herald headline:
Calls for reforms after open prison escape
Here is the BBC headline:
Rules 'not followed' in Hawk case
Here is one Scotsman headline:
MacAskill should have seen system was going awry for a long time
Here is another Scotsman headline:
MacAskill has an open prison system to fix
Note that there is no mention of the fact that MacAskill has been cleared of any ministerial incompetence. Indeed the report states that Brian 'The Hawk' Martin would never have been sent to the facility in the first place if new instructions introduced last year by Kenny MacAskill, had been followed.
Remember that these instructions were introduced after the previous Labour administration had presided over a system that had allowed
another prisoner to go on the run from Castle Huntly and subsequently rape a schoolgirl.
The Herald article contains some of the most ludicrously idiotic and moronic statements ever from Unionist politicians.
From the article:
"[Unionist]Politicians last night said the incident involving "the most dangerous man in Britain" had undermined public confidence in Justice Secretary Kenny MacAskill, and called for immediate reforms to the open estate.
Immediate reforms, haven't they read the report? The reforms were already made but were ignored.
... and then this peach from Labour:
"Scottish Labour's justice spokesman Richard Baker said: "Kenny MacAskill told us that after the Robert Foye case that lessons would be learned and he would change the system. This report makes it clear that he has singularly failed."
Lessons had been learned from the previous Labour ministers mistakes and MacAskill did change the system,
the report states this clearly: "new instructions introduced last year by Kenny MacAskill", Baker is simply fabricating report content.
Moving on, The Herald continues it's preparation for the forthcoming Glasgow North by-election with the usual phrases being dusted off.
'flagship policy' and 'suffers blow' are in pre-election training for the by-election, they make a long expected appearance
in the an article headlined: Secret plot to ditch key class size pledge
The 'exclusive' article is relegated to second spot by the paper due to the very sad death of Michael Jackson, although early editions may see it in top place.
Anyway, just how many 'flagship policies' does the SNP have?
Complain about this comment
morning , Adam Ingram MP is the MP for east kilbride and surrounding area, who happens to be chucking it at the next election . he was the one that got caught out when a letter to the local paper praising him to the hilt and telling us all what an all round great guy he was, turned out to be written by him and his mates and not the OAP whose name was at the bottom of it.
if ever there was reason to ban MP's from having SECOND , THIRD AND EVEN FOURTH JOBS this guy is it!
I'm sure our regular East Kilbride correspondent may have plenty more to add.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#100 greenockboy -
Clearly the SNP have as many 'flagship policies' as Labour have scandals and failings to cover up.
Complain about this comment
May I draw your attention to an article in the NewStatesman?
McIntyres, and for a flavour,
"Meanwhile, a separate idea, bold if controversial, is quietly being considered for the same election day: a referendum in Scotland on independence. This reflects a rueful and secretly held sense among some in New Labour that devolution was a mistake which emboldened nationalists and strengthened the hand of Alex Salmond, the Scottish National Partys leader and Scotlands First Minister. Brown has long fretted about British identity and about how people increasingly define themselves as English, Welsh and Scottish, rather than as British.
A referendum would call the Nationalists bluff. It would be a high-risk strategy. But Brown would be gambling on the majority of Scots who continue to recognise that the social, economic and political union remains much more than the sum of its parts. "
If ever there was a PARTY FIRST, COUNTRY SECOND and PEOPLE THIRD proposal , this is it.
Complain about this comment
#103 - Diabloandco -
Thank you for the reference - a very interesting read
Presumably this would mean gettting legislation passed by both Houses in the next Parliamentary Session - so we'd have to wait until after recess to find out if there's any truth in it.
It puts the UK Government in a slightly vulnerable position though doesn't it? There would have to be two referenda in Scotland - one on Independence and one on PR - with the second being applicable only if the vote in the first was against independence.
If there were not - if only the Independence referendum was held here - wouldn't Westminster be implying that the result would have to be for Independence.
Otherwise - if Scotland voted to remain in the Union and if England and Wales voted in favour of PR - you'd have put in place two different voting systems for elections to the same (Westminster) Parliament.
Unless the England and Wales referendum was then taken as being applicable to the UK as a whole, without recourse to a further plebiscite - which would hardly be popular.
The more you think about it - the bigger a can of worms it seems to open. I can't see it happening, frankly but I'd be happy to be proved wrong, come the next Queen's Speech.
Complain about this comment
#100 - "Anyway, just how many 'flagship policies' does the SNP have?"
Shh, greenockboy, next thing we know, the hootsman will be claiming that the flying of all these (Saltire) flagship policies are intimidating non-Scots.
Complain about this comment
#103 Diabloandco &
#104 Bandages_For_Konjic
Thanks both for the pointers and link to the New Statesman article. It'll certainly be a monumental U-turn by Duff Gordon if it happens. If not actually against the letter of Calman's report, the imposition by Westmidden of Scottish-only questions in a referendum would certainly be against the spirit of his Recommendation 5.1: The powers of the Secretary of State for Scotland relating to the administration of elections to the Scottish Parliament should be devolved.
Whether imposed by Westmidden or not, you can be sure it would be debated at Holyrood. If that comes to pass, it will be particularly interesting to see how Aunty Bella's official unionists respond, especially to the amendment the SNP would be certain to put forward to switch polling day to St. Andrew's day.
It also begs the question of whether Calman will be an option in a multi-choice referendum.
Re the electoral reform side of the referendum, you'd have thought that would have be put to Scottish, Welsh and Irish voters in such a way as to change the voting system of their own assemblies at the same time, and thus have a specifically English version of the referendum for the first time ever, opening yet another can of worms.
All in all, I really can't see an undemocratic ditherer like Duff Gordon going with it no matter how deep his despond, but I could see Johnson doing it as a new leader, if only to delay the general election until the Spring, should Brown get his P45 at the Labour Conference in September.
Like Bandages_For_Konjic, it would be a pleasure to be proved wrong!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
The Monifieth & Sidlaw By-election result is another good one for the SNP, with first preferences up by 26.41% from 54.28% in 2007 to 68.62% now as Jean Lee was comfortably elected in the first round on a halved turnout, the Tories getting 19.27% (up 4.24%) and the L-Ds 12.12% (up 68.24%).
It should be noted that NuLab didn't stand thanks to a last-minute realisation of residency problems, so lost all of their previous 13.77% share of the vote and that the Tory stood last time as an independent getting 6.26% in his own right in 2007.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
A referendum on independence as part of a wider election ballot would, indeed, be a turn up for the books but I have to agree that the Duff man and Skeletor could be nurturing these types of rumours to wrong foot the SNP.
Do the SNP gear up for a referendum on independence for next year, reveiling their strategey, just for Duff to change his mind just as he has flip-flopped sooooo many issues previously. Or do they wait until the very last minute by which time they may have a few weeks to sell the whole idea to floating voters? It's a sleekit plan, orchestrated by sleekit people.
Talking of Skeletor, I see he's now claiming that Calman should only be progressed as a complete, coherent package as that's what it represents. Quite how power over air guns can be coherently packaged with stamp duty escapes me at the moment but there you go, it's an all or nothing thing, Skeletor says so.
Complain about this comment
#108 ForteanJo -
I was under the impression that the SNP are gearing up for a referendum on independence for next year - in line with their stated policy objective. There's a Referendum Bill due to go before the Scottish Parliament after recess.
Complain about this comment
Also #108 ForteanJo -
"it's an all or nothing thing, Skeletor says so."
Skeletor may have said so. Sir Kenneth Calman, however, disagrees - witness Tuesday's Newsnight where Pauline McNeill was forced by Mike Russell to admit that Sir Kenneth had appeared on the BBC himself and had explicitly stated during that appearance that his Commission's findings should be considered separately and should not be bundled together as a package.
Complain about this comment
#108 ForteanJo &
#109 Bandages_For_Konjic
While ForteanJo is probably right to think NuLab "could be nurturing these types of rumours to wrong foot the SNP", I agree with Bandages_For_Konjic that it is most unlikely to have that effect. If they turn out to be true, the $64,000 question in Holyrood will be whether NuLab can get the other unionists to support their date for it. Cameron might want the referendum to be on Labour's watch but I doubt that Aunty Bella would agree.
If they can't agree in Holyrood, then it could still be forced by Westmidden, but I think it would much more likely to be shelved since setting a date in opposition to the Scottish Parliament would give the SNP a flying start in the campaign.
Re Calman, I find it hard to imagine that the L-Ds have become quite so unLib and unDem as to regard it as an all or nothing package in opposition to Calman himself, so their votes in Holyrood may be crucial.
Again, it could still be forced by Westmidden, but also again it would much more likely be shelved until after the general election.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re100
Your comments are every bit as blinkered and irrational as those you complain about. It is very true there are none so blind as those who don't want to see.
If Kenny Mackaskill had introduced a set of rules that would have stopped the "hawk" situation, well that is good. However if the rules don't work, as clearly they haven't in this case then who is responsible? The Justice secretary perhaps? Or will we just blame a lowly Civil servant? Very NULAB!
Complain about this comment
#112 northhighlander -
Isn't there a difference between rules not working and rules not being applied? If not; are you suggesting that the Cabinet Secretary should personally be approving every prisoner transfer in Scotland?
Complain about this comment
#112 northhighlander
"Your comments are every bit as blinkered and irrational as those you complain about ... If Kenny Mackaskill had introduced a set of rules that would have stopped the "hawk" situation, well that is good. However if the rules don't work, as clearly they haven't in this case then who is responsible?"
To say that you're going OTT would be an understatement, when one of the very articles greenockboy's #100 complains of - this website's Rules 'not followed' in Hawk case - has the admission from a spokeswoman for the Scottish Prison Service that: "Professor Spencer has identified that the rigorous processes put in place last year for the transfer of prisoners to the open estate were not followed in this instance by SPS. We accept this and we are putting in place recommendations made by Professor Spencer to ensure that improvements are made to the process."
If nothing else, it acknowledges that the new processes are rigorous and that SPS did not follow them. Should MacAskill micro-manage at prison governor level, do you think?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#112 northighlander
"However if the rules don't work, as clearly they haven't in this case then who is responsible?"
It is pretty much the case, is it not, that any rules not being followed - whether due to being overlooked, ignored, or otherwise - will not work.
Unless you can demonstrate otherwise?
In such cases, you would therefore persist in blaming the person who improved the rules, rather than those whose job it was to observe them, and failed to do so?
Very Nulab indeed!
Complain about this comment
Northhighlander at #100 writes:
"iIf Kenny Mackaskill had introduced a set of rules that would have stopped the "hawk" situation, well that is good. However if the rules don't work, as clearly they haven't in this case then who is responsible? The Justice secretary perhaps? Or will we just blame a lowly Civil servant? Very NULAB!"
I'll assume that you are genuinely unaware of the report and also that you failed to read my comment properly.
The rules were not adered to, they should have but they weren't. The prison staff used old paperwork by mistake.
Had the rules brought in by MacAskill been adhered to then this prisoner would not have been in an open prison.
It appears to have been a simple human error on the part of the staff, these things unfortunately happen as witnessed by your own human error in believing that the rules had been used and hadn't worked.
It is unlikely though that all of the news outlets in Scotland have been as lax as yourself in this instance. That is why I have flagged up the very real reluctance to exhonerate MacAskill.
If the media are to be so quick in headlining accusations and calls for dismissal then they ought to apply the same zeal when these accusations are shown to be baseless.
Complain about this comment
#112 northhighlander
The rules say drive on the left. Should Lord Adonis resign if someone drives on the right? How NULAB can you get?
Complain about this comment
Re 113, 114,115
Look if Kenny Mackaskill made a set of rules to stop something, that is half the job. The other half of his job is to ensure those who apply the rules do so properly. Basic accountability.
If not then no politician is ever responsible for anything! Those who did not follow the rules were working for or on behalf of the Scottish Government and are eventually responsible to the Secretary himself.
He should put his hand up and say, must do better. Although I don't expect the ultras amongst you to agree.
Complain about this comment
I see Northhighlander has now changed his argument, I'll let the rest of you entertain him.
Anyway, it's not fundmental Unionists that are the problem, it is the media.
Complain about this comment
#118 northhighlander -
"Look if Kenny Mackaskill made a set of rules to stop something, that is half the job. The other half of his job is to ensure those who apply the rules do so properly. Basic accountability."
I agree with your broad principle - that Kenny MacAskill has overall responsibility.
However; I don't agree this means he has operational responsibility for, in this context, a single mistake (Or sequence of mistakes with a single result) by the SPS.
If it could be shown that Martin's abscondment was the latest in a series of mistakes that clearly demonstrated rules were not being applied correctly across the SPS and the Scottish prison estate - then I would agree with you completely.
But this isn't the case, is it? Don't the facts - 16 absconds on McAskill and the SNP's watch in 2008/09 compared to 79 under the Lib/Labs in 2006/07 show that the opposite is true - that there has been a systemic improvement since the SNP came into power?
I note that, essentially the same question's been asked of you in posts #113, #114 and #117. You haven't answered it so I'll repeat it here - are you suggesting that the Cabinet Secretary should approve every prisoner transfer in Scotland?
If your answer's no - then I think we're broadly in agreement that, in this instance, responsibility has been correctly and publicly accepted at the operational/SPS level.
If your answer's yes, please give your reasons and we can discuss further.
Complain about this comment
118. At 3:27pm on 26 Jun 2009, northhighlander wrote:
Half the job is making the rules, the other half is making sure they're followed. Looks to me like the SPS have been hauled over the coals for a mistake and he's actually doing his job.
The main topic of Brians post was about unachievable targets being set and how difficult it will be to hold anyone accountable over them. However, you chose to rant about a politician holding himself accountable and getting to the bottom of a problem thus ensuring his instructions will be carried out in the future.
Maybe you should hold yourself accountable for not properly reading the article, before posting. Go on you can do it. Hold your hand up and say, must do better
Complain about this comment
The National Grid have stated that the consumption of electricity in the UK has fallen 4 pct, which is the first fall since WW2. The fall is directly linked to the fall in manufacturing output.
It looks like Labour will reach their target of reduced emissions simply through their thorough destruction of the UK economy. Steel plants closing, car plants on reduced production capacity etc.
Labour think that sorting out the banks was all that was required. They are wrong - demand for goods and services needs to be kick started. People are not willing to take out loans unless they are sure they can them back - banks won't lend on that basis either.
The energy companies will have less income. Yet they are relying on large profits in order to invest in new power generation plants. Will they have to raise prices? But that will leave people with less money to spend which would postpone the recovery... Labour really do not have a clue.
Complain about this comment
Re #119 greenockboy
"I see Northhighlander has now changed his argument, I'll let the rest of you entertain him"
Thanks
Re #118 Northhighlander
"Those who did not follow the rules were working for or on behalf of the Scottish Government and are eventually responsible to the Secretary himself."
And presumably by extension the First Minster is responsible as he appointed the Secretary and should apologise.
But hang on, if the First Minister is responsible for the actions of every person who works, either directly or indirectly for the Scottish Government, then The Prime Minister is responsible for everyone who works for the Westminster Government, and so should apologise for every time someone breaks a rule ...... excellent.
I think Gordon is going to be a very busy boy indeed, in fact I'm pretty certain that there aren't enough hours in the day.
What's that you say, Gordon doesn't do apologies, oh dear ....
Or
Every council is responsible for every action of all the council employees and the employees of all companies that work on their behalf? I foresee a lot of apologies from my local councillor. I think he had better clear his diary ......
Or is it that you only want an apology when it has been noted in the media that something has happened that can be thrown at the SNP administration? am I getting a little closer as to the circumstances under which you want an apology?
thought so.
Complain about this comment
112# Northhighlander
-1000 cool points for completely misreading the findings of an independent report into prison abscondee's and simultaneously flashing your partisan views into the bargain.
Such a schoolboy error.
I wonder if after this report the Grayman will apologise to Mr Mackaskill or fire himself for demanding the same of Mackaskill?
Gray man should have heeded the old adage;
"It's better to remain quiet and be thought a fool, than to open one's mouth and confirm it."
Complain about this comment
#118 northhighlander,
#120 Bandages_For_Konjic &
#123 googlehoo
You'd be quite correct, northhighlander, in your "He should put his hand up and say, must do better." if we could be sure that the media and MSPs outside his own party would treat the issue fairly, but it was precisely on that issue that we arrived here.
I think Bandages_For_Konjic's #120 is quite correct given the adversarial nature of UK politics as it currently exists.
googlehoo's #123 raises an interesting point, and given that the UK parliament has merely devolved some powers to Holyrood and other assemblies which it could take away again, then logically Duff Gordon should apologise for every mistake made by officials at UK, national and local level.
In fact you could take it one step further still and blame the monarch, since she alone has the power to dissolve the UK parliament and thus should arguably carry the can for everything that is done wrongly by every public employee.
IMO, it's that whole pyramid that's upside down. Sovereignty should rest with the people and be lent by them to institutions at appropriate local, national, state and whatever other levels chosen democratically by them. That way, at least we'd all know where the buck truly stops.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
And while we're at it.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2516573.0.Secret_plot_to_ditch_key_class_size_pledge.php
"Secret plot to ditch key class size pledge" in the Herald today.
Ignore the language (and SNP members don't get too uptight at it!) and the party comments, and look at the story's facts.
Instead of a Government forcing a rigid centrally determined structure on every school, we get what many here have been asking for - locally applied solutions within national guidelines.
The current Government seem to me to be behaving in a grown up way - as a party, I'm sure that the SNP are as childish as the rest! But, for the first time, we are seeing the consensual "new" politics, that devolution was supposed to bring about, in action.
Complain about this comment
118. At 3:27pm on 26 Jun 2009, northhighlander:
In a previous topic I pointed out that MacAskill is POLITICALLY responsible for the prisons. That does not mean every incident is a resignation issue, but he carries the ultimate responsibility.
However, if you really want a case where he should be answering questions, look at a very recent case in Clydebank - noted in the Clydebank Post (its online) and look at how a stabbing that came within ONE CENTIMETRE of a fatality ended up as 30 months. (I know the full facts on this one).
That is far, far more serious than an absconding prisoner, and dwarfs any previous comments I made about MacAskill. This time he needs to be involved.
15 months is the minimum recommended sentence I believe for merely carrying a knife. Work the rest out for yourself.
What's the point in dealing with climate change when we can't even sort out crime in Scotland. That applies to ALL parties, not just the current Government.
Complain about this comment
#127 Neil_Small147
"I know the full facts on this one"
"This time he (MacAskill) needs to be involved"
I don't know the case, and wouldn't comment even if I did.
Fortunately we live in a nation(and a state, and a continent, and a world) where politicians are required not to interfere in criminal cases. Judges will get things wrong (in people's views) from time to time. However, political interference in the administration of justice will remove the freedom of every single one of us.
As a matter of law, the Court of Session would countermand any such interference by a member of the Scottish Government, and declare unconstitutional any action in such a regard by the Scottish Parliament.
Complain about this comment
Anent post 100
thank goodness, someone else spotted this - I thought it was just me. That and the nasty little editorial re Flu virus vaccination costs, and the exaggerated articles on the environment
Complain about this comment
127. At 8:59pm on 26 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
And that's not his job either, we have a judicial system which deals with this. Maybe your anger & indignation would be better aimed at the people who insisted we were all entitled to a fair hearing. I can't judge whether it's a fair sentence or not because I don't know all the facts, nor I suspect do you. In a mature society, we allow the sheriff courts to do their jobs not pander to the courts of public opinion as Harriet Harperson tends to when it suits her.
You may be in danger of crushing your own maturity defence against Independence
Complain about this comment
And just to annoy waitingformyman! Here are the poll results from the 195 weighted sample of Scots in the latest YouGov poll.
SNP 32% : Lab 28% : L-D 16% : Con 15% : UKIP 4% : Green 3%
Complain about this comment
I've said it often, but watch The Herald turn into The Scotsman's little brother in the run up to the Glasgow North by-election.
During the campaign for the Glenrothes by-election virtually all scrutiny of Labour at Westminster disappeared as the paper focussed on the SNP at Holyrood, this despite the election being for Westminster.
Global Gordon articles were ten a penny as The Herald ran pro Labour campaign stories at a ratio of 2:1 compared with positive SNP campaign stories. The final count was 21 pro Labour to 10 pro SNP, moreover The Herald introduced a little media player into many of the articles featuring snippets from the campaign. Every one of these online videos featured Labour campaign photo and media shoots.
Complain about this comment
Like a lot of people, I'm increasingly doubtful about global warming. The shifting 'deadlines', lies about polar bears and outrageous catastrophism make it seem like a modern-day Millerism.
Complain about this comment
By Electoral Calculus, the above poll would suggest for Westminster
Lab 27 (-14) : SNP 19 (+13) : L-D 11 (nc) : Con 2 (+1)
Complain about this comment
#133. Anaxim
"Like a lot of people, I'm increasingly doubtful about global warming. The shifting 'deadlines', lies about polar bears and outrageous catastrophism make it seem like a modern-day Millerism."
The 7 biggest myths about climate change
Complain about this comment
#133 Anaxim
Are you doubtful about the cyclical variation in world temperatures? or the reduction in the ice sheets? or human causation?
There are many more recent examples of predictions of catastrophe, than those of a 19th century New Yorker. Do you select such an abstruse example as representative of your thinking? or just to be obtuse?
Complain about this comment
130. At 9:46pm on 26 Jun 2009, spartans11:
In this case I DO know ALL the facts. I'm not personally involved by the way nor personally affected. What I am trying to point out is that we have polticians wittering on about being tough on crime, but the law allows the courts to dish out ineffective minor sentences. In this case it was a stabbing carried out by the individual whilst on bail for another serious offence. (It has been in the news in Glasgow and on the Internet). Politicians are supposed to put laws in place that protect the victims, not pander to lawyers and criminals.
But public opinion DOES drive politics. That's why global warming is an issue - the public are concerned. If public opinion did not matter politicians would not bother about reducing CO2 levels because of the potential effect on industry.
Every party is jumping on the climate change/global warming bandwagon as it might win them votes. But they balance this with the cost to individuals. Too high prices for energy, then Governments get blamed for not regulating the prices. Too low, and they are accused of allowing people to waste energy.
132. At 9:54pm on 26 Jun 2009, greenockboy:
The media are against the SNP. But are the SNP candidates out knocking on doors? The unfortunate death of Michael Jackson is going to be headline news for about a week, which means all the nasty stories about expenses etc are forgotten.
Complain about this comment
137. At 00:08am on 27 Jun 2009, Neil_Small147 wrote:
"But public opinion DOES drive politics. That's why global warming is an issue - the public are concerned. If public opinion did not matter politicians would not bother about reducing CO2 levels because of the potential effect on industry."
Public opinion drives policies, there's no way public opinion should drive individual cases, nor should politicians court public opinion by interfering.
Complain about this comment
This week the BBC in Scotland carried a headline that was a direct accusation levelled at the SNP over the class sizes policy. The Labour claim as based on a report of discussions between the Scottish govenment and Scottish local authorities.
Here is the Scottish governments response to the claims by Labour:
Scottish Government spokesman said: "The class sizes pledge is a firm and ongoing commitment of both the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Scottish Government.
"In line with our shared concordat commitment, we are determined to work in partnership to build on the record low average primary class size achieved this year while recognising that obviously progress will vary between authorities."
Will the BBC now, in the interests of balance, produce an article with a suitable headline based on this statement from the SNP?
i.e.
'SNP reaffirms commitment o class sizes'
And no, 'SNP denies' will not do.
Complain about this comment
Does anyone else think that other events occurred yesterday, other than the death of M Jackson?
News, News 24 , Sky News , Channel 4 news , and even Newsnight .
The Herald headlines with the World Mourns Michael Jackson, dear God just how dummed down do we need to get?
Complain about this comment
101. At 09:37am on 26 Jun 2009, sidthesceptic wrote:
morning , Adam Ingram MP is the MP for east kilbride and surrounding area, who happens to be chucking it at the next election . he was the one that got caught out when a letter to the local paper praising him to the hilt and telling us all what an all round great guy he was, turned out to be written by him and his mates and not the OAP whose name was at the bottom of it.
if ever there was reason to ban MP's from having SECOND , THIRD AND EVEN FOURTH JOBS this guy is it!
I'm sure our regular East Kilbride correspondent may have plenty more to add.
Sid
------------------
I've only defended Adam Ingram as a constituency MP - not expenses or second jobs and certainly not THAT letter - caused a bit of a stink up here. Reading up on second jobs, a ban needs to be careful. It must make allowances for those who serve in the TA, are practising doctors/dentists, serve on charity boards or run family businesses. What it should NOT include are "other" second jobs.
139. At 06:02am on 27 Jun 2009, greenockboy:
I understand your post, but what exactly was the wording in the manifesto? (I can't find it!). If it is on the lines of "a committment to reduce class sizes" that is fine, and the media should highlight that. But if it is similar to "class sizes will be reduced" then they have been careless with their wording.
When you start giving definitives, you must ensure beforehand that you can carry them out.
Back on topic.......
One problem we have with energy companies is that none of them are British, let alone Scottish if I believe correctly. The only incentive I can see for them to use the "global warming" argument is using an energy source that is highly profitable. Nice big fat wind farm up here. have costs dropped significantly? Er, nope. Will they drop significantly? Er, nope.
Cynical moment over.......
Complain about this comment
#140 Its a sad fact that the world now revolves around 'celebrity' news and because of the medias obsession with being hip and trendy and covering such shows as Big Brother and Im a Celebrtiy get me out of here.A lot of these media obsessed people in my opinion probably dont bother voting and have no interest. I believe that if the SNP were to follow Berlusconi's tactic of having 'hot chicks' in his party would get more people voting. Heres a thought ... Alex Salmond, Ian Gray and Annabell Goldie for Celebrity big brother 2009 !!! The SNP would wash the floor come 2010.
Complain about this comment
It's not exactly unknown to see an ad for a forthcoming BBC programme appear as an article on this website, but I suspect it's rather more unusual for the ad not to appear on the part of the site specifically directed at the audience. At the time of writing, the ad for Brian's Holyrood and the Search for Scotland's Soul to be shown on BBC One Scotland at 22:20 BST on Sunday 28 June doesn't appear on the Scotland politics page [last updated Friday 16:00 BST], yet it's the second story on the main Politics and Scotland pages.
The headline is interesting, though: Tories were 'wrong' on devolution
I wonder if Duff Gordon, Murphy or even Aunty Bella agree and approve of Cameron's having said that "he would respect the right of the Scottish Parliament to rule on domestic matters in Scotland if he became prime minister"?
Can we look forward to Cameron rejecting Calman because it doesn't go far enough towards full fiscal autonomy, or did Brian just manage to interview him without his minders?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Class sizes:
SNP Manifesto
We will reduce class sizes in Primary 1, 2 and 3 to eighteen pupils or less to give children more time with their teacher at this vital stage of their development.
Labour reaction to discussions between SNP and councils
This shows clearly that the class size pledge that was the major plank of the SNP manifesto is dead
SNP response to Labour
The government said it wanted year-on-year progress in cutting class sizes in P1-3, but accepted this would vary between councils.
Is the manifesto aim dead?
No, however the SNP will almost certainly fail to implement it in this term. It has acknowledged that different councils will move at different rates towards the goal.
Could Labour have criticised the SNP with justification
Yes, the SNP stated clearly that class sizes would be reduced. They did not give a timescale but it is reasonable to assume they meant this term, they have failed in that area.
My problem with the BBC is that they are using overly dramatic Labour wording in their headlines. Using words such as 'dead' to describe a policy that is ongoing but clearly needs more time is not responsible nor informative.
Labour's attack was their interpretation of a meeting between the Scottish government and COSLA and as such the headline should have reflected this.
For example 'Labour attack SNP over class sizes' would have been reasonable. They could even have tried a radical approach and used the SNP response to form the headline 'SNP deny Labour claims over class sizes'- OK, the last suggestion is probably wishfull thinking.
Remember that the BBC have been guilty of this sort of dramatic wording before. Anyone recall the SNP cabinet mini reshuffle that was headlined using the word 'Sacked'. No such negative and dramatic wording was used when Gordon Brown performed his own recent deckchair re-arranging.
Complain about this comment
I am aware of three programmes on the BBC this coming week, each based around devolution and the constitution.
We have Brian Taylor's programme on Sunday at 22:20, then Taylor is hosting a debate on radio on Wednesday afternoon. On Wednesday evening we have another debate, this time hosted by Glann Campbell.
I have said so before and will repeat; I have little trust in the BBC and these individuals to present a balanced view of the constitional debate in Scotland. I will watch and listen if I can in order to see if my fears of subtle manipulation are borne out.
I will be looking in particular at these Unionist claims in order to see if they are challenged:
1. There is no demand for independence, just more powers.
2. The Scottish electorate have consistently voted against independence.
3. The SNP are basing Scotland's economy on a dwindling resource.
4. The HBOS/RBS would have gone under had Scotland been independent.
5. Small countries have not fared well in this recession.
6. Ireland, Iceland and Norway are the 'arc of insolvency'.
Complain about this comment
145. At 10:27am on 27 Jun 2009, greenockboy wrote:
I am aware of three programmes on the BBC this coming week, each based around devolution and the constitution.
We have Brian Taylor's programme on Sunday at 22:20, then Taylor is hosting a debate on radio on Wednesday afternoon. On Wednesday evening we have another debate, this time hosted by Glann Campbell.
I have said so before and will repeat; I have little trust in the BBC and these individuals to present a balanced view of the constitional debate in Scotland. I will watch and listen if I can in order to see if my fears of subtle manipulation are borne out.
I will be looking in particular at these Unionist claims in order to see if they are challenged:
1. There is no demand for independence, just more powers.
2. The Scottish electorate have consistently voted against independence.
3. The SNP are basing Scotland's economy on a dwindling resource.
4. The HBOS/RBS would have gone under had Scotland been independent.
5. Small countries have not fared well in this recession.
6. Ireland, Iceland and Norway are the 'arc of insolvency'.
========
Points 1 & 2 can't be defined either way, since only a proper vote or a massive poll would determine the truth, so these can be argued either way, but with not enough evidence.
Point 3 - I think the SNP have placed less emphasis on this, and highlighting other areas such as renewables. But to be fair when oil prices were at their peak oil was argued for.
Point 4 - no proof either way.
Point 5 - determines on the measures used, so again no strong arguments for or against.
POint 6 - This is probably the only one the SNP can be attacked on out of the 6. Let's be honest, they were highlighted as great examples and then they got cut off at the knees. Ignoring the arguments about how they are recovering, the basic fact is that they were held up as a great example, then they went bust. OK, it certainly was not the fault of the SNP, but unfortunately this one will stick around and will be used in any debates for the near future.
But certainly Points 1 to 5 should be challenged, at the very least for concrete evidence.
------------
4. At 10:09am on 27 Jun 2009, greenockboy:
Reading the intial pledge, it's easy with hindsight but they should have elaborated a little bit, perhaps adding the working with councils etc. Nothing too flowery overlong, but manifestos are generally based on simple bullet points. But it wasn't a "class sizes will reduce immediately" statement.
---------------
142. At 08:47am on 27 Jun 2009, ubinworryinmasheep:
Noooooooooo!!!!
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
137 " public opinion does drive politics ". Maybe , but I suspect only when it suits the tax raising or other agenda of whichever party is in power. In the case of global warming or climate change it is only the lucrative possibility of uncontested tax raising that drives the policy,not any concern for the environment or for the opinion of the population.Most politicians are in their chosen vocation because of their desire for power and their ability to lie without any sense of shame, and certainly not for the greater good of humanity as they would like us to believe. Prior to public opinion in the political agenda, comes the lining of ones own pockets and the furtherance of ones own career .
Complain about this comment
Comment 146 writes:
POint 6 - This is probably the only one the SNP can be attacked on out of the 6. Let's be honest, they were highlighted as great examples and then they got cut off at the knees. Ignoring the arguments about how they are recovering, the basic fact is that they were held up as a great example, then they went bust.
I don't know whether to laugh or cry at this remark.
Complain about this comment
Norway is providing much of the money loaned to the UK government indirectly from its oil fund. It is also releasing cash from the fund with a view to buying strategic resources within the UK, for the benefit of Norwegian taxpayers come the inevitable, eventual recovery. Norway is far, far better placed than the UK ... like most of western Europe.
As for classing Ireland as particularly badly hit: the UK is going to be the worse placed of the G20, in terms of deficit, debt, recovery etc ... it is "a bit rich" to be casting stones.
Also, Ireland seems to have a government that recognizes the situation it is in and are willing to make changes: they will not go into the next election irrationally screaming Mr. 10% at the opposition and claiming spending can rise eternally without any rise in taxation. Those who make that claim (who could I be talking about?!) are massaging the figures and simply lying.
The comparison of Iceland to Scotland is ridiculous in terms of scale and stability (yes, it was unfortunate it was included earlier); but to compare Scotland c5.2 million to Iceland c320,000 (roughly an Edinburgh) is the same mistake in scaling as comparing Ireland (c4.4 million) or indeed Scotland - to Germany (c82 million).
320,000/5,200,000 = 0.0615 or: Icelands population equals roughly 6.15% of Scotlands population.
4,400,000/82,000,000 = 0.0537 or Rep Irelands population equals roughly 5.37% of Germanys population.
5,200,000/82,000,000 = 0.634 or Scotlands population equals roughly 6.34% of Germanys population.
So comparing Iceland - in terms of size and stability - to Scotland is as ludicrous as comparing Scotland itself to Europes economic powerhouse, Germany!
Complain about this comment
#144 greenockboy
"My problem with the BBC is that they are using overly dramatic Labour wording in their headlines. Using words such as 'dead' to describe a policy that is ongoing but clearly needs more time is not responsible nor informative."
I couldn't agree more. Had the headline of this website's Pledge to cut class sizes 'dead' [which immediately tells us that this is an opinion of the Labour party] been changed to Labour claim class sizes pledge is dead, it would probably have done more good than harm given the natural reluctance of anybody to believe anything NuLab says nowadays.
The print media are obviously not legally bound by the considerations of balance which the BBC claim to be, but you'd have thought a little attention to their circulation would start to make them more anxious to reflect the opinions of their potential readership.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
well there we go then. Mr Blair says staying in the union "makes sense" So the games up everyone!
no surprise that the state broadcaster couldn't wait to let us here his thoughts on this site.
with his track record, when it comes to making the right decisions at the right time are the unionists being clever or desperate??
I fear that the 10Th anniversary programmes will be nothing less than Labour Party broadcasts. so much for fair and balanced broadcasting.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#149 & #150
You both appear to be missing the point that I am making.
Most voters do not read into the full facts. What they read as bullet point political statements, much as I said about manifestos earlier. Anything too in depth and most voters switch off.
The SNP inital approach was "look at the Arc of Prosperity" etc. basic statement but the meaning is clear - those three countries can do it, so can we. Nothing wrong with that.
But then all three countries were affected by the credit crunch, so your average voter sees this and then is reminded by the opposition (and the media) what the SNP stated.
#150 I understand the facts and figures, but it's not me having a dig at this, it is what most people will read into this. You have to accept this. Your breakdown of ratios will not be broken down, and to be honest from an analytical point of view it could be turned against you.
From my point of view, the best way to deal with the argument is point out that, yes Iceland is in trouble, but Norway and Iceland are better placed than the UK. And even the Iceland issue can be turned on Labour. After all, many Labour councils invested taxpayers money into the country's banks.
Complain about this comment
#153, Neil with all due respect, I do not "have to accept this" because "it" is nothing close to either the truth or the thought processes of the majority.
In any case, we all know that the series of programmes "marking" devolution's "tenth birthday" will be wholly biased and presenting another "this far and no further plea" - that does not mean we should not deploy the facts to fight this ill-informed opinion.
Complain about this comment
154. At 1:56pm on 27 Jun 2009, pattymkirkwood:
I know the programmes will be biased, and that the facts need to be presented. I have no issue with that. It is simply an example of where a message can turn round and cause problems later.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/scotland_video_and_audio/8121384.stm
What an effective piece of propaganda ... find the most discredited man in the world, and have him repeat the same tired old lines with no explanation or justification offered.
Complain about this comment
#155, Neil I think you are mis-reading my comments also: I am merely saying we need to constantly challenge this nonsense, as it has no foothold in the population at large, and must not be allowed to gain one merely through round-the-clock repetition by carpet-baggers like Murphy and his pals in the Scottish "media".
I think I perhaps have more faith in the average voter than yourself? Yes there are the knucle-dragging minority, with no real interest in how they are governed, who will always vote the same way ... but they are very definitely a minority and those who matter generally do look for detail and are unimpressed with "soundbite" politics, especially - if I may say so - coming from a party that has been in power for 12 years!
Complain about this comment
Sadly I watched the Warmongerer tell me that the Union makes sense.
I feel nauseous.
How dare he mention foreign policy and defnce as a good reason for this Union?
Complain about this comment
#156 pattymkirkwood
Thanks for the link, and what a surprise that the man who presided over NuLab's asymmetric devolution should think that "being part of the UK makes sense". Overall, the man is such damaged goods everywhere that I doubt his opinion will swing a single doubter.
Rather more subtle propaganda is "A family's decade of devolution" video linked to from the Bliar page. Out of 156 children born the day the Queen opened the Scottish Parliament, the BBC "just happen" [a 0.64% probability] to have chosen a family whose aspirations were "Within the union" and who were sad that the class sizes pledge stopped Charlie from going to the local primary school. Even that is slightly double-edged as the family left for Australia during the coalition government and returned to find the problem, which they initially thought was a good idea.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
152. At 1:12pm on 27 Jun 2009, sidthesceptic wrote:
I fear that the 10Th anniversary programmes will be nothing less than Labour Party broadcasts. so much for fair and balanced broadcasting.
Sid"
Yeah sid, but that will be their next big mistake. There is just nothing labour can do - the mood is for change big time. You think voters are in any mood to be fed more lies upon lies upon spin. Na. I Think folk have just truly had completely enough of all the lying, cheating, exloiting and being force fed bull, that's probably because they can't pretend to themselves anylonger that perhaps, just perhaps there is some honesty in them, telegraph put paid to that. It's in black & white in front of their face now. Think mest folk will watch it and be thinking "aye ye bunch o lying cheating supporters of rogoues, just gees ma bl**dy country back and be done we it!"
The force that needed no convincing other than having an open mind may just have trebbled now that they have the proof, that they probably "knew" was there, but couldn't bring themselves to see, hoping "they" can't possibly be corrupt.
*****
God thirs a right head nipper blogging away here that I'm just dying to get my hands on, talk about egocentricity....Tsokay Neebor, I'm stopping.
Complain about this comment
Complain about this comment
More trouble for the Lib Dems. Aberdeen councillor being investigated according to BBC News.
Complain about this comment
158. At 3:40pm on 27 Jun 2009, Diabloandco wrote:
Sadly I watched the Warmongerer tell me that the Union makes sense.
I feel nauseous.
How dare he mention foreign policy and defnce as a good reason for this Union?"
Yeah, poor guys and girls in the forces, mistaking our sceptisism about the reasons for war as the public having less regard for them. They (the mongerers) always turn the concerns over the justifications as "us" not supporting our troops! Which is far from the truth...
Complain about this comment
Brownedov at 159:
The clip you provided the link to is indicative of the insidious propaganda pervading BBC political coverage in Scotland.
I would rather hear nothing from any families than this claptrap.
Just noticed from the news that there was some kind of military parade in Glasgow today, part of something called 'Armed Forces Day' - an event apparently dreamt up by Gordon Brown.
Of course the usual suspects that inhabit the underbelly of the Scottish sectarian divide were there hurling abuse at one another. The picture accompanying the BBC article shows an elderly woman draped in Union flag superman style.
Jim Murphy was prominent at this event, an event that just doesn't sit well with me at all - why the need for it?
Complain about this comment
I doubt if they do doubt our support, I suspect they too query the reason for deployment.
As one marine said on the news , we are told what to do and where to go, we have no choice.
I am barely able to contain my ire when I see and hear that phony swine, and for someone to make him peace envoy is beyond risible.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Yeep her's unionism/loyalism
at its, well...decide for yourself
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8121131.stm
Thot that murphy bloke was history?
Complain about this comment
164. At 6:16pm on 27 Jun 2009, greenockboy wrote:
Of course the usual suspects that inhabit the underbelly of the Scottish sectarian divide were there hurling abuse at one another. The picture accompanying the BBC article shows an elderly woman draped in Union flag superman style."
GBoy, this picture can only help the good fight. It demonstrates the sheer autonomy of the brainwashed mind! She must have been about 90, and vicious - scary. Oh aye lets stay in the Union..EH?.....Duh!
Complain about this comment
#167 waitingformyman
I was more impressed by the idea of the Nimrod aircraft flying above Union Street (and presumably invisible from anywhere else in Aberdeen!) Given the subject of this thread, how much did that add to global warming?
Complain about this comment
I hqve just picked up the information that the UK's National Debt is £780 billion. That is £780 thousand million - or over £12,000 for every citizen, This is more than three times what it was when G Brown became chancellor and does not include PFI debt.
UK national debt is rising at the rate of over £20million per day.
It is entirely possible that we will soon be unable to service this debt and be unable to sell the gilts which back it.
And still they say Scotland needs to be subsidised by this disaster of an economy.
Anybody who tries to make a coherent economic case for us remaining with this shambles needs help.
Complain about this comment
#170
Fair point in the last paragraph. Only two questions (and I am not scaremongering, just asking the same as most others will ask):
What is Scotland's share and how will we pay it?
A lot of PFI schemes are tied up in Scotland, notably schools and hospitals.
One thing I am aware of. Aberdeen City Council is so short of cash, that you have to ask for various benefits. They will not offer them. Found that out today. Expect similar cuts as warned by Hilary Benn. Where they cannot legally cut certain benefits, councils will be under pressure not to advise people. Care attendance allowance for starters.
(I'm still up as my good lady wife is having a night out, this being the first weekend of the school holidays!!)
Complain about this comment
Why has BBC Scotland repeated the Cameron warns Scotland on Trident story?
BBC Scotland is obviously unaware that there is cross party agreement on the replacement of Trident and nuclear in general.
As an aside , did anyone see a tale on Landward from the Royal Highland Show about mini hydro generators, useful for anyone with a natural water supply with a certain amount of oomf?
They give them away in exchange for any excess electricity, obviously farms first.
An innovation that most certainly has great potential , and a smart, forward thinking company . I was very impressed!
Complain about this comment
The BBC in Scotland are now presenting snippets from a TV programme as though they were news.
Thus far I have noted David Cameron acknowledging that the Tories got it wrong over devolution and imploring the SNP to basically 'tow the line' by accepting Westminsters authority over defence etc.
We have had a clip of Tony Blair telling us that the Union is a 'good thing'.
We have had the 'family' whose son was born ten years ago telling s that they want the Holyrood to work 'within the Union' and that class sizes should be smaller.
Now we have Cameron again lecturing the SNP over defence policy.
So, four items, two basically have a go at the SNP, one telling us the Union is wonderfull and one telling us that Holyrood should operate within the Union whilst criticising an SNP policy that.
This is very clear propaganda - and we're actually being forced to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
Here's real trident news:
Ministers have secretly placed the £20 billion replacement for Britain's Trident nuclear deterrent under review in a move which could see it dramatically scaled down.
The UK is in a financial mess, we're broke.
Complain about this comment
Just heard BBC news this morning, they have described the SNP's stance on Trident as causing 'confrontation' with Westminster whilst the word used to describe David Cameron's stance was 'respect'.
Complain about this comment
Alistair Darling has abandoned plans for a comprehensive spending review, which should have been held this year, until after the general election.
This means that there will be no way to determine Labour's real spending plans. In other words we will now face a barrage of spin, drivel and downright lies from Labour in the run up to the next general election.
This follows the decision to backtrack on the promise to put the real cost of PFI into the public domain.
The implications for news reporting in Scotland are all too stark given the Scottish media's reluctance to scrutinise any Labour claims with regards the economy and spending.
Complain about this comment
On Wednesday 1 July, BBC Scotland will be hosting two debates to discuss the good, the bad and the future of devolution.
A radio programme will be recorded in the early afternoon, with a television programme following later in the day.
If you would like to be in the audience for either show, please email politicsscotland@bbc.co.uk for further details.
Complain about this comment
It get's more and more blatant and sickening.
The Sereen Nanjani programme has three panelists and I have just heard one of them highlight what she sees as the 'exclusive' nature of Scottish Nationalism and her fear that it will "exclude" people like her because she doesn't have a Scottish accent.
Another panelist then makes yet another gratuitous mention of Alex Salmond's expenses saying that Salmond was "pleased that Holyrood didn't debate his expenses but that he seems to have no problem debating reserved matters such as Trident".
The host herself allowed both comments without any response. What's the point of pretending here, why not simply cut out the middlemen and allow anyone who isn't in favour independence or dislikes the SNP to simply air their views in regular five minute slots on the BBC - one every hour ought to do it.
It would at least save a fortune in the salaries we pay to so called BBC journalists and presenters.
Of interest also was Taylor's uncomfortable moment when he explained that the BBC Panorama programme is an altered UK version of the Scottish Devolution programme.
Now, why can that be? Is there something that the BBC don't want the English audiences to see?
Complain about this comment
Yes, caught the Brian Taylor bit as well. look forward to playing spot the difference between Panorama and the BBC Scotland version.
At least he had the grace to sound a wee bit embarassed.
The rest of the programme was the usual nat bashing ,unionist loving garbage I have come to expect from our non biased public service broadcaster in Scotland.
As with an awful lot of blinckered ,out of date unionists politicians and their supporters they think they are speaking for the majority when in fact the more they speak out the lower their support actually becomes.
They just don't get it!!!
Ack well -keep going chaps you're doing the country a great service just not the way you think (he he )
Sid
Complain about this comment
Looks like it will not take long for Cameron to loss his "respect" for the Scottish Parliament.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/glasgow_and_west/8122670.stm
Looks like the same old story do what you are told, because Westminster knows best.
Is this another thing the SNP can campaign on in the Westminster election? If you want Trident on your doorstep vote for Tory, tories or vote for the Labour tories, either way you will get Trident.
I wonder how many Labour MPs who were members of CND in the past voted for Trident?
Complain about this comment
#170: sneckedagain wrote:
"And still they say Scotland needs to be subsidised by this disaster of an economy.
Anybody who tries to make a coherent economic case for us remaining with this shambles needs help".
The debt is not caused by the union, it is caused by the present hopeless administration at Westminster which could not, as the English like to say, run a whelk stall. It is fair to remind everyone that the present administration received large support from Scottish voters at the last general election. To suggest that Scotland, or her voters, therefore, are in no way to blame for the present economic crisis, and it is all the fault of the union, or the English, or anyone else, is simply a distortion of the truth. Scottish voters have to shoulder their share of responsibility for helping to re-elect Labour to office, despite ample evidence that Brown was ruining the UK economy with his economic ineptitude since 1997.
There are many good arguments for and against devolution, increased devolution and full independence for Scotland; suggesting that Brown's incompetence is one of them, given that in an independent Scotland he would in all probability be a big beast at Holyrood instead of Westminster, is not one of them. It is an argument that may well find favour amongst some English voters though!
Complain about this comment
#175 greenockboy
"Just heard BBC news this morning, they have described the SNP's stance on Trident as causing 'confrontation' with Westminster whilst the word used to describe David Cameron's stance was 'respect'."
It seems that the BBC's "little helpers" in the dead-tree press have dutifully watched their preview copies of tonight's broadcast and miraculously reached the same conclusions.
Scotland On Sunday has Cameron sounds nuclear warning which tells us that the prog "offers an insight into what may become the most contentious flashpoint between Edinburgh and London in the next few years".
Not to be outdone, the Sunday Herald's Cameron tells Salmond: back off over Trident tells us that Cameron and Salmond "have gone to war over" Trident.
#178 greenockboy
"It get's more and more blatant and sickening."
Too true, but both the actual polls and the opinion polls show that it's increasingly less effective.
"Now, why can that be? Is there something that the BBC don't want the English audiences to see?"
The Trident spat, perhaps? In the latest YouGov poll for the Torygraph, the question "If public spending has to be cut which two of the following sectors should face the biggest cuts?" had Defence at 51% as the most popular answer compared to welfare benefit 2nd place on 40%. Not only was it the most popular answer in every "region" of Great Britain, but it only fell below 50% amongst the leafy shires of Southern England outside London. The BBC will be worried enough showing England that Scotland now has a measure of local democracy but to stir up a nuclear can of worms there might be seen as ununionistic.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#179 sidthesceptic
"As with an awful lot of blinckered ,out of date unionists politicians and their supporters they think they are speaking for the majority when in fact the more they speak out the lower their support actually becomes."
Precisely so. If they want their support to increase perhaps they should lobby the BBC to treat them in the same way as the odious BNP, whose support south of the wall seems to increase inversely to their denial of publicity and public debate.
A no win situation for auntie, I think.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
greenockboy
The BBC is bad enough, but if you really want to see anti SNP propoganda try todays Times.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/
Complain about this comment
Re my 180.
Maybe for the Westminster election the SNP could borrow the old Ready Brek advert.
If you want your children to glow in the dark, vote Labour or the Tories.
Complain about this comment
Defence spending is guaranteed to be cut. Successive governments always, always target defence. Not simply Trident, but anything they can get their hands on.
we saw the effect with the state of service accommodation not so long ago. It was the same with the last Tory government and "Options for Change", which decimated the manpower too much. And from what I can gather in the previous Labour administration during the 70s it was horrendeous. Look further back in history to the 1930s and the same story again.
Whatever party comes in will be cutting public spending, but they are too timid to be honest.
If only politicians who hold office could be made personally liable for major errors with the economy.......
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2:
#181.
"The debt is not caused by the union, it is caused by the present hopeless administration at Westminster which could not, as the English like to say, run a whelk stall. It is fair to remind everyone that the present administration received large support from Scottish voters at the last general election. To suggest that Scotland, or her voters, therefore, are in no way to blame for the present economic crisis, and it is all the fault of the union, or the English, or anyone else, is simply a distortion of the truth. Scottish voters have to shoulder their share of responsibility for helping to re-elect Labour to office, despite ample evidence that Brown was ruining the UK economy with his economic ineptitude since 1997."
You've got the worng end of the stick. It's laughable insisting that Scotland is subsidised because of the failures of the United Kingdom, yes, we can and do blame the current Government, but this current Government has demonstrated that Scotland is not immune as apart of the United Kingdom and may be better off as an independent country despite the uncertainty they continue to promote.
Complain about this comment
The chatterers in Edinburgh and the media are busy arguing about the presently unknowable: when will tax revenues recover to a normal level? Because the drop in tax revenues is why most of our current deficits have grown. That lack of tax income is because of the debt write-offs at British Banks, especially those in Edinburgh. Nobody knows how soon British Banks - especially the Scottish Banks - will start paying taxes again, nor how quickly other businesses will get back to normal commercial health, employment and tax-paying. That's because each of those events depends upon resumption of normal levels of both shopping and business investment throughout Britain. Which both depend upon the effectiveness of British Government actions to rescue those spendings as fast as could be achieved.
The biggest bank debt on our entire planet is in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Where those gamblers of Edinburgh have caused the biggest hole in our public finances. Vastly ahead of the debts incurred by the world's largest Bank: Citibank of New York. It's All British Taxpayers who're having to pick up the tab for those casino debts. Along with the Bank of Scotland, Edinburgh's gambling bankers have a lot to answer for. It was those Scottish professionals in the largest of Edinburgh's Banks that have punched an enourmous hole in every taxpayer's pocket in Britain. Not forgetting the much smaller - but equally reckless - gamblers at the Dunfermline Building Society.
We should be grateful for the generosity of ALL British taxpayers in bailing out our Edinburgh Gamblers. Just imagine if Scotland were paying for these gambling debts from Scottish taxpayers alone? As Icelandic taxpayers are trying to pay for their bank's debts? Or as Ireland's taxpayers are having to suffer their nemesis as part of the Arc of Prosperity?
It was similar reckless gambles by Edinburgh professionals that caused Scotland's Parliament to seek amalgamation with the Westminster Parliament just 300 years ago. The gambles then and now were too big for us poor Scots to pay for. Next time Murphy meets Salmond he should ask the SNP to levy an extra tax on those Edinburgh gamblers to help pay for the vast casino debts they've run up.
Complain about this comment
Neil_Small147:
#186.
"Defence spending is guaranteed to be cut. Successive governments always, always target defence. Not simply Trident, but anything they can get their hands on."
It would be political suicide to cut defence, trident can be cut altogether but cutting anything that will effect our front line soldiers will never be popular.
"we saw the effect with the state of service accommodation not so long ago. It was the same with the last Tory government and "Options for Change", which decimated the manpower too much. And from what I can gather in the previous Labour administration during the 70s it was horrendeous. Look further back in history to the 1930s and the same story again."
The accommodation is being updated. The soldiers should be living in single bedrooms with a private bathrooms. The Conservatives started to cut the defence budget at a time when Britain was not fighting a war, I may be wrong, but I believe this to be the case, feel free to guide me if I am wrong.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
dubbieside
Makes you laugh doesn't it? Especially the bit where she insinuates that Salmond is either a "petty bureaucrat" or a "tinpot dictator"
Complain about this comment
On the topic of "unbiased reporting" and the BBC, it's perhaps a small crumb of comfort that the official unionists don't like auntie much, either. See Michael Gove's Knowing the value, as well as the price, of the BBC in Scotland On Sunday.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re: BBC's Constitutional debate
I remarked in an earlier comment that I would look out for the following six claims being made by Unionists and see what, if any, response the BBC host/presenter would make.
Here were the six claims:
1. There is no demand for independence, just more powers.
2. The Scottish electorate have consistently voted against independence.
3. The SNP are basing Scotland's economy on a dwindling resource.
4. The HBOS/RBS would have gone under had Scotland been independent.
5. Small countries have not fared well in this recession.
6. Ireland, Iceland and Norway are the 'arc of insolvency'.
Well, The Politics Show's Devolution debate started this game of Unionist Bingo off by calling numbers numbers 1 and 2.
David Mundell called number 1 whilst Georrge Foulkes was responsible for number 2. Mundell's 'call' was particularly ridiculous as he sought to claim that a BBC poll carried out for the programme somehow demonstrated that Scots are not interested in constitutional matters.
The poll, for those who didn't watch the programme basically asked people three questions; Was Holyrood an improvement, had it improved health and had it improved education.
How Mundell managed to extrapolate this as proving that there isn't any interest in constitutional matters is something we will never know as Glenn Campbell didn't ask him, nor was Foulkes asked to justify his claim that the Scottish electorate have consistently voted against independence.
Will we get a full house of all six points? .... Keep watching the BBC to find out.
Complain about this comment
Brian
I know it is your livelyhood but cannot the bugs that you put under your microscopic scrutiny realise that their re-arranging the deck chairs "politics" doesn't cut it with the average punter? Forget the YouGovs and the System3s, in the last real poll only 1 in 4 voted, 3 out of every 4 didn't bother, "Politics" was not for them.
Forget your blogs and the responses of your posters, WE are the oddities!
Complain about this comment
leftilkley:
#188.
"The chatterers in Edinburgh and the media are busy arguing about the presently unknowable: when will tax revenues recover to a normal level?"
This economy is based on the population spending, I guess tax will return as soon as personal debt drops, perhaps a failed bank or two would have done the country a favour?
"The biggest bank debt on our entire planet is in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Where those gamblers of Edinburgh have caused the biggest hole in our public finances."
Your kidding me, those gamblers played using the house rules. The house being the British Government. The real question we should answer, why is Clydesdale (owned by the Bank of Austraila) doing better then Royal Bank of Scotland, or are you not talking about HBOS? I believe HBOS brought the bigger burden to the British taxpayer then RBS, but I believe you'll find that if British regulation was better in place then these things should not have happened or certainly to the extent that we witnessed.
"We should be grateful for the generosity of ALL British taxpayers in bailing out our Edinburgh Gamblers. Just imagine if Scotland were paying for these gambling debts from Scottish taxpayers alone? As Icelandic taxpayers are trying to pay for their bank's debts? Or as Ireland's taxpayers are having to suffer their nemesis as part of the Arc of Prosperity?"
This is the most ridiculous part of your comment. Gordon Brown loved the money that apparently Scottish Banks brought in, loved it! Gordon Brown, you know, that man in the BRITISH Government. The man who is suppose to be in-charge and also be talented in this area watched as bundles of money was brought in, but never asked why, how and what inpact this could have if something went wrong. I guess it was only British before it turned bad, right? I never heard it being called Scottish untill it failed then everyone called it Scotland's failure. However so long as Scotland is governed by Westminister, especially including the financial services then Britain will be and should be blamed for their failure, not the country who has no say in the financial services!
If Scotland was independent, then yes we may be going through a difficult time, but I would expect that if Scotland were independent years beforehand that the Government of the day would ask, where this money is coming from and the amount of risk involved and to consider the inpact it would have on Scotland if it turned nasty.
Complain about this comment
#188 leftilkley
"The biggest bank debt on our entire planet is in the Royal Bank of Scotland. Where those gamblers of Edinburgh have caused the biggest hole in our public finances. Vastly ahead of the debts incurred by the world's largest Bank: Citibank of New York. It's All British Taxpayers who're having to pick up the tab for those casino debts. Along with the Bank of Scotland, Edinburgh's gambling bankers have a lot to answer for."
To expect sharks to behave other than as sharks is simply unrealistic, and the reason why the gamblers of RBS have been even more catastrophic than the gamblers of Citibank is merely that unionist Westminster governments of both main flavours have allowed UK banks to grow, amalgamate and be deregulated since the early sixties whereas the process didn't start until a decade later in the USA on Nixon's watch. The ensuing disaster has been even worse for the UK thanks to the act by the official unionists which allowed demutualisation of the building societies, largely carried out on the watch of the NuLab unionists. The Swiss and the Germans have had their problems similar to those of Citibank, but nothing on the scale of the UK's problems because deregulation has been less and, even more importantly, the Cantonal and Landes banks remain intact.
With all financial and regulatory powers remaining reserved, who else is to blame but the Westmidden Treasury and its current masters - Duff Gordon and Capn. Darling - other, perhaps than Lord Mandy for flaunting European competition law?
"Not forgetting the much smaller - but equally reckless - gamblers at the Dunfermline Building Society."
Come the general election, I'm quite sure that the unionist stitch-up of DBS won't be forgotten. They had actually got rid of their gamblers and worked out an audited rescue strategy which the Scottish Government was prepared to back, but that was blocked by the Treasury, its masters and the FSA in favour of a much more expensive "British" solution without them having the decency of discussing it with Scottish Government or the DBS.
"We should be grateful for the generosity of ALL British taxpayers in bailing out our Edinburgh Gamblers. Just imagine if Scotland were paying for these gambling debts from Scottish taxpayers alone?"
Our daft masters in Westmidden should have thrown the shareholders to the wolves - perhaps teaching them a valuable lesson - and secured only the depositors, fully nationalising the relevant parts of the business pending less awful times.
"As Icelandic taxpayers are trying to pay for their bank's debts? Or as Ireland's taxpayers are having to suffer their nemesis as part of the Arc of Prosperity?"
Odd that you don't mention Norway's oil fund in the arc, but both Ireland and Iceland still exist and seem to be working out their problems without the need for colonial masters.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Why on earth has my post #190 been referred to the moderators?
All factual information, and not a single comment about any individual.
Moderation on this blog is very, very inconsistent. I would suggest to the moderators either you show consistency or otherwise change it to reactive moderation.
Complain about this comment
#193 greenockboy
"Re: BBC's Constitutional debate"
Spot on re your list, but auntie has just come up with one you didn't think of. Instead of "Only 9% of Scots think devolution bad" the new puff for tonight's prog is headlined "Devolution backed by 41% of Scots".
Brilliant!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
169. At 10:19pm on 27 Jun 2009, oldnat wrote:
#167 waitingformyman
I was more impressed by the idea of the Nimrod aircraft flying above Union Street (and presumably invisible from anywhere else in Aberdeen!) Given the subject of this thread, how much did that add to global warming?"
A lot less than the hot air surrounding it that's for sure. And by the way it "climate change" remember ;)
Note to nats: observe the removal of the wild granny as the picture used to premote this story. From now on I will be more careful in pointing out the advantages of similar "mistakes". Damn my vigilance!! Or lack there of...
Complain about this comment
#199 waitingformyman
"observe the removal of the wild granny"
The picture itself is not yet gone and by now will have been cached by various websites. At the time of writing, it is still displayed on this website's Thousands attend Armed Forces Day - aimed at the UK and world audience rather than a particularly Scottish one.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Comment 199:
Yes, the image depicting the 'Gran-gry Unionist' has been replaced already. One thing sure to turn Scots away from this Union is images of very real Unionist Scots wrapped in a Union flag.
Complain about this comment
How can we say that, devolution has made no difference to our lives or the services we use? To consider that it has made no difference then, where have we been living in the past 10 years? Devolution created differences between England, Northern Ireland, Wales and Scotland. In order to understand whether a difference has been made or not, we can quite easily look over the border and look at, how it could have went.
Complain about this comment
Well you can't say Brian ain't a fast learner. no mention of the panorama version of his programme on "politics Scotland" on the telly.mmm i wonder why??
The more times they wheel out lord haw haw for programmes like "politics Scotland" the more any hope that i have just rises and rises.Is he really the best they've got?? No wonder the labour party are going down the pan
As wee Wendy once said "bring it on".
Sid
Complain about this comment
Oops, I remember what my post 190 was. It was a french term, motto of the Dambusters following 188's post. Sorry mods......
Complain about this comment
Just when you thought that the Scottish media propaganda machine could not get more desperate and stupid, try this from The Reportmothingworthwhileman.
http://www.scotsman.com/CustomPages/CustomPage.aspx?PageID=75668
Complain about this comment
#205 dubbieside
Where do they find the likes of Maddox and Hjul? Why do they believe that their posturings have any place in their media? I have heard better arguments in the pub over the reasons for the performance of Raith Rovers which have more relevance to Scottish politics as Gordon Brown is a "supporter". No wonder the Hootsman's circulation is dropping at 1000 per quarter.
Complain about this comment
#202 Thomas - excellent post ,you ask some very good questions and make very good point's. I would suggest if half the respondents to the questionnaire filled out their answers in the staff canteen at Pacific quay, some at the local labour club and the rest in the "bunker" then maybe that's how you get these results.
Sid
Complain about this comment
Talking of angry unionist grannies, what news of our own brillo- haired Stalin's Granny, Ma Liddle?
Last I heard she'd been exiled to a Walllaby farm in Queensland or somethng.
Surely it's about time Labour "North British Region" forgave and forgot and called the unfortunate woman home. I mean Wendy the brain and hammer of the ethenpee is no more and Pauline MacNeil has to rest her voice occassionally. They're a scary woman short.
Imagine the visual feast that would be Skeletor and Stalin's Granny, storming down Sauchiehall St. atop a tank, wrapped in Union Flags.
I'm coming over all teary just thinking about it.
Complain about this comment
Re the BBC poll:
BBC polls cannot be trusted. Remember the infamous Paxman stunt when, in the middle of a live debate, he hit Salmond with what he said were results from a poll of Businesses and they weren't supportive of independence.
There were in fact no such results as virtually all of the businesses asked had refused to respond - in short the BBC had fabricated the result in order to hijack the SNP leader live on national TV. The BBC were forced to issue a very public apology for this shocking episode.
So, when the BBC tell you they have conducted a poll on anything to do with Scottish independence or similar - ignore it, it will almost certainly have been manipulated in some way. That is unless they explain the methodology.
Complain about this comment
Yo! funclapping sasparilla, It's all Raith in his Rovers.
Keep the faith!
Complain about this comment
#208 grassyknollington wrote
" I'm coming over all teary just thinking about it"
You are a real "schmuck"
Complain about this comment
#209 greenockboy
This BBC poll was conducted by ICM. No details on the ICM website, yet though.
Complain about this comment
#210 derekbarker
I think it's more to do with them having the SNP on their touchline! This year the First Division, next year the Premiership !!!
Complain about this comment
The funclapping Ally Macleod syndrome, is it!
Were on the march wi Raith Rovers sideline army.
Complain about this comment
#195 Thomas & #196 Brownedov
May I humbly suggest that we don't become embroiled in lengthy arguments with posters such as #199 Leftilkley who make spurious and unsubstantiated allegations about UK government support of 'Scottish' banks such as RBS (and about Scotland being too wee and too poor to have done anything about it).
It is much easier just to quote back the facts:
Fact 1: The UK government have put a total of £20bn into RBS
Fact 2: £20bn is the projected cost of Trident
Fact 3: The money 'given' to RBS was not a one-off write-off of £20bn -
£15bn was INVESTED in ordinary shares in October 2008 (at 52.9p per share)
£5bn was initially INVESTED as a preference share deal at a guaranteed return of 12.7% - and in January 2009 this was converted to ordinary shares (at 11.0p each).
Fact 4: The UK government (in June 2009) awarded the Chief Executive of RBS a new pay deal that gives him a bonus of £9.6m when the RBS share value rises back to 70p (and considering the share price was £6.05 last October - a rise back to 70p per share will happen quickly and could happen as early as October this year).
Fact 5: When the RBS share price hits 70p, the UK government, when it sells its shares, will bank a total of £51.6bn - a nice little PROFIT of £31.6bn, in possibly less than a year, from the initial investment of £20Bn.
Fact 6: Will the £31.6bn profit made from a 'Scottish' Bank, be invested back in Scotland? - NOT A HOPE!
Complain about this comment
Is it true? do 50% of Scots believe the parliament make little to no difference?. Jeez! that's quite an indictment.
The philosophy of Scotland part two.
Complain about this comment
Re my #215, Leftilkley's post no is 188, not 199 as stated!
Complain about this comment
...and the RBS share price was £6.05 in AUGUST last year, before falling to 52.9p in October!
Complain about this comment
Just a thought - Left-Ilkley couldn't be another of Reluctant Expats aliases could it?
Complain about this comment
Interesting -
1) Unionist Murphy duffed up by union jack wearing unionists - inforim, inforim, they all got in inforim (cause he's a catholic catholic, unionist as opposed to a protestant catholic unionist - isn't religion wonderful)
2) Murph saves STV - share prices rises - no chance of a fair hearing here either then
Complain about this comment
#220 Burke/Hare
You would do well! to listen to Oldnat on that controversial subject?.
Complain about this comment
#221 derekbarker
Happy to deliver a lesson on the Single Transferable Vote after the football is over. Though I doubt that Robabody needs the lesson. S/he seems well-informed enough.
(Liked your take on the name though!)
Complain about this comment
Thank God - I thought it was me, part 200
Susan Flockart (Sunday Herald today) got a lot right (for me) re the environmental debate. Keep it local and sort that out afore we go shooting the craw and trying to sort abody else.
Lets start with educating our kids about food and waste, wont save 42% but should make a useful contribution. (just out of interest, it's worth watching our kids grazing at lunch time, the ammount of wasted grub and litter that hits the deck is quite amazing!
Complain about this comment
Brian
Will you get a fair hearing? I don't think the complaints will start at 22:21 but I hope you've laid on extra mods for 23:15 onwards!
Complain about this comment
#196
Good post. As soon as they start citing Ireland or Iceland I know they have run out of argument
As you no doubt have noticed, along with all other sensible people, both Ireland and Iceland are still there and sorting out their problems. Neither of them have a per capita national debt that is anyway like the one the UK now has round its neck and I am willing to bet that they will both be in decent running order long before UK is.
Uk is at the edge of the abyss. It is entirely possible in the next immediate period that it will become obvious to those who are supporting the UK economy and UK debt that we will be unable to service our national debt which is shooting up daily.
At that point the game's up.
However the state of the UK economy, the management or mismanagement of the UK and all other transient positions and conditions have really nothing to do with whether Scotland should be independent.
Complain about this comment
Texas???
Complain about this comment
Actually, the programme was good. I thought it was balanced and interesting. So thanks Brian.
It's interesting that the most feasible example in the Union's case was Texas. I can't think of many actual nations which let another country make their decisions for them either.
Complain about this comment
Good programme Brian. Like "Thatcher and the Scots" on BBC Parliament, you focussed on the critical issue - identity.
I wondered why you were going to Texas, but of course Texas in the US Empire is just like Scotland in the British Empire.
Brown clearly demonstrated his total lack of understanding, by going about "isolation" - Somehow Norway doesn't seem as isolated in the world as Texas!
Complain about this comment
Brian
Just watched your program and thought that in the main was reasonably fair and balanced. A few points however.
If I asked six or seven people on my high street about their identity I doubt that all of them would say Scottish and British.
The lady journalist from Norway hit the nail on the head with her comments about rule from London, and the Norwegian constitution day was a joy to see. Roll on Scottish Independence day.
Texas has, or had no relevance whatsoever to Scotland.
P.S. Doubt if the Norwegian journalist will be in the Panorama version of this program, but I will watch it with interest.
Complain about this comment
OK, theme laid out early was 'identity'. Once that was sorted it became a simple subliminal question:
Does we need to be independent in order to assert our 'identity'?
The answer is obviously no, not even for me. I will be no more Scottish in an independent Scotland than now.
Of course, if the independence debate is framed in this manner then the real weaknesses of the Union can be ignored - and it was. The Texas excerpt was simply embarassing, why the need to send a camera crew all that way for that was beyond me. It appears only to have been a desperate attempt at driving home the message that you don't have to be independent to keep your identity.
As for the Norway visit, how you can go all that way at considerable expense and not even explain how the Norwegians handled their oil wealth in comparisson to us is extraordinaty. The Norwegians were simply painted as an insecure nation too frightened to join the EU - shocking.
The usual stuff was peppered throughout the piece, 'isolationist', 'seperatist', 'breaking up' etc as was the subsidy myth as well as describing Scotland as 'needy'. Oh and not forgetting those 'Brigadoonesque' moments.
Waste of money - roll on 2010 and a referendum.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat
Scotland is far more isolated in the world than Norway will ever be. But as you said Brown has no understanding about Scotland. After all as he said on American TV he is from North Briton, so we should not expect anything else.
Cameron showed his true self though on Trident, and we should all be grateful to Brian for that. We can balance anything he says prior to the election with his comments on Trident.
Complain about this comment
Anyone else notice that Gordon Brown looked angry when making his comments?
Complain about this comment
#224,
Personally, I thought it was good of Brian to admit that the people of Scotland must have the ultimate say (shame that point was not put to either Cameron or Brown - who, one would assume on their current stances, would violently disagree with it).
However, for me, the comparison with Texas was just bizarre. To say Texas was an independent country before is somewhat misleading ... you cannot compare "a few snatched decades" (if that) by a settler minority in a sovereign state; with hundreds of years of shared identity and recognized sovereignty. Scotland is a nation. Texas has become one (slightly questionable, if put in a European framework) - but, to be crude: historically-speaking it is as much a border-dispute between the U.S. and Mexico as anything else.
Texans, of course, enjoy the luxury of being one of the biggest states in the U.S. by population; as a result they are not - like Scotland - in bed with an elephant (accounting for c85% of the sovereign state's population), which could (quite possibly unintentionally) roll over and crush their interests at any moment.
#228 oldnat: good point on isolation, Brown is clearly stuck in an early nineties time-warp (1890s by my reckoning). I am half expecting him to introduce officially-sanctioned maps in which Britain is the size of Africa. Or perhaps initiate a deluded attempt to "entice" the Republic of Ireland back into Her Royal Maj's Britannic fold?
Complain about this comment
I enjoyed your programme Brian and like all nationalists was almost pathetically grateful that it was fair and balanced.
You'd better watch out in case you end up as a kind of poster boy like Iain MacWhirter who was at times almost feted by people who didn't realise that all they were seeing was a bit of much needed balance.
Blair, Boris and "call me Dave" were publicity the SNP couldn't buy.
Complain about this comment
I don't think Gordon Brown can do anything other than support a federal UK, where Scotland has increased powers and a firm line to self fiscal control.
Come the next Scottish parliament election, I hope something is done with the list MSP idea.I can't believe there are so many tories in the Scottish parliament, when very few people actually vote for them.
Complain about this comment
Good programme Brian except Texas was a bit desperate as an example of the union. Still its a nice place to visit - hope you enjoyed it. The rest was a balanced view, I still think you want to jump ship. Go on lead the way for Scottish journalists, ye ken ye want tae. The braces looked like they were gonnae go wi aw the caramel wafers and snawba's ye must have ate.
Broon still disnae get it but why did you not ask him why Norway doesn't want to rejoin Sweden or Denmark again if they are isolated as he states we would be. Puting Boris on was a masterstroke. Dave showed the Tories up to be as they have always been and Forsyth is still the wee weasel he was in Thatcher's government.
Can anyone tell us when the Panarama version (#229)is being broadcast
Complain about this comment
#230 greenockboy
"The Texas excerpt was simply embarassing, why the need to send a camera crew all that way for that was beyond me"
I said at the time what the hell is he doing out there spending our money on a free trip to Texas when there are no parallels between Texas and Scotland that are remotely relevant to the political situation that exists here.
And I made the point at the time that if I had been in charge my answer to: "can we all fly out to texas for a documentary segment?" would have been: "absolutely not and especially not during the worst recession since the 1930s."
We all predicted it would be a Unionist propaganda show and it was. A total irrelevance. Let's push on with the real agenda: Cameron in, Scotland out.
Complain about this comment
Labours General Election strategy?: simple, continue to tell lies about the economy; especially regarding predicted recovery, predicted deficits (c12%), "static" taxation and "increasing" spending.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/politics/article6591262.ece
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/53cc6936-6429-11de-a818-00144feabdc0.html
Fantasy economics from Crash Gordon.
Complain about this comment
Missed the program unfortunately, but had a good read of the subsequent comments.
Identity - I don't think many Scots have a problem with their identity. Most people I know consider themselves Scottish, regardless of political views, and most are quite proud of the fact.
----------------
234. At 11:45pm on 28 Jun 2009, GrassyKnollington wrote:
"Blair, Boris and "call me Dave" were publicity the SNP couldn't buy."
I think you hit the nail on the head. I'm starting to get concerned with Cameron. I don't think he is the right man for the Conservatives. Too much he seems to play to the populist vote. Had he been leader with a Labour government not as weakened, he would not survive long. I still think Hague is the best man for them. But I do like Boris.
-------------
Gordon Brown is the grumpy man. It's almost as if he doesn't want to be bothered with public sppearances. Added to the petulance of his Chancellor, I don't think these two realise that they are the biggest liabilities to Labour. The SNP will want these two to remain. (Not in power obviously).
--------------
Trident can be replaced cheaper. Attack submarines can carry nuclear-tipped Tomahawk cruise missiles. OK, not the range of an SLBM, but still a stealthy platform. While expensive, the cost is far less than that of a missile sub. A compromise of sorts.
--------------
Still don't see the relevance of Texas. About as relevant as Quebec.
--------------
One thing I think will happen once a date of a referendum is decided is that the UK markets will become extremely volatile due to uncertainty.
Complain about this comment
237 bighullabaloo
I can't agree with your comment that the programme was "a Unionist propaganda show". I felt it was very fair and balanced and that is rarely my opinion of any BBC programme involving Scottish politics. I very much enjoyed it, Brian and, by the way, Blair, Boris and Cameron were a joy. Not a deliberate ploy, I'm sure, but what a gift to the SNP.
Complain about this comment
Hey Brian, watched the programme with interest. However, unlike the bulk of the comments above, including many from those who share my pro-independence stance, I thought there was far more room for criticism.
The whole backbone of your study centered on identity - fine.
And, no sooner was the cup of tea in hand, than you wheeled up your wee pasting table, complete with tartan shawl, cold haggis, shortbread, and irn bru cans.
Sir, are you serious?
Your answer would doubtless be 'no' - yet, nevertheless, you feel content to start a documentary over the serious notion of modern Scottish identity with the trinkets associated with tartan rash and the 'tottie scone vibe'. In other words, exactly the imagery that many unionists use to brand serious questions over Scottish identity and futures with their 'gonk stamp'.
And who can take that seriously? Scottish culture comes from a real historical perspective, not that you came with 200-kilometres of representing that.
Don't know if you went the full hog to represent your take on identity Brian - wasn't sure if the deep fried mars bar was there?
Truly, a cringe worthy, embarrassing and quite patronising start to your programme.
If the study here was identity, and tying that into *political* choice, why didn't you present the facts which relate to such choices, and turn a discussion round this?
Why don't you, or any of your colleagues, map out a factual history of Scotland in the Union for the last 50-years? The realities of the big questions and opportunities going past 2010 and beyond. Financial freedom? Resource management through climate change?
Recently, we seen exactly that in a Gaelic documentary that touches on, amongst other things the British govts. marked and deliberate attempts to foil any notion of Scottish liberty, to set-up key nationalist figures, the out-right theft [and cover up] of the oil wealth in the 70's?
Do such topics merit any kind of place in a discussion about, effectively, Scotland in Britain? I think so. I simply cannot fathom the stance here Brian. If Norwegian democracy had been born of similar circumstances, I wonder if you would have nipped over to Oslo at all Brian?
You represent the choices, quite simply, via:
- Norway. While this was a very pertinent example, Norwegian democracy comes from a different brew than the circumstances that have led to the debate over Scottish democracy. While these are equally tangible, they are not as modern - and frankly - not daubed with the manipulation and lies we see from Westminster. You generally painted them as a small, insecure, nation - celebrating it's culture because if it didn't it wouldn't 'feel' Norwegian.
- Texas. ?????. I mean, are you having a laugh? BBC Scotland decides the best representation of harmony in a union is to compare Scotland to a 200-hundred-year old American state?
I appreciate the Texan sense of identity, but as you yourself pointed out, it's not that Texas would ever harbour ANY kind of notion about dropping from their union...
Then why use it? WHY use it Brian? It was absolutely irrelevant. This is journalism with a misleading slant. A woeful attempt at driving home the message that you don't have to be independent to keep your identity.
Then we had the usual contradictions and inaccuracies born of the unionist camp, none of which were questioned in even the most fundamental way.
- A modern independent Scotland = Gordon Brown's 'isolationist' nonsense
Q: Isn't the concept of a non-political union much more eloquent and relevant in the 21st century than a forced political one which questionably does not serve Scotland?
- Boris and the subsidy myth
Q: Tell me Boris, what do you think of the natural answer here, to avoid arguments - that Scotland goes its own way? You take yours, we'll take ours.
- Cameron's 'respect' for Scotland
Q: Mr. Cameron, do you believe the intrinsic democratic right of a nation to say 'no' is worthy of respect? Do you believe that the weapons might just rest instead where they are effectively being voted in?
On a final note Brian, I couldn't help but notice there was no attempt at linking/plugging/mentioning the BBC Panorama programme scheduled tonight for UK broadcast. What's it called?
'Will the Scots Ever Be Happy?'
What's the matter, weren't you keen to plug your BBC colleagues second look at devolution? Identity?
In all honesty Brian, if Scotland ever does get independence, I think the lack-lustre muted journalism born of this age - with your name amongst the markings - will stand out for all the wrong reasons.
You best get yourself a wee piece of shortbread to wash down your irn-bru. In the meantime, I'll go off and try to explain to my kids why a modern Scottish identity is one to be excited about, in so many different ways.
Complain about this comment
Standing ovation for Gingerbadger!
Complain about this comment
242 Diabloandco said "Standing ovation for Gingerbadger!"
seconded, very good post. I especially liked the idea of the "gonk stamp"
Anyone else notice Glen in Brian's Holyrood office?
Hope you didn't send him for the caramel wafers, haggis and tartan rug Brian, handling that kind of "stuff" would have been traumatic for him.
Complain about this comment
I see they've wheeled out the former head of the British Army, Mike Jackson, into scaring us with "Scotland would be safer in an uncertain world by remaining part of the UK". Safer from whom? Certainly not safer from Westminster which is so desperate to hang onto Scottish natural and economic resources that they try to frighten us. As far as the outside world, being in the UK has made us less safe by involving us in dodgy wars and drawing amateur terrorists towards us. How many Scottish soldiers have died in the UK's wars in recent years - guys that probably would have never been involved if we were independent. How safe are we with the nuclear deterrent parked within our country? No other small country is told to or wants to join up with its neighbour to be safer - so why tell us. Stick your imperialist views where the sun doesn't shine General Jackson.
Another load of crap stated was that England would retain the veto on the UN security Council and Scotland would lose out. Is that right !! and do we want any more clout in the UN than any other small country has anyway? We just want an equal say with all the other countries in the world including Kosovo which the British Army fought to free. A Scottish government would surely (and hopefully ) have no aspiration to be a world superpower - the UK continues to delude itself that it is still one.
Watch BBC Panorama at 2030 tonight for more of these scare tactics
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8120695.stm
Why are the views of this former General even relevant? Are we to take this as some sort of veiled threat or what?
Frankly, Sir, the world is even more uncertain for the country in question if you consistently invade far off countries in some sort of medieval crusade. I don't seem to recall Ireland or Norway coming under recent terrorist attack from Middle Eastern extremists, for example.
Gen Jackson said that in many respects, the military is a model example of how the Scots can celebrate their own culture within the wider UK.
Ah, so he obvious means recruiting young Scots under their own flag (The Saltire), and then having them fight and die under someone elses (The Union Jack); in that sense yes it is a very good example of the exploitation inherent in the Union.
As for the idea of rump UK (England in disguise) being allowed to remain at the top table at the UN that is truly absurd; especially if the undemocratic Unionist Parties get their way and force Trident on an unwilling Scottish nation. How on earth would the remains of GB plc having lost many of its strategic bases (including the home base for its nukes), the lions share of the strategic resource of north sea oil, a disproportionate share of its military personnel and still burdened with a by-population share of Crash Gordon's massive debts, etc maintain its place at the Security Council over worthwhile applicants like Brazil, South Africa, India, (Iran?) etc
Finally, the statement that Scotland would lose its veto on the Security Council is based on the assumption that it had one in the first place (as opposed to the "GB veto" controlled by the vast City State called London).
Complain about this comment
Overall, it was a good documentary. I detected a hint of bias toward the Union, but I suppose it is the BBC, after all.
I must say, I don't think Texas was at all a good example. Firstly, it was an independent country for barely ten years (as opposed to Scotland's 864 years...), and its reason for joining the Union has little or no relevance for a modern Scotland remaining within the UK.
Secondly, Texas is part of a proper federal country. A country where states have the power to decide to have the death penalty when most others don't. This is nothing like the system we have in the UK.
Just thought I'd throw my tuppence worth in...
Sin'Dorei.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/8123723.stm
Brown and Mandy's aren't just any lies; they are premium, leading-your-country-blindly-further-into-the-economic-abyss-for-brief-political-advantage lies.
Complain about this comment
"Gen Jackson, who led the British military operation in Iraq, told the BBC that while he respects and understands the desire among Scots for more control over their own destiny, they need to realise that separation would amount to "undue risk with an uncertain world"."
Yeah, I think we can handle mad grannies in their union jack capes!
"Gen Jackson said that in many respects, the military is a model example of how the Scots can celebrate their own culture within the wider UK."
Complete and utter bull, I suggest he reminds himself why most of the scottish army came into being. To keep jacobites in control, the Black Watch being one of the most notorious. Brother turned against brother!
Complain about this comment
morning , I was surprised that the programme was not as biased as i expected, but it was a programme of missed opportunities, deliberate or otherwise.
I agree with others , you might have enjoyed your wee trip to Texas but what were you trying to prove?
All the unionists you interviewed were as one in the use of NEGATIVE reasons why Scotland should stay in the union,they don't have any thing positive to say.
Bottom line - the United Kingdom cannot afford Scotland to walk out the door but the unionists cannot admit it for numerous reasons, hence the dogs breakfast that is the Calmin report,they cannot even afford full fiscal autonomy.
Sid
Complain about this comment
pattymkirkwood re 245
Good post.
Just when you thought that the unionists could not get any more desperate along comes Jackson. I hope someone on Panorama tonight will ask him how many times Ireland has been invaded since their "isolation"
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/8120695.stm
Like the other posters I thought that Boris was a gift to the SNP, remember he will take over from call me Dave about a year into the conservative government. Vote for Dave get Boris, that could even swing it for Brown in England.
Great to see Forsyth, I will always respect him as he destroyed the Tories in Scotland, with a little help from Thatcher.
P.S. On the balance of the program question, I thought that it was reasonably fair given it was the BBC. Just think what it would have been like if wee Glen had presented it. Will be interesting to see the differences on Panorama tonight, I do not think that will be fair and balanced.
Complain about this comment
sidthesceptic re 249
That is their problem. There is still nothing positive to say about the union. Unless of course helping our children glow in the dark from their old leaky subs. Just think of the greenhouse gasses we will save as we will not need central heating.
Thought Wendy would have mentioned our 5000 pounds bill for ever Scot if the SNP took control at Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
I sat and watched the programme; regarding the Irn Bru cans and the folding table stunt, it was quite frankly embarrassing.
It was a very sad nod to the very poor standards of Scottish journalism's presentation skills.
Contrast this with your piece on this mornings "Today" programme on Radio 4, which was informative. Talk about Jekyll and Hyde! If you keep this up you will quickly lose credibility with your Scotttish audience and if you care, even a bit, about how history will view this, then start to get a grip. I really wonder what goes on behind closed doors at BBC Scotland!
Complain about this comment
#250, thanks dubbieside; but I doubt any searching questions will be asked of the General in tonight's offering, just as Brown, Cameron and Boris were not questioned at all last night.
How did the BBC word the questions on devolution to get such an apathetic response, in comparison to recent polling? (See Scotsman piece from May below).
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/7037-of-Britons-support-devolution.5248761.jp
Complain about this comment
I'd agree with most of the sentiment expressed above, Brian was reasonably balanced, even when Morris dancing, but the Texas comparison was a bit of a stretch to put it mildly.
For those of you wondering how the Panorama version will differ, there's a wee taster here.
On that subject how nice it is to have helped pay for a program titled: Will the Scots ever be happy? (my emphasis, though I struggle to see what other emphasis that title could realistically have) Maybe our bias-scopes have got it all wrong - it seems like the BBC is doing its level best to foment division and disharmony within the UK!
Complain about this comment
Its quite strange that the only symbol of Englishness that the BBC were able to come up with was morris dancing.
Complain about this comment
Re the references to Texas:
Surely the parallel with Texas is not so stupid and irrelevant. They have a national identity and a local identity, feel Texan but also American. many parts of Scotland are the same, I feel Orcadian and am proud of my Viking roots, which is probably the most defining part of my cultural make up. I also feel Scottish and am proud to be so. But I share my Viking roots with ancestors all down the east coast of the UK and further. So there is a part of me that relates to the rest of the Island we live on as well.
I also dislike the idea of some homogeneous Scottish culture. It doesn't exist, the needs of Kirkwall are completely different to those of Springburn and the way we look at problems is different as well. We are no more alike that someone form Sprinburn is to someone form Kent in cultural terms. But the proposals on offer for independence do little to recognise that key fact. We should respect and celebrate the differences between our varied cultures across Scotland and reflect these in the decision making part of our government and decentralise power as low as possible. We need to recognise we are different across Scotland and allow those differences to be a positive influence and not try to ignore them. We should not replace Westminster with an Edinburgh version. I don't want to fight for Independence only to get there and find I have no more freedom than before.
I dislike the UK system of government intensely, it is corrupt and rotten. But is Holyrood really all that different? I am not sure it really is, the early days of the parliament were none to clever on the financial probity. No side can claim complete transparency over this although some are clearly more guilty than others the public tar them all with the same brush. That is the reality of public perception, however unfair it is.
What is required is to renew our politics and break the Westminster hold by offering an Independence for our nation that recognises the need for a new and different type of government. People have had enough of politics just now, we need a vision that will show something is different, demonstrate that lessons have been learned.
The SNP need to seize this moment in History and act. This is the best chance for real change we will ever get. What is on offer at present is nowhere near bold enough. We need to do better and offer Scotland a real chance to move forward. A referendum next year has no guarantee of a win, We haven't made the breakthrough on the undecided voters needed. We need a more bold vision or we will regret this for a long long time.
Complain about this comment
254 forfar-loon. You're right, it's quite a title but I hear it's an improvement on the original one which was
"Will the chippy Jockanese ever stop whining?" :O)
Complain about this comment
"Will Scots ever be happy?"
When casual claims like:
"Panorama looks at the value of the North Sea oil and asks an expert if an independent Scotland's share of revenues would put it in a better position - a position to rival that of Norway, another small, North Sea nation that has benefitted enormously from its off-shore oil.
The Scots believe their future lies in the riches of North Sea oil.
Oil aside, Panorama also looks at Scots' attitudes towards defence and foreign affairs and finds that most are comfortable to remain firmly within the union on those counts. These are trickier issues for independence-minded Scottish politicians, especially when membership in the union brings the clout of a permanent seat on the United Nations Security Council."
are repeatedly made with no justification, no.
Complain about this comment
The game of 'Unionist Bingo' continues apace. For those unaware of the game, it consists of six claims oft made by Unionists and rarely scrutinised by the TV or radio presenter.
Here are the six claims:
1. There is no demand for independence, just more powers.
2. The Scottish electorate have consistently voted against independence.
3. The SNP are basing Scotland's economy on a dwindling resource.
4. The HBOS/RBS would have gone under had Scotland been independent.
5. Small countries have not fared well in this recession.
6. Ireland, Iceland and Norway are the 'arc of insolvency'.
The Politics show yesterday began the official 'eyes down' and didn't disappoint by 'calling' two of the six numbers - numbers 1 and 2.
Neither were chalenged by the presenter Glenn Campbell.
This mornings radio phone in saw point 3 called by the Secretary of Scotland Jim Murphy - not surprisingly the presenter (Shereen Nanjani) didn't challenge Murphy on this. Indeed Shereen herself called number 2 during a conversation with historian Michael fry.
Isn't it amazing that BBC presenters seem able to play the Unionist side when adopting the devil's advocate role but are reluctant to take on the role when interviewing those with a Unionist viewpoint?
Anyway, The BBC's coverage of the constitutional debate is barely a day old and already we have heard half of the six claims, with no challenges.
Comment 241 from 'Gingerbadger' makes the very points that I tried to make - only he/she makes them so much better, well done !!
Complain about this comment
It's interesting to see an Army General and Diplomat from New Zealand speaking of Scotland's benefit from the United Kingdom. The General made most sense, who would not want a larger military? The real issue is that what influence Scotland has over our military and the Iraq war, what has the war brought to Scotland? If Scotland were independent then I do not believe we would have taken part at all.
The Diplomat made an interesting case. If Scotland were to leave, England would take the UN security seat. However back to my original point that my mother and sister have no idea what the UN security seat is or does, what benefits does this 'seat' have to oridinary Scots or is it simply one way for Britain to play world power? Has it brought benefits to Scotland?
Complain about this comment
Scotland is a country as is America as is Canada. Canada and America declared independence from Britain and I imagine most Texans would like us to do the same particulary the ones who wear the kilt and sing Flower of Scotland!
It was a very poor programme. He didn't mention any of the financial benefits Norway gets from their oil fund nor did he mention their seat in the UN, all he said was they aren't in the EU!
Complain about this comment
Mike jackson is only stating what he thinks is right for the UK from his own perspective. To him the idea of splitting up the British Army is inconceivable. Just as it must be to most Englishmen, who don't understand why Scots think of themselves as different and don't want to be part of the UK. His security concerns are certainly valid, but only if we continue to meddle in the domestic affairs of other sovereign nations.
As for losing our clout at the UN, does anyone have superpower ambitions in Scotland? That's the crux of the whole argument really. At the moment the UK can just about hold on to the idea of being a world player. Could England do this on it's own? Most definitely not so Call Me Dave and Global Brown, would be relegated to the cheap seats on the world stage. It's nothing to do with what's good for the people of this country and all about maintaining our political masters power and prestige. It must be quite heady being able to say you are a permanent security council member with a nuclear weapons capability, but I doubt that most Scots would consider it to be a great loss.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry Brian but that was an appallingly shallow offering.
You made play of getting "exclusive" access to Blair, had some 'big-gun' guests (gun texas - geddit) such as Brown and Cameron and then proceed to ask zero hard questions. You challenged them on nothing. Just let them get way away often nonsensically on issues of real relevance to us. Why not ask each of your guests one or two questions and we'd really have seen their mettle or not, such as: "Is independence the logical conclusion of devolution and if not why not?" And: "If devolution is to lead to independence do you think Scotland would be a viable independent nation?" I'm reluctant to put the boot in but it was nothing but a glorified travelogue. A waste of my time and a wasted opportunity. It really did feel like another safety valve programme for the Westminster controlled BBC. But hey, at least you got a nice Stetson out of it ;-)
Complain about this comment
#255 dubbieside
"Its quite strange that the only symbol of Englishness that the BBC were able to come up with was morris dancing."
Don't you dare make fun of morris dancing!!
Extreme Morris Dancing will play a key role in the opening ceremony of the London Olympic Games - as will Elton John, playing a medley of the Queen Mum's wartime favourites.
Who's sniggering at the back?!!
Complain about this comment
The Scottish Govt is certainly not shy in promoting its 'green' cred wherever possible, infact i think they're in danger of irritating the general public slightly (im getting there myself, and im as green as they come).
Last week we had the opening of the Scottish European Green Energy Centre in Aberdeen (SEGEC) (an attempt to establish the city as a green enrgy hub, by attracting funding with the help of scottish power suppliers and various other bodies). Also, we had the Zero Waste Strategy (http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Minister-unveils-plans-for-a.5575188.jp.)
Add these to several other announcements over the last few months and you can undertsand why the Scottish public might be feeling a little 'greened' out. Can someone actually explain to us what the real tangible benefits to all of this are to our country?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS