Keeping time
Today, if you will permit me, a little tale. Not about politics. No sweeping condemnations. No tea and scandal, their ancient custom.
I was at the top of Calton Hill in Edinburgh earlier this week, broadcasting to an astonished nation - or at least that portion of the a.n. watching the lunchtime telly.
Pausing between sundry appearances, I glanced towards the Nelson Monument where all was industry and activity.
Inquiring of one of the workers, I learned they were reinstalling Edinburgh's Time Ball that very day.
My interlocutor was hugely enthusiastic and well-informed.
He reminded me of the Time Ball's original purpose which was to advise shipping in the Forth as to when it was precisely one o'clock, thus replicating visually the sonic effect of the One O'Clock Gun.
But the very passage of time had jeopardised this purpose.
According to Edinburgh World Heritage, the ball was now descending with an "ignominious thunk".
So repair work was instigated with two Scottish firms taking the lead: Ritchie's the clockmakers together with the foundry expertise of Charles Laing and Sons.
My companion told me of the precision required to return the repaired Ball to its site.
Further, he informed me with evident pride that the mechanism of the Time Ball will continue to be wound by hand.
There was something about that information which satisfied me. Something, at least, has escaped the relentless machine.
Shipping in the estuary may no longer rely upon the Time Ball. The recession is not one whit more tolerable for its presence.
I know it is utterly irrational but we are more than calculating machines. I am glad that Edinburgh's Time Ball has been repaired.
It should be fully in action by the end of August - and I look forward to its descending with an elegant glide when next I am broadcasting from Calton Hill.
PS: As you may have discerned from the foregoing, the recess is upon us at Holyrood. This blog, consequently, will slip gently into the summer equivalent of hibernation (aestanation?).
I would hope, however, to post from time to time.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~35~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Happy hibernation Brian, although it looks like the mods may have sneakily clocked-out already, if the last thread is anything to judge by.
Complain about this comment
Enjoy your holiwogs Brian - When you come back we'll have fresh anarchy waiting for you I'm sure!
Complain about this comment
Brian
Aestivate.
Complain about this comment
There are a large amount of political problems facing the people of Scotland that could and should be covered in a blog like this.
I would like to register the strongest possible protest that my licence fee tax is instead being wasted producing this utter tripe whilst important matters of political interest are totally ignored.
Complain about this comment
You might reflect on what fun it might be to begin reporting the news as it is and without your usual British Nationalist bias for a change.
Complain about this comment
I know it is utterly irrational but we are more than calculating machines.
You flatter yourself Brian, remember divide by zero? ;o)
And I think the word you're after is aestivation - to lie dormant over the summer. Only one creature is known to both hibernate and aestivate: Iain Gray (remember him kids?!).
Complain about this comment
Back to the garden! Thanks for the commentaries Brian.
Complain about this comment
Seven comments still unmoderated almost an hour after the first post. Are the mods waiting for the ball to drop or the One o'Clock Gun to go off?
Complain about this comment
I would hope, however, to post from time to time.
Going by your recent offerings, both here and on TV, I wouldn't bother Brian. Scotland has long since passed you by.
Complain about this comment
Of course, as loyal citizens of the UK, the political season doesn't stop until Westmidden stops for the English holidays.
The posts from Scots on Nick Robinson's Newslog for UK politics are waaaay below our population share!
Time to redress the balance methinks!
Complain about this comment
Have a good summer Brian, I predict you'll need your energy restored for the new political season (not to mention the football one). Not a hard prediction, mind you
Get your knotted hankie out and head doon the watter (or tae the Ferry if that suits better)
Cheerie
Complain about this comment
Typical of the unionist you are Brian, hankering to a day when simple things satisfied you.
Sorry, but Scotland is no more about Shortbread tins, Kilts and Irn Bru than it is about 'Time balls' (Screwed up confused face emoticon needed here)
From the propaganda I have witnessed over the last week, honestly dude, I am starting to feel like a prophet/clairvoyant. Is it not obvious to you also that the future Scotland has already (even, possibly unwittingly) been chosen?
Ps. I look forward to blasting out Flower of Scotland (Volume 10) on my sound system as that disgrace that is the anti-Scottish orange walk passes my flat on Saturday. I am not religious (at all), but what gives those unionists the right to pollute my personal space with their opinions during that parade and not expect a nationalist response...
...PS... my soundsystem will easily be up to the task *;o)
Saor Alba!
Complain about this comment
Many of you might be interested in the links on the following BBC article, but particularly our resident geeks Brownedov and oldnat (only kidding fellas!): An exciting stats website? Believe it.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #13: the link to the OECD regional statistics explorer is wrong on the Beeb's article. Not sure if it will let me link directly to it as the site appears to use Flash. Just replace "factbook" with "regionalstatistics" in the given URL and you should get there. It's particularly interesting for the Blether with Brian audience as Scotland is separated out from the UK on this page.
Complain about this comment
#13 forfar-loon
Thanks for the link. Hey! At my age "geek" is a compliment! :-)
Complain about this comment
You can go into permanent hibernation so far as I'm concerned.
Sleekit blogs desperately trying to hide your in-built bias.
No doubt this criticism will offend the Moderators, but hey that's BBC democracy for you.
Complain about this comment
forfar that looks reallt interesting. Cheers for the link.
The tax rates information will come in extremely handy.
The breakdown of information into county sized regions is again welcome.
Complain about this comment
#6 forfar-loon -
"Remember divide by zero?"
And please let us not forget Iain Gray's assertion in this debate that "1 in 3" children in poverty represents progress from "1 in 5."
It would have been lovely if an 'interested viewer' had popped up to call him on those maths skills, wouldn't it?
Complain about this comment
Former Secretary of State for Scotland Des Browne telling lies and trying to make political gain from the Diageo job cuts.
But there is anger that Mr Browne had suggested that Scottish Enterprise had been discussing the probable closure with Diageo and not told ministers until the 11th hour.
All parties have denied this, with Diageo stating that it told employees of its plans first.
Where did browne get his info? Can he back up his claim?
Complain about this comment
Of course, an independent Time Ball would never need winding up;
A Westminster ball would be lost, then rediscovered in 20 years time, covered in dust floating on some duck island somewhere;
And the Brussels Time Ball would be immediately condemned, and be recast as a Time Cube, to conform with EU directives on Banana Curvature - bureaucrats having spent 20 years deciding that Banana regulations should actually apply instead to Time Balls, on the basis that they start with the same letter.
Seriously, I have to agree with a previous contributor re. Orange Marches in Edinburgh, but for a different reason - the year is 2009, not 1688!!!
Reflecting on the 10th anniversary of devolution, the proof of the pudding has to be whether Scotland's endemic problems have been addressed to any degree by the presence of Holyrood, or not. I feel the Jury is still out on this (Sectarianism, Poverty, Global Warming, Globalization, Chronic Health Issues and so on).
Whether the parliament has the right tools to do this job is, for me, a subsequent debate - but I do recall 2 parties who campaigned for its establishment in 1999, are now continually at loggerheads, most of the time, chiefly about Holyrood's powers. So, somebody got it wrong back in 1999, didn't they?
Anyway, hope hope Brian, the Bloggers and all the MSPs have a lovely break, feeling the sand between their toes on their annual Stay-cation in Bonnie Scotland.
And finally for this afternoon - "Come on, Andy!!!"
Happy holidays :-)
Complain about this comment
@20 c15mnw, well as someone who revels in "not giving two hoots about identity" one could hardly blame you for not seeming particularly enthusiastic about the Scottish Parliament.
Just out of interest are you an "internationalist", " a plague on all their houses " a "don't call me a unionist" a " how dare you label me a British nationalist" or none of the above?
Brian, enjoy the holidays and get yourself a kilt.
Hearing you boast that you're the only one at weddings in a suit these days on your devolution programme was perplexing from a man who appears to carry around a pasting table, tartan rug, Tunnock's caramel wafers, haggis and whisky miniatures. Are you too mean to buy the full set?
Complain about this comment
CONSERVATIVEHOME.COM SURVEY OF ADOPTED TORY CANDIDATES IN
THE 220 TOP TARGET OR CONSERVATIVE HELD SEATS
Replies received from 144 candidates as of 6am on Friday 3rd July 2009
Which of these statements comes closest to your opinion:
The [UK] Union should be defended at all costs : 54%
I would not be uncomfortable about Scotland becoming independent : 46%
"at ALL costs"??? Did they realise what they are saying? However, almost half are quite happy for us to have Independence, if we want it.
Complain about this comment
Anyone see Jim Murphy taken completely by surprise when touring the BVT shipyard and a BBC Scotland reporter went off script and asked him a serious question?
Murphy looked stunned and couldn't handle the question, he had to be baled out by the BVT rep who reacted with anger.
This is what happens when someone who is paid only to utter a pre-prepared script is subjected to scrutiny. Murphy, if questioned with the same intensity that Nicola Sturgeon was subjected to on the recent BBC debate, would fall apart.
Well done the BBC reporter for having the balls to take Murphy to task.
Take note Brian 'Tunnocks' Taylor.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat any unionist party will have a diversity of unionist positions.
At all costs does characterise the hardline element of unionism, equally independence at all costs is likewise the same.
The key must be for us moderates to outline why we believe in unionism or independence; explain its not ideological but practical. Based upon what we percieve is in the best interests of people rather than political ideologies.
Complain about this comment
The SNP candidate for East Lothians seems to be a tad overwrought according to this bloggers report of his online antics. Strange is the word for this rather opaque online struggle for a moral highground
http://www.scottishunionist.com/2008/08/banned-from-snp-candidates-blog.html
Complain about this comment
#21
"well as someone who revels in "not giving two hoots about identity" one could hardly blame you for not seeming particularly enthusiastic about the Scottish Parliament."
I reject your connection between identity and support for the SP.
"Just out of interest are you an "internationalist", " a plague on all their houses " a "don't call me a unionist" a " how dare you label me a British nationalist" or none of the above?"
I am a Jedi.
Complain about this comment
All the best for your holidays Brian.
I imagine you'll soon have the band-waggon of "We're responsible for Andy Murrays success" from Alex Salmond and Gordon Brown to report on soon however.
I really, desperately hope that we can avoid the dispicable way that Chris Hoy was treated in celebrating what I hope will be a successful competition for Andy Murray.
As Chris Hoy angrily pointed out, had he been forced to be part of the Scottish Olympic team that he was being touted as an ambassador for he wouldn't have been able to win any of the medals that he did. The poor guy was dragged into politics by selfish politicians, on both sides, with no serious consideration of what might actually be his views.
Similarly I imagine that Andy Murray has some quite practical views when it comes to the opportunities available through the LTA but these are not political issues, and should not be dragged into them as such.
Lets celebrate our sportsmens achievements for what they are, their achievements, not our politicians.
Complain about this comment
#26 c15mnw
"I am a Jedi"
As with Iraq - May the Forces be with you.
Complain about this comment
Tunnocks Taylor? I like it.
Though my wife just thinks he gets cuddlier and cuddlier.
Complain about this comment
#24 deanthetory
"any unionist party will have a diversity of unionist positions"
True, but a tad unusual to have almost half of their candidates in winnable seats being non-Unionists!
"At all costs does characterise the hardline element of unionism, equally independence at all costs is likewise the same."
Again the point needs to be made that over half of your candidates in winnable seats have committed themselves to breaching international law and riding roughshod over human rights! Any SNP or Green candidate expressing such potentially violent extremism for political goals would be thrown out of their party.
While you share neither of those positions, don't the views expressed in this poll cause you acute embarassment?
Complain about this comment
Chris Hoy dis indeed get very angry at being dragged into a silly political debate. He pointed out very clearly that had Scotland been independent he would have been cycling for Scotland but as that was not the case he was cycling for Britain.
He made a few very pointed remarks about the need to provide proper training faciliies in Scotland if Scotland was to do well at sports.
Complain about this comment
@ 26 " I am a Jedi"
Excellent! You're in good company. Muriel Gray seems to be one as well. In The Herald on 1st May 2007 she warned
" All these dark secret forces hope for independence so that they can have unelected, undemocratic power. What a future Scotland that's going to be. Hello, banana republic!"
Complain about this comment
#28 Very good :-)
Yes, the Farce certain was with BnB, wrt. to justifying that one.
Over and out.
Complain about this comment
Newsnight, however, have decided to make an issue of Andy Murray's nationality.
"Tonight on Newsnight we will be discussing Andy Murray and the English - is it just a marriage of convenience?
Tell us your view on the Murray Britishness debate here."
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/newsnight/fromthewebteam/2009/07/andy_murray_scot_or_brit.html
Complain about this comment
Some of the findings are dispiriting; especially for me the findings on attitudes towards the EU:
10% want status quo with EU
47% want repatriation of powers from the EU
38% want fundamental renegotiation
5% want withdrawal.
What I will say is that at least the dominant position seems to be continued membership of the EU. The 5% is nice and small. But as a Clarkite in my european views I find my positions 10% not all that more important. This specific finding on the EU is acutely embarassing.
What is positive is the attitudes to gay rights amongst the new generation- that is a pleasant aspect of the face of future potential Conservativism.
62% say gay couples ought to be given the same benefits as married couples
31% disagree.
This is coupled with David Camerons appology for Section 28 is symbolic that this finding is more that just a poll finding- there is evidence of real change in this regard. Verdict on this aspect of the poll finding- proud.
The Obama split of 47% against 47% is fair enough. I myself didnt support either McCain or Obama, I am a Hilary Clinton fan; she won my support after she made it a policy pledge to radically reform US health system by introducing socialised medicine. Verdict here- comfortable.
And the 98% supporting a teaching of British history is entirely correct so long as Welsh and Scottish (and English) history from outwith the 1707 act is not lost in history classes. Verdict- fair enough (with my caveat)
Nucear Power? Well I suppose I am one of the 8% against such a policy. That is to say I recognise the need perhaps for nuclear power to make a contribution to our power grid; it should not however in my opinion be the central policy (clean coal, renewables, hydro, solar, wave what ought to be central is as diverse a power grid base as possible).
And finally the Unionist findings. The 46% are almost certainly the Boris Johnsons of the party who seem to think that Scotland is 'stealing' English monies (utter drivel naturally, all we get is our national due, perhaps a little from the Barnett formula but nothing substantive).
But perhaps oldnat your prediction that the Scottish Cons would return to the foreground of Scottish politics upon independence will come true afterall if this aspect of the finding is anything to go by!
Complain about this comment
#31
Actually I think the point was that he'd won most of his medals as part of a team, which included English and Welsh, that the worlds best cycling training center and system had been developed in Manchester which he was able to take advantage of and that his coach for the duration of his career was English, and that he didn't like being used as a political football to advocate something that would have nothing but harm to his sporting prospects and which would have seperated him from his friends and team-mates for someone elses gains.
Nevertheless I stand by my point that Gordon Brown equally jumped on the bandwagon and that I desperately hope we put all efforts into celebrating our sporting achievements but none into playing politics with it.
Give the man all the awards and parades that you want. If I see Alex Salmond riding on the top of the bus next to Murray however, claiming it's a "perfect example of what Scotland could achieve if we were independent" or if I see Brown talking about a "triumph of British training systems" I'll be very dissapointed, as will I suspect most other Brits.
Complain about this comment
Continued from posting 35...just realised there was extensively more....
The 37% sympathetic to Cannabis usage for legitimate medicine purposes is fair enough, and I fail to feel strongly one way or the other on this matter. But the 29% who want to see the current laws toughened are clearly a minority with 43% supporting some kind of legalisation (for medical purposes/6% for recreational also...perhaps thats D.C?).
And finally the NHS specific. This confuses me totally. "71% plan to use NHS if elected, as at present". The meaning is lost on me- what does that finding actually say/mean (I'm being thick)?
Complain about this comment
Sorry 35 when I wrote "perhaps a little from the Barnett formula but nothing substantive" naturally I meant "perhaps a little more..."
Complain about this comment
37 dean
The 29% of candidates who presently use the NHS will go private if elected.
Complain about this comment
sneckedagain re your 31
This is just reluctant/Derek/NCA999 presenting his opinion as fact yet again. Do not ask him for any proof on his opinion as he will have none.
I think what he wrote about Hoy was a straight lift from the Scotsman.
He is so laughable.
Complain about this comment
#34 oldnat
As Andy Murray has made his way in international tennis, one has noticed that in the francophone media he seems to be always referred to as a Scot, purely and simply, without any fuss or bother. I do not recall noticing him being referred to as British or - God forbid - English.
Murray's nationality has never been an issue so far as I am aware until the English media started making an issue of it. The fact that the English media are making an unseemly fuss about the fact that he is identified globally as Scottish rather then British has been picked up by the francophone media, who perceive that they now have a further reason to be amused at dear old Blighty.
The outside world is quite at ease with the concept of Scottish nationality. It is England that has a problem with it.
Complain about this comment
Ah I see. Well that 29% ought to feel free to go private if they wish. I personally disaprove.
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#36.
"Actually I think the point was that he'd won most of his medals as part of a team, which included English and Welsh, that the worlds best cycling training center and system had been developed in Manchester which he was able to take advantage of and that his coach for the duration of his career was English, and that he didn't like being used as a political football to advocate something that would have nothing but harm to his sporting prospects and which would have seperated him from his friends and team-mates for someone elses gains.
Give the man all the awards and parades that you want. If I see Alex Salmond riding on the top of the bus next to Murray however, claiming it's a "perfect example of what Scotland could achieve if we were independent" or if I see Brown talking about a "triumph of British training systems" I'll be very dissapointed, as will I suspect most other Brits."
I am not British, but I will be equally disappointed because politics and sport should be seperate. However I will still be disappointed by individuals who attempt to speak for these individuals. In your first paragraph you imply that Chris Hoy, "...that he didn't like being used as a political football to advocate something that would have nothing but harm to his sporting prospects and which would have seperated him from his friends and team-mates for someone elses gains." In otherwords without Chris Hoy actually supporting the political union, you've decided that Chris Hoy would never support something that might damage his sporting prospects...
This was never the situation and I am fed up with others who post this type of nonesense. The Scots can not be apart of the military, play sports or even be apart of the olympics thesedays without unionists/nationalists using this as some type of evidence to support their own political agenda.
Politics and sports should remain seperate. These individuals will have their own opinions but should not be expected to support the union because it was Team GB or expected to support independence because they're Scottish.
Complain about this comment
"I ride a bike, I'm not a politician. Politicians want to be involved so that they can get some sort of association with your success."
"For him to call for a Scottish Olympic team at this stage is ridiculous. I wouldn't have three gold medals hanging round my neck if I wasn't part of the British team. I'm a Scottish athlete in a British team, and I'm proud to be a British athlete.
There's the quotes dubbieside if you're interested.
Complain about this comment
#41 frankly_francophone
"As Andy Murray has made his way in international tennis, one has noticed that in the francophone media he seems to be always referred to as a Scot, purely and simply, without any fuss or bother. I do not recall noticing him being referred to as British or - God forbid - English."
Until I read your post I would have said exactly the same, but you happened to pick a bad time on TSR2 (Télévision Suisse Romande) as at the precise moment I started reading it the commentator remarked correctly but inappropriately that Wade was the last English winner then mentioning the letter received by Murray from "La reine de l'Angleterre". To be fair to him, he was probably still pre'occupied with Federer's win.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Am I being too cynical to think that the 'shipyard closures' saga was just a ploy by labour. First there is the leaked memo from the company. Then Murphy jumps into the breech by visiting the shipyard and suddenly it is saved for another 15 years. The PM backs that assertion. The company denies their email was of any significance. Today all the papers tell us the good news. Murphy's fizzog hits the healines once again. ??????????????
Complain about this comment
#45 Brownedov
Seems to me that TSR2 got it right!
Complain about this comment
"I do not recall noticing him being referred to as British or - God forbid - English." - frankly; 41
Murry's personal identity of Scottish/British Scottish & British is entirely up to him. People ought to stop playing politic with a fine young sportsman. And frankly frankly it is unacceptable for you to reject Murry's legitimate right to consider himself British and Scottish just because its uncomfortable for your own views/considerations. Less of the 'god forbid British' please.
Complain about this comment
#45 Brownedov
Would you believe that something told me that you might pop up just then? One can never depend on complete consistency in these matters, of course, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise.
As a matter of interest, in the latest media item that I have seen in which Murray is mentioned, in the Belgian newspaper Le Soir today, it is reported that Roger Federer will be up against the winner of the semi-final match between "the Scot Andy Murray (ATP3) and the American Andy Roddick (ATP6)". No mention of Her Gracious Majesty, whom God preserve.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #45
The TSR commentator has now calmed down a bit and Murray's now "Britannique".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#47 oldnat
"Seems to me that TSR2 got it right!"
I made no complaint that the statements were untrue, but compared to their usual commentary it was certainly "off topic".
#49 frankly_francophone
"Would you believe that something told me that you might pop up just then? One can never depend on complete consistency in these matters, of course, and I wouldn't pretend otherwise."
Absolutely, I only mentioned it because of the perfect timing.
Anyway, I have had enough for now of these excitable Latins and have switched to the more measured commentary of SF2 (Schweizer Fernsehen).
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Brian, enjoy your holidays and siestas, though perhaps less of the shortbread, Tunnocks cakes and biscuits, and non-diet Irn Bru. Been there, done that ! Try oatcakes and diet Irn Bru instead...just thinking of your longevity.
Complain about this comment
This whole Scottish/British sports thing is a load of nonsense. Personally I think Chris Hoy is not going to say he would prefer to be classed as Scottish when he is part of a British team. But then I also think he is usuing a bit of politics himself in saying that he couldnt have won those medals if he hadnt had the support he got from Team GB. He has pointed out that the velodrome at Edinburgh has been left to fall to pieces and with no plans that i know of to either fix it up or build a new one we wont be having people like hime training like they need to. Thats not to say that Scotland doesnt have lots of top class cyclists rideing at club level just now. I know of quite a few that could give Chris Hoy a run for his money.
Complain about this comment
I would never deny the right to success of any Scottish sports person, and I always celebrate their achievements but I certainly would not base my view or my vote on the future of Scotland as an independent country on the results be they good or bad of our sports people a la Sir Chris Hoy, Andy Murray, etc etc etc.
Complain about this comment
Will Patterson - blogging as J.Arthur Mc(deleted because the mods find the name offensive) has the attendance records of MSPs here - http://macnumpty.blogspot.com/2009/07/summer-whip.html
I think we will all excuse Margo's record (actually very impressive that her voting record was not the poorest!)
No doubt people will want to ask questions of some others.
Complain about this comment
#55 oldnat
An interesting blog.
Dismayed by the winding down of the BT blog for the summer and overcoming, up to a point, a degree of reticence, nay fear, in the face of infotech, I thought I might try my hand at setting up a modest little blog of my own.
A mite presumptuous, I know, and, of course, it may not come to much, but I am trying for something a bit more ambitious than the riveting tale of the Edinburgh Time Ball. For what it may be worth, the frankly_francophone blog is at http://lewebpedagogique.com/frankly/
Complain about this comment
#48 deanthetory
I have just noticed your indignant little post.
I am very sorry to say that you have thoroughly misrepresented my #41, which concerned media coverage and clearly in no way rejected anyone's right to consider himself to be British.
My understanding is that Murray is in the habit of identifying himself as Scottish. He has been reported in the French media as expressing the view that that is enough for him. If that is indeed his view, perhaps it should be respected.
Complain about this comment
If that was you intent that is fair enough, but I'm just a little wiery of some bloggers and contributors here- as lately there has been an anglophobia hanging around other sites.
Complain about this comment
Anglophobia?
Try the Telegraph for the reverse of the coin and don't play the debate stopping , racism / homophobia / anglphobia / bigotry card.
They are getting tired and weary ( ?) and utterly dishonest.
You will find that young Mr Murray is very much a Scot , first last and always.He is'nt anglophobic , he is Scottish, his roots are Scottish and he is a Scot , an international Scot.
Complain about this comment
41, 49 frankly fancophone
My impression, different from yours, is that French newsapapers refer to Andy Murray as le Britannique more frequently than as l'Ecossais. I have also seen him referred to as l'Anglais, but one should not be too chippy about this as the French often use l'Angleterre as a shorthand for Great Britain or UK, with absolutely no insult intended to the Scots, Welsh or Irish! I have not seen the French articles taking the British to task for their designation of Andy Murray. Have you kept any references?
Complain about this comment
Johnnie Walker in Killie,
http://www.gopetition.co.uk/online/29112.html
Complain about this comment
#60 Helmsda
Most people are reasonably tolerant of foreigners - ie those from outwith their state (and I don't use that in the US sense!) - using descriptive terms wrongly, though it still annoys!
Those from the Southern US states detest being referred to as "Yanks" and Frisians are none too chuffed as being said to come from "Holland" (it's quite funny to see some on my side of the debate forgetting to say Netherlands!)
Everywhere, however, it is totally unacceptable and a sign of arrogance for such terms to be used so carelessly by a dominant group within the country.
Complain about this comment
@60 wrote "but one should not be too chippy about this"
Ye Gods how I hate the word "chippy" when referring to Scots.
It should be top of the unionist bingo card, yes even above Braveheart, Brigadoon and Stronger together.
Complain about this comment
Ref 63 GrassyKnollington
I'm going down to the chippy for a Scotch Egg. Is that OK?
Complain about this comment
#63 GK: You forgot "inferiority complex"! Grrr...
PS Don't forget that some of us are fighting to reclaim Brigadoon ;o)
Complain about this comment
Scottish/British
You can't have the latter without subjugating the former, as at present only one has international status - unless Scotland is independent.
Then you can have your nationality (Scottish), as oridinarily as other nations do, and "British" as in "Isles", can refer, as it should, to the land mass our country is on, in the same way our neighbours are from "Scandinavia" or "South America".
Our British history remains! (We can't get rid of it! ;-)
Complain about this comment
#60 Helmsda
Constantly exposed as I am to the media of the francophone world in all its forms, I unhesitatingly reiterate that over a period of months I have been finding Andy Murray to be referred to generally as Scottish, unpalatable though this may be to some. I don't recall noticing any reference to him as English, although that is virtually bound to have happened somewhere along the line. The salient point, it seems to me, is that the general tendency is for him to be referred to as Scottish all over the francophone world contrary to what one might possibly have expected, given the long-established tendency of French speakers to be not particularly interested in distinguishing between what is strictly-speaking British and what is strictly-speaking English, as I know only too well.
I recall that, when mentioning in previous posts francophone media consideration of English media references to English attitudes on the question of Andy Murray's nationality, I have drawn attention to an article in Le Monde (http://www.lemonde.fr/sports/article/2009/06/29/andy-murray-sur-les-traces-mythiques-de-fred-perry_1213041_3242.html) and to the blog of Jacques Monin, the London correspondent of France Info, the radio station that does continuous news reporting so much better than the BBC's Radio 5, in my view. The item in question is at http://radiofrance-blogs.com/jacques-monin/2009/06/24/wimbledon-36-ans-apres/
There Mr Monin refers to Murray as "a young Scot of 22, ranked third in the world", who "has not always been appreciated by the English". Explaining this, Mr Monin, having referred at the beginning of his article to BBC coverage of the Wimbledon tournament, writes: "Because he is Scottish and identifies himself as such." Mr Monin offers other factors for consideration but puts this one at the top of his list.
The Le Monde article to which I alluded begins as follows: "Can Middle England learn to love Andy Murray?" Here Le Monde is quoting from an article in The Daily Telegraph, which it examines. Murray is referred to by the Le Monde journalist, Marc Roche, as "the Scottish player" and goes into revealed Anglo-Scottish attitudes in connection with him and his perceived view of his national identity in some detail: "To the south of Hadrian's Wall the detestable image stuck to him of the (...) sectarian and nationalist Scot (...)".
Checking out the latest francophone media items on Andy Murray at random, I find that the first one that I come across refers to him as a Scot: "The Scot Andy Murray defeated in the semi-final . . ." (Le Parisien, July 3rd, 21:37) L'Express refers to Murray as "the young Scot". And so it goes on. Obviously, in recent media coverage of the Wimbledon tournament, where there is also reference to the previous UK winner of Wimbledon, Fred Perry, the fact that he had the same citizenship as Murray is not overlooked, and one would not expect it to be, of course.
Do consider checking out the news section of google.fr.
Complain about this comment
#41 interesting. I had read an Australian newspaper article a year or two ago (cannot sadly find it) and it was along the same lines.
It said they see the English as adopting or reclassifying Murray as a Brit for their own ends, so the Australians support the "Scot" to annoy the English; effectively cancelling out the English claim.
There was one thing I did recently read this week on the Australian SBS (public broadcaster) site. It simply said... - "Headlines we'd like to see - Murray wins Wimbledon; declares Scottish independence"
Complain about this comment
I'm surprised that nobody on these threads has mentioned this week's The Record Review, in which Alicia McCarthy presents a special edition from Edinburgh "[m]arking the tenth anniversary of Scottish devolution". Thanks to the BBc's "separate development" for "foreign" IPs [I've had a couple of posts removed as offensive for using the Afrikaans word], us expats [and many onshore, too] can no longer watch BBC Parliament on-line and we never could watch TV on the iPlayer. Fortunately for us, five good snppets of the show are available here, all of them relevant to posts on the last few threads of this blog.
In the first, Prof. Curtice is for once reasonably balanced on why the system has worked
The second is from the Clerk of Holyrood's public petitions committee explaining how they work.
The third is a good pastiche from Margo on expenses, modesty and humility with Harvie managing to get a few words in edgeways [like a fish-slice, as Michael Flanders used to say].
Next is 5m from the Campaign for an English Parliament's Michael Knowle followed by Alun Michael MP (Lab, Cardiff S & Penarth) explaining why the union parliament is perfect in every way.
Finally, there's 10m outside Holyrood with Mike Russell MSP on his usual good form, David Mcletchie MSP, confident that Scots will get behind the Tory UK government he expects to be "democratically" elected by the entire UK at the general election and Malcolm Chisholm MSP, admitting that more fiscal powers than Calman suggests will be needed.
Oddly, and perhaps appropriately, there is not a single word from or about the L-Ds.
For those of a less serious bent, Guido maintains that the chairman of Raith Rovers F.C. "is the only man in Britain who wants Gordon to stay in Downing Street". He has a point.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#69 Brownedov
An alternative view of the Raith Rovers story is that the SNP put a board on the touchline 2 seasons ago and since then the Rovers have gone from strength to strength !?!? 8-)
Complain about this comment
#56 frankly_francophone
frankly,
I've read the blog at your link, thank you. I get an error message though when I try to add a comment :-(
Perhaps I'll find answer at quirkynats?
I think Brian's last blog is purposely non-political, so he doesn't get a trillion (appropriate ;-) posts left in his absence! Or the opposite - we can say what we like!! ;-)
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#72 dean
I think she is suffereing the South British perception that the North British get more than their "fair" share of British expenditure and that she classifies you as North British.
Complain about this comment
Interesting to see that the EU have got it in for LLoyds and want to split it up and they seem to be serious about it. Another Brown mess being cleaned up?
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8134264.stm
Oh dear, how will the Gray Man and Skeletor play this one? With their usual "deftness" no doubt!
#72, Dean - don't want to overplay the "I told you so" card, but I warned you about the stirrings of irrational "South British" (i.e. English) beliefs and demands just yesterday. You have just run across it from an open supporter of your own party, it would seem, must be uncomfortable!
"Too Scottish"! Imagine a post calling someone "Too English" being allowed to stand!
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
#72.
"I naturally told her that my posters are Heath and MacMillan and hardly Thatcher and Howard. She then proceeeded to inform me that "your lot" get too much- could someone explain what she meant? Who is my lot for a start!"
Congratulations. You have met your first English nationalist, and I thought the Conservatives were unionists and believed their primary identity was British. I guess Conservatives are unionists but unwilling to be put forward a case to create equality within the union.
I shall be watching your comments to Susan with interest. You wanted to be a Scottish nationalist for Scotland, and I laughed at the very thought. You now have an opportunity to prove that it can be done, you can fight Scotlands case inside the union.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
pattymkirkwood 75
He has not run across it from one of his own because I am an English Democrat.
Complain about this comment
#71 aye_write
Sorry about the error message. My fault, probably. I'll look into it.
While I'm on, I might perhaps just mention that on my little blog (http://lewebpedagogique.com/frankly/) I've given a summary of and linked to a radio broadcast by the economist Paul Jorion today, which is already attracting very approving responses on his blog ([Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]), such as "If only more people could hear what you have to say." I have to say that I completely agree with that sentiment, but judge for yourself.
Complain about this comment
Good to hear the tradition of the Time Ball is assured!
On the subject of time, we are told one of the reasons for moving our clocks backwards and forwards between GMT and BST is to assist Scottish farmers in the long dark nights of winter - Scotland getting considerably less sunlight in winter than down South.
I have no idea if this explanation is true, but if correct, does it justify the inconvenience to the rest of the UK? As Scotland values its independence, perhaps there is a case for Scottish Mean Time which could be adjusted as appropriate...
Complain about this comment
Susan-Croft:
#134.
The Barnett formula is fair to an extent. It is based on spending, what's spent in England then Scotland receives the same amount in terms of population (so 10 percent of whatever was spent in England). It serves it's purpose since the Scottish Parliament can not raise it's own taxes but it's outdated, but would a needs based formula be better for England? England has poverty, no debate. However is English poverty so much worse, that Scotland would be drained substantially financially? If the Conservative Leader can insist it would not make much difference, can a Conservative supporter admit that it would make little difference or are you prepared to explain why?
I will also mention that Scotland can not handle her main issues, including defence and foreign policy as you clearly mentioned. Scotland has no economic power, no power over energy, taxation etc I can go on, but are you misleading on purpose or are you clueless about the powers of the Scottish Parliament?
"You talk of deprived areas of Scotland and believe this entitles you to more money. This is not the case as there are many more deprive areas in England."
How have you managed to work that out? Just because England is larger and far more of the population lives in England does not suggest that England suffers a disapportionate amount of poverty then Scotland.
"The UK Parliament should become Englands and all the Scottish MPs should be employed North of the Border thus reducing significant expense costs as a starting point."
The UK Parliament is that, the Parliament for all the United Kingdom. If England wishes to see an English Parliament then the British taxpayer should fund the project, but Scots MPs should continue to be funded by the British taxpayer too. Unlike you I do not discriminate based on nationality, I see no reason as to why English MP's should be funded by England whilst we are still Great Britain.
"Our Countries now have totally different agendas as proved by recent EU elections. England wants to move further away from Europe, Scotland wants to become integrated. Maybe this could also explain Browns loose policy on immigration as Scotland needs immigration and England in the meantime is becoming more over crowded by the minute."
Scotland and England have held different political goals for decades. Hence why we voted Labour and England voted Conservative. Your sweeping statement is very inaccurate. England and Scotland have different immigration needs, but even within England, different areas also have different needs immigration wise. The main problem I see is that immigration is located heavily in several places instead of being spread further out.
I am still keen for Scotland to become independent, but I see that England are still going to vote Conservative, a political group who supports the political union shared between Scotland and England, so your clearly are joking about the seperate English Parliament, right? If little Englanders are flocking around the Tories then they must all support the British state!
Complain about this comment
#71 aye_write
Once you have typed a comment in the space for a 'commentaire', you have to type a word in the space provided for the 'mot clef'. That word is the meaningless one that appears in the space with a black background.
Apparently, after all that, the best that can be expected is that the comment will appear eventually.
By the way, the Jorion blog link that I tried to give at #79 is:
http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/
I don't know why it was considered unsuitable. In any case, it can be found on my blog if it still doesn't appear here. [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#78 Susan-Croft
Apologies. Many Scots, through the recent prevalence of the notion of Britishness, not least oft repeated by Gordon Brown and his selfish and power-centric frequent public bouts of "the Brits", are understandably still confused over their identity (as are many English?).
I clarified it in my posts #66 and #193 (The Queen).
I am in favour of ordinary national democracy being restored to England aswell - it also spent the majority of its existence as a sovereign nation. Where's the guddle? Westminster/UK parliament. Lets sort it - it's about time.
#79 frankly_francophone
Thanks. I'll check it out.
Complain about this comment
#82 frankly_francophone
Not sure why, but, with all boxes filled and no unusual characters used, your blog site doesn't accept my comments ;-)
Not to worry.
From your Independence Day blog / my gist:
"That these united Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States, that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do"
Everyone who reads that through, imagine committing to the opposite! e.g.
That this Scotland is no longer a Free and Independent Nation, that it is Absorbed under the British Crown, and that all political connection is now carried out by the State of Great Britain, its own ought to be totally dissolved; and that as no longer Free and Independent, it shall no longer have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent Nations may of right do.
Proud Scots?
And Scottish nationalist = extremist? Compared to everybody else, Id say continuation of this Union, as is Scotlands current position, is far in a way the more extreme.
Complain about this comment
#80
Thr whole changing the clock farce is senseless.
All you have to do do is change the actual time your shop, your office or your school goes into operation in the winter and leave the clock alone.
Complain about this comment
I have noted some of Susan Croft's contributions to various English(British?)and right wing blogs. She is seriously ill informed about the funding arrangements beween UK and Scotland and has swallowed the lie that was invented for the consumption of cringing Scots but which has escaped and has been picked up by elements in the English media who have an interest in using it to do Gordon Brown down over Scotland's funding.
As the recent GERS report ( Government figures) pointed out (and last year's as well)Scotland posted a fiscal surplus and puts more into the UK pot than it gets back and generally does so.
Complain about this comment
Susan your attitudes risk this union of equals.
Your antiquated idea that Scotland is a "small country" within this union is rubbish. Either this union stands for an equal partnerhip or Scotland will take its major financial banking industry, its oil and its Scottish regiments and walk. Let you fight your wars in Iraq alone.
Or as I envision:
An equal partnership, with Scotland once again getting appropriate representation (of its full act of union guaranteed number of MPs- 72), with full recognition that Scotland has grearer poverty needs than the home counties.
This is a union of equals, with Scotland fighting its democratic corner. And as a Scottish Tory this is what I shall do. I am not owned by the home counties tory lot.
Complain about this comment
#84 aye_write
Sorry. It seemed to be working, but not to worry. If you can post responses here, that's better. If the blog seems worth continuing with, I'll shift it to a more suitable site at some point. In the meantime, it's convenient in so far as some of the material that I am placing on it would clearly break the language rule here.
Your response to the Declaration of Independence seems to justify my decision to reproduce it in full and without comment. I'm not sure I could have got away with that here.
Imagine what it would have been like to put your John Hancock to that document. The name that was placed first in the list of signatories became, of course, synonymous with the word 'signature' in the USA, not least, I dare say, because to append one's signature to the document at all was obviously to put one's head in a noose if the enterprise had failed on that occasion, as all of those brave 'nationalists' were committing treason according to the Crown. They would all have been subject to public execution, including Benjamin Franklin, whom Iain Gray is so fond of quoting for some reason. If Mr Gray is ever found to be sticking his neck out for any reason, let me know.
Anyway, the United States Declaration of Independence is self-evidently one of the noblest documents in the history of the world, as any American will tell you. There is another overseas one that I mean to draw attention to, as it is claimed by some to have been arguably no less influential although it is much less well known. It will appear in its original form with a translation in due course.
Complain about this comment
One should remember that The Act of Union 1707 sought to establish AN EQUAL PARTNERSHIP between Scotland and England, thus in Article 22, Scotland was given the same number of representatives to the House of Commons as England, namely 45 each. Doesn't seem to be "AN EQUAL PARTERSHIP" now - does it??
Complain about this comment
Thats the point, Coineach- the union is now unbalanced. Towards England I'd suggest. This is why Scotland for example ought to get 72 MPs in Westminster again, otherwise our national legislature is dominated by English constituencies and their political priorites.
Meanwhile the Scottish political culture is largely left wanting.
Complain about this comment
#89 Coineach (and dean for that matter)
Sorry guys. The Union was never intended to be an equal partnership. The 45 MPs that Scotland were to have in 1707 were simply to be added to the existing English Commons, while the Scots peers were to select 16 of their number to join the English House of Lords.
Complain about this comment
#78, if it walks likes a duck, quacks like a duck, looks like a duck ...
Complain about this comment
#91 oldnat
Gobbled!
Complain about this comment
It is an inconvenient fact, but a fact nevertheless, that the population of Scotland is a great deal smaller than that of England. The same is true of Wales. That is not the fault of the English or anyone elses, it is simply reality. To suggest that Scotland should have the same number of MPs as England at Westminster, far from creating a Union of equals, would create the exact opposite; the weight of a voter in Scotland would be far greater than that of a voter in England. Clearly that would be unfair. It is fair that each MP should have roughly the same number of constituents, which means that some more boundary revisions are needed (and should be adjusted every decade or so to take account of population movements), but unless there is a dramatic population explosion in Scotland, and a similar dramatic decline south of the border, Scotland will never have the same number of MPs as England. Nor in my view should it. That is not, in itself, an argument for independence.
Before I am howled down by the usual posters, I would add this. Should Scotland ever become independent as some here wish, it would not be long before many of those Scots living in the remoter Highland communities would be complaining about the unfair bias towards the denser population areas, and the influence that voters there have in determining national policies at Holyrood. The needs and desires of such communities are very different from the central belt or more prosperous east coast. How is that any different to the current position in respect of the influence of the English electorate at Westminster? It is simply a question of numbers, in this case numbers of tax payers who have to fund the policies upon which MPs (or MSPs) decide. He who pays the piper etc.
Complain about this comment
#94 MalcolmW2
I agree with you on the numbers of MPs. In reality, since Westminster has long since given up these people as of being of any function except to act as an Electoral College and choose a Prime Minister/President with none of the checks and balances that are required in a viable system then it really doesn't matter.
I don't take a great interest in the English constitution since I hope to be distanced from it. If, however, I'm stuck with it, I would want to see root and branch reform. You want the damn place. Are you happy with it?
Complain about this comment
#94 MalcolmW2
Excellent post, however I suspect your attempt to pacify the Nationalist backlash will fall on deaf ears.
Complain about this comment
#92 MalcomW2
To further your thinking then, there should be less influence, than they currently have, in the world for Japan and Australia? They have a lot fewer people and comparatively more say. Is that also wrong?
Britain should have next to no power at all?
If not, why should national boundaries have no significance in the British Union? They do in the European Union.
Proportional representation for the world, or one man one vote?? As it stands Scotland is significantly lacking in ordinary national powers, that is national sovereignty. Why should that be??
Complain about this comment
Oldnat @95
"I don't take a great interest in the English constitution since I hope to be distanced from it. If, however, I'm stuck with it, I would want to see root and branch reform. You want the damn place. Are you happy with it?"
I agree that Westminster is in dire need of major reform. One of the advantages that Holyrood has is the time of its creation in the modern age. Westminster has evolved organically over time, and systems and conventions that probably served it well in centuries past are not fit for a modern democracy with universal franchise. Sadly until some of the more "conservative" (in a non political sense) members are ousted, hopefully at the next election, little is likely to change. I am a great admirer of history and tradition, but have no sympathy with it when providing a system of governance for the nation.
Given the amount of outsourcing that parliament has agreed to Brussels over the last couple of decades, I would suggest that we have at least 30% too many MPs anyway. Maybe that would be a good place to start the public sector cuts that we all know are coming, whoever wins the election?
Complain about this comment
#96 deducted3points
Why should nationalism be "pacified"? Other countries in the world must be permanently ashamed.
If I was "British and proud", would that be OK?
I can only be Scottish and proud if I acknowledge my nation shouldn't have the same sovereign powers as other nations. Yep, I feel like shouting that from the roof tops... ;-)
Complain about this comment
#94 MalcomW2
At last, someone else who believes that because I pay more tax I should have more votes. Roll on government by bankers for bankers! I think I made a typo there B and W are so close on my keyboard.
Complain about this comment
#99 aye_write
Yet again another Nationalist who reacts before reading.
If you had bothered to READ my post you will see that I never suggested that Nationalism should be pacified, I was referring to the previous poster (MalcolmW2) and his attempt to avoid being "howled down".
For the record I am proud of being many things: a Highlander, Scottish, British and European and am not at odds with being all or any of the aforementioned.
Complain about this comment
#100 handclapping
LOL Good point though. It's interesting that the Brits and English tend to go on about the "taxpayer", and not the "citizen", as if only those individuals who are taxed have any democratic rights.
No doubt it goes back to the old English Constitution thing of the Queen in Parliament being sovereign as opposed to the people.
Complain about this comment
As the Scottish Parliament is brand new and designed to be very different from the Westminster zoo, could somone tell me why MSPs only work for two thirds of the year? The recess periods are not that different to Westminster.
Surely the new parliament would gain even more kudos if the working calendar mimicked more closely that of the common worker?
Complain about this comment
I am sorry, MalcomW2, there is no way you are getting away with #94.
interesting your not so subtle move in your scare story's.
we have moved to "if" Scotland goes it alone we will all start fighting amongst ourselves. crofters against townies north vs south east vs west, have I missed any? You don't have a very high opinion of your fellow Scot's do you? but we already knew that didn't we!!!
Everyone can see that our country even though it is small is extremely diverse this is one of the many reasons that people give for living in and visiting Scotland
What we have at the moment is 4 nations who all have different idea's about how to improve their nations because the 4 nations are thankfully diverse, with different values.
i would put it to you that ANYONE living in a remote highland community stands a far better chance of their grievance or troubles being listened to in the Scottish Parliament than they ever will in Westminster, where the needs of our whole NATION(Scotland) are but an annoyance that gets debated once a month for 20 - 30 minutes when the "Honourable members " are not in recess.
Sid
Complain about this comment
Well hello thear..
98. At 12:18pm on 06 Jul 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:
Oldnat @95
"I am a great admirer of history and tradition, but have no sympathy with it when providing a system of governance for the nation."
Or the governance of ONE nation over another 3!?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat @102
I referred to taxpayers (as opposed to citizens) to highlight the point I was making. Government is not free, never has been and never can be. It is paid for by taxes. The USA started a revolution under the banner "no taxation without representation". It is still a prefectly reasonable position to take. Those who pay taxes to fund government are entitled to a fair say in how that money is spent, ie through choosing a party with policies to their liking. All votes should carry the same wieght, which is the point I was making, in response to some who think that 5 million people in Scotland should carry the same voting power collectively as 50 million in England. That would be clearly absurd.
Judging by their responses, however, I think some have missed that point.
Complain about this comment
101. At 12:43pm on 06 Jul 2009, deducted3points wrote:
For the record I am proud of being many things: a Highlander, Scottish, British and European and am not at odds with being all or any of the aforementioned."
So just how many personalitys can you fit in that tiny mind then?
Think you need to deduct a bit more than 3 points mate.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8136306.stm
1000 offenders at large in England, including 19 murderers. I expect the BBC to be calling for Jack Straw's head on a platter ... or is one escapee in Scotland worth a resignation (when officials ignored new procedures issued by the Justice Secretary that would have prevented it), while 1000 in England is "to be expected"?
Complain about this comment
#94 MalcolmW2: It is an inconvenient fact, but a fact nevertheless, that the population of Scotland is a great deal smaller than that of England. The same is true of Wales.
Ah, but it's quality not quantity that counts Malcolm ;o)
Before I am howled down by the usual posters,...
Many of the "usual posters" would agree with you, so little howling down needed! Consider the possibility of devolution for the Borders, Dumfries and Galloway, Orkney and Shetland, the Western Isles, etc., each region having enough freedom and flexibility to run some of their affairs according to their differing needs. As a bonus this also provides an in-built limit on the ability of the more populous central belt to dictate to the rest of the country.
Hard to argue with that idea I would imagine. Indeed, having decisions made at the most appropriate level is just the kind of thing you would do if you were establishing a new country...
...and just the kind of thing that becomes too difficult when the vested interests of an old country get in the way ("No, no, if Sutherland can run it's own affairs then Cornwall will want it too, then Yorkshire, thin end of the wedge old boy, can't have that...").
So Malcolm (and northhighlander too if you're out there, since this is a favoured theme of yours!), do you think the happy picture I painted above of a federal Scotland is likelier to happen in: (a) the current union; or (b) an independent Scotland?
Complain about this comment
77. At 4:03pm on 05 Jul 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
Furthermore I at no time said you should put being a Conservative before being Scottish. I merely said that you put being a Scot before being a Conservative so why should the English not do the same."
Oooo and "furthermore" is it?
What should I place first then dear susan, being SNP or Scottish - Scottish or being SNP? Hmmmm I wonder, can you tell me please?
Oh, I do hope dear Susan makes regular appearances on here.
;)
Complain about this comment
#108 patty: Surely it should be Scottish Labour, and in particular Richard "Half" Baker, calling for Straw's head, as they did for MacAskill's? After all, there's nothing to stop murderers on the run heading north of the border to lie low for a bit...
Complain about this comment
MalcolmW2
Your point about the balance of representation between Scotland's more remote and sparsely populated areas versus the more affluent and more densely populated areas, is of course an inherent balance that demands commited and effective management in any democracy.
The notion that this somehow only becomes an issue in a post-independence Scotland, however, appears to betray a decidedly parochial view of the situation.
If anything, the disparities between 'rural' and 'urban' are more polarised in Scotland than most other countries - a situation due in no small way by the historically, economically and demographically traumatic consequences of the Union.
These diversities, which have continued to evolve over centuries, are part of the particular challenges to the good governance of Scotland, and, while complacency is never an option, should be far more effectively addressed and served by a Scottish Government than a Westminster one.
Like many, I aspire to a Scotland where every constituent community has a strong sense of its roots, of self-belief, and of effective engagement in, as an essential part of, the national community of Scotland.
Commensurately, I see that Scotland as a full member and participant in the global community of nations - as diametrically opposed to remote governance via minority representation at Westminster - a situation which can only continue to exacerbate any justifiable sense of frustration on the part of the 'remote' or rural communities, which represent such a large and significant proportion of Scotland as a whole.
Complain about this comment
106. At 1:05pm on 06 Jul 2009, MalcolmW2 wrote:
All votes should carry the same wieght, which is the point I was making, in response to some who think that 5 million people in Scotland should carry the same voting power collectively as 50 million in England. That would be clearly absurd.
Judging by their responses, however, I think some have missed that point."
No, the point is quite clear. Its the voting power of 50million people over Scotland that's quite absurd. When people decide to base nuclear arsenals, for example, slap bang in the heart of our country, we can't do anything about it - coz??? 50million folk have mare sense than to have it on their doorstep!! The 5 million haven't a leg to stand on, is that FAIR? There are tons of other examples.
50million voters/tax payers/citizens, think they subsidise Scotland with its Own oil. They think, "Scottish" Banks were actually scottish...........
Gee wa we yir reams o bummff
Complain about this comment
sidthesceptic @104
I have no idea where you get the idea that I have a low opinion of Scots, not from anything that I have ever posted. I do however know something of human nature, and the Scots are no different from any other racial grouping in that. There will always be those who see themselves as being disadvantaged in comparison with others, and that is all I was saying.
The tendency on here for some to depict the Scottish population as one large, united, happy people that is simply waiting for "liberation" to achieve Utopia is not only misleading, it is tedious. Take away the union / Westminster as a target for all woes and complaints and it will simply be replaced with something else. To pretend or believe otherwise is naive. If you really do believe that, however, then should you ever see independence you are in for some diasappointment.
forfar-loon at 109:
"So Malcolm (and northhighlander too if you're out there, since this is a favoured theme of yours!), do you think the happy picture I painted above of a federal Scotland is likelier to happen in: (a) the current union; or (b) an independent Scotland?"
Neither.
Complain about this comment
#114 MalcolmW2:
Neither.
Fair enough (although remember that an independent Scotland can be exactly what we want it to be). How do we achieve a suitable balance of power between urban and rural Scotland then? You've correctly identified it as an important issue, what's your solution?
Complain about this comment
#108 patty again: I'm waiting for Labour's knee-jerk reaction to this shocking story of escaping prisoners.
Complain about this comment
Im just back from Middle England both geographically and socially. As a result I may be a little late to a contribution to the Murray discussion. However here it is. In a crowed middle class country pub in central England on Friday evening there was a discussion on Murrays contribution (ie his failure) to Wimbledon. My Scottishness was unobserved as I feed questions through a colleague so what we had was the English talking amongst themselves. A summary:
Would they support Murray if there was a credible competitive Englishman playing? Answer: Silly question, of course not.
If Murray beat the credible competitive Englishman to win Wimbledon would they celebrate a British victory. Discussion: Dont know. Well he isnt really British is he? It would be better if a true Brit won. The Scots dont want to be British so how can they claim to be British.
Also on this trip I saw an advert on TV for the National Trust advertising the attractions of Britain with the small print on the screen saying Excludes Scotland and ROI. Now its true that the National Trust covers England, Wales and Northern Ireland and it is true that Scotland has the Scottish National Trust (of which Im a member) which has a reciprocal arrangement with the National Trust. It left me wondering what THE National Trust implied, ie THE meaning unique the only one, but without an adjective delineating its boundaries it leaves you guess which NATION.
That got me thinking about THE Football Association, I guess its the only one too in all the World.
Complain about this comment
#106 MalcolmW2
I don't think anyone missed the point. You may have had a humour-ectomy though!
I understand your point, but I think you miss the wider one. A taxpayer pays taxes for the State to provide services to its citizens. A granny paying no tax who is bringing up her grandson with no support from the State is also providing a service to the citizens.
It's not just about money. It's society organising itself to give support to all the community, and all the community having a say.
Citizens and taxpayers are not congruent groups.
Complain about this comment
116 forfar-loon and 108
108. At 1:07pm on 06 Jul 2009, pattymkirkwood wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/8136306.stm
1000 offenders at large in England, including 19 murderers. I expect the BBC to be calling for Jack Straw's head on a platter ... or is one escapee in Scotland worth a resignation (when officials ignored new procedures issued by the Justice Secretary that would have prevented it), while 1000 in England is "to be expected"?
======================================
I read over the weekend that the prisoners on the run could not be named as this would breach data protection laws! This is very rich by this governments standards, as over the last 10 years Whitehall departments have been serial offenders with respect to the DPA.
Additionally terrorists and other criminals wanted overseas for crimes such as genocide (Rwanda), murder and other heinous activities are allowed to live freely in the UK at taxpayers expense as sending back to their countries of origin would be a breach of their human rights!
Meanwhile a young white British white man who has Aspergers syndrome who hacked into the pentagon computers looking for alien life forms is likely to be extradited to the US, tried in US courts and maybe spend the rest of his life in jail. It's all rather sickening.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#106 MalcolmW2
"The USA started a revolution under the banner "no taxation without representation" ... All votes should carry the same wieght, which is the point I was making, in response to some who think that 5 million people in Scotland should carry the same voting power collectively as 50 million in England. That would be clearly absurd. Judging by their responses, however, I think some have missed that point."
But you seem conveniently to have forgotten that when the American colonies revolted they set up a system where they retained their own state legislatures rather than merging them. You have also conveniently forgotten that when the US House of Representatives was set up to roughly reflect the equality of the "people", the US Senate was also set up to balance it to reflect the equality of the "states", so that nowadays California and Rhode Island each have two Senators.
Switch the Westmidden Parliament to two equal and much smaller houses - one by population the other by nation - democratically elected to represent only union matters and you would have the basis for a confederal UK that might just work, provided an English assembly was also created to deal with purely English matters. There, I would suggest considering an STV version of the London Assembly model, with a directly elected FM choosing his own ministerial team outwith the assembly but held to account by the assembly of no more than 100 or so members. I'd suggest the same system for Scotland and the other home nations, too, but with no more than 50 or so members.
Some such arrangement would be substantially cheaper yet have better democracy and separation of powers. Some such arrangement is needed for the UK to survive or the other home nations will secede before long, if not in the coming decade then most likely in the one after.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#101 deducted3points
Yet again another Nationalist who reacts before reading.
Really. Not a nice thing to say... (I'll cope ;-)
If you had bothered to READ my post you will see that I never suggested that Nationalism should be pacified, I was referring to the previous poster (MalcolmW2) and his attempt to avoid being "howled down".
You said "attempt to pacify the Nationalist backlash".
I've put forward the reasoned arguments for the normality of independence on here. It's not a backlash. It's reasoned arguments :-)
You mentioned nationalism. That you chose to describe the way it is presented by posters here, as a "backlash", is neither one way or another. As however it is said, it never really warrants being "pacified". If you thought other posters do, you should have said!
For the record I am proud of being many things: a Highlander, Scottish, British and European and am not at odds with being all or any of the aforementioned.
You are welcome to your opinion, very strange though most other nations would find it! Their national boundary matters. You omit national boundaries there in your differentiation. The British Union takes no account of them in its demarkation of the vote for its parliament. The European Union does, allocating each nation a number of MEPs to elect. Would you therefore be happy in a European Union that demarked voting areas purely on regionality without also recognising the countries these areas lie in? (It wouldn't be the same.) Fairer?
Do you think the other independent countries would be happy with that?
Complain about this comment
#106 MalcolmW2
All votes should carry the same wieght, which is the point I was making, in response to some who think that 5 million people in Scotland should carry the same voting power collectively as 50 million in England. That would be clearly absurd.
Judging by their responses, however, I think some have missed that point.
You seem to have missed my point, that there is no account taken of national boundaries in the UK parliament. That is the point! Scotland has no national, or international status. (Luxembourg has.) Are you OK with that, and proud? Why do you believe Scotland shouldn't have these rights?
Complain about this comment
#114 Malcolm W2
The tendency on here for some to depict the Scottish population as one large, united, happy people that is simply waiting for "liberation" to achieve Utopia is not only misleading, it is tedious.
Only Unionists think that nationalists think that.
Complain about this comment
#121, Brownedov,
An interesting idea, but when the unionists didn't want to expose their expenses or other profit making jobs, or the Labour party not wanting to expose their lies over Iraq by holding a fully open and public enquiry, what makes you think they would give up all that power they so crave?
The truth is simple... the only way we will get the revolution we require is to vote independence in 2010. As far as the English are concerned, they can fend for themselves.
Complain about this comment
#114 MalcomW2 you conveniently ignored my last para which pointed out the choices here. Scottish MP's and a few others meeting once a month for 1/2 an hour for "Scottish questions" in Westminster or a Scottish Parliament that meets a good deal longer to specifically deal with the issues pertinent to Scotland and the people who reside there.
the Scottish Parliament is far from perfect but is in it's early years and changes for the better can be made more easier and quicker than a Parliament with all the baggage that Westminster has.
on your point regarding all the Scottish people being one large, united,happy ,people waiting for utopia .No we are far from it and it would be up to the people and the elected representatives to ensure that your predicted downfall was not allowed to take place. A Scottish Parliament who would be dealing with a smaller amount of people and a smaller Nation should find it easier to satisfy all the diverse ways of life.
And finally who is it that continues to tell us all that Scotland & it's people are too wee ,too thick, too lazy and too dependant on our larger neighbour (who subsidizes us big time ,by the way) to even consider Full Fiscal Autonomy , never mind Independence?
who is just plain running scared???
there is a risk you cannot afford to take
and there is a risk you cannot afford NOT to take.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#84 aye_write
It's definitely working. Take a peek:
http://lewebpedagogique.com/frankly/
Complain about this comment
Diageo
I see that Diageo, not content, with trying to close Kilmarnock are now talking about moving the bottling plant abroad, if they don't get their current plan through.
Sounds like legislation is required - but don't hold your breath, the weary willies and bound to shy off it!
As the article says - can you imagine it happening in France?
PS perhaps one of our economic readers could remind me ( i saw a term some time ago but the memory has gone), what is it called when a country produces the raw material but it is then shipped out to other countries to have the value add part done?
Complain about this comment
124. Aye_write, well said.
Can we add that whole sentence from Malcolm W2 to the unionist bingo card along with the Highlander against Lowlander/ East of Scotland against West/ Independence for Orkney and Shetland nonsense as well?
In fact has anyone got time to compile the definitive unionist bingo card with all the old chestnuts numbered so we can call them out as they appear?
e.g. No 4 : The oil's running out.
No 7 : We'd all be forced to watch Braveheart
No 9 : Arc of insolvency
Think of the fun you could have watching Reporting Scotland or an intro from Glen on Newsnight shouting out the numbers.
Articles from maddog Maddox or Jenny "Salmond is the spawn of satan" Hjul would obviously be banned for being too easy.
Complain about this comment
#125 BoNG0_1
"the only way we will get the revolution we require is to vote independence in 2010"
You're probably right, but ...
"what makes you think they would give up all that power they so crave?"
Should by some miracle NuLab win the general election, you're certainly right that Duff Gordon would give up not one iota of power unless he has it dragged, screaming from him. OTOH should nice Mr C win with a smallish majority he may reflect on whether he wants to be the last PM of the UK for exactly the reason you're probably right.
Getting rid of Boris as an immediate challenger by Boris being directly elected FM of England would instantly solve one problem for himself and he might be prepared to trade some personal power for the stability of being the first directly elected PM of the UK, with a secure four-year term ahead of him and able to choose his own minions without reference to his still fairly divided "parliamentary party". His main argument - of unstable coalition government - against PR would be removed, since the two houses would be scrutinising and revising chambers and not governing ones. By cutting the number of elected politicians by about half he could also reasonably expect some of the popularity which all politicians crave. These are the sort of ideas that the few realistic tories like Dean should be pushing at him if they really hope to "save" the union.
As I said in my original post, I think Holyrood would probably function better in a similar way - perhaps divided post independence with a senatorial group elected by the regions with equal numbers per region when that becomes appropriate.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
On Diageo
I had thought that Whisky was one of those special AOC things as defined by Europe so I looked up the legal definition here
http://www.scotch-whisky.org.uk/swa/43.html
Doesn't mention Bottling anywhere. Still has to be brewed, distilled and matured in Scotland though.
So, Broon and Capn. Darling, not forgetting Bendy Wendy's Wee Brother at DFID, how about some quick amendments to The Scotch Whisky Act 1988 and The Scotch Whisky Order 1990.
Has The Murph been told ? Is he about to be parachuted into Kilmarnock to save the jobs, the bottling plant, the Scottish Economy and Des-Nice-But-Dim in K&L ?
Watch this space for a Murph Muttering. I predict 11am tomorrow.
Complain about this comment
106. MalcolmW2
I am sure you will agree that Scotland ha a perfectly legitimate right to defend how its financial contributions to the UK treasury is spent?
And the devolved parliament for example arguably doesnt spend any of English tax payers monies; rather it is spends monies raised from the Scottish tax base etc.
Complain about this comment
#129 GrassyKnollington
"In fact has anyone got time to compile the definitive unionist bingo card with all the old chestnuts numbered so we can call them out as they appear?
Many hands make light work.
THE DEFINITIVE UNIONIST BINGO CARD
1. Scotland would have no influence at the European parliament.
2. Shetland has a right to independence too.
3. The oil's running out.
4. Scotland can't defend its own borders.
5. We'd all be forced to watch Braveheart.
6. Arc of insolvency.
7. You'd need a passport to visit Scotland.
etc, ad infinitum...
All contributions welcome.
Complain about this comment
Can anyone help?
I understood that the Icelandic Government was going to put a motion to the Althingi on 28 May to enter negotiations with the EU on entry. I can't find any reference to any decision.
Complain about this comment
Further to my #133
And of course there's the time-honoured: "Scotland is a subsidy junkie paid for by England."
I don't really count that one since, despite it being a much trotted-out whinge it is actually a powerful argument FOR independence!
Yet Unionists, for some strange reason, will never admit that.
Secretly we all know the reason is: they need us more than we need them.
Complain about this comment
#133 bigh
7A You'd need a passport to visit your relatives in England.
8 If you don't have nuclear, the lights will go out.
9 You're too stupid.
10 If you'd really wanted it, you'd have had it already.
11 If you'd really wanted it, you'd have your own newspapers and things.
12 (Right up to date) Even whisky is uneconomic in Scotland.
13 I'd love to believe you but the Irish have Irish, the Welsh Welsh and the Scots? ... English.
Complain about this comment
#136
PS and the British have ... Gordon Brown. (Cue John Laurie!)
Complain about this comment
133 excellent start bighulla.
I further nominate
8. Scots are "chippy"
9. No-one cares about the constitutional question.
10. Salmond's smirk.
11. Salmond is smug.
12. separatists
13. Nationalists want us all to live in Brigadoon
off out for a while will be back with more later. Hope everyone will feel free to add their favourites and we can present it as an end of term gift to our exasperated headmaster Mr. Taylor.
Complain about this comment
#134 oldnat:
You could try keeping an eye on EU News From Iceland and the ever-reliable(!) Wikipedia.
Complain about this comment
#127 frankly_francophone
Not for me! I must need to download something... ;-)
RE BINGO:
There's the old "Scotland is actually over-represented in the UK - your side run the place for God's sake!".
It ignores that no Scots Labour MPs are on Scotland's side! Too callously power hungry for that. Brown would rather be a "North Briton"!
And it ignores that Scotland is a nation, Britain comprises nations but Westminster voting takes no account of that.
But waitingformyman makes a very salient point, in her (?) #113, answering MalcolmW2's assertion that it is ridiculous to expect that 5 million Scots should have the same influence as 50 million English. It's not about that at all!
It's about 5 million Scots having influence over 5 million Scots! Not over the English. (The only Scots who want to do that are the "Brits", or "North Brits" ;-)
By MalcolmW2's reckoning it is OK then for 50 million English to have ten times more influence over non devolved matters (that would be in Scotland's remit as an independent nation)?
If you are happy to be outnumbered in these decisions...would other ordinary nations be?
Complain about this comment
Id like to think that there is a better case for the Union than all that. Though I do recognise all too much of it from speaking with fellow unionists.
There surely isnt a serious debate about Scotlands capacity to survive independence, naturally it could.
I see the union as meaning greater resources to spend on public services across the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland. And a greater ability to direct resources to areas of most significant need in the Union.
Perhaps also a stronger presence diplomatically and economically on the global stage which would act to benefit Scotland, England, Wales and Northern Ireland.
I accept equally that all too many of my fellow unionists do not stand as unionists for these reasons however. The identity has become ideological and in some cases a nationalism of some kind in its own right. I for one reject whole heartedly any notion that Scotland is either too stupied or too reliant upon others to manage independence, and if the circumstances within this union altered too significantly away from the reasons to which I credit my loyalty to it then it ought to end. I simply dont believe that point has been reached where it serves no practical purpose for the people of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
#139 forfar-loon
Thanks - but I've tried these and even the Icelandic Government's weekly press releases! Nothing!
Complain about this comment
The 'EU membership would not have saved Iceland' artical isnt exactly news is it?
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory, stop trying to patronize the strong socialist agenda that Scotland's has always supported.
It's a complete nonsense to believe the tories offer Scotland's and it's people any hope of community values and distribution of wealth.
You obviously have more lessons to be learned.
Complain about this comment
#143 oldnat
I had a look, too, but came up with nothing on the usual EU sites I visit. Did you come across the issue from the Irish Times' Radical energy needed to drive unwieldy EU, with it's "The relations between the partners have grown in complexity from the original six member states in 1957 to todays 27 with Croatia, and now Iceland, installed in the waiting room"?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
hi ,I need a little help here, but, another one for the list would be the SNP will cost every man woman & child £xxx if they get elected. can't remember the amount they quoted.
whatever the amount was it is slightly lower than what the labour party are hitting us all with now and it is significantly lower than the debt they have landed the next 2 generations with, excluding PFI of course which is still there shabby little secret.sorry rather large secret actually.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#146 Brownedov
Thanks for the link. Interesting article I thought. I particularly liked the idea that the EU is not just "a work in progress", but always would be. I rather liked that idea, rather than having an ossified structure. Makes it much more important for Scotland to have direct representation though. Westminster can't even reform itself.
Complain about this comment
Mark Perryman has an interesting article from a English perspective in the Guardian - http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/may/07/devolution-wales-scotland
There's a link to a free download at the end of the article, and it's well worth a look.
Complain about this comment
Derek I wasnt making any points orientating around party.
My comments as per 141 where general speculations about the potential purpose of the union. And besides the Union has offered radical socialism a great opportunity through the form of Atlee and Lloyd George-they made great leaps in the socialist cause as unionists.
Complain about this comment
"It's a complete nonsense to believe the tories offer Scotland's and it's people any hope of community values and distribution of wealth."
I dont know about that one Derek, although I conceed that I do indeed have much to learn as the young man I am.
Surely the right to buy laws empowered many families on lower incomes by enabling them to enjoy home ownership? Isnt providing the opportunities for property ownership for all families in Scotland distributing wealth; or more precisely the opportunities of wealth?
To me the Conservatives have proven by laws such as the right to buy that we wish to create equality of opportunities for all. As class should not matter. I will never however accept the traditional Hattersly socialism of ensuring 'equality of outcomes' in life.
Complain about this comment
#148 oldnat
"Makes it much more important for Scotland to have direct representation though. Westminster can't even reform itself."
True, but it would still be more straightforward to wait until Belgium splits - which they'll have to "sort out" - rather than doing it in opposition to eurosceptics trying to put a spanner in the works at every opportunity.
Re the article, I too thought it was interesting but found it just a little odd that they mentioned neither their own forthcoming referendum nor the Belgian issue.
#149 oldnat
Thanks for the links - two interesting reads but the second needs digesting before commenting. Ms Croft would doubtless be upset that Perryman doesn't consider the English Democrats "mainstream", but what comes across most from the Grauniad article is that none of the three main English parties are even mentioning the elephant in the room.
Hopefully, NuLab are now broken beyond repair but the Tories, who are likely to face the problem on their watch, have more incentive to consider whether anything can be done to obviate the break-up while the L-Ds - so recently federalist - also have nothing to say on the issue.
The only conclusion I can come to is that both those parties would prefer to be larger fish in a smaller pond.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
dean
Your theory that bigger is best so that with a larger pot it can be better shared - I can see why it sounds cosy and reassuring, perhaps enlightened? But why aren't other nations doing it?
Truth is, it's not the size of the pot (very imperial - very outdated) but how it's used. Government closer to home is more effective at providing for rural areas and targeting poverty than is a more distant government. There must be some Scotland-sized or similar countries, in Europe, for example, you admire?
Why don't the Scandinavian nations pool together into a United Scandinavia? - they'd arguably have "a bigger resource to play with". Because government from further away would be less effective for the no longer sovereign nations whose capital cities were "lost". (People throughout history have died for that word, "sovereignty".)
Devolution only part covers this problem. The reasons it is inadequate are twofold: National economies cannot benefit from being managed as a single economy, power to manage them effectively in such circumstances having been lost; powers that remain reserved are inevitably handled lopsidedly, as the balance there was between nations is replaced in the parliament by simply the larger population group holding sway - no one is happy.
Political unions (dare I say this ;-) are a bit like a relationship. No matter how much you want to be with your love, if s/he doesn't want you as an equal partner, then your choice is being free, or dominated. Still whatever turns you on...??? ;-) ;-)
Complain about this comment
From the BBC:
the Calman Commission proposed radical plans which would allow Holyrood to take charge of half the income tax raised in Scotland.
What utter drivel from the BBC as usual.
Complain about this comment
A few more for the definitive unionist Bingo List:
Nationalism is the politics of grudge and grievance
Tartan tinted spectacles
What next, Yorkshire wanting independence?
Petty and Parochial
Politics of the Kailyard
Ranting Cybernats
Britain is a small island nation
Political Point Scoring
Picking fights with Westminster
The SNP is built on a dislike of the English
Salmond is a chancer
We'd lose our seat at the UN
Why not concentrate on the on the real issues?
We'll be like Albania
The Union lets Scotland punch above its weight
Neverendums
I'm a proud Scot but I'm also proud to be British
Complain about this comment
Brilliant response Aye! A quirky ending...
Seriously through, I do indeed see your point. And there may be an element of truth in it. But arguably other countries are 'doing it'. The European Union is arguably an example of states working together in certain areas to maximise resources and potential, it is increasingly political union (read 'harmonisation').
As for why the idea of a united Scandanavia there has been more than one attempt at it dating as far back as Kalmar for the first coherent attempt. But the greatest obsiticle to political unions has always been the idea on nationalism - now it is a perfectly fair political philosophy in its own right.
If we do increase the 'pot' as it where we do enable ourselves access to major sources of revenue otherwise closed off. For example, in our domestic UK setting the Union provides Scotland with access to the major international centre of business and finance in London. And remember that London does generate some 20% of entire UK revenues (according to some estimations, naturally figures do vary slightly).
Complain about this comment
#155 GrassyKnollington
This is a great game!
- We've so much in common (like the borg ;-)
Complain about this comment
#155 GrassyKnollington
- If we could only copy the spirit if the British Lions team.....(utopia would follow?? ;-)
Complain about this comment
#151
Ha, the right to buy! a negligent approach to affordable housing and the catalyst for the now recession!
How many homes sold and brought under the right to buy would fail a mortgage certificate now! with there lead piping, asbestos and other hazardous materials.
The right to buy was just another measure to reduce public finance, just another attack on the poorest people in society, Dean hang your head in shame in support such a divisive policy.
Complain about this comment
#155 GrassyKnollington
- These are no economic times to be going off independent! (better stay on the Titanic - Britanic!)
Complain about this comment
#152 Brownedov
The dynamic that Perryman has missed I think, is the impact on the Scottish "political class" of never again being eligible for appointment to an English or UK Ministry if they come from a Scottish constituency. The "English backlash" has guaranteed that.
From whatever party, to become an MP from Scotland guarantees permanent backbench status. Dean had better rethink his political choices!
I doubt if even the Secretary of State for Scotland will be an MP. Cameron made a clever move in having Goldie as his SoS. The obvious thing after he becomes PM is to give her a seat in the Lords, and keep her on as SoS.
With the entire Scots ambitious political class effectively restricted to the Scottish Parliament, the drive from all parties to repatriate powers to where they can exercise them will become irresistible.
Complain about this comment
Round and round we go, in and out, over and over, back and forth ... The same old and tired points made by the same cornered posters; and why ??? ... What is the point of the finger pointing, name calling, look at me comments ??? ... The quality of argument remains pitifully low, besmirched by entrenched attitudes and ingrained prejudices; consider the detritus thrown up by Andy Murray (fortunately not literally) ...
Here, in one man, is embodied some of the key (related) problems besetting the argument; identity, Scotland versus England/Britain/The World, origins, ability ...
Andy has been lucky enough (for the purposes of playing tennis) to have inherited genes that code for agility, strength, balance, determination and backhand passing shots ... Now note that even the most cursory study of genetic variation will reveal that we (let's call ourselves The Scots) are essentially genetically identical to (let's for the moment call them) The English; what does this mean ??? ...
Firstly it means we share a dramatically common ancestral and evolutionary background (indeed we share this with pretty much the whole of Europe); secondly it means that all the other stuff (culture, society, community etc.), the man made stuff, accounts for the bulk of the outward differences in behaviour (using the 5 'OCEAN' characteristics as indicative); thirdly it means we are inexorably driven by the same basic needs (no need to dwell on these here; I think you know them) ...
Statistically, we might expect to see more Andy Murray's reaching the highest levels of the game, but now we are let down by those other, structural and social, factors; perhaps we have a gene that codes for crap eating habits (and the consequent and related problems this brings) ??? ... Perhaps the Gaelic death - wish is in our genes ...
Whatever the causal factors in our evolutionary past one thing we have proved hopelessly incapable of is organising ourselves well enough such that we are all free from violence, war, pestilence and famine; our selfish natures (common to politicos and Big Issue sellers) ensure the distant troubles of Peru, Africa and even Belgium don't stop us sleeping at night, whilst the merest cough from our children provokes panic ... So be it; that is the nature of Man (wholse life is of course nasty, brutish and short) ...
What we CAN do is fix what we can where we are; and for that all we ask from our Government is focus, determination and commitment - the list of things to fix is long, but it can be addressed and real differences can be made to people's daily lives if we could only agree on a set of Objectives and not stop til we've met them ...
1. Eradicate poverty ...
2. Give everyone the opportunity to learn (ditch the CfE and start teaching well History, Science, Maths and English etc. ...) ...
3. Reduce the threat of crime ...
4. End religious division (start by having non - religiosu schooling) ...
5. Stop eating crap ...
5a. Get rid of drugs ...
6. Don't so anything else (until all these things are fixed ... Everything else can wait) ...
Really, when will we start properly debating this stuff instead of constantly parading ill - informed, parochial views that simply expose a shocking level of ignorance of human behaviour, history and political philosophy ??? ...
Complain about this comment
Unionist Lingo Bingo:
- People with English and Scots parents would brutally be required to choose betweeen them! (which is impossible, unlike those who have for example Spanish and French parents, and who manage quite untraumatised ;-)
Complain about this comment
159. derekbarker
I did miss your passion derek.
I don't think we shall ever agree, but its fun exploring the issues with a true socialist like yourself. I admire anyones visions; so long as they are heart felt- and yours almost certainly is.
But enough buttering up (I dont think it will help any?). The right to buy brought house prices down and enabled the poorest in society to enjoy home ownership. By discounting the cost of that first home purchase it enabled many millions of renting poor to feel the financial security of owning solid property.
The idea goes that it will enable the poorest to own, which in turn is more advantageous to life long rental because those poor who pay rent every month their whole life in the end fail to have any financial investment for their rent payments. But a home owner who pays a mortgage every month in the end can enjoy a home.
In short the renter is left with nothing, the homeowner is left with a home. A long term asset which only increases with value over time (unless you have a fiscally incompetent government which allows house market to overheat and burst).
Complain about this comment
#162 concept-of-the-mind!
Not alot I would argue(debate) against there, certainly uplifting and fresh however a lack of discipline and realistic knowledge will hold back an enormous amount of progressive people.
Like a parable! teach me, show me and I shall follow.
Complain about this comment
#161 oldnat
"The obvious thing after he becomes PM is to give her a seat in the Lords, and keep her on as SoS."
Fair point. I wonder if she'll form a car pool with Lord F to keep the exs down?
Whether so or no, it won't be setting much of a democratic example.
Busy tomorrow so an early night is called for. TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
@162. well admittedly it's not the catchiest but the sentiiment is there, so yep, congratulations yours is on the list.
Complain about this comment
#162 The_Concept_Of_Mind
"if we could only agree on a set of Objectives and not stop til we've met them ..."
Oh goodie! A rare example of the totally logical mind starting from a totally flawed premise!
Not really worth dealing with all your nonsense re Murray etc. It's all too predictably boring.
There's an interesting theory, however, about people who capitalise words like "Objectives" .............
Complain about this comment
#162. The_Concept_Of_Mind
Lifes to short as 300 years haven't resolved any of them yet.
Complain about this comment
#162 The_Concept_Of_Mind
1 Our poverty is beer and telly, real poverty is nothing of your own, not even somewhere safe to sleep.
2 Teach everyone how to learn
3 Reduce the number of crimes
4 Freedom of conscience?
5 Increase activity
5A Decriminalise them
6 Man does not live by bread alone
Oh dear, does my list differ from yours; maybe we should have an argument.
Complain about this comment
#168 oldnat ...
Presumably if my premises are flawed I can claim expenses from non -existent tradesmen to fix them ...
And I expect by 'predictably boring' you mean you have no argument with what I say ...
Finally, I await with interest your explanation of my habit; if harsh, would that be Capital Punishment ??? ...
Complain about this comment
#168 oldnat
Is that the one that postulates that they are PowerPoint clones that have passed the Turing test unnoticed? 8-)
Complain about this comment
Re 153
A predictable post, you conveniently gloss over the fact that the independence you so advocate will not place government any closer to rural communities in Scotland.
Your proposed system will replace Westminster where rural issues are little talked about with a government in Edinburgh that is no better in reality. there will be no decentralisation and shift of power back to communities.
So many people in rural Scotland are increasingly asking what is the point? what will the difference be?
We replace one professional political class with another who understand rural issues no better.
Complain about this comment
Milliband "hate" for the SNP
Complain about this comment
Aye_Write @163:
"- People with English and Scots parents would brutally be required to choose betweeen them! (which is impossible, unlike those who have for example Spanish and French parents, and who manage quite untraumatised ;-)"
I have English and Scottish parentage and it is no trouble to me at all. I choose to be British.
Sid @115.
I am afraid I don't have a solution for this. I do, however, suspect that all politicians, including Nationalist ones, dislike devolving power away from themselves, whatever they may promise before an election. Time may prove me wrong, but northhighlander (post 117)seems to share the same concern as me. Perhaps only those who have grown up in the rural highlands feel that way, but I doubt it.
Complain about this comment
#170
Well handclapping, that's quite a sad portrait you paint of poverty, "our poverty is beer and telly" really our poverty is a self-inflicted illness, passed on by alcohol and television! jeez! that's about as far right a statement as I've seen on this blog.
Clare to re-phrase your assertions!
Complain about this comment
#171 The_Concept_Of_Mind
"you mean you have no argument with what I say "
Sorry. Not that. Just not interesting enough.
Complain about this comment
#173 northhighlander
Can the inhabitants of Wick rebuild their High School by themselves? Can the inhabitants of Wick pay for the pensions of pensioners in Wick> Can the inhabitants of Wick pay for "free" healthcare from cradle to grave for themselves, their families and their elders? Can the inhabitants of Wick pay for having their mail delivered to them? Can the inhabitants of Wick support their rural poor?
Perhaps we need people to recognise the problems of rural areas and to put their hands in their pockets to provide funds to help alleviate rural "poverty". Now what shall we call the organisation to achieve this? Highland Council? Government? Government sounds good and we can get it to do other things as well like defence, foreign policy, etc.. Then where should we put this Government thing? Well there are rural problems in Stranraer and Arbroath, in Oban and Buckie as well as Stornoway and Wick, so lets put it where the majority of people can most easily get to it, I know, right in the centre of London? But of course Edinburgh would be about 300 miles closer for the majority of Scots; nah, stupid idea.
Complain about this comment
#172 handclapping
Yes. as described by Dr Sadgit - hence the name of the syndrome.
Complain about this comment
Derek is correct, poverty is not to be downplayed.
This is unworthy.
Malcome W2 in another topic makes another important point, people can choose Britishness. The question is- for what motive?
Complain about this comment
178. handclapping
Surely the highlands requires localism, which can be introduced whether Scotland has the central authority in Holyrood or Westminster
Complain about this comment
#176 derek
We in this country define a level of poverty where one can have an alcohloic drink and afford a television set and the money to pay the licence fee and the electricty it uses as well as feed, clothe and warm ourselves in several spaces private to ourselves. Elsewhere as I said having somewhere safe to sleep is a step up from poverty. Would you fancy sleeping on Westfield tip? In a Glasgow storm sewer? There are countries where our "poverty" is middle class luxury.
I'd also take you on about poverty being beer and telly as you define it. It doesn't have to be that way, look at Michael Martin.
There is also the stupid way we define poverty as, now we are all in a recession and getting poorer, poverty is falling because less people are below the threshold as, as we all get poorer thanks to Global Brown and his NuLabour clowns, the threshold for poverty goes down too.
Complain about this comment
#156 deanthetory
Thank you dean (I am a quirkynat ;-)
Three points though with yours :-)
The European Union is arguably an example of states working together in certain areas
While I agree the countries in the EU can be seen to be teaming up, working together, and can see that this may well be inherently noble, the difference with the European Union is, it takes note of sovereign states. (Westminster ignores these national boundaries.) And Scotland can't play, unless it is one.
The "certain areas" you mention, how many of these are under the Scottish Government's control? And how is the Scottish government's case and voice then heard in the EU? (It isn't. It's Westminster's.)
But the greatest obsiticle to political unions has always been the idea on nationalism
You hit the nail on the head! That's why they never work.
London: Where are the other small countries tied into a neighbour's financial centre for these same reasons? It's a heck of a price to pay, lack of sovereignty, for a sub. We don't even actually know that we need this "extra" - it's an assumed.
Until we're independent, and our economy allowed to be managed to the best, it cannot be contested we have needed to "take advantage" of London. Of the many nations that have become independent over the last 60 years, I think all either smaller or poorer than Scotland, none have wanted to go back.
We could do as well, better or worse than England. You've acknowledged this. It is down, isn't it, to how we run our own economy, with the resources we have (we have), as to how well off we do become. Having a large financial centre next door is not accepted economic policy.
London being there is irrelevant. It only makes people think we must be benefitting, must need it, couldn't do without it? There's Edinburgh (and it's arguably not so badly tarred, although both have been hit) and there's oil. England has London - and (less) oil. It's really swings and roundabouts.
The question boils down to sovereignty, the lack of it, and what price - is it really worth it. Is not having the normal rights and powers of just about all other countries, to interact independently, really worth it? When we could have both - sovereignty and our successful economy.
Complain about this comment
#181 dean
If, God forbid, you had to go into Stirling Royal or Glasgow Southern, do you expect it to be run by the same organisation that runs Raigmore? Do you expect me to pay my council tax here in Kirkcaldy to Inverclyde?
Did not the SNP agree with the councils that they would be free to spend as they saw their priorities within the Concordat? Is not the SNP trialling democratic elections to the local NHS boards, quangos that Call Me Dave is only just talking about examining if he gets elected. Or is this not localism because it hasn't been espoused by a "major" party?
Complain about this comment
#182
Com On! HANDCLAPPING! surely you don't want to lock horns with me and take me on over your short failings and misrepresentation of abstract poverty in Scotland.
We can't reach the food because the river stops us! then lets build a bridge so we can all reach the food on the other side.
Alcohol and telly and no more nights nappy smelly! sounds a bit lyrical Funclapping
Complain about this comment
Re 178
I am glad you can read a map and see Edinburgh is closer to Wick than London. You are better than many of your ilk who I doubt would be able to find Wick on a map!
The point I am making is after ten years of devolution the Scottish parliament shows no greater understanding of rural communities than it did at the start. Decision making is much more centralised than it was ten years ago. Look at the attempts to reform crofting if you want evidence.
Had the resources the Highland council had to build schools around its area been spread amongst the areas equally then Wick would have been okay. But when you have a council that covers 35% of the land mass of Scotland then decision making is never going to be local.
Far from recognising rural poverty, the current government has implemented a new system of funding distribution which expressly does not recognise rural poverty and removes health money from the Highlands for the central belt (£20m to start with). But hey what does a few teuchters matter to anyone in Edinburgh? The answer is exactly the same as they do those in London.
I agree whole heartedly that Morayshire and Argyll both have problems as severe as the Highlands and these problems receive as much thought in London as they do in Edinburgh. Of course Moray and Argyll are good examples of areas that would struggle an awful lot more if the defence bases located within these communities were lost.
Complain about this comment
Re 181
The concordat was really little more than a slight of hand. It appeared to give councils freedom then along came dictacts from Edinburgh on free school meals etc. that weren't fully funded but had to be implemented. Councils left to pick up the pieces and cut services. That is the reality, which is more centralisation of decision making, just spun a different way.
Complain about this comment
#186 northhighlander
It's difficult to engage with the simple assertions that you tend to make.
"Decision making is much more centralised than it was ten years ago."
Ten years ago, central government decision making in Scotland was made by the Secretary of State and his Ministers. Please explain how this was less centralised than the current situation.
Complain about this comment
#156
Dean
I think you'll find that London actually counts 20% of UK revenue. It certainly dosen't make it.
That is a big part of the problem. London has always rewarded itself at the expense of others who actually make the money and it is sucking the money out of the rest of England.
Complain about this comment
#162 The_Concept_Of_Mind
So "high minded" with such low understanding - wow.
Firstly, that we are so similar, you say. So should the US and Canada stop messing around being sovereign and team up in a Union? Why not Australia and New Zealand? No? Why England and Scotland then? The entire human race shares a "dramatically common ancestral and evolutionary background". (Bingo score 1)
It is "ill - informed" and exposes "a shocking level of ignorance of human behaviour, history and political philosophy" to ignore, that better, more appropriate government is how to help solve your list of big problems.
Does having no, or diminished, control over your nation's governance help or hinder? (Bingo score 2)
Total score 3* - could do better.
------
* we are all as one (the borg)
* we should stop the pathetic squabbling over the irrelevance of the constitutional set up, and just get on with the important stuff!
* we should stop being so petty and parochial and jingoistic by focussing on our own country's affairs!
Hilarious - how would other independent nations react to this line of thinking?!
Complain about this comment
#187 northhighlander
Please be accurate.
"The concordat .... appeared to give councils freedom then along came dictacts from Edinburgh on free school meals"
Look at the documentation. Free school meals were part of the Concordat framework discussions.
It doesn't strengthen your case to make inaccurate statements.
Complain about this comment
#186 northhighlander
I an unclear on you comment on Highland Council and schools. Are you saying that Highland Council preferentially allocated money such that Wick was at a disadvantage or that Highland Council was allocated money that was less than required to maintain the school estate? Was this a consequence of the LibLab Executive or has it continued under the SNP Government?
Can you give me a few more details of the £20 million that is being removed from the Highland NHS? A newspaper article or report would be helpful if it is not on a website. As a general point though would you not agree that if the general state of health is worse in Glasgow East than Caithness that more should be spent in Glasgow East?
Complain about this comment
183. aye_write
You are entirely correct, it is a question of 'is it worth it'.
This is why we ought to have a plebicite, a stringent and clean campaign (no scaremongering etc) on the issue. A multichoice would be best perhaps? Independence, status quo, further devolution.
This will not only serve as a campaign to highlight the issue to the electorate of Scotand (rather than leaving it to the Sun to 'educate' voters on the subject of independence and unionism). But it would make the publics views clear.
Complain about this comment
#191
Please remain non-partisan! surely the concordat is nil and void like the national conversation.
30 years ago local council employed thousands and built there own schools and hospitals, today's local governments are very much compromised by the centralised position of parliaments in Edinburgh and London.One only has to look at the decision to build the tram track in Edinburgh that only serves that area.
Complain about this comment
" Free school meals were part of the Concordat framework discussions."
I hope it wasnt promising universal free school meals.
Free school meals only for those children unable to pay, thereby allowing the recipients to recieve better quality food (by reducing the demand, can maximise resources for the remaining).
It is my parties (and mine incidently) policy that such help should only be given to those who genuinely require the aid. Universal meals is clumbsy, unnecessary and stretches resources needlessly.
Complain about this comment
#159
I actually agree with derekbarker on this one. This must be a first.
Many Scots inded took advantage of this offer. They were able to buy homes at a fraction of their real cost. This meant in fact that the taxpayer made up the difference. I happen to believe that a lot of the homes that were bought were essentially cheap tat and will present real maintenance difficulties in a comparitively short number of years.
However.........
The right to buy is one of the biggest root causes of today's homelesness as it stopped the building of affordable housing as councils couldn't justify spending their revenues on homes which they then had to sell on at less than cost (and they didn't get the money from the sale). No provision was made to compensate councils and nothing was done to replace the sold homes in the housing stock. All the best houses were bought leaving the councils will all the worst and all the a worst tenants.
Great idea!
This was another case of Margaret Thatcher confusing Tory prejudices with serious policies. The whole thing was not thought through. I think they believed if they could make more Scots into homeowners they would start voting Tory. Ho ho ho.
I presume derekbarker has clocked that the SNP governement has decreed that all new council houses built from now on will remain in public stock and he will have sent his congratulations to AS.
Complain about this comment
#193 deanthetory
I know you are a "party animal" while after many years of experience of several I am cynical about all of them. However, your party claims to want to return decision making nearer to the people.
I'm not sure if you want to limit our choice to the positions taken by parties? It's not at all clear what "further devolution" actually means.
Calman? Does your party support that or not? What about the views of the Scots polled by ICM for the BBC - devolve income tax and pensions? Further devolution ranges all the way from devolving airgun legislation only to full fiscal autonomy
Surely all the reserved powers need to be open for debate as to their most appropriate location.
Complain about this comment
#175 MalcolmW2
I have English and Scottish parentage and it is no trouble to me at all. I choose to be British.
That a reason to keep the Union? (If so, Bingo score 1!)
Or are you able to remain exactly the same, taking Scottish nationality, just like you would if your parents were from Scotland and say Germany? Or perhaps you would opt, as many do, for dual nationality? Not really got anything to do with "British" has it?
I think a lot of people take confort (I'll leave it ;-) in this "nationality" of "British" (it's a state comprising of nations) when they have a parent from two different constituent countries, so they can feel they all belong to a "one". Not really worth giving up all the control that other sovereign nations are used to, for though is it.
Complain about this comment
#195 deanthetory
" Free school meals were part of the Concordat framework discussions."
You should have known this. That was for Infants only. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/7646898.stm
Complain about this comment
159 & 196. Derek & sneckedagain
The right to buy brought house prices down and enabled the poorest in society to enjoy home ownership. By discounting the cost of that first home purchase it enabled many millions of renting poor to feel the financial security of owning solid property.
The idea goes that it will enable the poorest to own, which in turn is more advantageous to life long rental because those poor who pay rent every month their whole life in the end fail to have any financial investment for their rent payments. But a home owner who pays a mortgage every month in the end can enjoy a home.
In short the renter is left with nothing, the homeowner is left with a home. A long term asset which only increases with value over time (unless you have a fiscally incompetent government which allows house market to overheat and burst).
Complain about this comment
#196
I've no problem with Alex at all, in fact some years ago when a younger Alex was very much a socialist, who annoyed the hell out of his party(SNP) I like so many others held higher hopes for him!?????
Complain about this comment
#194 derekbarker
"the decision to build the tram track in Edinburgh that only serves that area. "
So why did your party (in alliance with Tories and Lib-Dems) push that policy through against Government plans?
Complain about this comment
Sorry to go completely off topic here, I'm looking for advice. Is there a body which regulates the information given on political leaflets? I have received one from the tories giving the results of the 2007 local government election and they seem to have got the placings mixed up.
Complain about this comment
RE 192:
The NRAC funding model for health ensured that rurality was no longer recognised as a problem in delivering healthcare. The revised formula means NHS Highland is facing a shortfall of £20m in real terms. Greater Glasgow has received an increase. Type NRAC funding NHS Highland into google and read on.
While I fully recognise the problems in some areas of Glasgow, NHS Highland which covers an area from Campbeltown to Wick, 43% of the land mass of Scotland will face very particular rural challenges delivering healthcare. These have no longer been recognised by government. I agree that areas of poverty need help, but not by creating further inequality in access to services. It shows no understanding of the rural issue.
Re Schools, Highland had money to build new schools, but the decision on locations was dodgy to say the least. But in Highland there is no local decision making, the area is huge. We need local government, real local government. I am not asking for anything more than a fair share of the cake, we don't get that just now. But we still pay towards Glasgow 2014, to pay for new facilities we will never be able to use.
We need to redraw local government, If that was on offer I might grow to like the idea of independence. local communities need to solve local problems. My opinions are marginalised on these boards but in the Highlands a lot of people think this way, Edinburgh is little different from London in understanding rural issues.
Complain about this comment
#202
Yes! that's true and unavoidable however work didn't start until the new SNP government took office almost 2 years in?
It was generally a bad decision, so why did the new government continue with the sanction?
Complain about this comment
#200 deanthetory
"it will enable the poorest to own"
Oh please! The poorest in society can only get credit from their credit union (if they have any income and are responsible enough to join one) or from the loan sharks if they aren't.
Complain about this comment
#194 derek
You off your head, son? Screw up the Concordat and the Councils will be racking up our taxes again.
By the way I went to a National Conversation the other day. Really good questions from the school kids and the politicians agreed that they didn't have all the answers. Can you imagine Global not knowing the answer to life, the Universe and everything? At least 42 doesn't always make thing worse!
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
You still haven't answered my #188, and that bit of your #204
"Highland had money to build new schools, but the decision on locations was dodgy to say the least"
seems strangely reminiscent of the research I did when you were previously complaining about central government ignoring Wick High.
Complain about this comment
#173 northighlander
You complain about Edinburgh treating you much the same as London does. Yet, what prey tell will make a difference? From what I can gather you want politicians to take some form of action, to behave better towards rural areas.
What should you do. Say "we might as well have London government...". It's like "Might as well not bother to vote."
You're right of course, Westminster will never take heed. Scots votes, as Scots, counting for nothing there. But in Holyrood, your vote does count. So you need to make the parties listen. Sounds like there are a lot of disgruntled voters near you out there. A party standing for greater reform of the type you want could gobble them up. I think a lot of Scots would support it, be happy their country is dealing with this for the modern age.
Have you drawn up what you would like to see get done? If it needs changing, somebody is going to have to do it. Make them listen. By making your point pubic. That's your route to change, via an opportunity to make yourself heard - with Holyrood, not through Westminster....
....if you think this problem needs to be on the political agenda.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat the policy reduces purchasing price to actual levels, this is the advantage of the policy! The right to buy allows the poorest to afford a first home property because it reduces the initial price to a level where they wont be crippled long term by such loans.
It is important that we attempt to create equality of opportunity for all, regardless of class. Equality of opportunity includes home ownership, a long term investment which all families ought to benefit from.
Complain about this comment
#200
Dean, the right to buy is not a success story, there are just as many if not more repossession as there are second home buyers within this scheme.
Dean, I kid you not! some homes bought under the right to buy scheme can not be sold on and can no longer achieve a mortgage certificate because of the poor state of the homes, they are quite simply uninsurable.
The scheme was nothing more than public purse cutting by a callous conservative government, that many in Scotland still hate.
Dean a home is to live in, to raise a family in, to shelter in, to eat in and to sleep in and everyone in society deserves to have a home to live in! that doesn't tie them to a life term of debt.
Complain about this comment
#204 northhighlander
Thanks, I'll have to look in the morning as it's time for my beauty sleep. Good night.
Complain about this comment
#207
Einsteins theory of everything! strange response indeed! handclapping
Does the apple fall from the tree because it's ripe or because the law of nature tells it to??????
Complain about this comment
#205 derekbarker
"Yes! that's true and unavoidable however work didn't start until the new SNP government took office almost 2 years in?
It was generally a bad decision, so why did the new government continue with the sanction? "
I don't normally quote a post in its entirety, but this is a distortion of reality so great that it amounts to what in Westminster would be described as a "terminological inexactitude".
It was a bad decision forced through by the Unionist parties in Parliament and was totally avoidable. Your party made a conscious decision to drive it through. Work started after the Unionists insisted it happen. Government is mandated on many things (this was one) by a vote in Parliament.
This entire mess is the responsibility of the 3 Unionist parties.
Complain about this comment
# 193 deanthetory
A great debate would be great. And so would a referendum. If the electorate chose (lets say it was on the ballot paper) "more powers", it will only then ask the question for them, "why stop at some? / silly to just have some?". It is dissatisfaction with the status quo that will be the driver, always, to independence.
Complain about this comment
#211 derekbarker
I don't think dean understands what the "poorest in society" actually means. Sad really.
Complain about this comment
#216 oldnat
Yes! very sad, I hope Dean isn't one of those who cant see the trees for the forest.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat I fully understand the definitions of real and relative poverty. I have read the books and studied the public papers (or at least some!).
I know very well, and I fail to see what justies your rather abrupt statement "I don't think dean understands what the "poorest in society" actually means."
Complain about this comment
#214
I think we can agree that it's a collective debacle of a mess, especially when Scotland really needs to take a firm decision on a new forth crossings. There really isn't a choice in that one.
Complain about this comment
#200 deanthetory
I think council homes should be there for those who need them (for as long as they do need them), not those who can afford to buy them. When you can afford to buy, it's time to move out! (And let someone else, who is in need, in.)
Bed for me too!
Complain about this comment
Re 209
If you look at the turnout figures for the recent Euro elections that is precisely what an overwhelming majority of Scots did. They didn't bother to vote.
So it is not just me that needs to address the renewal of democracy, all political parties need to realise that people can't be bothered, are not inspired or interested. I believe that a large part of this apathy is due to the lack of local involvement in decision making.
You state my vote counts in holyrood. I don't think it really does count any more than Westminster. Again I draw you to the debacle over Crofting reform, ENRAC, transport policy, ec. None really understand rural needs. All done in Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
#221
Absolutely Northhighlander, politics has been stripped bare of any moral sense which it once held, political parties are all stuck in the same traffic queue.
I agree totally! less people will cast their votes.
Complain about this comment
#200
dean the tory
All you say is true but it was and still is a social disaster. We, the taxpayer, paid for the discount and fewer and fewer council houses at affordable rent were available to those who needed them most.
Many bought their council houses for a few thousand pounds in order to sell them at vast profit as the housing bubble expanded and the councils are still left with all the worst housing stock and no rooms for the thousands of people they are trying to house..
In fact it was a cheap trick by the Tories because it cost the Tory Government nothing and dropped the councils in it while we picked up the tab.
During the last four years of the Labour Executive SIX (yes SIX) council houses were built - a direct result of a flawed policy not thought out properly. Now that the SNP has decreed that council houses will remain from now on in public ownership for public rent council house building has restarted and several hundred are in construction at the moment. 2000 will be under way by the time we reach the next Scottish election.
I really have no idea why owning a house is thought to be so important. In much of mainstream Europe renting is the norm and the people enjoy a much better lifestyle because a huge proportion of their income is not tied up in property purchase which in fact confers no commercial benefit whatsover on those who purchase, hundreds of thousands of whom are now in deep do on this, and it very often ties a family to a house when they should be able to move for employment reasons.
I think you should stop trying to defend the indefensible. The rest of your posts are usually provocative but quite constructive.
Complain about this comment
#205
The trams project continued because Labour, Tory and the LibDems ganged up in Parliament and voted it througn against the government's wishes. The thought they were being very clever.
Well, they ken noo - and all of Edinburgh know who to blame.
Complain about this comment
#224
Play the ball! sneckedagain, the SNP admin didn't cave into the German contractors and give them another 80m if they didn't support the flawed and unnecessary scheme.
It's clearly a capital gains ball that the centralised parliament are playing with.
Complain about this comment
#225
The SNP haven't caved in to German contractors and paid £80million and the SNP tried to cancel the project - as everybody knows.
What however do you suggest the government should do if the scheme runs into the trouble everybody expects it too?
Complain about this comment
223. sneckedagain
Thanks for the compliment.
Home ownership is important for any society.
If someone owns a particular property they tend to care more about its upkeep, and especially the welfare of their local area. It encourages personal responsibility.
But even more practical than this, homes can be a long term investment, whereas a retired couple would still be compelled to pay monthly rent in old age, the couple that purchased theri home through the right to buy scheme dont have this same financial burden. No they actually have a property which has increased in value since they purchased it (and given the right to buy scheme discounted the initial purchase price evey family ought to be able to make money on the home investment).
While I do equally understand that the problem is that social housing has diminished, and there must naturally always be a perminent supply of such social rental properties. But the faily in the right to buy scheme wasnt the direction itself, it was the governments desire to ring fence money made by selling.
Local councils got the money made from the sold homes as per right to buy, but they had to spend it on reducing local government debt rather than investment into new social housing contruction programmes. This in my opinion is the fault, but it can easily be solved by ending the ring fencing clause wholesale. If that were to happen then right to buy would be a long term sustainable means of wealth redistribution in an entrepreneural friendly way.
I genuinely see right to buy as a good thing, which needs some faults corrected naturally.
Complain about this comment
#227
Dean, is the man with less money any less responsible than his affluent homeowner friend?.
If you look at the now recession, it clearly tells us that it was those at the top of the earnings ladder that were less responsible and indeed acted in a criminal way.
Nick Leeson only became corrupt when he mingled with the upper class.
Some of the best people in society come from council estates, their the salt of the earth and their humanity and dignity are untouchable.
Dean some may interpret your unionism as the status quo! asking for the rich to remain rich and the poor to remain poor.
The reality of home ownership only extends to those who can afford it Dean,it's selective and divisive.
Complain about this comment
Aye_write @198:
Britain may be a state comprising of different nations, but my nationality is, (legally and factually) British. It always has been since I was born, and I am very content with that position. That doesn't make me any less proud of my Scottish (or English) heritage. The flag under which I served was British, not Scottish or English, and I was very proud of it. I realise that there are some on the nationalist side who find difficulty with understanding this concept, but for many it is just a natural state of affairs. In many ways it is like the never-ending debate on religious belief versus athieism. Neither side can prove they are right, both may believe passionately in their choice, but it comes down to what you feel.
As for:
"not really worth giving up all the control that other sovereign nations are used to, for though is it"
If this is the real basis for your desire for independence, then as more and more real decision-making power, including that over many areas of local life, leeches away to Brussels, then in practical terms Scottish "sovereignty" becomes increasingly ephemeral as a reality anyway.
Wouldn't life be boring f everybody agreed about everything?
Complain about this comment
Regarding the proposal in the "referendum" which reconstituted the Scottish Parliament and suggested that Scotland could vary the income tax by up to 3p, albeit that income tax was not invented in 1707, but the Act of union is quite specific in Article VI, would this not be contrary to the spirit of The Act:
"THAT all parts of the United Kingdom for ever, from and after the Union, shall have the same Allowances, Encouragements, and Drawbacks, and be under the same Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and lyable to the same Customs and Duties on Import and Export; and that the Allowances, Encouragements, and Drawbacks, Prohibitions, Restrictions, and Regulations of Trade, and the Customs and Duties on Import and Export, fettled in England when the Union commences, shall, from and after the Union, take Place throughout the whole United Kingdom"
Complain about this comment
Regarding my blog No: 89 and comments thereof, The Act of Union 1707 states in the penultimate paragraph "That this Act of Parliament, with the Establishment therein contained, shall be held and observed in all time coming, as a fundamental and essential Condition of any Treaty or Union to be concluded betwixt the two Kingdoms, without any Alteration thereof, or Derogation thereto in any Sort for ever:"
If therefore the said Act is broken or changed in any way, the Act would therefore cease to exist and Scotland would revert to its original (independant) status.
Why then does The Scottish National Party even consider a referendum?
Complain about this comment
waitingformyman 110
I would make more appearances if I thought I could contribute anything. However I am afraid that some people do not like reasoned argument and resort to having posts removed when they misinterpret what has been said.
If this is the only way that certain people can win the day then I am afraid it is not worth the effort.
In answer to your question though, you should always put the well-being of your Country and fellow Countrymen before any political party or anything else for that matter, in my opinion. This is one of the things I most admire about the Scottish that they have never lost sight of this one true value. They may have different political views but they hold firm in the belief that they are Scottish above all else. This has enabled you over the years to hold onto your culture and traditions, I can only wish the English had done the same.
Complain about this comment
Derek it is not divisive or retrograde to seek to create the opportunities for home ownership for all. Equality of opportunity in our country can only be achieved by the implimentation of every family having a roughly equal start.
And before you start painting romantic pictures with your rather eloquent 'salt' of the earth rhetoric; can I just say that home ownerhip, the control of property shouldnt be the privilige for the few. Everyone, regardless of class or background ought to enjoy the enormous benefits of owning your own home.
I do not seek to treat this as a class issue, as I do not believe that only the rich ought to or indeed do own property or pay mortgages. Indeed my own mother made her first step onto the housing ladder through th rich to buy scheme; and that allowed my parents to escape the high risers of Glasgow.
This scheme generates equality, as it enables the poorest to also enjoy the benefits of home ownership. I can't help but feel socialism is doing an injustice to the hard working classes if it seeks to tie a whole class into government dependent rental for life. We ought to empower those who work hard, as they represent the very best in our society- the spirit of character, determination and solid effort. Why seek to prevent such valued members from being able to retire into their own home after a lifetime of work?
Complain about this comment
Some comments on the discussions on-going.
Susan Croft. Moderators remove posts not posters - take up any 'misinterpretations' with them.
Coineach. Indeed and as you know since the original treaty was broken shortly after and many times since its pretty irrelevant today as a set of treaties nevermind equity.
Nationality. Feeling nationally British is perfectly reasonable and legal. Feeling to be PRIMARILY Scottish or English etc is also perfectly reasonable and understandable and can be legalised at any time depending on the will of its citizens.
Politically GB and NI is the only independent state and the countries therein are not officially recognised as such internationally in a Political context. However in other contexts the countries exist officially in Both internal UK and international contexts. One example is Geographical. Scotland and England are official geographic countries, not just regions.
This is 'beginners' stuff, says so right on the UK gov statiistic site:
"The top-level division of administrative geography in the UK is the 4 countries". Though it should say UK and NI.
Nevertheless, while it is possible to say you are British and Scottish it is not possible that you are nationally both unless you are schizophrenic. IF you are primarily British then Scottish is just a regional, sub national identity eg Yorkshireman.
Conversely if you feel you are primarily Scottish then British is a multinational community and identity. This is in the same lines as European. Europe is a multinational, multi sate community. The uk is a multinatoinal unitory state. I am still European but European is not my nationality.
Incidentally the standard UK Passport is now European Not British, but is the property of the UK.gov. It states you are Nationally a British european. Other British Sovereign islands with british nationals are Not entitled to EU residency. If they renew a UK passport I 'think' they get a British style passport, the rest of us get an EU one. Its like Ronseal it says so on the tin ;)
Complain about this comment
#233, Dean, I may be a nationalist, but fully agree with you on home ownership.
Home ownership enabled your general 'man (woman PC!)on the street' to own his/her own property.
My mum (a single mother) payed rent on a council house for 20 odd years and was able to get it at a good discount which put it within her grasp. She now has a nest egg for her retirement and a home to live in.
Thatcher did many disgracefull things to Scotland, but home ownership was not one of them. The argument that this directly caused more homelessness does not stand up to scrutiny. Whether people rent or buy, there are still the same ammount of people seeking the same ammount of accommodation. If there is a shortage of rented accommodation, it is down to a lack of investment in this sector by government. For example, I have never looked to rent, I own my own home therefore surely that means one less person putting stress on the waiting lists for rented accommodation? Maybe Government thought that 'everyone' would buy and they could scrap any further investment in the housing stock. But really, that is just a balance where they need to increase the investment to reach the right balance.
I would say the right to buy and own property is more of a left-wing social policy than the Tory's would like to admit. Eh Dean *;o)
Complain about this comment
#177 oldnat ... From 'predictably boring' to 'Just not interesting enough'; I really must find a way to make my comments less dull ... I know; I'll randomly Capitalise words, as if This was a Presentation !!! ... Alternatively, perhaps you could enlighten everyone with a reasoned argument (per the majority of your arguments on other topics) against my original assertions ...
#190 aye_write ... Your assumption of my Unionist tendencies is misplaced; I am entirely apolitical ... Further, I said nothing about (my leanings toward) ANY consttutional arrangement ... I like the Bingo list though; it should be built into a text scanner to capture the nonsense from both (all) sides ...
Homeownership ... Fascinating thread; pretending to be a Socialist/Communist/equalist by dreaming that everyone should have the opportunity to buy a house (truly the Middle Class, Tory dream) is beyond even my idealism; we are NOT all born equal, and we do NOT have equality of opportunity; humans are INNATELY different in their capacities, abilities, potential and (happily) aspirations ... Our society is built on the foundations of inequality, with all the unpleasant emotional undertones that permeate our lives and relationships barely concealed (or discussed) - jealousy, grasping ambition, mine's better than yours pettiness, awful pretentions to Class, grim attempts to stand out and the terrible fear of blending in ... It's all there; Terry and June, Heartbeat and the Mondeo CFRi123DB ... Sport ...
The worst aspect of this is the blatantly dreadful patronising use of the 'Salt' and 'Valued' terms; get a grip - the reality is that we have actively created a Society that needs (demands) an underclass; what else would there be as a contrast ??? ... Capitalism demands an underclass; workers not owners; wage-slaves not managers; the haves not the have-nots ... It's nice to dream but madness to build a world based on a totally flawed analysis of our core natures ...
You cannot have 'everyone' enjoying the 'enormous benefits' of owning their own home - that would create, ultimately, the dystopian nightmare of a Brave New World, unfortunately without the soma ...
I wish it were not so; but it is ...
Complain about this comment
# 229 MalcolmW2
Malcolm, the point you make I do get. You are right, in that it is a matter of personal opinion - whether to support the continuation of the Union, or not. But it's in the detail, of the concept, that I make my decision against:
In a way I have no real problems with being termed British particularly. It is a version of the historical name for the land mass where I'm from, British history will always be part of Scottish history - I have no problem with that, at all! My problem with it is the consequences that legal British "nationality" (I'm aware that it is), for it's the political side I don't like, has for Scotland and being Scottish. For those terms pay a price, politically, they are subordinated, don't have the same status, as just about every other country, any more. You're right, I am not happy with that.
In your second point, that sovereignty of states is arguably slipping, isn't a reason I'd say to resign to this position of being without. The point in what you said, was that the topic is sovereignty, so without being in a sovereign position, Scotland can't even be a part of the debate! It would be lovely to even be in the position to have to contemplate this problem! (of a threat to sovereignty) Do you see?
And the reason Scotland can't talk for herself (in Europe, as I've set out before, having the same national voice as the other similar countries - and not merely 6 MEPs, like the Leeds area! - is incomparable to none! Westminster doesn't take note of national boundaries, as the EU does), is because we are surrounded by the construct of Britain - there's my negative with it.
The economic consequences of four economies being run as one aside (see the Cuthberts papers), and Westminster is hypocritically very vocal in its opposition to a similar level economic playing field across the EU, if the Union recognised it was made up of nations, it would arguably have more worth. But then it is already in such a one - the EU.
However, is worth noting that the British countries, and Scandinavian ones, and Ireland, have a different position, on the edges of Europe, than the more land locked inner countries do. So, if there were an argument, apart from economic, though we can't be Norway now, for looking at some form of political agreement between countries (as is what Britain has been), I would consider defence. I don't think you have to rescind all sovereignty in order to achieve that security though!
You have served in the British army? No wonder you feel British. What are your views? I have thoughts one way and another over the EU and Europe. If I were PM of independent Scotland, I suppose being represented in the EU (or just EEA?), the UN etc., I'd have regular talks as well with my British neighbours (in whatever form that took post Scottish independence - what of the Council of the Isles??) and other near neighbouring countries. I'd do that now in preparation for independence. I suppose the point I'm making, is without sovereignty, Scotland can't do any of those things. The largest body at Westminster does it, and that's not Scotland. To be happy with the Westminster way, I'd have to replace my Scottish, in that sense, with British, and I don't want to do that. I don't want Scottish to be less important.
We're not a forces family (just ordinary ;-), so British doesn't really affect our lives, apart from on telly and the news. But that's remote. It just means Scottish is not important enough to be represented on the world stage, or even to have its own media. It's unusual, for a nation. It's disappointing. That's how I feel about it.
Complain about this comment
235. BoNG0_1
You are correct to say home ownership allows the 'average jo' to enjoy the security of a financial investment which only grows in value over time. A property purchased creates financial security for those retiring, and in many cases a mortgage payment per month is rapidly becoming sigificantly less than your city rents.
As for it being left wing? Well, I am on the 'left wing' of the Conservative party on social policies such as home ownership and the fundamental need for equality of opportunity in life.
And in relation to The_Concept_Of_Mind's claim that we are "we are NOT all born equal, and we do NOT have equality of opportunity" I agree. We currently do not enjoy these things. This is why we must attempt to change society, forge one where everyone has equality of opportunity in life; surely this then enables a truely meritocratic structure to emerge in life?
As when you enable all children, no matter their fiscal background to enjoy an equal series of life opportunities then you are enabling the focus of strutiny to fall on ability, on the young adults strenghts. We must remove the class equation and replace it with an ability oriented society, and and home ownership for the average man on the street is inherently vital to this ambition.
Complain about this comment
I hear that Labour friendly comedian and commited unionist David Mitchell was despatched to darkest Scotland recently for some filming.
During his visit he was made welcome at the Gaelic college on the Isle of Skye.
Apparently he enjoyed the hospitality immensely and was moved enough to offer his opinion on the future of the Gaelic language when he returned to London
" I'm uneasy about spending too much public money or time on a language which is not far above the level of a primate code"
Complain about this comment
Gaelic isnt worth all that much public money, I would have other priorities when spending on education, and especially spending in rural areas.
Complain about this comment
Highlander - local versus centralised government UK/Scotland/Europe.
Your position that national government in Scotland is no difference from London or Europe is flat wrong.
Here and Now:
A group of politicians elected by Scottish residents enabled that the concordat was setup throughout Scotland. Local authorities now have more freedom to prioritise their budget. This could not and would not have happened without a Scottish parliament.
Future:
Much of the budget that the authorities do get is provided centrally. Currently as we know this central budget is based on a portion of the Scottish grant which is in turn based on obfuscated and dubious Barnett calculations. With Fiscal control as a minimum the openness, accountability and division of budgets is much clearer. Therefore it is more democratic as you see more easily where your money is going and how much we really have to begin with.
Rural represntation and scottish national intersts versus UK national interests effecting communities:
The liberals and SNP have no chance of strong representation at westminster but make up a large rural block in the SP. Labour specifically and Tory to lesser extent (besides a degree of farmers support etc) are urban politicians. We have had LAB/TORY central UK government for decades. It is much easier for people in rural communities to lobby a much larger rural block in the SP for local issues as diverse as Fishing or animal welfare to lack of infrastructure etc.
Example: UK central gov did not compensate Scottish hill farmers from the UK created DEFRA outbreak and scandal. The SP argued for it (EXCEPT labour MSPs who ALL voted against). The SP ended up paying (not much certainly) but did decide to assist the hill farmers themselves anyway.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Dean,
I make that at least three times that you have stated that property is an investment that only increases in value over time.
Any property is a man-made physical construct that will, if left unattended, crumble to nothing eventually. Have you ever taken the time to calculate how much a property actually costs to own? Add up all the mortgage payments, maintenance costs, insurance, etc. then adjust for inflation and see if you make a real profit on the purchase.
True, it is possible to make money over the short to medium term, but longer term, the laws of supply and demand and market forces lead to an evening out. Negative equity, anyone?
I'm not so sure home-owning is all it's cracked up to be.
Complain about this comment
#238 deanthetory -
"You are correct to say home ownership allows the 'average jo' to enjoy the security of a financial investment which only grows in value over time."
Except that the financial investment doesn't necessarily "only grow in value over time." Witness the current recession, depreciation in house prices and the soaring number of repossessions (75,000 forecast in 2009) and households unable to make their morgage payments (500,000 forecast in 2009)
Social housing - by which I mean housing available to rent, not cheap housing for people to buy - acts as a vital 'pressure release valve' on the housing market.
In good times - tenants in social housing earn more, keep more of what they earn and are able to save for a deposit on a mortgage and move up the ladder.
In bad times - tenants earning less continue to enjoy the benefit of housing without the pressures of unsustainable debt and repayments above their earning ability. This avoids driving up the level of unsustainable debt in the economy as a whole, which means banks don't fail etc.
Mortgage holders who are under pressure from unsustainable mortgage payments caused by depreciation in house prices etc. have the option of social housing to move down to. This eases pressure further up the housing ladder as better off homeowners are able to 'downsize' until the equilibrium between earnings and mortgage payments is restored.
When you take social housing away, the market no longer has this 'pressure valve' leading inevitably to what we're seeing now and as we saw previously under the Tories - i.e. a collapse in the market 'bubble' and misery and bankruptcy for many.
Complain about this comment
233 and 235
first of all everyone in our society has the right to home ownership. Unfortunately for some, what is needed to buy and upkeep a home is some source of income. Social housing is provided for those who do not have a such an imcome. The right to buy gave some people the easy step up into the housing market, but for others it only gave them the illusion that they could afford home ownership. In all cases it removed houses from the social housing pool. Those who cannot keep up with the payments required by home ownership are chucked onto the wasteheep of society, not even given the safety net of social houseing as there is none left.
Our current financial problems are partly caused by those people who were encouraged to buy houses beyond their means and who could not keep up with the costs of home ownership.
Two things to consider about the above:
1: a house is primarily a place to live, a home, a place of community where there are social bonds to those around you
2: those who benefited (and some who didn't) were encouraged to treat their house as an investment (by joining the housing market).
these two things are contradictions, and fitted in with the then governments ideas (and I am paraphrasing): "there is no such thing as society" "greed is good". We are still paying for those mantras with the breakdown of the social structures of our cities (not to mention the current recession).
This is why the right to buy, while sounding good at first listen is in my opinion evil (maybe a bit strong, but you get my point I hope).
John
Complain about this comment
Further to my #244 - can I reiterate sneckedagain's comment at #223 -
"In much of mainstream Europe renting is the norm and the people enjoy a much better lifestyle."
As far as I know; this is true and bears repeating often and loudly. I suspect that any comparison with the current level of home repossessions in the UK with the level in, for example, Germany will show that the UK is way out in front of its European partners in this respect.
I also suspect that any comparison between the level of household debt accumulated by UK mortgage holders and those in, for example, Germany (Where the trend seems to have been to save for a larger deposit rather than take out 95% mortgages.)will also show the UK well ahead.
The 'Right to Buy' didn't concretise attitudes towards debt in the UK all on its own but it didn't help - and the consequences of the 'Right to Buy' in terms of the UK's crippling debt 'habit' are being exacerbated over time as a consequence of the removal of the 'pressure valve' described in my #244 above.
All in all, time has shown that the extent, if not the actual idea of the 'Right to Buy' has done UK householders little or no good and it's long past time for the instigators of this shamelessly short term measure to admit to their own part in being responsible for the debilitating financial circumstances we now find ourselves in.
Complain about this comment
northhighlander
Still waiting for your justification of your statement
"Decision making is much more centralised than it was ten years ago."
And for your acceptance that you were wrong when you said
"The concordat .... appeared to give councils freedom then along came dictacts from Edinburgh on free school meals"
There have been a lot of posts on different themes so you might have missed mine.
Complain about this comment
Dean, #240,
Ah, you were doing so well for a minute there as the voice of reasonable Unionism.
Substitute the words "urdu", "hindi", "chinese" or "arabic" for "gaelic" and see what you get yourself called.
Do you take the same attitude, as a Unionist, for example, to Welsh ? (Remember that the Great Lost PM, Hague, met Ffyon when trying to learn "Mae Hen Wlad Fy Nhadau" for the Welsh Party Conference)
The Education (Scotland) Act 1980 (Um...Tory Government at the time ?) states specifically that "school education" includes "the teaching of Gaelic in Gaelic-speaking areas", and that local authorities should have regard to the principle that "pupils are to be educated in accordance with the wishes of their parents"
Toryism is about choice, Dean, isn't it ?
So should Gaelic be left to the Free Market ? I think that the question really is why, where GME is available, is uptake so high even amongst non-Scots and Non-Gaels who have chosen to make their homes in the Highlands and Islands.
Complain about this comment
Social housing isnt neccessary, private rental availability is increasingly widespread.
I feel (perhaps mistakenly) that the government is not needed to provide a rental pressure value as it where. The private sector indeed is preferable to government provision. Private rental sees competetive prices for the customer (due to competition and the ability to shop around), and even the laws regarding land lord legal obligations have been made more stingent. Private rental accomodation provides a better form of rental opportunities to government provision.
And housing is a secure investment, a perminent asset which many rentees fail to enjoy upon retirement.
Complain about this comment
There have been various discussions above on LA spending. The Statistics Publication Notice: Provisional Outturn 2008-09 and Budget Estimates 2009-10 Statistics is now available on the Government website http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2009/07/06093528/5
Comparing the data with previous years, the SNP claim that
"From 2008 -2010 spending on education in Scotland will have increased by GBP366 million or 8.3%
Spending in 2008-09 increased by 5.5% and is expected to increase by at least 2.6% in 2009 -10" seems to be accurate.
Other smay like to check their claim that "SNP led councils show the highest average increase with an average 10.2% increase over two years compared with an 8.8% increase in Labour led councils."
I suspect that their claim that "Glasgow plans to cut spending by £7 million next year" probably reflects the efficiency savings caused by cutting surplus school buildings, but again others can check that.
Complain about this comment
#243 Richard_the_Rogue
"the laws of supply and demand and market forces lead to an evening out."
You are being a little harsh. Over the lifetime of a mortgage most people will be able to afford more than one evening out! ;-)
Complain about this comment
248 Chiefy1724
Yes, perhaps I was a little abrupt and thoughtless with that one.
But surely gaelic can be tought individually by parents, like my mother did with me. Surely tax payers money in the education budget could be better spent than on gaelic lessons? We do after all lack enough modern studies and history teachers.
But yes, perhaps I was a little abrupt, for this you do have my apology chiefy and others.
Complain about this comment
#249 deanthetory -
"Private rental availability is increasingly widespread."
Private rental has never been widespread enough. Private landlords rent according to revenue not need. Private landlords, therefore, frequently if not always fail to serve the social sector most in need of housing provision. Never seen the phrase "No DSS" in a 'flat to let' advert?
The market, as always, only benefits those who can afford to be part of it - it makes no provision at all for those who can't. Would you extend your argument to healthcare and advocate that private is better than government provision for the least able to pay? If not, why not because the arguments for and against are largely the same in the housing sector.
And lastly, when you wrote, "And housing is a secure investment" had you taken any notice at all of the repossession statistics I popsted in my #244. How does having a home repossessd count as a "secure investment"?
Complain about this comment
#245 John__
Welcome.
Whatever the rights and wrongs of the policy, one bad side-effect was to concentrate poverty and deprivation in those areas where people didn't want to buy their house. I don't imagine that the Tories had a deliberate plan to create ghettoes of poverty, but that seems to have been the effect in parts of the more densely populated areas. In rural areas, the loss of social housing creates different problems, but still with severe consequences.
I have no ideological issues with sale of council houses (or for that matter purchase of council houses within a private development). However, the universal application of a policy, developed for a different housing structure within England, to our disparate communities has had severe effects.
Complain about this comment
#248
I've an idea, let's make speaking Gaelic our top priority, dump English altogether and from this moment onwards speak to each other and the rest of the world only in Gaelic. Oh how our businesses will prosper and thrive!!
Complain about this comment
The key then is to open up the market, creating a nation of small share owners will enable everyone to have the equal opportunity to get their share of our capitalism. Markets are there for the benefit for those who participate in them; this is why as a government we must attempt to help individuals and families to gain access to the markets of capitalism.
And it is achievable. In 1979 the number of individuals who owned shares in this country sat at 7%, but by 1990 the Conservative policy of creating the opportunities for everyone to gain their share (regardless of class) of markets (including the housing market via right to buy flagship) saw that percentage increase to 25%.
You are right to say markets only help those involved in active participation in them, the consumer- this is why we ought to maximise the ability for all citizens to gain access to the markets. The right to buy created such opportunity for the poorest individuals to access the housing market; thereby making the market forces work for the many and not the few. Surely this is a noble endevour?
Complain about this comment
Quite an interesting take on the education stats and figs, I wonder if anyone could supply the general position of private education capita.
Surely no one will support the private education scheme, which belongs to the Victorian era.
When will the tories address! their all thing private are best attitude.
Complain about this comment
#254
thanks, I have been watching comments for a while, and have finally decided to add my tuppence...
A society in my opinion is judged by how it treats those on its fringe. That is why I have a problem with a policy that removes provision for those people.
I am fully aspirational, and in a utopia, everyone (or noone depending on your particular utopia) would own their own home. Home ownership is not bad per se, but driving poeple who could not afford home ownership towards it, and the removal of the social housing safety net was. I understand why it was done, and get your point about the different social situations (there were large parts of the UK where the council houses could be sold off without any ill effects), the problem was that the whole premise of the policy was to allow people with enough money (or who thought they had enough) to grab for them selves a slice of a resource that had up to that point been allocated on the basis of need.
If people want to buy, they should buy privately. If they want to rent they should rent privately, but if they cannot afford either, there should be resources available for society to shelter them in a dignified manner.
John
ps. I believe the main tory plan was to create more tories, and in that respect it was wonderfully successful.
Complain about this comment
#255 salmondella
You misspelt a word. I've corrected it for you "I've no idea."
Complain about this comment
Need to sign off for a while, will be back later on today.
I have to say home ownership has been a really fun threat...and I do take some of your points everyone. Will mull them over while I'm absent.
Complain about this comment
@255 salmondella wrote
"I've an idea, let's make speaking Gaelic our top priority, dump English altogether and from this moment onwards speak to each other and the rest of the world only in Gaelic. Oh how our businesses will prosper and thrive!!"
A frankly superb addition to the definitive unionist bingo list. Much obliged.
Complain about this comment
#258 John__
"I believe the main tory plan was to create more tories, and in that respect it was wonderfully successful."
True - but only for a while! These were among the large group of people who moved to the "new" Tory party (New Labour) in such large numbers in England in 1999, and stayed with them until recently. Discounting MPs from Scotland, England still had a significant Labour majority in 2005.
Complain about this comment
#256 deanthetory -
I think your reference to share ownership is a complete non-sequitur. Buying shares is a function of wealth - those with disposable income invest that income in shares in order to generate more disposable income. Their housing needs have already been met before they calculate what part of their income is 'disposable'.
The requirement for housing, on the other hand, is 'non-disposable income' and a function of need. People's housing spend is a requirement, not a choice, if you want to keep a roof over your head. Try telling your bank that you can't pay your mortgage this month because the value of your share portfolio has fallen and see where it gets you.
"We ought to maximise the ability for all citizens to gain access to the markets.
You're actually arguing in favour of state provision of social housing at this point, if you think about it.
The only way you can enable all citizens to access the housing market is to price access at zero, for those in greatest need and with the least ability to pay. No private provider will do this - as I pointed out in my #253, "private landlords rent according to revenue not need".
The only alternative, therefore, is for the state to provide housing at zero cost to the most needy, again as I said in my #244, "in order for tenants in social housing [to] . . . keep more of what they earn and [be] able to save for a deposit on a mortgage and move up the ladder."
Once social housing tenants have been able to save enough to enable them to enter the market without loading themselves with an unsustainable level of debt then they should be incentivised to do so. Their social housing resource then becomes available to the next most in need and so on.
Removing any aspect of state housing provision for those most in need has exactly the same effect as removing any aspect of state healthcare provision for those most in need - it means the most vulnerable members of society are forced to do without - with appalling consequences.
I asked in my #253 if you would extend your argument to healthcare. I'll ask you again here. Would you create a market for healthcare similar to the housing market and if so, do you think such a market would be "there [only] for the benefit for those who participate in them?" Who would be advantaged and disadvantaged in such a market? Of those who would be disadvantaged, do you not think that we, as a society, are beholden to care for them? If so, shouldn't we make a similar behest on behalf of those who are irretrievably disadvantaged by the housing market?
I also asked you how having a home repossessed counted as a 'secure investment'. According to the Council of Mortgage Lenders, there are now 750,000 former homeowners in the UK who'd no doubt be very interested to hear your answer to that one.
Complain about this comment
#262
yes, but I am sure that you, like me, believe that these people continued being tories, even when they stopped being Conservatives (just look at how easily they are switching back).
I would however not confine the movement to England. I know plenty of erstwhile socialists who were seduced by the lure of easy money as promised by the 1980's
John
Complain about this comment
#252 Dean.
Have a nice afternoon off. I would have been delighted to have learned the tounge from my parents but they had it literally beaten out of them in the 40s and 50s by an anglocentric education system that taught them about the exports of Kenya, the county towns of England but not about the Clearances that had happened on their very doorstep. I tried when I was younger and an enlightened Headmaster brought a Gaelic language teacher in asfter hours but unfortunately have no ear for languages.
#255 salmodella
Ignorance is bliss. I will not pass comment as to whether or not you are a very happy person.
You clearly know nothing about GME (Gaelic Medium Education) or indeed education through the medium of more than one language, as happens in many areas of Europe -
Example - Southern and Western Finland, where Swedish is spoken but where education is through the medium of both Swedish and Finnish as the people of SW Finland are Finns, live in Finland and would have a pretty hard time if they only spoke Swedish.
Example - Catalonia and the Pays Basque where education is both in Euskaran and either Castillian Spanish or French depending on which side of the border you are on. (Less so in France but it still happens)
Brownedov will undoubtedly let us know how it is done in Switzerland where I am fairly certain that there are at least 4 "official" languages if not 5.
And then there's Welsh. And Irish Gaelic. Do the Welsh and the Irish stay closeted behind their borders and talk only amongst themselves or do their children grow with a knowledge of their language and history and identity not fed by endless hours of transatlantic pap ?
But evryone, right, EVRYONE speaks The Queens Englerlish. Right ? And if the filfy forreners don't, then you SHOUT LOUDLY AND SLOWLY TO MAKE THEM UNDERSTAND. RIGHT ?
Complain about this comment
#204 northhighlander
Fascinating, though I must admit to going to the actual NRAC report. However I think you are mistaking it; the relevant passage is The strongest evidence for a specific remote and rural difference was in maternity services, which was linked to longer lengths of stay in remote areas. Therefore, the final recommended index for maternity includes the urban-rural classification specifically to take account of this additional need in remote and rural areas.
Across all the different diagnostic groups the analyses were more likely to show that needs in remote and rural areas were over-predicted by the needs indices. This, to me, implies that with the exception of the maternity services Highland had been receiving more than needed, or to put it another way had been wasting resources.
Given the very real needs of areas like Glasgow East and Lochgelly, do you think it right that Highland should be allowed to waste? I do not have the skill to analyse the evidence on which their conclusion was based, but, as it was started by the Executive and accepted by the Government, it appears to have cross-party support. I can accept that your LibDem MSP may have no idea of what life in rural areas is like but I would like to believe that when independent consultants to a technical commission of the government say that there is no evidence then in that case, whatever your perception, there is none. This means that it is now a question for the management to identify the Â:£20 million of waste for which you will not be paid. This seems to me to be a fairer report of the situation than your spin of Â:£20 million of cuts.
Further, your statement The NRAC funding model for health ensured that rurality was no longer recognised as a problem in delivering healthcare. is untrue.
Complain about this comment
#265 Chiefly1724 ... You've taken this thread down a new avenue; well, two ... Firstly, you seem to suggest that being fed 'endless hours of transatlantic pap' (by which I presume you mean US film and television output ???) erodes a child's ability to gain knowledge of their language, history and identity - whilst I have sympathy for the argument against the Americanisation of everything, I'm not sure how it applies here; secondly, yes - the lagerloutish boys abroad have done little good for England's image - but again, what's your point - specfically in relation to the Gaelic question ??? ...
In a non - trivial sense we are where we are; languages evolve, they are born (or break from another language), change and die ... There's nothing special about Gaelic, Catalan, or any oher 'minority' language - they're not the lingua franca (as it were) of global conmmerce (for exampel) for well - known reasons ...
#251 oldnat ... Well spotted; very funny !!! ...
Complain about this comment
#209 aye_write: ...By making your point pubic.
How did you get that past the mods?! ;o)
Complain about this comment
Hi Brian re number 21 and the reccomendation to buy a kilt
" Gonnae No!!!!"
Any other considerations apart, most tartans are going to clash horribly with most ( of your) braces....
Re Summer - surely politics in Scotland doesn't cease and entirely desi
st just because the MSPs are on holiday?
Glasgow by election anyone??
Complain about this comment
#265 Chiefbabelguy
Gee whizz your knowledge of minority languages is truly awesome ;-D
Complain about this comment
#267 The_Concept_Of_Mind
Of course languages change over time, as do the dominant language(s). However, bi-lingualism is a huge advantage in all kinds of ways - not least the expanded neural net to accommodate the different conceptual frameworks.
Native English speakers might actually be the disadvantaged ones, since they generally don't need to learn anything else.
(Sorry for my ill-temper yesterday btw)
Complain about this comment
#265 Chiefy1724
From #270 above it looks as if, in salmondella's case, ignorance is ignorance.
Complain about this comment
#221 northhighlander
Quite. There is apathy. Not enough local involvement in decision making.... But my point was how to change that. Are you waiting for someone else to do it?
At least in Scotland there is the opportunity for that change. If enough people campaign, the politicians will listen. Think about the other local grievances - Skye bridge tolls. Do you think Westminster would ever have abolished them?
Complain about this comment
#232 Susan-Croft
I wish our English neighbours well. I'd be delighted (as would a great many English voters!) to see reform restoring democracy to England :-)
Complain about this comment
#271 concept-of-the-mind
You sympathise with the Americanisation of everything? Jeez! a real live concept of pure aggression.
Calm down and stop playing meaningless mind games, in two thousand years time English may just have been replaced by your gibberish southern tone.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#275
Derek, I am confused, you are complaining about meaningless mind games and gibberish.
John
Complain about this comment
#277
John, it's all done in the best possible taste!
Complain about this comment
#278 derek
Now he was a loss; would you be?
Complain about this comment
What is all this then? Mind games and jibberish? Oh I say....I'm sure it is all in the best possible taste.
Complain about this comment
#265 Chiefy1724
"Brownedov will undoubtedly let us know how it is done in Switzerland where I am fairly certain that there are at least 4 "official" languages if not 5."
There are four "national" languages: German, French, Italian and Rumantsch (or Romanic) in descending order of population using it as a first language. Children are taught in one of these (dependant on canton and commune) from kindergarten and usually for the first year of primary (6-11). From no later than the third year of primary, they are taught a first foreign language, which may be one of the other "national" languages. From no later than the fifth year of primary, they are taught a second foreign language, which must be one of the other "national" languages if the first one wasn't. English is (almost?) invariably the one real "foreign" language taught in primaries. Both must be continued through Lower secondary level (12-16). For more info, see educa.ch
This is a minor change brought in fairly recently because some German-speaking cantons and communes objected to having to teach French or Italian before English.
And while we're on Swiss systems ....
#246 Bandages_For_Konjic
"As far as I know; [renting being the norm] is true and bears repeating often and loudly."
It certainly is in Swiss cities and towns, but perhaps less so in rural areas. There are normally two separate "markets" - a regulated "free" market for the wealthier and foreigners and a "social" market for the less well paid. The latter is still mainly provided by the private sector but much more heavily regulated. Sometimes there are cantonal or communal subsidies [often in the form of cheaper land] but much of the "new" build is proportioned [you can build x "free" units and/or y business units if you build z "social" units]. There is no "built-in" right to buy in either market, but there are housing associations operating in that area.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#267 Concept_of_the_mind,
>#265 Chiefly1724 ... You've taken this thread down a new avenue;
Thats the joy of what happens when Brian Goes and we get set free. Youll be AMAZED what we get up to
And thats CHIEFY BTW. Im chiefly Chiefy except when Im not :}
>well, two ... Firstly, you seem to suggest that being fed 'endless hours of transatlantic pap'
>(by which I presume you mean US film and television output ???) erodes a child's ability to
>gain knowledge of their language, history and identity - whilst I have sympathy for the
>argument against the Americanisation of everything, I'm not sure how it applies here;
Try this if you can. I have.
Ask a Welsh kid of 10-12yrs about Owen Glendwr. Youll get a potted history, mostly accurate.
Then ask a Scots kid of identical age about William Wallace. Youll get nothing until you say Braveheart. Ask them about where he fitted into the War of Independence and his relationship with The Bruce and you will be blankly stared at. Mention that he was made Guardian of Scotland in an attempt to keep The Bruces and Comyns off each others backs fighting for the Throne and they wont even be able to tell you that Scotland once had our own Kings.
(Except, I strongly suspect, any of aye_writes brood :} )
The perception of History is informed by film. The actuality is submerged in a few scenes of gory battle featuring anachronistic blue-arsed warriors 500 years out of date.
>secondly, yes - the lagerloutish boys abroad have done little good for England's image - but
>again, what's your point - specfically in relation to the Gaelic question ??? ...
My point is that there is a strand of English Nationalism (and I mean that in terms of the language not the country), perhaps one might say even a superiority complex drilled in at school that refuses to acknowledge that any language other than English is worth learning. And that falls for European and World languages as well as the minority native tongues of these islands.
>In a non - trivial sense we are where we are; languages evolve, they are born (or break from
>another language), change and die
(Or are killed off by an active process of surpression through the education system)
>There's nothing special about Gaelic, Catalan, or any oher 'minority' >language - they're not
> the lingua franca (as it were) of global conmmerce (for exampel) for well - known reasons.
Ergo, we British are categorically lost because we are not teaching our Children Mandarin or Hindi ?
Ive tried to learn a few languages across the years. (But fail beyond basics because I just dont have the ear). I have found Even the first stages of learning French, German, Spanish, Finnish teaches you something about that country, the way in which things are viewed, sentences constructed, words placed, things have a gender, things dont have a gender, emphases.erm, emphasised.
Back to the Gaelic then. Its not about keeping dead languages alive. Its about using a language to open your mind, to access the thoughts and feelings of people long gone in the way that they expressed them and not in translation and also the people who live and use that language daily.
Take The Journey to the West as an example. Written in Chinese. Translated into English. There are at least 2 translations available that I have read. Both as turgid as week-old porridge to be sure which disappointed me as I was expecting a novelisation of "Monkey" (showing my age there) but both very different in their tone and use of the English language. Which one got it just right ? Did either ? Did Neither ? Ill never know because I cant read it in the original.
You learn a language to Understand, not to build a wall. You gain insight and not the insularity of a monoglot culture.
Which is why in our Independent Scotland I would like to see Scots, Lallans, Doric and Gaelic all taught as living, breathing languages alongside the other languages of the world.
Complain about this comment
263. Bandages_For_Konjic
I see you asked me about Privatisation of healthcare. So here are my thoughts.
First up I like the look of D.C's statement "For a start, well properly
establish the NHS as an institution by giving it a constitution.
That way we can protect the cardinal, core values of the NHS
from the sort of massive, structural and ultimately pointless
- re-organisations that weve seen so much of recently". But I don't fully understand its deeper implications etc, but it seems a good place to start.
But I would like to build on that.
Perhaps (and it is only an idea of mine, nothing solid) we could turn the NHS into a healthcare insurance system or sorts. Rather than have NHS hospitals, and NHS GPs etc surely we could have independent hospitals instead, but everyone can still access these services free at the point of need; as the NHS will continue to exist- but as a checkbook where the government merely pays for the treatments.
This means that healthcare is still free at the point of need universally, and the taxpayer doesnt have to pay for public sector hospitals etc, as instead people use existing independent sector equivilants.
Thoughts? I admit the whole idea is still in the blue print stage.
Complain about this comment
#283 deanthetory -
If you agree that health care should be "free at the point of need", why are you against free provision of social housing at the point of need? Surely the purpose of both is aligned - as mechanisms through which society equitably cares for its most vulnerable and disadvantaged members?
Why should people be able to access free healthcare via state provision but be forced to rely on the market (Which has always, always failed those most in need) for basic shelter?
Complain about this comment
#268 forfar-loon
LOL! Well, I suppose if northhighlander made his cause pubic, everyone would notice!
Complain about this comment
#283
Dean, you want an American style hospitals,where private insurance covers your medical cost!
Next, you will be advocating an end to direct national health contributions.
Dean, your are rapidly becoming the proverbial tory.
Complain about this comment
Bandages_For_Konjic.
Healthcare is best delivered through maintaining the principal of 'free at the point of need' and government payment.
However I do believe that the best way to improve peoples living conditions is to enable them to either own the property themselves, or have them in private landlords- who are obliged under law to provide a consistant minimum of care, which tends to be more reliable than council guarantees.
It is a matter of maximising access to not just housing but maximising access to quality housing (as with healthcare, which is why I proposed my changes as per 283).
Besides the marketplace always adapts to meet the needs of the consumer, where there is demand someone will arrive to provide the service.
Complain about this comment
#283
thoughts, well initially I come up with the age old socialist thought: "why are you so desperate to give money in profit to companies that run hospitals?" It hasn't worked in the cleaning services for the current hospitals, so why should it work for the healthcare?
There are two ways to extract profit from the health system, one is to extract the maximum amount of money per operation (specialising in diseases of the rich), and the other is to do the minimum amount of work per operation. As there will always be a drive to spend the least amount of public money on the service (at least as long as the contract is awarded to the lowest bidder), then the private companies supplying the public need will naturally attempt the latter. Short of setting goals and targets for absolutely everything which would then have to be monitored and recorded, I can see no way of ensuring that the standards do not periodically slip below an acceptable level. It could be argued that market forces would mean that sloppy operators would go out of business as their reputation suffers, but in practice this requires accurate information on the part of the consumer, and a completely free market (i.e. local authorities would not be limited to buying services from the cheapest provider). It could work, but we would be relying on operators going out of business, or losing their franchises (and the ability to bid for franchises). i.e a wholly stick approach.
What you really want to get is a healthcare system that has an incentive to be the best possible. Where excellence and efficiency can be achieved, but is still free at the point of service to those that need it to be free. (I think we can all agree on this)
The only way I can see of getting an efficient health service within the state system is having a thoroughly trained and professional service that is self motivated to excellence (I am not saying that this is not currently the case). It would then be able to monitor itself without the requirement for a heavy bureaucracy. This would mean treating the doctors and nurses (and other workers within the service) as adults , and just leaving them to get on with the job that they know best without political interference and targets, and most importantly without the requirement to turn a profit.
Unfortunately recent governments have been obsessed with targets, and accounting for everything. (remember just because something is not accounted for does not mean that it is wasted). This has resulted in increased spending on gathering data and middle managers that add no value and which has had the result of de-motivating those providing the actual healthcare providers. Getting rid of this mindset would be a much greater step forwards than privatisation.
John
Complain about this comment
286. derekbarker
With all due respect I offered nothing of the sort Derek.
I said I wanted the government to continue to pay for universal access to medicine for all (paid for through national insurance etc), but simply utilise independent health sector facilities. We dont need HNS hospitals, and private sector hospitals- simply use private sector hospitals but continue to have patients have the government pay for them.
By doing this, not only is the universal access principal maintained (unlike the american approach where there isnt such a principal)- you can channel the entire NHS budget towards paying for treatments 9and since the NHS merely pays private hospials to provide this service, patients can recieve modern treatents which today are the preserve for those lucky enough in the post code lottery.
Hardly an american system Derek.
Complain about this comment
#233 deanthetory
an injustice to the hard working classes....seeks to tie a whole class into government dependent rental for life.
and............
#263 Bandages_For_Konjic
Once social housing tenants have been able to save enough to enable them to enter the market without loading themselves with an unsustainable level of debt then they should be incentivised to do so. Their social housing resource then becomes available to the next most in need and so on.
I agree with both of you. Well put ;-)
But dean, there must be some provision for those who have genuinely fallen on hard times? (until they get back on their feet) - it could be you?!
Complain about this comment
#249. deanthetory
I disagree. The prevalence of "buy to let" helped push up prices unsustainably - the adorable geniuses on property programmes anyone? And private landlords too often only care about money.
Complain about this comment
#288
Well John, I certainly agree with your not for profit approach and yes! I would also agree with the need to step back for the target arena and let those on the front line carry forward their endeavours of help and care for the whole of the patients society.
There was a time when dentistry in this country was reasonable however today many community members find it extremely hard to find a dentist on an NHS appointment.
Complain about this comment
#289
Dean,you are just duplicating the administration costs with the state and the private sector. The private secotr would then have to recoup its costs in higher charges to the government for the service. It would also take its slice of profit (from both the administration and treatment) and noone would be accountable for standards....
John
Complain about this comment
#161 oldnat
"The "English backlash" has guaranteed that."
Having now read and partially digested the PDF download as promised in my #152, I agree that an "English backlash" is certainly coming, with the Blimpishness we see on the NR threads just a beginning. I can't say I understood many of Perryman's references to "popular" music, though, as with the exception of a little folk and comedy my knowledge of English libretti finishes with Purcell.
Perryman's argument seems essentially that the SNP and PC have become the progressive left-wing parties which Labour might have become had not the NuLab canker taken hold, while nothing has taken that place in England.
If anything, I think he's understating the problem when he says that the forthcoming general election with a Tory majority built on English seats yet minority support in Scotland and Wales "will create immense constitutional pressures".
In part, that's because the Euro elections have proved his "no mainstream party seeks to reverse devolution" plain wrong. UKIP now has to be considered mainstream in England, and it's their euroscepticism coupled with their wish to use Holyrood simply as a place for Scottish MPs to meet that makes me despair for a confederal UK being at all realistic. Particularly with Tebbit's veiled backing for them, UKIP seems to represent what the English Tory faithful wish their leadership would put on offer. They might well prevail over Cameron, himself hardly a "lefty", even by Tory standards.
Dean's chums will have an uphill struggle to make Cameron hold the backwoodsmen back, I suspect, let alone convince him that going a lot farther than Calman will be necessary to delay independence long.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Back to the Unionist Pap Lingo Bingo...
- Sean Connery, for all his fervourous nationalism, doesn't even live there! (So you have to live in Scotland to be allowed to agree with independence ;-)
Complain about this comment
#287 deanthetory -
"Private landlords- who are obliged under law to provide a consistant minimum of care, which tends to be more reliable than council guarantees."
Does the expression "slum landlord" mean anything to you? What you're suggesting is that we deliver the most vulnerable members of society into the care of landlords who have no interest in their 'care' but only in the profits that can be made from them.
Who would enforce your 'consistent minimum' standard? National government? Local government? The charity sector?
And, once again, how do you maximise access to "all citizens without setting an entry price of zero to those in greatest need?
I agree with aye_write, "There must be some provision for those who have genuinely fallen on hard times?" If you don't wish to make such provision, fine, that's your priority but don't pretend that the private sector will do it for you.
Complain about this comment
293. John__
I take yur point there, as I say it is just an idea.
One thing we all can agree on is the current institutionalised cantering NHS needs some kind of booster injection. But any new reforms must be perminent in nature and not merely 'just another round' of changes.
291. aye_write
You are correct that some private land lords can be 'dodgy' (can I use this non technical term?). As a student in Stirling I fully appreciate the desire of some land lords to keep the deposits, finding methods to avoid paying the full amount back.
But I still believe that the legal obligations on the independent rental sector prevents any large scale abuse of rentees.
But I do understand and take your substantive point. The key surely isnt to go public but to improve the laws regulating independent rental provison?
Complain about this comment
This bingo's addictive.... ;-)
- My parents are one Scottish, the other English - I couldnt decide between them!!!
Complain about this comment
Unionist Nonsense Boring Extremely Lame Incredulously Easy Very Amusing Bingo Lingo Extraordinaire!
- Scotland's just the same as Yorkshire and Lancashire (yes, they have a long history of being independent nations with their own education, religious and legal systems!)
Complain about this comment
#282 ChiefLy1724 ... To please oldnat I've emphasised, indeed Capitalised, my previously, inexcusably missing 'l' ... Sorry about that ...
So, thank you for your comments; I understand better where you're coming from ... Some observations then: -
The English view of History (being mostly written as victors) has, as you say, tended to dominate the debate - this is partly why I advocate a much broader approach (essentially European) be taken to the subject (Norman Davies' 'Europe' and 'The Isles' are good examples of trying to redress the balance, on the way debunking many English myths of History - not easy to say that ...) ... The 'Braveheart' debacle is particularly apposite; not a word of French to be heard !!! ...
And I agree with your point about film; much is influenced by it (not just perceptions of History) ... But History is, for me, the key - I'm not convinced by your Welsh and Scottish kids though; inevitably I'd want to conduct a full analysis before pronouncing our Education system formally deid (however, I've posted separately my views on the CfE) ...
Yoru reasons for learning a language I violently agree with; I just worry that this has lost its place in the battle for survival that is the modern schooling system ... And I'm not sure it's about teaching English at the expense of other languages; I think we struggle enough to achieve THAT, never mind anything else ...
To answer another of your points, from an Economist's perspective we ARE failing our children by not teaching them Mandarin, Cantonese and Hindi (so not equipping them for Tomorrow's World - giving MY age away there ...) ...
English Nationalism; now there's a subject worthy of debate here ...
#271 oldnat ... No problem ...
#275 derekbarker ... Eh ??? ...
Complain about this comment
#294 Brownedov
You will have guessed that I skimmed over his musical references too!
I found it interesting more because Anglo-centric analyses of the political dynamics are rather there.I wasn't convinced by his concatenation of Wales with Scotland at the moment, since there seems to be something of a Tory resurgence there.
I hadn't thought of the UKIP aspect. It is not inconceivable that the Labour Party might totally collapse in Southern England after 2010, and that England's Tweedlum/Tweedledee system might end up being between the centre-right Conservatives and the much harder right UKIP replacing Labour.
Complain about this comment
#297 deanthetory
The key surely isnt to go public but to improve the laws regulating independent rental provison?
I appreciate that sounds "sound", but for some few basic necessities, such as housing for those who find they cannot afford it, no. It's too risky, too complicated (and lengthy, and costly?) to rectify situations which arise where there have been breaches of the new more stringent rules - as there would be.
You, I believe, are relying on the goodwill of man too much here, and I think some things are too important for that, and shouldn't have anyone's profits as the driver.
You are in favour of the Union to collect in from a whole and share to greater effect, to better meet areas of need? (Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought, for you, that was the principle behind it?) Then do you accept the notion that if each adult (who is required to) pays taxes into a pot, then part of that pot is used so that those who can't afford a place to stay (are in need) benefit from society (as a whole), as some of the collected money is shared so that some affordable housing is made available?
Complain about this comment
Further to my #302 to dean
From your #141...
I see the union as meaning greater resources to spend on public services across the whole of Britain and Northern Ireland. And a greater ability to direct resources to areas of most significant need in the Union.
So, is providing a home for someone who's fallen on hard times a public service, or is it not? It's not acceptable to abandon or neglect, so...where's the line?
Complain about this comment
Who's really running the UK?
Complain about this comment
Frank Field's rearguard action to make Duff Gordon honour his promises to redress the damage he did by doubling the tax rate on the poorest workers and pensioners has failed, according to this website's Government defeats 10p tax rebels. A moment's silence for more than a million of the poorest among us is called for, I suggest. Can anyone say hand on heart that today's Labour Party has any egalitarianism left?
OTOH, it should play well in the forthcoming by-elections, not to mention every future election until Duff Gordon finally goes under.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#245 John, Quote "The right to buy gave some people the easy step up into the housing market, but for others it only gave them the illusion that they could afford home ownership. In all cases it removed houses from the social housing pool."
John, no it did not, the houses are still there and they still have people living in them. Whether or not folk bought or rented their home, the home is still there and the occupants are still there. Where people lost their properties was when they sold up for a profit and then moved to a much more expensive property under a large mortgage which they ultimately could not afford. The percentages of re-possessions increases the further up the chain you go. Relatively cheap properties suffer the fewest re-posessions.
Also, commercial house builders moved to building more affordable housing as the market for this became more attractive. Any shortage of council built housing is down to lack of investment by the government, pure and simple. Do you honestly expect Labour to own up to this, as they have been in power (UK) for the last 12'ish years... it is far more politically beneficial for them to blame the Tory's right to buy, rather than their own failure as a government.
Houses don't just disappear. Yes ultimately they need renovated or replaced, but this is gradual process. Also, the population has been approximately the same in Scotland for the last quarter of a century. The question is that if there are no more people in Scotland and private and council houses are being built, is the housing problem any worse than it has been over that time... and if so, does that not indicate that the government have failed to invest, as I don't think that the private sector has in the last decade with house prices so profitable?
Complain about this comment
#300
The concept' Hmmm! the concept versus the conviction?
Did those brave students that retrieved the "stone of destiny" in the 1950's do so because the idea was fun or the conviction was real.
I tend to take the notion that their conviction was true and their believe in their right to self determination was truer.
Now! that's an observation!
Complain about this comment
I see by way of "balance", on this website's main Politics page, auntie has tried to spare Duff Gordon's blushes over his hateful tax doubling on the poorest by linking to a How Labour aims to tax the rich sop to what may happen in the future. I think we can safely assume that no BBC employee is directly hit by the current tax doubling. Yuk.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#301 oldnat
"You will have guessed that I skimmed over his musical references too!"
Surely not, I had you down as a probable Elastica fan.
"I wasn't convinced by his concatenation of Wales with Scotland at the moment, since there seems to be something of a Tory resurgence there."
You have a point, but my Welsh relations take the view that the Euro elections were an "anyone by Labour" occasion, with the L-Ds still being punished a little for their previous coalition and the Tories rewarded for their rainbow coalition proposals.
"England's Tweedlum/Tweedledee system might end up being between the centre-right Conservatives and the much harder right UKIP replacing Labour"
That's the nightmare of my English relations!
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
"You are in favour of the Union to collect in from a whole and share to greater effect"
Yes, I do.
"Then do you accept the notion that if each adult (who is required to) pays taxes into a pot, then part of that pot is used so that those who can't afford a place to stay (are in need) benefit from society (as a whole),"
I do accept such a notion, providing that social state provision is the best way to house those most vulnerable. As I've tried to make clear I have doubts that state provision alone is the best course of action. We can't risk repeating the errors of the past of locking working classes into government rent housing estates.
No more Ghettos locking people into cycles of poverty and lack of opportunity.
Complain about this comment
#308
I agree Brownedov, Westminster can't seem to deal with it's internal failing and mistakes.
Giving the recent events surrounding the MP's expenses and this tax on the poor debacle one is really strained in supporting a soulless labour party.
Complain about this comment
307. derekbarker
I understand the motivation may have been out of a sense of nationalism and patriotism. But a break of the law is unacceptable.
No ad hoc legal applications, prescute anyone guilty of legal breaches, and if these laws are not satisfactory seek to change them.
Complain about this comment
Since Pravada (British Broadcasting Corrupt) are ignoring this story as no nulabs or other unionists are involved.
"Speaking ahead of her visit to the Govan yard where she will join the Princess Royal for the steel cutting Ms Sturgeon said;
"Today is a hugely significant day for BVT and for all those workers on the Clyde whose efforts won this work for the yards."
Complain about this comment
#310 deanthetory
I too disagree with the "council house for life" idea, as I don't think that actually benefits those who do it. What do you feel about Bandages' sentiments "Once social housing tenants have been able to save enough to enable them to enter the market without loading themselves with an unsustainable level of debt then they should be incentivised to do so"?
Complain about this comment
#311 derekbarker
"Giving the recent events surrounding the MP's expenses and this tax on the poor debacle one is really strained in supporting a soulless labour party."
Thanks for that, Derek. I really do understand how difficult it must be for you to watch what goes on in the party you loved. Very similar corruption happened to most of the Liberal party who merged to form the L-Ds. Watching what Duff Gordon did over the starting rate tax must for you have been rather like my watching the leadership of the L-Ds arguing against a Lisbon referendum and realising that the last vestiges of Liberalism had been snuffed out there.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#312
Dean, giving the sad and definitive break down in the political movement, I tend to think the law will become an unacceptable state of order in the areas you refer to as "GHETTOS"
The future is bleak and painted black, unless we can restore a real sense of collective social responsibility for all mankind.
Complain about this comment
#311 derekbarker
Agreed on soulless Labour. So...who shall you vote for??
Complain about this comment
#312 deanthetory
I remember the Nicking of the Stone when I was a kid. My law-abiding parents thought it a huge joke. My father in law (who was Glasgow polis) said that the English police got little co-operation.
But even then, some didn't think it was the Stone of Destiny - just a stane that Edward took south. Much clearer now that it was a 14th century fake.
Complain about this comment
#317
How can you select a winner amongst a parcel of rogues'
Who will lay down an honest path? and fight the rights that have been sadly wronged.
The future may be nothing more than a safe house and an escape from the interment of poverty.
Complain about this comment
#318 oldnat
So the stone of destiny never did leave Scotland. I'm I right in saying that was the case?.
Is the stone of destiny still at the palace of Scone?.
Why do some people refer to it as the stone of Jacob?
Complain about this comment
Brownedov re your 305.
I wonder how many Scottish Labour MPs voted in favor of Frank Fields amendment?
At a guess I would say very few if any. Might be a good line for the forthcoming general election for the SNP to highlight the Scottish Labour MPs who were happy to double the tax rate for one million of the poorest people in the UK.
Do not go near Iona. The sound you will hear is John Smith turning in his grave.
Complain about this comment
#319 derekbarker
Welcome to the club. Parties are always captured by self-seeking individuals eventually. I currently vote SNP because most of their MSPs/MPs didn't enter politics,for power (seemed unlikely when they started!) and I believe in their core goal.
I'll stop voting for them when the same sort of people who captured and destroyed your party do that to the SNP!
Complain about this comment
#319 derekbarker
Disappointment. Are you looking for a new dawn?
Complain about this comment
#320 derekbarker
No certainty in anything from that long ago! But the balance of evidence suggests that it was probably hidden/lost.
Stone of Jacob was medieval mythological nonsense that the stone was Jacob's pillow.
Complain about this comment
#324 oldnat
Just make a new one when we get independence ;-)
Complain about this comment
#323 aye-write
I'm looking for the politicians to tell me the sun rises in the east and sets in the west.
Just honesty and real commitment!
It seem that all my life I've been a political nail hammered into a surface by unscrupulous masquerading MP's
Complain about this comment
#324
Yes! never the less! still very symbolic I would suggest.
Complain about this comment
#324 oldnat
Electronic tag it!
Complain about this comment
#321 dubbieside
"I wonder how many Scottish Labour MPs voted in favor of Frank Fields amendment?"
That should be easy to check in Hansard tomorrow.
Compiling a list of the sinking rats who voted against shouldn't be too hard, but hopefully the Grauniad or perhaps the Indy will do the hard work and publish a list of shame.
Handled sensitively it ought to convince anyone with a mind of their own that whatever NuLab is, it's no longer the people's party.
I see the BBC article has been revised since my original post and now includes the phrase: "the prime minister won comfortably by a margin of 43 votes". If the man was truly "comfortable" at what he's done, he's not only lost the respect of the UK electorate but his own self-respect too.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#282 Chiefy1724
When explaining about what I didn't really like about the Union to my eldest (7), he asked, quite plainly "So...would it be OK if our country was the biggest?" - !!
Complain about this comment
#327 derekbarker
Medieval politicians weren't much different from the modern breed. Without modern communications, they used symbols.
The stone harked back to ancient symbols of legitimate power. That's why (it seems likely) Edward needed to take some stone back south to transfer that symbolism to London. Any lump of stone would do.
Complain about this comment
314. aye_write
What do you feel about Bandages' sentiments "Once social housing tenants have been able to save enough to enable them to enter the market without loading themselves with an unsustainable level of debt then they should be incentivised to do so"?
It is fundamentally important that we do not encourage people to live outwith their actual means. This is fair and true.
And the great problem of the last decade of new labour was the drive to aquire loans to enable people to 'afford' items, homes all well above their real incomes. This is why the right to buy focused on ex council homes, homes that could be purchased for signifcantly less than otherwise would be the case.
I agree that people should be incentivised to purchase their own homes without aquiring crippling loans yes, and the right to buy is surely a method which allows for this? It lowers the initial price at which the local resident can purchase, at a level designed to be affordable for them.
It is therefore an incentive which enables ownership without compelling crippling levels of debt.
Complain about this comment
#326. derekbarker
"I'm looking for the politicians to tell me the sun rises in the east and sets in the west."
It's happened in the past Geomagnetic reversal and will happen again in the future irrespective of political intervention, you need to get out more.
Complain about this comment
#329 Brownedov
I wonder how many of those low paid, who voted Democratic Unionist, will have been delighted by their MPs voting with Brown against them.
Complain about this comment
318. oldnat
The stone is a fake? Well I'm sure if you hold that view there must be some truth in it. I for one don't know enough about it to make any contentions myself.
Suffice to say I do not approve of breaking laws to which we are all bound. There are better more democratic means to protest, seek change and ultimately gain your priorities.
Crime is crime is crime unless the law changes to say otherwise.
Even if one may sympathise with the crime itself. No ad hoc law, the law must be paramount (as I'm sure everyone agrees anyway!)
Complain about this comment
#326 derekbarker
You'll have to stand yourself!
(perhaps in independent Scotland ;-)
Complain about this comment
#332 deanthetory
Or folk just getting a cheap house ;-) ;-)
Complain about this comment
aye, your kid seems to be suggesting that Scotland retakes Northumberland (lost I believe by King William I).
With historic claims to large parts of northern England, why allow an independent Scotland be confined to anything north of Berwick?
Seriously though, I love childrens up front honestly, we seem to loose the ability to keep things simple as we grow older.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov re 329
One thing is for sure, I would not expect to see a list of the Scottish Labour MPs who voted against Fields amendment being highlighted in the Scottish media.
Complain about this comment
For a well argued account of the history, chronicles and reasonable descrition description of the stone circa 13C, have a look at:
http://www.john.bravepen.com
Complain about this comment
derek
Not that a by-election in Glasgow NE on Nov 12(?) will make any likely difference, but faced with the likely choice there -
Charlie Baillie (BNP)
Willie Bain (Labour)
James Dornan (SNP)
Kevin McVey (SSP)
Tommy Sheridan (Solidarity)
John Swinburne (Senior Citizens)
possibly others
What do you do?
Complain about this comment
#341 oldnat
I think Tommy Sheridan does light up the political debate and Wow! would he not give it big time to those in that failed house.
Yes! absolutely Tommy with all his traits.
Complain about this comment
#335 deanthetory
Sorry if this sounds patronising - it's not meant to be (well not much!) :-) but the young are more tied to absolutes than us old cynics.
"Crime is crime is crime unless the law changes to say otherwise."
Always true? Under all circumstances? If that were true then the French Resistance in Vichy France in WWII were criminals, and were properly executed by the authorities.
Complain about this comment
Re the doubling of the 10p tax rate, penalizing half a million of the poorest taxpayers in the UK.
This quote from Frank Field during the debate is worth noting,
"He was simply "staggered" that the 10p rate was abolished by a Labour Government. "It cried in the face of our understanding of what Labour is about in being on the side of the poor. It would be unforgivable if it was a Tory government doing that - it's even worse for our Government to be doing that."
As Harold Wilson once said "Labour is a mission or it is nothing" today everyone can see it is nothing.
Complain about this comment
#338 deanthetory
Apparently my son is a born imperialist! (I think it was more to do with the bad way I explained it ;-)
#343 oldnat
Kids: A crime's a crime....only if they get caught? ;-)
Complain about this comment
Tommy Sheridan tried and failed to win in glasgow south west in 1992- arguably when his appeal was stronger than it is today. My point is Sheridan isn't I think a serious problem in the constituency. But maybe I'm still considering political chances as if it where normal times.
Perhaps he might be a nice anti-corruption candidate, but the seat is for the SNP to take. And if the Scottish unionist party doesnt stand my lot ought to gain around 6-8% (as per the last time we competed in the seat, before Martins speakerhood).
345
Sad but probably an apt illustration of my generations general attitude to crime. The 'its only illegal if you get caught' mentality.
Dangerous; but strangly reminicent of Sir Humphrey when he talked of Hosptial problems... "its only a cause for concern if the [the public] know about it".
Cynical world increasingly eh?
Complain about this comment
Uncle Ian did brilliantly on Newsnight Scotland :)
Complain about this comment
dean.
What about the questions I raised with you in my #343? Just because they're hard doesn't mean you get to duck them!
Complain about this comment
I would contend that the 'laws' under Vichy were null and invalid. Not least because President Lebrun never resigned the French presidency until 1945 relinquishing it to De Gaulle.
Therefore all Vichy laws passed didnt enjoy the legal approval neccessary from the president of France. They were criminal orders domestically to France therefore.
Plus there were undoubtably Geneva laws breached by the authorities. Those orders you highlight I would contend were never legal in the first place.
Complain about this comment
Yip! for sure Dean, both the main unionist parties will struggle, why pick another rotten apple, like a conservative or labour candidate, that will simply bow to the peers of that higher place.
The recession and expenses issue, will certainly swing votes, no doubt about that.
Tommy Sheridan offers an honest voice, to raise the concerns of the depleted constituency.
People want real representation for their taxation, why appoint a mere hand selected party puppet, that wont rock the boat and tell the truth for fear of being whipped by his big boss.
Tommy offers the people a commitment to ask the hard question and push the real concerns, in short Tommy offers value for endorsement.
Complain about this comment
I've been away all day so I'm catching up. It is quite refreshing to see entirely reasonable and sensible posts from derekbarker so I hope he keeps it up. I have to say also that dean the tory contributes well and must be complimented for his tenacity (not that I agree with much of what he says).
Nobody wants to stop those who want to buy their homes from doing so. The right to buy council houses however was introduced by Mrs Thatcher in such a form that it created a huge market distortion and a destruction of social housing stock.
Complain about this comment
#349 deanthetory
Unfortunately, the Acts of Union were signed by a royal line which had "illegally" replaced the constitutional monarch in 1689, since the Claim of Right and the Articles of Grievance in 1689 did not have the legal approval of the King of Scotland.
On the basis of your argument all laws passed since 1689 have no legal basis in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
dean
The Republic of South Africa passed the apartheid laws. Care to justify the repression there?
Complain about this comment
oldnat, given my history in the Jacobite movement I certainly wouldnt disagree that on a point of technical law your point as per 352 does have a legal case behind it.
And in relation to 353, I am not in the business of justifications for laws which are against the spirit at least of justice. But oldnat you either have the rule of law or not, you cannot seek to equivicate on those aspects of justice you care to follow or not. You either hae the rule of law, and an independent Judiciary or you do not. I pick to have the rule of law, with the spirit of Justice included (as all morally justifiable law ought to).
Complain about this comment
Oh and oldnat less of the 'justify' nonsense. Unless you have a charge to make against me.
Complain about this comment
In his book "A Touch Of Treason", Ian Hamilton explains his reasons for stealing the stone and also how they did it. I'd recommend it Dean, it's a good read.
Complain about this comment
#354 deanthetory
"You either have the rule of law, and an independent Judiciary or you do not."
I wouldn't disagree with that, but if you look at the appropriate Court case for the time McCormick V the Lord Advocate, you will see that there was no independent judiciary. The Court of Session ruled that MacCormick and Hamilton had no title to sue the Crown. The citizen was powerless to use the courts in any action against the monarchy.
Complain about this comment
Talking of Jacobitism, here is a must see everyone- Malodeon John on Youtube, well worth following all you fellow Jacobite sympathisers!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vfWFJeJJGYc&feature=channel_page
And snowthistle I'll do a google search for that book recommendation you meantioned.
Complain about this comment
#355 deanthetory
I should have said "justify the legality of repression there?
I don't think you are a racist, but I fear the extension of your concept of all laws must be obeyed.
Complain about this comment
#312
Ian Hamilton QC, one of the students who repatriated the Stone of Destiny, has a very lively blog going. Well worth a look.
Complain about this comment
Fair enough oldnat. I was taken aback for a brief period there- but now I see I was just being a paranoid.
Complain about this comment
An interesting blog article by the famous Ian Hamilton (of the book recommended by snowthistle)
http://www.ianhamiltonqc.com/blog/
the queen of scots and the recent parliamentary run in where 49 MSPs were absent.
Complain about this comment
#362
Yes Dean and Mr Hamilton clearly pays homage to that out-lawed tune "A NATION ONCE AGAIN"
I will follow his blog more closely! there's no substitute for real mettle and I like that!.
Complain about this comment
#334 oldnat
"I wonder how many of those low paid, who voted Democratic Unionist, will have been delighted by their MPs voting with Brown against them."
Not a lot, I would guess.
#339 dubbieside
"I would not expect to see a list of the Scottish Labour MPs who voted against Fields amendment being highlighted in the Scottish media"
Neither would I, but here it is anyway: Alexander, Douglas; Banks, Gordon; Begg, Anne; Brown, Gordon; Brown, Russell; Browne, Des; Cairns, David; Clarke, Tom; Connarty, Michael; Darling, Alistair; Donohoe, Brian H.; Doran, Frank; Griffiths, Nigel; Hamilton, David; Harris, Tom; Ingram, Adam; Joyce, Eric; Lazarowicz, Mark; McAvoy, Thomas; McFall, John; McGovern, Jim; McGuire, Anne; McKechin, Ann; McKenna, Rosemary; Moffat, Anne; Murphy, Jim; Osborne, Sandra; Reid, John; Robertson, John; Roy, Frank; Roy, Lindsay; Sarwar, Mohammad; Sheridan, Jim; Strang, Gavin.
They should hang their heads in shame, but we know how likely that is. The upshot is that not one single "Scottish" Labour MP rebelled, all those who bothered to turn up voting NO to Field's amendment. In other circumstances, I might give some credit to the four who absented themselves, but look at the list and judge for yourself: Clark (Ayrshire North & Arran), Davidson (Glasgow South West), Devine (Livingston) & Hood (Lanark & Hamilton East).
Every other Scottish MP voted for the amendment with the exception of the L-D's Barrett (Edinburgh West) who was absent.
I had forgotten that there's a sneak preview of Hansard from the UK parliament's Today in the Chamber section. I won't give the URL as it's easy to find but won't be there once Hansard is published.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
When Tunnock comes back from his holiday he'll find his blog has developed a life of its own - as it always does if it is left to its own devices.
Surely an argument for an open forum.
Complain about this comment
I assure you Ian Davidson would never have voted with the government on this.
He is a man of the utmost integrety, and a decent and honourable man.
Complain about this comment
#344 dubbieside
Excellent quotes both, and too true, but you made a small factual inaccuracy there. It's "penalizing at least half a million of the poorest taxpayers in the UK". It beggars belief that neither Duff Gordon nor Capn. Darling could be bothered to get the Treasury to calculate even estimated numbers of those still worse off.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#140 aye_write
I have now fixed the problem you raised by moving to
http://frankly.yolasite.com/
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#352. At 11:44pm on 07 Jul 2009, oldnat wrote:
"Unfortunately, the Acts of Union were signed by a royal line which had 'illegally' replaced the constitutional monarch in 1689, since the Claim of Right and the Articles of Grievance in 1689 did not have the legal approval of the King of Scotland.
On the basis of your argument all laws passed since 1689 have no legal basis in Scotland."
A curious "English" Jacobite argument which is directly contradicted by the Scots' take on Kingship as set out in the Declaration of Arbroath. The Scots Parliament, as it was perfectly entitled to do, declared in 1689 that James VII had forfeited the Crown and therefore quite legitimately sanctioned its transfer first to Dutch William (and Mary) and then to Anne. Now you may well argue that Jamie got a bum deal, but the Parliament was acting within its rights and his replacement was not "illegal"
Complain about this comment
#372 Caledonian54
I wholly agree. I was simply taking dean's argument about the illegitimacy of the Vichy regime, and placing it in a Scots context.
Complain about this comment
Parapahrased from James Calvell's "Shogun"
Toronaga, Japanese Lord, interrogating Blackthorne, English Pilot hired by the Dutch, over the Dutch throwing of the yoke of Spain
Toronaga: "So you are telling me that you are in rebellion against your sovereign lord. Why should I not treat you like a criminal ?"
Blackthorne: "There's one mitigating circumstance, my Lord"
Toronaga; "What's That, criminal ?"
Blackthorne: "We're going to win".
What happened over 300 years ago is History. What was right and wrong then is History.
Here and Now, We're Going to Win.
Complain about this comment
#306
John, no it did not, the houses are still there and they still have people living in them
My point was that they were lost to the social housing pool, and are no longer available to be allocated on the basis of need. Whether they have someone in them or not is irrelevant to this.
people lost their properties was when they sold up for a profit and then moved to a much more expensive property under a large mortgage which they ultimately could not afford. The percentages of re-possessions increases the further up the chain you go. Relatively cheap properties suffer the fewest re-posessions.
It is an undeniable fact that the more a person owes, then the less likely that they are able to afford to pay their debt. However there would have been some that (possibly due to changes in circumstances) could no longer afford to keep the original house they bought.
Your point however ties in with my point about being encouraged to treat your house as a commodity, and not a home (my original post)
Also, commercial house builders moved to building more affordable housing as the market for this became more attractive.
Housing which is not in the social housing pool. I would also add, that the low cost housing that was built was generally rubbish: thin walls, poor windows, a nightmare to heat, and damp. Basically costly to run. Some of the council housing stock that was sold off was really high quality stone houses that had been around for a hundred years
Any shortage of council built housing is down to lack of investment by the government, pure and simple.
But you have to ask why: Oldnat (I think) made a very good point about councils not investing in building new houses because as soon as they did, they were sold to their tenants at less than cost
Do you honestly expect Labour to own up to this, as they have been in power (UK) for the last 12'ish years... it is far more politically beneficial for them to blame the Tory's right to buy, rather than their own failure as a government.
I am no fan of the current labour party, or the tories. I blame them both, but there is no doubt that the tories started the process
Houses don't just disappear. Yes ultimately they need renovated or replaced, but this is gradual process. Also, the population has been approximately the same in Scotland for the last quarter of a century. The question is that if there are no more people in Scotland and private and council houses are being built, is the housing problem any worse than it has been over that time... and if so, does that not indicate that the government have failed to invest, as I don't think that the private sector has in the last decade with house prices so profitable?
Houses fall out of use. Just wander round glasgow and count the boarded up houses. It is the nature of houses that every year there will be some that become uninhabitable (a particular problem in remote and rural locations, but more visible in the cities). The councils built next to nothing (6 I believe is a number quoted on this blog earlier). There is also a problem with changing social and family dynamics: more broken families requiring instead of 1 house, 2 or more houses to meet their needs (this is where the real rise in demand for social housing has come from, not a population increase).
as I don't think that the private sector has in the last decade with house prices so profitable?
The private sector built houses to maximise their profits. i.e. housing developments around the outskirts of our cities. Where people with money could buy them and commute into the city. Alternately there were flats for the city professionals located in the centre of the city (or on school playing fields). Very little of this housing was aimed at the profit-poor social housing sector.
I think we are in general agreement, we are both just angry about different stages in the process that has lead us to where we are now.
John
Complain about this comment
#352
Can a whole royal line be illegal?
Somone can usurp power, yes, but surely after the first transfer of power to the designated heir then the line becomes legitimate?
Or are we always tied to the sins of our fathers? In which case, I doubt there is a legitimate hereditary ruler anywhere in the world (possibly another point entirely)
When does the act of conquering, or usurping becomme legitimate, and indeed who made that rule?
John
Complain about this comment
Brian Taylor Wrote:
The recess is upon us at Holyrood. This blog, consequently, will slip gently into the summer equivalent of hibernation"
Why can't we just have a facility for starting our own topics, where by the host can respond to as he is supposed to do regularly?
********************
232. At 09:08am on 07 Jul 2009, Susan-Croft wrote:
waitingformyman
In answer to your question though, you should always put the well-being of your Country and fellow Countrymen before any political party or anything else for that matter, in my opinion. This is one of the things I most admire about the Scottish that they have never lost sight of this one true value. They may have different political views but they hold firm in the belief that they are Scottish above all else. This has enabled you over the years to hold onto your culture and traditions, I can only wish the English had done the same."
I had actually thrown you a duff question, but you arrived at the correct answer. I put scottish first, yes, but the tool that best fulfills that is a political party with the best chance of getting our country back, even so it has had its rear end torn out of it. The name of the party is niether here nor there.
By the way the reference to the rear end of this country was from a fellow countryman I had the fortune of sharing a pint with in a rather "earthy" and peacefull place of our country. I won't go into the depths of our musings but it concluded with. "Just giz our country back and gee us peace!" We can easily replace the rear end and we're not even caring if we're "poorer".
slanj
Complain about this comment
Re 266 Handclapping
The report has made its conclusions and you are right it has cross party support. I think that makes my point about Holyrood precisely, the understanding of rural issues is poor to say the least.
What the report did not recognise is that it costs more to provide these services across such a large area. For example, access to A&E, the Highland area needs a disproportionate number of A&E facilities for population, so this requires more staff, more buildings, more ambulances and ultimately must be less efficient than Glasgow or Dundee where the services can be located in the one or two areas. Perhaps the report would have been different if it had looked more closely at how services were provided across city areas and how they could be made more efficient. But that of course requires unpopular political decisions.....(monklands)
So provision of Healthcare in the Highlands will cost more, it can never be anything else. So no the Highlands is not wasting money, we have different needs that require different solutions. The 20m NHS Highland is not going to get means that services in the highlands will be poorer than the rest of Scotland. I don't for one minute deny the problems facing areas of Glasgow and Dundee, they genuinely need addressed, but not by robbing the Highlands.
Holyrood understands rural issues no better than Westminster. That is my basic argument against the current offerings on independence, it has not been thought through properly, the solution proposed does not recognise the need to develop a system of government that changes the way decisions are made, one that recognises the differences across Scotland and the need for different solutions.
The guff by others about my vote meaning more in Holyrood than Westminster just doesn't wash. Decisions made in Holyrood are made for the benefit of the Central belt, the Highlands are rarely considered properly. The system of government requires decentralisation, proper meaningful decentralisation. But that requires courageous leadership and a politician that is prepared to let power go. We have none of these in the UK let alone Scotland.
Complain about this comment
Re 350
Somehow Tommy lacks a wee bit of credibility, his actions and words don't quite match up.
As the subject of Whipping... best left alone methinks!
Complain about this comment
#375
somehow, somewhere all the quotation marks have been removed from my post. Apologies for the confusion... here it is again with them (I hope):
#306
"John, no it did not, the houses are still there and they still have people living in them"
My point was that they were lost to the social housing pool, and are no longer available to be allocated on the basis of need. Whether they have someone in them or not is irrelevant to this.
"people lost their properties was when they sold up for a profit and then moved to a much more expensive property under a large mortgage which they ultimately could not afford. The percentages of re-possessions increases the further up the chain you go. Relatively cheap properties suffer the fewest re-posessions."
It is an undeniable fact that the more a person owes, then the less likely that they are able to afford to pay their debt. However there would have been some that (possibly due to changes in circumstances) could no longer afford to keep the original house they bought.
Your point however ties in with my point about being encouraged to treat your house as a commodity, and not a home (my original post)
"Also, commercial house builders moved to building more affordable housing as the market for this became more attractive."
Housing which is not in the social housing pool. I would also add, that the low cost housing that was built was generally rubbish: thin walls, poor windows, a nightmare to heat, and damp. Basically costly to run. Some of the council housing stock that was sold off was really high quality stone houses that had been around for a hundred years
"Any shortage of council built housing is down to lack of investment by the government, pure and simple."
But you have to ask why: Oldnat (I think) made a very good point about councils not investing in building new houses because as soon as they did, they were sold to their tenants at less than cost
"Do you honestly expect Labour to own up to this, as they have been in power (UK) for the last 12'ish years... it is far more politically beneficial for them to blame the Tory's right to buy, rather than their own failure as a government."
I am no fan of the current labour party, or the tories. I blame them both, but there is no doubt that the tories started the process
"Houses don't just disappear. Yes ultimately they need renovated or replaced, but this is gradual process. Also, the population has been approximately the same in Scotland for the last quarter of a century. The question is that if there are no more people in Scotland and private and council houses are being built, is the housing problem any worse than it has been over that time... and if so, does that not indicate that the government have failed to invest, as I don't think that the private sector has in the last decade with house prices so profitable?"
Houses fall out of use. Just wander round glasgow and count the boarded up houses. It is the nature of houses that every year there will be some that become uninhabitable (a particular problem in remote and rural locations, but more visible in the cities). The councils built next to nothing (6 I believe is a number quoted on this blog earlier). There is also a problem with changing social and family dynamics: more broken families requiring instead of 1 house, 2 or more houses to meet their needs (this is where the real rise in demand for social housing has come from, not a population increase).
"as I don't think that the private sector has in the last decade with house prices so profitable?"
The private sector built houses to maximise their profits. i.e. housing developments around the outskirts of our cities. Where people with money could buy them and commute into the city. Alternately there were flats for the city professionals located in the centre of the city (or on school playing fields). Very little of this housing was aimed at the profit-poor social housing sector.
I think we are in general agreement, we are both just angry about different stages in the process that has lead us to where we are now.
John
Complain about this comment
PS to my #364
Hansard now has a permanent location for the full list of shame here.
FWIW the "good guys" are the AYES and Duff Gordon's lot the NOES.
One small surprise is that tax doubling on the poorest workers seems universally popular amongst the MPs for Northern Ireland. As well as the DUP's Jeffrey Donaldson, William McCrea, Iris Robinson and Peter Robinson, the UUP's Lady Hermon and the SDLP's Mark Durkan both voted NO. The remaining 12 MPs were absent, including of course the 5 Sinn Fein MPs who always are.
Of MPs for Great Britain, ex-Con Bob Spink was the only non-NuLab NO voter. A personal or a UKIP decision, I wonder?
16 Tories, 6 L-Ds and George (not much respect for the poorest?) Galloway absented themselves along with 26 NuLab MPs (some, perhaps, with vestiges of a conscience?), while the electorate of Glasgow North East has nobody to speak for them, of course, along with those of Norwich North.
Natually there won't be, but if there were any justice the Parliamentary Labour Party after the general election should consist of the 19 brave souls who voted AYE - none of them from Scottish constituencies as previously noted. The roll of honour is: Abbott, Diane; Caton, Martin; Corbyn, Jeremy; Drew, David; Field, Frank; Fisher, Mark; Flynn, Paul; Godsiff, Roger; Havard, Dai; Hoey, Kate; Hopkins, Kelvin; Jones, Lynne; Kilfoyle, Peter; Mackinlay, Andrew; McDonnell, John; Prentice, Gordon; Simpson, Alan; Wareing, Robert N. and Wood, Mike.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#378
What do you propose then?
I believe that Holyrood has at least has a greater proportion of MSPs from the highlands/rural areas versus the central belt than westminster has of MPs (if nothing else orkney and shetland have seperate constituency MSPs).
At least in Holyrood, rural problems can be heard through the petitions process.
There will always be a level of misunderstanding of problems away from the seat of decision making (just look at highland council foisting gaelic road signs on Caithness) so short of autonomy for every region, there is no way that can be avoided.
The hope is that the closer the decision making is, then the more representative it should be.
I personally feel that the main problem at the moment is not the distance of the legislature, but the nature of the politicians. Currently we have a set of career politicians who know that to be reelected, all they have to do is please their central party apparatus (in the city). So the politicians no longer represent the people.
If I had my way, the constituancies would be larger, each returning two or three MSPs (or MPs). Each voter would have a single vote, and would cast it for a single candidate. The two or three candidates with the most votes would be elected. Each party could put up any number of candidates. No votes would be transferred. In this way, the candidate, not the party, would have to be the choice of the electorate to be elected.
John
Complain about this comment
As crude-oil price volatility is frequently cited as a reason for the concept of Scottish independence to be sneered at, an article on that subject by Gordon Brown and Nicolas Sarkozy, and on the subject of futures-market volatility more generally, appears in The Wall Street Journal today:
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124699813615707481.html
It is, needless to say, attracting a great deal of interest, not least because, as is mentioned in 'Going Down?' in my blog (the Web address for which is given in my #370), there is reason to believe that economic recovery may be at risk because it appears that recent and current futures-market activity is indicating that market opinion is anticipating a sharp fall.
The distinguished economist Paul Jorion (at http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/) notes that the data collected by Bloomberg the other day from VIX (which measures volatility implicit in options) indicates a 68 per cent chance that the S&P index will vary in a downward direction by up to 7.3 per cent over the next 30 days. This will not have gone un-noticed by the shorters in the market, of course.
Needless to say, Mr Jorion is not taking the "Mrs. Brown et Sarkozy" commodities initiative terribly seriously and is offering his own solution in his latest post: "Ban non-commercials from commodity markets!"
Complain about this comment
Re 378
I don't think it is the representation levels that are wrong, that is to simplistic, anyway I don't want to replace domination of the Highlands with some other inequality.
The issue is that decisions have to be taken at the lowest possible level. Look at crofting reform for example. An issue totally affecting the Highlands, but voted on by MP's for central Edinburgh and Glasgow that wouldn't understand 5% of the issues and have probably never seen a croft in their life. This should have been debated, sorted in the Highlands by people who know what is involved. then if legislation was required in Holyrood fine but sort the problem where it exists.
The Gaelic sign issue is dire. Some places in Caithness cannot be translated into Gaelic, the area has never had native Gaelic speakers the whole issue is dire. But when local government is not local this is what happens. A nasty debate has been started that causes major problems, it never needed to come to this. I am not a native Gaelic speaker but am 100% behind the protection of the language and culture, it is worth protecting. However don't force it on anyone else. It goes back to something we used to be good at in the Highlands, live and let live.
If decisions were made locally they will be better. So I would recommend smaller local government areas, with shared services to make it more efficient, with issues like crofting in the parliament decided by short term working groups of MSP's, Councillors, community councillors and other interests then put to parliament. Its not difficult, just common sense.
Complain about this comment
#383
CORRECTION
In my haste I have committed a slight infelicity in the composition of paragraph 1 of my #383. A correction appears in my latest post at
http://frankly.yolasite.com/
Complain about this comment
#384
"with issues like crofting in the parliament decided by short term working groups of MSP's,"
Is this not why the committees were given more power in Holyrood? to do just this sort of thing?
I would say however that any legislation has to be voted on by the whole parliment so that there is a coherent approach to legislation.
John
Complain about this comment
Re 386
If you read my post I agree wholly with the fact that parliament has to make the decisions. But the committee structure should be changed so that Crofting for example would be dealt with by those MSP's who understand the issue supplemented by local effort to ensure all the issues are dealt with and understood meeting in the Highlands.
Effectively then the decision making is devolved to a local level where it will be done more effectively. It is the same with the national policy on Gaelic, when 60000 ish people speak the language, let them decide how it is best protected then we most likely wouldn't have the mess that is currently in the Highlands.
Complain about this comment
383 frankly_francophone
The problem with oil industry for Scotland is that it would be exposed even more to the problem of 'Asymmetric shocks'.
I found this little piece which is a good description of the problems concenring the oil industry (among others):
"...some economic areas may be oil exporters and thus highly dependent on the price of oil, but other areas are not. If the oil price plunges, the oil-dependent area would benefit from policies designed to boost demand that might be unsuited to the needs of the rest of the economy."
http://www.economist.com/research/economics/alphabetic.cfm?letter=A
I would say that the best way to reduce the impact felt of these asymmetric shocks would be a highly integrated economy; this was certainly the view of the late Professor Robert Mundell, the father of 'the Theory of Optimum Currency Areas'.
Therefore I would speculate (just speculate mind) we need to integrate the UK economy rather than seek to reduce overal coordination, might this be an argument against fiscal devolution perhaps?
*NB: I am playing devils advocate, you all know I'm a fan of fiscal federalism or something similar!
Complain about this comment
384. At 11:49am on 08 Jul 2009, northhighlander wrote:
The Gaelic sign issue is dire. Some places in Caithness cannot be translated into Gaelic, the area has never had native Gaelic speakers the whole issue is dire. But when local government is not local this is what happens. A nasty debate has been started that causes major problems, it never needed to come to this. I am not a native Gaelic speaker but am 100% behind the protection of the language and culture, it is worth protecting. However don't force it on anyone else. It goes back to something we used to be good at in the Highlands, live and let live."
100% behind it my rear end! Cant't usually be bothered to "examine" your bummff but it easily catches the eye - just how desperate you are becomming. Where are you posting from, London maybe?
Live and let live eh?! Do me the courtesy of enrichening mine just a little by learning what places are REALLY named, not the ones that were FORCED upon them.
Your system files have been corrupted beyond repair, I suggest a rebuild and a relocation to be closer to where you really come from.
Complain about this comment
#387
I think I can agree with that..... assuming of course you can find a way of selecting MSPs (or outsiders) who understand the issues.
John
Complain about this comment
#378 northhighlander
"Holyrood understands rural issues no better than Westminster."
Fair comment, but at least you have the same number of voices arguing your end (plus your share of 7 regional MSPs) in a chamber of 129 voices instead of 646 voices. If they're not getting the messages across, that's down to a mixture of a flawed electoral system and bad decision making by the electorate.
#384 northhighlander
"I don't think it is the representation levels that are wrong ... The issue is that decisions have to be taken at the lowest possible level ... If decisions were made locally they will be better ... Its not difficult, just common sense."
All very good points. The structure of Holyrood naturally reflects the "top down" creation of it by St. Tone. There is at least an argument that constitutional issues are an even more urgent matter for a referendum with the people being asked to choose between "bottom up" like Switzerland or "top down" like the UK.
The problem is that with the official unionists likely to win the general election, the chances of their allowing such a plebiscite are much more remote than those of the Scottish Parliament approving an independence referendum in 2010 or 2011. At least once that has taken place the constitutional debate could begin in earnest.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Ministers who have used taxpayers money to pay for private accountants have been breaking the law if not paying tax on the benefit.
One such minister is our very own 'honest' Jim Murphy.
Only five of 40 MP's have paid the tax - Alister Darling, Bob Blizzard, Tessa Jowell, Jim Fitzpatrick and Alan Campbell.
So, Jim Murphy has consistently broke the law for the last three years by claiming almost 2000 pounds for private accountants and not paying tax on the benefit.
Complain about this comment
Afternoon ,John_ & North Highlander, you have both made some very useful suggestions in your posts today. the point about MSP's from the central belt debating the future of crofting is well made. you are correct, the closest most of them would ever come to a croft would be when they last had a sherry.
As i said earlier in this thread holyrood is a very young Parliament and it would therefore be easier to make the adjustments that you both suggest.as you say all we need to do is find politicians who have the guts to do as they promise ,just for once!! cheers Sid.
Complain about this comment
193. At 11:56pm on 06 Jul 2009, deanthetory wrote:
183. aye_write
You are entirely correct, it is a question of 'is it worth it'.
This is why we ought to have a plebicite, a stringent and clean campaign (no scaremongering etc) on the issue. A multichoice would be best perhaps? Independence, status quo, further devolution.
This will not only serve as a campaign to highlight the issue to the electorate of Scotand (rather than leaving it to the Sun to 'educate' voters on the subject of independence and unionism). But it would make the publics views clear."
Oh god help us, you're a "career" politician aren't you?
If you are I hope you never ever get anywhere in politics, scincerely, sorry, but its a scurge, people making life changing descions on behalf of masses without even have experienced it! Being a Tory only doubles the damage you'd do.
*********
Aye aye, aye_write. Quite dissapointed you stop to ask if it is worth it.
Complain about this comment
#389
Gaelic is not and never has been native to Caithness. If signs there are to be bilingual, then a norse language would be more appropriate (I do not know exactly which one). So when you talk about places having their "real" name, then that will not be a Gaelic name.
You should learn your facts or read the whole post before you rant.
John
Complain about this comment
First on Gaelic, it was not and never was 'Scotlands language', the lowlands and large sections of the nation never spoke Gaelic at all. The example of Caithness drawn to earlier by a valued contributor was a fine example. My point then: why should the whole of Scotland therefore pay for sign posts in the language? Its not my fathers language after all.
(I will note however it was my mothers, being a MacKinnon)
-----
On Croft reform: not many active crofters appear to support the main drive of proposed reforms led by Holyrood; as this Herald article seems to tell a subject amature like me.
http://www.theherald.co.uk/features/letters/display.var.2517205.0.Crofters_concerns_have_been_overlooked_in_proposed_legislation.php
Given then that Croft reforms are still such a divisive issue, is it not time to take a step back from legislating, review possible reforms and currently proposed ones at local levels. Consult councils, local church leaders and crofting communities themselves.
But give this consultation time, resources and a drive to actually make real findings. Empower it with authority to put some steel in the glove so to speak.
Might this not help solve many of the ins and outs of current legislation?
Complain about this comment
394. waitingformyman
I take it you disagree with my suggestion that we ought to have a multi choice plebicite on our Scottish constitutional question?
Despite you accusing me of being a ""career" politician" (and no, I'm a student) I would like to see why you disagree with my understanding that the only way to resolve the independence question of "is it worth it" is to have a clean, fair and above board referendum?
Complain about this comment
#388 deanthetory
"The problem with oil industry for Scotland is that it would be exposed even more to the problem of 'Asymmetric shocks'."
Whether that would or would not be the case at present, if Scotland were independent now, it would presumably not be the case, or at least would not be so to the same extent, if Mr Brown and Mr Sarkozy, or others, were to succeed in stabilizing the futures markets in oil and indeed other commodities, stablization of these being perceived to be of vital importance to global economic recovery, which appears to be about to be put at risk by falling stock markets as a result of non-supply/demand speculation-driven volativity in the futures markets, especially at this time.
Stock markets have been falling in Asia for the past six days, I understand, and a damagingly huge fall is considered likely in stock markets in the West this month, as a result of casino-type speculation in futures markets. In order to prevent a stalling of global economic recovery, the root causes of certain kinds of market volatility are being seriously addressed now, it seems, as needs must. Do read Jorion on this: http://www.pauljorion.com/blog/
If these efforts to eliminate or reduce 'irrational exuberance' (a type of 'rapport de force', as Jorion puts it) as a determinant of key commodity prices, get anywhere at all, the environment into which an independent Scotland emerged would be rather different from what exists now. There is a global consensus that a 'new normal' is in the process of coming into being, in other words, as a result of the Crisis and because there is no alternative to this, or so it is argued. Capitalism appears to be engaged in a turbulent and painful process of reforming itself radically in order to survive, if it can.
To protect itself against external shocks, which will always have to be guarded against, come what may, any economy needs to make itself as diverse as possible, to spread what risk there may be (just as a private investor will construct a portfolio of diverse investments to protect against losses in one sector or another). That being so, integration of the Scottish economy within a UK economy which suffers - and is going to suffer much more - from structural problems resulting from imbalances between its component sectors and the running down of its manufacturing base, would not appear to be an obviously prudent course to follow.
Harnessing and utilizing existing Scottish resources, not least oil revenues, which would be available to an independent Scotland and could be available to it within a federal or confederal constitutional arrangement, in order to invest in the Scottish economy with a view to restructuring it to make it less dependent on external variables, has much to be said for it. Well, we know that it has much to be said for it, as much has already been said for it here and elsewhere, as you know, and it is, I understand, SNP policy.
At the moment, momentous events are under way which will change the economic and political landscape, possibly beyond recognition. There is little point in envisaging the future of Scotland, or of anywhere else, I venture to suggest, within a landscape which is not the landscape of the future.
Excuse me for not replying for a while to any responses to this, as I must away and cultivate my garden.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
The claim that Gaelic was never in widespread or 'national' use is often made, but not necessarily true.
River names 'Avon' and 'Esk' for example, respectively derived from the Gaelic words for 'river' and 'water', are quite commonplace throughout the UK, while even 'Dover' shares its derivation [dobhar water] with places such Ben Doran (west Highlands) and Aberdour (Fife and Aberdeenshire).
As such, the value of an ancient indigenous language can never be overestimated, even just as a vital window of insight back to the past, and the origins of personal, family and place names.
Of course, there are other notable sources of local place names, most significantly Brythonic, and Norse, which is especially prevalent around our coastlines, and a major reason why not every place has a root Gaelic name.
Yet, the significance of a language cannot and should not be judged simply on the number of people who currently speak it and for every person, here or elsewhere, who expresses support, there are many others who are at best ambivalent towards the inestimable value of such living heritage.
As in the above examples, there are many areas with Gaelic names but where the language is no longer spoken, and Gaelic signage might be considered inappropriate.
However, if these fall within a larger region, i.e. the Highlands, where the language is synonymous with indigenous culture and heritage, the Gaelic signs could hardly endanger the English-speaking world, and might even encourage some to a greater appreciation of a living but endangered language whose future can by no means be taken for granted, and will continue to require vital ongoing support.
Complain about this comment
#392 greenockboy
"Ministers who have used taxpayers money to pay for private accountants have been breaking the law if not paying tax on the benefit."
Thanks for the heads-up on this, and no thanks to the BBC, who don't even seem to be reporting the "good" side of the news - for Capn. Darling & Co. - on this website.
My thoughts immediately turned to the Torygraph, where I found today's MPs breaking tax laws, chief inspector says. That goes into useful detail but names no MPs. Can you name the source, please?
Also in the Torygraph is Only now have MPs realised that some of the lowest-paid pay higher marginal rates of tax than millionaires from yesterday lunchtime, which explains how people on around £7,000 a year are allowed to keep just 30p in every £1 they earn above that level. I knew it was bad, but hadn't realised quite how bad was the deed that yesterday's 311 NOES did - all of them NuLab bar 4 DUP, 1 UUP, 1 SDLP and Bob Spink.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#387 northhighlander
You still have not justified your assertion that "Decision making is much more centralised than it was ten years ago."
Ten years ago all central government decision making on crofting was done by the MP for Glasgow Garscadden or by his Minister of State, the MP for Cunninghame North.
Still holding to your stance?
Complain about this comment
#378 northhighlander
What the report did not recognise is that it costs more to provide these services across such a large area.
The whole of section 6 of the report is on how much extra it costs to provide for the needs of different clinical conditions in remote and rural areas and how the extra provision is built into the new formula, so I cannot accept your statement. It is plain wrong. NHS Highland receives extra to provide for your health needs as you live in rural and remote areas. Your contention that it doesn't and this shows that Holyrood doesn't understand your problems is false.
Complain about this comment
398. frankly_francophone
Hope your not on garndening leave? No but seriously I'll look at that link of yours.
400. Dougie-Dubh
I'll investigate what your saying, its an interesting point you make.
Complain about this comment
396. At 2:02pm on 08 Jul 2009, deanthetory wrote:
First on Gaelic, it was not and never was 'Scotlands language', the lowlands and large sections of the nation never spoke Gaelic at all. The example of Caithness drawn to earlier by a valued contributor was a fine example. My point then: why should the whole of Scotland therefore pay for sign posts in the language? Its not my fathers language after all.
(I will note however it was my mothers, being a MacKinnon)"
Oh, thanks for that deen, I, myself, never knew that - duh!
Its just part of our history along with picts scots etc. Its very interesting you know. They were times when we chose our own destiny, something I know you may be alienated from the feeling of. Then someone came along and "stabalised" us! Oh, and yes then educated us and forced upon the majority of scots who still used the ancient language of the gaels the use of English. Gaelic speaking became outlawed and criminalised. And that's what YOU and certain others represent to me. Its time the injustice was undone - end of, and if your concerned about whos paying for it ask the english for it, for twas they who created the situation contrary to NorthHighlander's, ascertion. Keep your political wet behind the lugs bummff to yourself.
Your point...? The point you mentioned is not a point. Its H&I councils budget it's comming from, I thought. Are you saying that holyrood gives a specific extra ammount of funds to one council for this? If that is so then, fair enough, that would be unfair. But like I said get westminster to pay for it.
Complain about this comment
397. At 2:07pm on 08 Jul 2009, deanthetory wrote:
394. waitingformyman
I take it you disagree with my suggestion that we ought to have a multi choice plebicite on our Scottish constitutional question?"
multi choice plebicite? What the devil is that? A prehistoric age at the beggining of the evoloution of life?
For the record, I have no fears of a yes or a no choice?
Oh, and I quite like the idea of a republic.
Complain about this comment
#400
You imply that Gaellic was once native throughout the whole of the British isles. This has never been the case. However the brythonic and pictish languages share a common root with Gaelic (speculated in the case of pictish), is that not a more likely explaination of the similar place names.
Gaelic was only ever native to argyle, the western highlands and the western isles, and even then only after the Irish brought it over.
John
Complain about this comment
#407 John__
"Gaelic was only ever native to argyle, the western highlands and the western isles"
If my Granny was still around, she'd give you the Gaelic equivalent of a skelpit lug!
What on earth makes you think that the eastern and central Highlands wewen't Gaelic speaking? (Caithness is the exception).
Complain about this comment
#397 deanthetory
Sorry my early night caused me not to spot your #193's: "This is why we ought to have a plebicite, a stringent and clean campaign (no scaremongering etc) on the issue. A multichoice would be best perhaps? Independence, status quo, further devolution."
The $64,000 question, of course, is do you think that your leadership in either Holyrood or Westmidden will play ball with such a thing and would they support proper STV counting of the results or only "tick one box" winner takes all like their favoured plurality voting system for Westmidden?
If the answer is "Yes Yes" then good for you and them. Some thought needs to be given to them. IMO, they should all begin with "I authorise the Scottish Government to negotiate with the UK Government" and as a first cut I suggest something like:
- ... to disband itself and the Scottish Parliament, returning all powers to the UK Parliament and Government
- ... to implement the changes recommended by the Calman Commission excluding tax-varying powers
- ... to implement the changes recommended by the Calman Commission including tax-varying powers
- ... to implement the changes recommended by the Calman Commission plus full fiscal powers
- ... to have powers over all Scottish matters except defence, border control and foreign representation
- ... to have powers over all Scottish matters, but negotiating defence, border control and foreign representation with the other nations of the UK
- so that Scotland becomes an independent state
What would your list of options be?Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#405
Grow up, Dean is the young immature student, not you (or are you on your school holidays?).
To blame the English for the decline in Gaelic is to deny the part played by the rest of Scotland (and the decline of other Scottish languages). My dad's half of my family come from strathpeffer (a fine Pictish name apparently) should I be lamenting the encroachment of Gaelic into traditional Pictish areas?
Knowledge and understanding of the past is important, but it should not be put in the road of moving forwards.
John
Complain about this comment
405.waitingformyman
First, my name is spelt Dean with an a in it, no double 'e'.
And contrary to your wild assertion that people like me are preventing Scotland from deciding its own fate; I as a Scot and as a unionist still want to hold a plebicite (thats a referendum, not some prehistoric time period).
Not much evidence of your rather bland assertions thus far, unless you still believe that having a plebicite constitutes holding Scotland back?
Complain about this comment
This London bloggers post requires no comment from me!
http://hopisen.wordpress.com/2009/07/08/the-thames-tunnel-sounds-amazing/
Complain about this comment
Re 387
Writing insulting posts doesn't help any debate. I have lived in the Highlands of Scotland all my life as have my ancestors. The local School I went to has had a direct line through my family ever since a school has been in the area.
Gaelic is an important part of the culture and heritage of parts of the Highlands, but only parts of the Highlands. We must stop trying to foist upon others a culture that never existed. But equally we must protect the Gaelic culture. Most people in the Highlands would agree with this viewpoint.
However the crass policy of foisting Gaelic signs on non Gaelic communities undermines support for the protection of the language, as it drives communities in the affected areas apart. That is what happens when you try to fit a one size fits all solution for as diverse an area as the Highlands.
Re oldnat:
Pre the last local government reorg which was possibly more than 10 years ago, decisions were much more local. I take your point about the Scottish office but would counter with the notion that power devolved to Scotland is only of benefit to the citizen where it is used sensibly and the issues are understood. So crofting as an example is no better served by devolution.
Also local government power is constantly undermined by Holyrood, there has been a shift of power towards holyrood since its inception, first by ring fencing and then by the concordat which has changed little. Councils have less and less say over the allocation of resources.
Complain about this comment
Re 410
A perfectly put post which I agree with wholeheartedly.
Complain about this comment
Why can't those MP's get it right! you only have to watch PMQ's to see the house is still littered with those MP's that fell short with their expenses claims?. Why? on earth are they still allowed to sit in parliament and who the hell do they claim to represent.
As for the tax issue, the 10p debacle. Wow! not a Scot had the bottle to face up to the disaster, unbelievable and unforgivable, lets hope their recess is an extended recess on a permanent nature.
Complain about this comment
409. Brownedov
I'd approach it along the same lines.
...to disolve itself, returning devolved powers to Westminster
...to maintain the status quo, no changes
...to impliment Calman recomendations in full
...to impliment Calman recomendations except for fiscal devolution
...to impliment complete fiscal autonomy to Scotland
...to negotiate independence from the UK
I placed in my fiscal autonomy preference explicitly; this I'm not sure whether its really neccessary- but it is my preference for Devolution reform.
Complain about this comment
#408
sorry OldNat, should have said: Gaelic was originally only native to Argyle the western isles and the western highlands....
As implied in my later post it did spread, but never to cover the whole of scotland (or even close, with the South, North and East all having their own languages).
John
Complain about this comment
#406 waitingformyman
"multi choice plebicite? What the devil is that?"
A "plebiscite" is a now almost unknown event totally beyond the understanding of the timorous Unionist mindset in which the plebs actually get to have a say on how they're governed.
Complain about this comment
I believe a well known comedian once asked "who the hell is Alice"
I believe millions now! ask "who the hell are labour"
Complain about this comment
#409 and #416
The problems in my opinion to having changes to the devolution settlement in the referendum, specifying various degrees of fiscal autonomy, is that we would not only be changing how Scotland is being governed, but we would be changing how the rest of the UK is governed as well (or our relationship within the UK). For that reason the referendum would have to be arranged with the mandate of the UK governemnt as the devolution referendum was. If devolution went forwards on this basis (having been arranged by Holyrood alone) then there would always be resentment from the rest of the UK that we had somehow contrived to vote ourselves a better settlement.
A referendum on pure independance or the stsatus quo could be raised by the holyrood parliment alone as that would be self determination, which I believe is a fundamental human right.
John
Complain about this comment
#413 northhighlander
If you are talking about strategic decision making in local government that has been a function of Highland Council and its predecessor the Regional Council since 1975. The last time you had that level of decision making in Caithness was 34 years ago!
Both the 1975 (Labour ) and 1994 (Tory) reorganisations of Scotland's LAs were simply variants of how English LAs were being reorganised.
Ring fencing of LA grants was the common practice of the old Scottish Office pre-devolution, and was continued (indeed intensified) under the Lab-Lib Executives. You clearly misunderstand the Concordat. It has removed specified budget lines and the need for LAs to account for the spending of these lines. As long as Councils work towards the Agreed Outcomes, they are free to spend their monies as best suits local needs.
My issue with you is not that further devolution from Holyrood would not be better - we are agreed on that. It was your fallacious statement that things were better 10 years ago, when in fact there has been improvement since then.
Complain about this comment
#397 deanthetory -
"Despite you accusing me of being a "career" politician" (and no, I'm a student)"
#129 deanthetory -
"It would open up many career opportunities for future post grads like myself (while I wait for a winnible Constituency to open up for me)"
So your idea of not being a career politician is to wait "for a winnible[sic]constituency to open up for [you]"
What a lucky constituency that would be, to be represented by someone so driven by the issues, so determined to work on behalf of the local voters that he was prepared to "wait" until it "opened up" for him.
Representing the community? Local issues? Nah, doesn't matter as long as it's "winnible"
Complain about this comment
410. At 3:15pm on 08 Jul 2009, John__ wrote:
#405
Grow up, Dean is the young immature student, not you (or are you on your school holidays?).
To blame the English for the decline in Gaelic is to deny the part played by the rest of Scotland (and the decline of other Scottish languages). My dad's half of my family come from strathpeffer (a fine Pictish name apparently) should I be lamenting the encroachment of Gaelic into traditional Pictish areas?"
Yes I'm on holiday. Gaelic, pictish, norse, whatever, yes it was the english who outlawed the use of anything other than English, so yes I do blame them. So, I'll rant all I damn well like! And yes you should lament but do you really know how that's done? I love the idea of pictishness, I'd rather have that. My family come from Srath Pheofhair!
But that's Gaelic! What's the pictish translation, if you please?
***********
DeAn, so sorry, if I have hurt your feelings, I am so sorry. I hope it doesn't distract you from your schooling.
******************
NorthHighlander, (god I cringe when I call you that for you are no highlander to me.) you don't get it. I've no interest in a debate with you. Merely pointing out your, extremely hypocritical and contradictory RANTS. Why are you using the gaelic issue as a tool? It is you who are guilty of trying to devide the community with such foul suggestions while hiding behind your veil of "100% behind it".
**********
See my rant about afghan has been modded - oh well, it had its wee shot.
Power to the ranter;)
Complain about this comment
#417 John_ et al.
Here's an interesting link on "Sutherland Gaelic"
http://www.countysutherland.co.uk/77.html
Which makes me wonder why it seemed to penetrate everywhere else north of the Highland Line but didn't get north of Bettyhill :}
When is a "native" language a "native" language ?
This article would seem to suggest that Gaelic was the primary form of spoken communication in Sutherland up until maybe the mid-1850s and I know it was still a living and spoken language there until my Parents' generation. In Canada, at its peak in the mid-19th century, Scots Gaelic, (considered with Irish Gaelic), was the third most spoken language in Canada after English and French and moves were put before the Canadian Senate to make it one of the "official" languages of the Confederation.
Gaelic Road signs. Those of you in the West will be aware of the "Failte Gu Grianaig" signs on the way in. Because the Mod was once held there. Is there a huge Gaelic-Speaking population in Greenock ? Does everyone know that you're in Greenock ? Were the founders extracting the proverbial calling it "The Sunny (Place/Hill/Bay, depending on your source)" ?
Does it do any harm to learn a little about the derivation of place names and how they were "changed" by anglicisation ? Take Portree - Port Rìgh allegedly translates as 'kingsharbour', attributed to a visit by James V. Another translation however I was always told by my Aunt who married a Sgianach was Port Ruighe, 'sloping harbour'.
So what ? Much of what "Scotland" was, our sense of place and identity, was altered by anglicisation of the names and the surpression of not only the Gaelic but the other "native" Scots dialects.
Had we remained an Independent Nation then there is probably no doubt that we would have ended up speaking English by dint of the good Lord placing us on these island with our larger neighbours - The "anglicisation" of the Scots tounge happened long before the union of the crowns or the parliaments. But it would have been Scots English, as different as Carribean English or African English or North American English.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile the Scottish arm of the London controlled state broadcaster continues to present news from a Labour perspective - even good news.
See the BBC C-diff headline where outbreaks are at their lowest since records began.
Political row over C.diff figures
The sooner they dismantle this waste of taxpayers money the better.
Complain about this comment
#416 deanthetory
Fair enough, I'm glad we agree that whatever the propositions, they should be in the form of instructions from the people to the Scottish Government and the minutiae of the exact wording would run and run.
Logically, this is exactly what Cameron seems to be inviting with his "people's referenda", but as I asked previously, do you think your colleagues can be persuaded and how do you anticipate them wanting to deal with one choice receiving less than 50% of Xs or first preferences?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Part 2' altogether now!
For the past 12 years I've been waiting for the chance'
to tell those labour morons that their policies are pants'
And for thirty odd years I've been giving my vote to labour
"LABOUR.....WHO THE ARE LABOUR!"
Complain about this comment
#420 John__
Oddly enough, if the Scottish Parliament approved a referendum on independence as such, that action could be struck down by the SoS as being outwith it's powers. Hence the strange wording of the SNP proposed wording. All that it can seek is a mandate to negotiate with the UK Government on any changes to the constitutional settlement.
If it can negotiate on independence, it can also negotiate on something less than that.
No change would happen if the UK and Scotland failed to agree. Of course, there would be huge political consequences if no such agreement was reached.
Complain about this comment
#418 bighullabaloo
"A "plebiscite" is a now almost unknown event totally beyond the understanding of the timorous Unionist mindset in which the plebs actually get to have a say on how they're governed."
That's a little OTT, I think. It's still fairly common UN-speak, especially in relation to self-determination, but more importantly Cameron is starting to push the idea of "people's referenda". I do grant that the NuLab unionists do seem to have a habit of promising referenda in their manifestos and having amnesia about them when they win the election. I hope we don't have to worry too much about that, since with Duff Gordon less popular than Michael Foot in '83, I can't see them winning any more elections.
I'm less sure that Cameron will be much better when in office, but as it's the English electorate who'll decide we can't do much about that except monitor it if/when it happens.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#409 Brownedov -
Personally - I wouldn't include the "Disband itself" option or "the changes recommended by the Calman Commission excluding tax-varying powers" - as i think the latter can be implemented under the constitutional arrangements.
Of the others - I think the gradual steps from tax-variance to fiscal fedarlism would need to be simplified for a referendum. Either that or you'd have to think about more than one plebiscite -
Firstly - Status Quo [Y/N], Devolution Max [Y/N], Independence [Y/N] then, if the vote came in in favour of Devolution Max [Y] a further plebiscite to decide the extent of the added powers.
Complain about this comment
#424
Sutherland and Caithness are different as I'm sure you know. I cannot tell you why Gaelic never got there, but it didn't. As for going north of Bettyhill, that would be the atlantic wouldn't it? I suspect that you meant east of bettyhill.
John
Complain about this comment
#417 John __ et al.
The Brythonic and Gaelic languages have related roots, but quite distinctive identities Brythonic languages appearing to have been spoken throughout ancient Britain, whilst Gaelic evidently spread across the north of these islands, eastwards from Dalriada.
Despite the historic use of Gaelic in these islands being second only to Brythonic, however, very little is recognition or understanding of Brythonic is evidenced by those who seek to impose with 'certainty' such definite limits on the usage or origins of Gaelic.
Do such people imagine that English, a tongue which only first arrived on Britains shores a couple of centuries after the departure of the Romans, has more ancient significance as the dominant or mother tongue?
The Book of Deer puts Scottish Gaelic in the heart of Aberdeenshire within living memory of St Columba.
Most prominently, Gaelic was the first language of the Scottish nation, the nascent kingdom of Alba having been forged and ruled through the Gaelic tongue, the language being that of the royal court until well beyond the Norman conquest of England, and spoken by our monarchs in Stirling and Edinburgh as late as the Stuart dynasty.
That alone should cement the languages place in our national history, and we should consider ourselves enormously fortunate that it remains with us today, affording us the chance to cherish and sustain it for future generations.
Complain about this comment
#424
ps. My grandparents (from Wick) never spoke Gaelic, and I have never come across anyone who spoke Gaelic there. As a child I used to visit there regularly, with my Gran living in Latheronwheel, and other relatives in Thurso.
Complain about this comment
#430
but if there was a majority for both independance and devolution max, but a greater majority for devolution max, which would you go for?
My answer would be: independance obviously as those who voted for independance would have also voted for devolution max, and as long as there is a majority for independance then that should be the route (look at how the voting went for the tax varying powers in the devolution referendum).
How would you interpret this result?
John
Complain about this comment
Am I the only one who thinks a 'more powers' option in the referendum is a load of tosh?
I think we need a more radical, and therefore much simpler referendum.
I would have...
" What do you want for the future of our country:-
[ ] Scottish Independence
[ ] Abolishment of Scottish Parliament, and return to fully unitary United Kingdom "
I, for one, am sick of this silly halfway house. Devolution may have improved one or two services here or there, but the fact is it's a waste of time (and taxpayers money) having our own parliament when it has very little real powers, and can be disposed of by Westminster whenever it chooses so.
We have to let the people decide. Are you Scottish or are you British? I know what I'd answer, but I'd happily accept the will of the people of Scotland if they disagreed with me.
Complain about this comment
I see Messiah Murphy has saved the day yet again and reports that Diageo will now consider alternatives to closing the Johnnie Walker bottling plant. This news comes just after he safe guarded thousands of jobs at 2 Clyde ship yards for years to come. The man's on fire.
Perhaps somebody could tell him there's a steel works in trouble in Motherwell, give him something to really get his teeth into!
Complain about this comment
422. Bandages_For_Konjic
I fail to see what is remotely careerist in my wanting to be a teacher/lecturer prior to entering politics.
Politics is a fair job, and there for those who wish to serve.
You seem to think that I ought to stand in unwinnable seats, yes, that will really enable me to make my contribution to my country!
Besides a careerist politician who utilises politics as a method to collect a pay packet. I fail to see, as a politics and law student how on earth I fit that categorisation!
I who could work as a teacher, or lawyer once I gain my degree.
Complain about this comment
423. waitingformyman
"I blame them"
Who is this 'them' that I am apart of which makes you hate me so much?
And thank you for actually calling me by my name, it is only curteous to address someone properly before you rant at them.
Thank you
Dean
Complain about this comment
The union is explicitly linked to the crown and it's legality.(hence the wording of any referendum in terms of Independence)
Both Oldnat and Ian Hamilton relate to this syndrome often! of course both names above are also aware that it's not an automatic leap and the process will be a serious of downloads and more powers until the position of full Independence is no longer an issue.
Complain about this comment
#437 - deanthetory
"You seem to think that I ought to stand in unwinnable seats, yes, that will really enable me to make my contribution to my country!
Perhaps they wouldn't be unwinnable if you stood? Ever think of that?
Complain about this comment
#432
Most of what you say I am aware of, but is the language of the crown the same as the language of the people. In which case it would be more reasonable to be demanding bilingual french and english signs.
Of course we all know that English is a modern hybrid language. The modern relatives of the Brythonic languages are welsh, cornish, and whatever the name of the cumbrian language is. Gaelic is not a Brythonic language, but has the same Celtic roots and only appeared in what is now Scotland when it was brought over from Ireland. The language that was spoken in what is now Scotland was pictish, which is thought to be an unromanised brythonic language (or a language related to basque, noone knows for sure). So according to you, we should all have bilingual signs in Welsh as the closest living relative of pictish (possibly).
The question therefor is how far back do you go?
As for the book of deer. It is reasonable to assume that all christian books would be in Gaelic at around that time, as that was the language of the Scots/Irish missionaries, who left written documents.
John
Complain about this comment
#434 John_ -
I'm not sure I've completely grasped what you're saying. (Numbers aren't my strong suit)
In a three way poll - I didn't think there could be a majority for two options with a greater majority for one.
For example - 46% Devolution Max, 44% Independence, 10% Status quo - 46% is the largest (majority) share of the vote but it's not an overall majority (less than 54%). I don't see how you could have a majority for both. Perhaps I'm just being dense.
Complain about this comment
#435 SinDorei -
I agree with the spirit of what you say but I can't for the life of me see Scotland arriving at Independence without a further devolutionary step between now and then.
Painful and frustrating though it may be at times - I think the SNP's 'gradualist' approach is the right one. A continued expansion of Scotland's powers will build confidence inside and outside our nation and embolden the 20-25% currently polling as 'Don't Knows' on independence for the 'final push'.
I believe I'll see Independence in my life time, much though I'd rather Winnie Ewing saw it in hers.
Complain about this comment
440.Bandages_For_Konjic
Perhaps I am too cynical, or maybe the impatience of youth?
All I know is the last tories to win in my home city of Glasgow was Sir Tam Galbraith who died in 1982!
But certainly the fact that it has become increasingly difficult to find decent candidates willing to stand in 'unwinnables' has served to exasperate the problem of 'safe seats'. A problem already created by tribal voting habits among the electorate and by the very nature of FPTP itself as an electoral system.
Complain about this comment
#432 Dougie-Dubh -
I remember hearing (Although I couldn't authenticate the source) that Robert the Bruce's first parliament, held at Cambuskenneth Abbey after the Battle of Bannockburn, was conducted in gaelic because it was the language the majority of his followers understood. If that's true, it does seem to back up your 'first language of the Scottish Nation' theory.
Complain about this comment
442. Bandages_For_Konjic
From your figures in your example.
According to those figures you would have a majority against independence, and a majority for continued membership for the union to start with (56% to 44%).
The next stage is breaking down the unionist percentage, and there the majority is for devolution max, so that would be the majority will of the people.
Well, that is my rather inexpert understanding of how to interpret those figures.
Complain about this comment
#430 Bandages_For_Konjic
"Personally - I wouldn't include the "Disband itself" option or "the changes recommended by the Calman Commission excluding tax-varying powers" - as i think the latter can be implemented under the constitutional arrangements."
Technically you're probably right, but surely it would be a very bad precedent for the Scottish people not to be asked by the Scottish Government, especially if any multi-choice is involved. It's bad enough that NuLab at Westmidden base not granting a referendum on a single word being omitted from a treaty without Holyrood starting to emulate them.
I'm more concerned about how the multi-choice element would be handled. You seem to be suggesting a series of Yes/No questions, which is certainly how Swiss referenda work, but in this case the results would be effectively mutually exclusive. What should happen if both Devolution Max and Independence get 50%+ Yes, for example?
The Yes/No only option is one of the reasons why Swiss progress is slow and steady rather than abrupt, but referenda here are so much part of the political landscape that a "voting" Sunday is reserved every quarter for whatever elections and referenda are needed. Accordingly, the "final" answer might take 5 or 6 quarterly votes to determine.
OTOH, In Scotland, the SNP have already announced it to be a "once in a generation" thing, and the other parties are most unlikely to want it more frequently. As such, I think making all the relevant options available is only fair, but I'm very doubtful of tory acceptance of STV counting of the results.
Out this evening, but will make any reply needed late, I hope.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#443 Bandages_For_Konjic
Looking at Winnie, I wouldn't bet on you outliving her!!!!
Complain about this comment
#436 ForteanJo
Yes and the depressing thing about it is that the so called consensus to save the whisky industry didnt last long. Labour just couldnt resist trying to score points over Salmond. Pity that. Wonder how Murphy found out ahead of Salmond?
Strange thing about this blog, with the numbers of Nats and unionists that come on to it, I would have thought common cause would have broken out in support of the workers in Kilmarnock and Glasgow plus I was also expecting a real blast of anger that the next most important industry in Scotland was coming under real threat.
Never mind, its always good to read about the stuff that worries the community, like how many angels can dance on the head of a pin!
Complain about this comment
#448 oldnat -
After watching her in BT's recent propaganda effort - I would wholeheartedly agree with you and long may she continue!
Complain about this comment
#430 Bandages_For_Konjic
PS to my #447
Just seen that your #442 is past the mods.
Your 46%, 44%, 10% example is at odds with your Y/N for each. If the question is Y/N, you need 3 separate Xs. A true multi-choice would by via STV and marked 1, 2, 3 etc in order of preference, as in council by-elections.
Really off out now. TTFN
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
449. , Robabody
Thats one point worth mentioning.
But I'd like to add that I wish all the political parties would stop playing politics with the future of Scottish wisky.
The SNP plan to reduce excessive student drinking, and excessive youth drinking more widely is slightly out of kilter- as I can tell you te young don't get drunk on the national drink of Scotland! We have cocktails, mocktails and Gin rather!
If the Holyrood opposition parties really wanted to solve this problem I've alluded to then they would actually coordinate action- but even my own leader auntie Bella has been mistaken if she thinks that this very serious problem is one to be treated as an opportunity to 'bash the nats'.
Such an approach shows a lack of real comittment to getting this problem legislation off the planning charts.
Complain about this comment
#447 Brownedov
There is another way to look at a multi choice referendum. Since the views of the majority of Scots would need to be negotiated between the Scottish and UK Governments, then the "first round" referendum should be used to determine whether the Scottish Government should be mandated at all to negotiate an increase in the powers of the Scottish Parliament (more or less the existing question, but with a different ending).
There is no need for a separate option for those who wish the Parliament dissolved, as they already want decisions to be taken by the UK Parliament (whose decision it was to create the current situation). It would be a simple Yes/No question.If the answer was Yes, then a "second round" referendum would be held to mandate the limits of the negotiating freedom that we give the Scottish Government. Simply list the reserved powers (much as in the Scotland Act) and let people vote Yes/No on each one as to whether the Government should negotiate for these to be returned to the Scottish Parliament.
Then let negotiations commence!
Complain about this comment
#443 Bandages_For_Konjic
I see your point, and I also hope to see independence in my lifetime, but I just don't see the sense in prolonging the decision any longer.
The Scottish people are not stupid, they can make a decision on whether they want independence or the Union without hearing auld Alec bleating for a few more years (don't get me wrong, I like him, but on independence we're starting to hear the same arguments again and again, from both sides).
Why can't we decide now? We've had devolution for 10 years, tested the waters so to speak. Can't we decide now which way to go?
Also, @ deanthetory's various posts concerning safe seats etc...
I think the Conservatives would do better in areas such as Glasgow if they actually put up a fight. My father, for one, has lived in the East end of Glasgow his whole life and is a longstanding Tory supporter, but has recently been voting SNP. And it doesn't do much to encourage him to turn back when he hears Tory's on the telly saying they did well "In the areas where they were aiming to do well."
I just think they'd be better not just concentrating on the areas, as my mother puts it, 'with the big houses' and tried everywhere.
Complain about this comment
454. SinDorei
50 years of slow decline, acculmulating suddenly in the 1997 vote disintegration has left Scottish Conservatives with a slight Petainist attitude of defeatism. This is the first election where we are expected to gain (even marginally).
Its even a change from 2005, when the anti-tory factor still meant that all commentators didnt really expect any advances north of the wall. Now its different, and the hatred/fear isnt really as pronounced. This time any failure will be our failures, and successes our successes; with nowhere to hide/blaime.
Its a new experience for us, as remember a generation like mine (I'm 20) have grown up knowing only defeat. This is my first election to be gojng in expecting successes. We have much to learn, and you are right- we need to try harder in places like Glasgow.
They dont vote for us because of reasons, we need to deal with them. But we have managed to get a councillor elected in Greater Glasgow council; a success- proving that with a good local candidate you can win.
You make an excellant point sir! I'm all enthused now, thinking about Galbraith, and Taylor...and....past times....(all before my time, thereby proving my earlier point!)
Complain about this comment
#455 deanthetory
Glad you seem to agree with me.
But I really can't emphasise enough, the Tories have a lot to gain from our generation. I'm 18 myself, and whenever I discuss politics with people my age. (and I mean those interested in discussing politics; those disinterested are a separate issue) I find negative opinions of Labour, simply because it's the party we've seen in power for most of our lives, and we've seen they're not infallible (to put it very mildly).
So far it seems to be the SNP gaining from my generation (from what I've seen anyway, where I live) and it's not really because people fully agree with all their policies, or indeed independence (necessarily), but because they're the only viable alternative here.
I'll admit I voted SNP at the Euro elections (my first and only vote!!) because I think Scotland gets a raw deal in Europe and the SNP seem to be the only politicians speaking for Scotland, rather than what London tells them to say.
But I don't agree with many of their policies, and consider myself very much centre-right. And I don't feel parties like the Conservatives (really the only mainstream centre-right party, in Scotland anyway) are doing enough to win voters like me over.
Also, I will add, one councillor in all of Glasgow is hardly something to be proud of :)
Complain about this comment
oldnat - your #453 rather more adroitly grasps what I was stumbling after in my #430.
Complain about this comment
I've been lurking here a long time, but it's time to de-lurk (waves shyly), since someone's brought up my favourite topic - Scotland's languages.
At its greatest territorial extent, around the 13th century, Gaelic was the main or sole language of every region of modern Scotland except Shetland, Orkney, the extreme South-East and (perhaps surprisingly) the Isle of Lewis, but even in these areas there was a minority of Gaelic speakers.
It's a common myth that Caithness was never Gaelic speaking. There is historical evidence which shows several Caithness parishes, including Thurso and Wick, were Gaelic speaking as late as the early 18th century. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caithness#Language for a selection of contemporary quotes. In the High Middle Ages people in Caithness were bilingual in Caithness Norn and Gaelic but from the 15th century onwards this was replaced by bilingualism involving Lowland Scots and Gaelic. Caithness then lost Gaelic somewhat earlier than other Highland districts. It is not difficult to provide Gaelic versions of Caithness placenames, many retain traditional Gaelic versions anyway.
Many placenames in the north and west of Scotland are of Norse origin and common Gaelic equivalents exist for most Norse terms used in these placenames. The placenames of Lewis, the last bastion of Gaelic, are overwhelmingly Norse. In fact there are very few "native Gaelic" placenames on the Isle of Lewis, which was largely Norse speaking until at least the 15th century. Most Gaelic placenames in Lewis are simply Gaelicised spellings of Norse names - like Steornabhagh/Stornoway from Norse Stjornavagr 'bay of steerage', Siabost/Shawbost from Skogabolstadhr 'woodland farm' etc.
Norn was the evolutionary outcome of the Norse language in Caithness, Orkney and Shetland. In Caithness it disappeared before being recorded. In Orkney and Shetland only a few words and very short texts were ever written down. Late Norn seems to have been most similar to modern Faroese. Its last speakers lived on Foula in Shetland, where the language died out in the early 19th century.
Complain about this comment
#457 Bandages_For_Konjic
Thanks - appreciated.
Complain about this comment
#458 InfrequentAllele
Glad you de-lurked!
Interesting stuff. Thanks.
Complain about this comment
More Labour press releases presented as news by the BBC in Scotland.
'Snub' claim over Diageo meeting
Heard saviour Murphy on the radio earlier though - thank goodness for 'honest' Jim eh?
Well done BBC - present Salmond as 'snubbing' and present Murphy as saviour.
Complain about this comment
Why Scotland Office is little more than a quango
Civil Servants Answer One Letter A Week
"TWENTY staff are employed at the £6million-a-year Scotland Office to cope with just three letters a day."
That equates to c£6,000 per letter!
Complain about this comment
Tessa Jowell and Mark Hoban avoid the questions - Alex Salmond answers them
Complain about this comment
462. cynicalHighlander
nice work if you can get it!
Complain about this comment
#464. deanthetory
This is better!
the Tory MP, an au pair and his £13,000 on expenses
"However, he confirmed that the cleaning money funded by the taxpayer was the students only income and that she had sometimes looked after his children."
Complain about this comment
Jail for woman who conned Tories
A law for us mere mortals and another for MPs! The moral of this story is don't steal from a political party only from taxpayers.
Complain about this comment
465. cynicalHighlander
Providing a student with her only income, very caring, generous and compassionate! Progressive torism in action...erm....yes.
466. cynicalHighlander
Make her pay everything back, every last penny. Prisons too good for criminal fraudsters like this 'person'.
Complain about this comment
#466 cynicalHighlander
Never mind. Nice to see the Tories praising the Scottish judicial system for a change!
Complain about this comment
#466, 468 cynical, oldnat
Surely this is a case for a community sentence, like 1000 hours as cashier in John Smith House?
Complain about this comment
#453 oldnat
A neat solution, perhaps with the second referendum scheduled provisionally for one week after the first, and the second ballot paper made public at the time of the initial Yes/No.
"reserved powers (much as in the Scotland Act)"
But I think even the Swiss, used to referendum questions as they are, would baulk at the prospect of a ballot paper consisting of pages 14 and 15 of the Scotland Act. Excellent précis skills could probably cut it down to 20 questions, but even that might be rather off-putting.
I'd say you'd have to cut it down to 5 short questions to cope with modern attention spans or risk getting blank answers to the rest out of sheer boredom.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#470 Brownedov
Also worth saying something like "significant" additional powers - that would put the Calman supporters (if any) on the spot!
Agreed about reducing the number of questions in round 2. There is a clear need to concatenate things which can't practically be separated, otherwise we might get a crazy set of incompatible choices!
Complain about this comment
They still don't get it - in England they continue to display confusion over their identity.
http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/denis-macshane-this-bill-is-going-to-reduce-us-all-in-the-commons-to-poodles-1737954.html
"Britain shaped the doctrine of parliamentary supremacy and of freedom of speech in the Bill of Rights exactly 320 years ago."
Not a hugely important point, but 320 years ago, the English Parliament passed a Bill of Rights as, unlike Scotland, they had no constitutional mechanism to remove a monarch.
Complain about this comment
oldnat we'll praise the judicial system when it merits.
We do need to criticise many aspects of it such as early release, a mistake from years ago that would have been reversed had we been returned sooner rather than later.
Complain about this comment
#471 oldnat
"Also worth saying something like "significant" additional powers"
Yes. If that's not in the first round, there'd be little point in the second.
"There is a clear need to concatenate things which can't practically be separated, otherwise we might get a crazy set of incompatible choices!"
True. I think the hard one is the omnibus General reservations in Part I. Foreign affairs etc. and Defence could be rolled together as the "final" question, but the bits and pieces around the Crown would need great sensitivity to avoid putting off the royalists. The rest could be "rolled up" fairly easily.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#458
Thanks for the intervention. Lots of havering rubbish talked about Gaelic most of the time. Some anti Scots among us find this one of their favourite topics - to try to prove that Gaelic was never a language of any consequence in Scotland. Why they think this is of any importance to the constitutional issue I don't know.
The fact is that Gaelic supplanted the Pictish languages ( there may have been several,some of which may have been related to the british spoken in parts of Strathclyde and now spoken in Wales) over much of Scotland and then itself was supplanted in many areas by variant of Anglo Saxon. This kind of fluidity in language happened in every country all over the world - including England.
Swahili and Hausa from East and West Africa respectively are both forms of pidgin arabic which developed over centuries into languages with complete syntaxes. In Nigeria today (a country of over 300 languages) a peculiar form of Nigeran pidgin English is steadily creating a new West African regional language.
Complain about this comment
#472 oldnat
"They still don't get it - in England they continue to display confusion over their identity."
Quite so, but thanks for the Indy link, which is quite a good read.
What MacShane demonstrates - apart from his identity confusion - is that NuLab still don't get than building yet more Quangos is not the answer we want to control our politicians. None of these new rules is necessary or even appropriate. What's needed is a recall mechanism triggered by conviction in any court or by a reasonable percentage of the electorate just demanding it. That would be plenty to keep them on their toes.
Anyway, at pushing 02:00 CET it's getting late so goodnight all.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Re 423
I will not respond to your insults, that says much more about yourself and what type of person you are.
It is perfectly possible to support Gaelic and not be a speaker or want to be a speaker. It is perfectly possible to have a culture that does not have strong Gaelic roots and be proud of it. Many people in this part of the world have strong Norse roots ( myself included) and are proud of that. We share that with our North isles neighbours quite comfortably. We also have in common with many parts of the Highlands a lot of people who have strong English roots, are proud of them and make very strong positive contributions to the Highlands and to the protection of Gaelic.
Scotland is a nation of many cultures and is diverse, we should not try to create some homogeneous Highland culture but accept that we live in a diverse place and celebrate that, not berate and insult others who don't fit into our own vision. That is a dangerous nauseating type of politics that should have no place in Scotland.
The past informs us, we cannot and should not try to live in it but learn from it.
Complain about this comment
#458 Also thanks for the intervention. It is nice to hear someone with facts rather than somoene who just rants. I would suggest a few of things however:
When you are told by people from Caithness (each of whom have lived there for more than half a century) that Gaelic was never common in caithness and that Norn is a more relevant language to them then you have to believe them.
I of course know that Gaelic was the first language of the Scottish nation, but that does not mean it was the native language of the scottish region. I suppose it comes down to whether you believe that Scotland is the geographical region, the nation state, or the people who inhabit the land of Scotland.
I believe that french became the language of the royal court around the time of David I (1124-1153). I do not know whether it was continuously the language of court until Mary's time, (James VI I believe spoke Scots) but it was the language of court then. Bruce I assume used Gaelic as his court was more fragmaneted and closer to the people.
It is not surprising that Lewis was not gaelic speaking in the 1200's as it had only recently been taken back from the norwegians. I beleive that was confirmed at the battle of Largs, the date of which I forget.
#475
So if you don't think Gaelic should be rammed down our throats, and don't want to be dragged back to the dark ages linguistically, then you are anti-scots. That is quite an offensive viewpoint. There is more to scotland that a romantiscised viewpoint of the past. If you read #458 then you will see that Gaelic has been declining in Scotland since the 1200s. It has little or no relevance to the people who live in most of the regions of Scotland today. While I would hate the Gaelic language and culture to die out, you are doing Scotland a disservice to ignore all of Scotland's other indigenous cultures and languages.
John
Complain about this comment
Unionist Bingo.
A rich find today!
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/nickrobinson/2009/07/government_not_2.html#P82650285
To my suggestion (in response to his whine that they didn't have an English Parliament) that they didn't have one because they hadn't asked for one - a lovely collection of sneers.
I'd nominate "your schoolboy version of history" for inclusion in the list.
Complain about this comment
Re 403 handclapping
You are of course correct in that a section of the report does deal with rural issues. But some of the conclusions are not universally agreed, by any means. You don't have to look far for sensible arguments that disagree with the findings.
It is also worth considering the winners and losers, winners being Lothian, Glasgow and Forth Valley, losers being Highland, Borders, Shetland. hardly a surprise to anyone outside the central belt.
I fear we will have to agree to disagree.
Complain about this comment
478. John__
Good and proper sentiments.
Despite my own lack of knowledge over the politics geographical origins of indiginous languages I do agree with your desires.
It surely is important to preserve the traditonal languages, even if such language was restricted to specific geographical areas of Scotland (and on this point I myself don't know).
A good example of the huge damage that can be done to a culture upon the death of language is found in the Manchu case, where now less than 100 native speakers as the Chinese Han government attempts to kill this language off. Indeed language is a vehicle to demonstrate an ethnic groups culture, self identity independent perhaps of the state they find themselves in.
Surely if the union is principally an economic case for being (as I hold it is, as I've outlined many times) then there ought to be a place and role for indigenous language? Cornish (has it died out?), Welsh, Scots (its a language) etc- all need to have a place.
The question is, ought to taxpayer to pay to support these languages? Perhaps there is a case for anf against- all I know is that language is an important aspect of an etho-cutlural groups self identity.
Complain about this comment
458. At 8:38pm on 08 Jul 2009, InfrequentAllele wrote:
Nice 1!
I knew that John_ was getting himself into a world of hurt, I just wasn't armed with the facts. Still looks as though he is the denial stage.
NorthHighlander(uukuk) I just you keep on spouting your inaccuracies and keep being 100% behing gaelic......but. Looks like this one is in the defiant stage.
Shut you up didn't it Deen? Acceptence.
Complain about this comment
479. oldnat
Never heard that one before.
478 John
The battle of Largs.
"2nd October 1263
Despite the Scots victory at Renfrew in 1164, and several campaigns by Scottish kings to conquer the territory, the Norse had retained control of the Isles and Argyll. There they maintained their rule in a semi-autonomous fashion under the overlordship of the kings of Norway. In response to the continued pressure from the Scots, the king of Norway mounted a pre-emptive attack to secure Norse control of the territory. In July 1263 King Haco is said to have sailed from Bergen with 200 ships. In the Hebrides he was joined by the King of Man with additional forces. From there they sailed down the coast of Scotland, raiding the mainland. Initial negotiations were opened but this time was used by the Scots to buy time to raise their forces. Then, in a storm, some of the Norse ships were beached at Largs and an armed engagement began. This forced Haco to land his main force in disadvantageous circumstances on a difficult coast.
Little is known of the detail of the action, which soon escalated into full battle, but it seems that the Norse were never able to form up fully in battle array before they were engaged. The arrival of Scottish reinforcements may finally have turned the tide of the action, forcing the Norse army to break. It is said that they were then pursued with great slaughter, with most fleeing to their boats."
-http://www.battlefieldstrust.com/resource-centre/medieval/battleview.asp?BattleFieldId=67
A lovely little website it must be said
Complain about this comment
433. At 5:24pm on 08 Jul 2009, John__ wrote:
#424
ps. My grandparents (from Wick) never spoke Gaelic, and I have never come across anyone who spoke Gaelic there. As a child I used to visit there regularly, with my Gran living in Latheronwheel, and other relatives in Thurso."
How many times have you to be reminded that it was outlawed. No wonder very few people spoke it.
And to counter a critisism you made of me, read the post and learn your facts before you start your do-gooding, I'm very clever, stuff on here.
"oh am very scottish...but" "I think scotland should have self determination....but" quote/unquote.
Complain about this comment
A co-ordinated campaign by the Scottish media is currently underway. The campaign targets Alex salmond and the SNP and is using the Diageo job loss story as the catalyst.
Jim Murphy is being presented as saviour of Diageo jobs whilst Alex Salmond is subjected to a well orchestrated and deliberately planned serious of smears.
The BBC, Scotsman, Record and Herald are all playing their part in the campaign.
Complain about this comment
482. waitingformyman
The exact spread and preminance of the Gaelic language has never seen an academic consensus.
For example, there is clear evidence that Gaelic spread only after Kenneth McAlpin united Pics and Gaels under his kingship. It has been said that only at this point (843 onwards) that Gaelic began to spread into areas of 'Alba' (Gael name) where it previously never existed.
According to 'Scotland Calling' (link below):
"In 843 a great Gaelic leader, Kenneth MacAlpin was able to unite the Picts and the Gaels for the first time. His territory was called Alba (still the Gaelic name for Scotland) covered most of Scotland north of the Clyde. The Gaelic language and culture therefore spread to cover most of the country"
So it is fair and perhaps true, though I am no expert; that Gaelic was never indigenous to all 'Alba'.
- http://www.scotland-calling.com/language.htm
Indeed other sources are available to support the supposition that Gaelic never became dominant across all Scotland until this date. For example vistScotland indicates that Gaelic only became the language of court, and Scotland following MacAlpins takeover, thereby spreading the Gaelic language across Pictish territory which previously resisted and never shared it. It equally receded:
"The first Irish Gaels, the Scots, arrived in Scotland around 450 AD and settled in Argyll (Earra Ghàidheal), which they called Dal Riata, after the homeland they had left. While establishing themselves, they were fiercely resisted by the established Pictish people and it was not until 843 that the Gaelic leader, Kenneth MacAlpin united the Picts and the Gaels and became the first ruler of Alba which comprised most of Scotland north of Forth and Clyde. Alba has since remained the Gaelic name for Scotland. The culture of the Gaels spread throughout the country, and their language became the language of the king, court and most of the common people. James IV (1473-1513) was the last Scottish monarch to speak Gaelic"
- http://www.visitscotland.com/guide/scotland-factfile/scottish-icons/gaelic
Complain about this comment
484. waitingformyman
"I'm very clever, stuff on here"
Not infallable if you examine some of your statements.
You 405: "...forced upon the majority of scots who still used the ancient language of the gaels the use of English."
While it is entirely true that the Education Act did ignore Gaelic and certainly did damage the spread of the langauge it is untrue to say the 'majority' of Scottish people spoke it by even 1755.
By 1755 out of a population of 1,265,380 only a calculated 289,798 where speakers in Gaelic.
Indeed by 1891 out of a population of 4,025,647 a calculated 210,677 spoke English and Gaelic.
And the spread of Gaelic speakers was still holding up at 202,700 by 1901. So it is clear that at no point since 1755 (before the education act, when it became illegal) has any 'majority' of Scottish people ever spoke Gaelic.
Please make sure you are fully at grips with the facts before insulting Northhighlander or any other regular on this blog.
Sources for statistics
http://www.cnag.org.uk/munghaidhlig/stats/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Gaelic#Modern_Era
Complain about this comment
#485
What about this is surprising?
Wasn't it Gordon brown who said of the BBC about a year ago that it was a British institution, so he would expect it to defend the union. I forget the exact quote, but he was basically telling it to be politically biased in Scotland.
As for the other rags, well I gave upon them years ago.
John
Complain about this comment
#485 greenockboy
The Times has the same story.
Complain about this comment
#484
I seem to have rattled your cage, my apologies to the cage.
"I'm very clever, stuff on here"
All I have done is disagree with your point of view, and tried to support this with facts and reasoned arguement. Do you find that objectionable? Is the use of facts to be criticised? If that is the case, then I feel sorry for you.
John
Complain about this comment
Greenockboy anet your post #485
Salmond under the cosh. No question about it - what interests me is the timing / characters involved. What on earth was he speaking to Andrew Neil for and when did that invitation appear on the radar? Why no explanation in the Herald about the timing - and why was it the official spokesman who had to provide the detail of what actually happened? How did spud get the invitation, then Salmond? Why not first minister then Sec of state?
It stinks - but politics is a rough game and it looks like AS walked into that one eyes wide open.
Disappointingly I've trying to engage the bloggers re the whole whisky saga #449 but they have been otherwise engaged in other good stuff. Perhaps now that the media have pounced, heads will come up?
Complain about this comment
#491
If it wasn't so sadly predictable...
I heard Jim murphy this morning promising a green field site for Diageo to build a new bottling plant near kilmarnock. It was apparently promised through the auspices of Scottish enterprise. I was wondering exactly how Jim could promise this? I thought (though I may be wrong) that scottish enterprise was devolved. I know that planning permission is devolved, so how could he guarantee that, or was he just making reasonable sounding suggestions that cannot be fullfilled, which he can then blame on the Scottish government.
Is there anything known about the green field site he was promising? Does it have a rare type of shrew on it so that planning permission would have to be denied?
I will say that if you actually read the articles, gray sounds like an idiot (again). There is something about screaming "wolf" too many times that is just not flattering.
John
Complain about this comment
#491 Robabody
"Why no explanation in the Herald about the timing"
Front page today http://www.theherald.co.uk/news/news/display.var.2518925.0.Unity_shattered_as_parties_bicker_over_Diageo_jobs.php
"It is understood that the First Minister's office approached Mr Walsh for a meeting in the morning having discovered the Diageo boss was due to see Jim Murphy, the Labour Secretary of State for Scotland. The First Minister's office asked for the same opportunity as Mr Salmond was in Westminster, having voted the previous evening against the UK Government's Finance Bill.
advertisement
The two men were not scheduled to meet until Mr Walsh returned from a business trip to China and Scottish Enterprise had completed its alternative study into the company's proposals to close the Kilmarnock and Port Dundas facilities and create 400 new jobs at an expanded packaging plant at Leven in Fife.
Diageo offered Mr Salmond an impromptu meeting at 12.15pm, after the meeting with the Scottish Secretary. The First Minister's officials said that by then Mr Salmond was in a BBC studio preparing for a television appearance and was unable to attend."
Unusually fair of the Herald I thought when I read it.
Complain about this comment
485. , greenockboy
Politics is tough, but isnt this kind of methods what we have come to expect from a New Labour party which isnt yet accustomed to being in opposition?
And the press well, they will run anything which will get papers sold- and given the tough times their medium is faced with its hardly suprising.
491. Robabody
Robabody there is someting perhaps to be said in that the SNP strategy of reducing the number of bing drinking youths is missing the mark slightly?
I mean as a student I know for certain that not many people by age (20) at university are getting hammered on Scotch finest! Any strategy of pricing the drinks used by students for excessive drinking up must surely target the kinds of drinks they use?
Wisky isnt one drink which does generate or perpetuate some of the worst offenses of bing drinking in Scotland and therefore isnt one which ought bo be hit by any special taxes on it.
Besides this is a recession and all industries need support not tax penalising pricing. But equally I do accept the validity in any argument which seeks to reduce alchohol consumption, its just the forms which ought to be targeted perhaps arent in this action plan.
Complain about this comment
Re robabody
You are right the Whisky story is becoming a saga. It is disappointing that what initially appeared to be another example of politicians working together to act on an important issue for the greater good has descended into a partisan brawl. Because if you are one of the affected employees it is a vitally important issue and one where you have a right to expect politicans to forget party lines and work to correct what appears to be a wrong decision by Diageo.
This is the odious side of party politics and all should do better. Unemployment is no fun for anyone and if politicians forget this then they should remember they could be next.
Complain about this comment
#491 Robabody
Re Diageo
I just don't know enough to comment! I can rant about the loss of jobs etc if you want, but it would be no more than a rant.
Complain about this comment
478. With all respect, I would suggest that people often have misinformation and not accurate information about their linguistic heritage. Alas this is especially true in Scotland which has one of the most complex and multilayered linguistic histories of any small European nation - and yet most Scots are unaware of it. It's certainly not taught in Scottish schools.
Scotland's linguistic history for the past 2000 years has been characterised by complex and shifting patterns of multilingualism involving several languages, plus English since the Reformation. Now there is a specifically Scottish variety of Standard English too, so English also has a legitimate claim to being a native Scottish language.
Gaelic, Norn and Lowlands Scots are all equally part of the linguistic heritage of the Scottish people. All these languages are uniquely Scottish. There used to be two other uniquely Scottish languages - Cumbric and Pictish, both descendants of the Celtic Brittonic language spoken in Britain in Roman times. Cumbric descended from the Brittonic language of the Romano-Britons, which also gave rise to Welsh, Cornish and Breton. Cumbric and Welsh were very closely related, in fact Cumbric was a dialect of Old Welsh. Pictish descended from the dialects of Brittonic spoken by those who were unconquered by Rome.
Cumbric is even less well attested than Norn, apart from place names only three words of the language are recorded in a mediaeval document. Cumbric was replaced by Gaelic in the west and early dialects of English in the east. The last speakers probably lived in upper Tweedsdale where the language died out in the 13th century at the latest. The earliest surviving Welsh poetry was originally composed in Cumbric, the epic poem the Gododdin refers to events in the Lothians in the 6th and 7th centuries. These poems only come down to us in later Welsh versions, but the Gododdin can legitimately be considered as the earliest Scottish literature.
Pictish is hardly attested at all. There was once a theory that in addition to the Celtic Pictish language some Picts spoke a pre-Celtic language, but in recent years this theory has lost ground and is no longer widely accepted by most specialists. Pictish was replaced by Gaelic in the Dark Ages. It was extinct by 1000AD, replaced by Gaelic.
Gaelic is the common thread. What characterises all Scottish languages is that their speakers interacted closely with Gaelic language and culture. At its greatest extent, around the 12th century, Gaelic was the sole or majority language just about everywhere on the mainland north and west of a line drawn roughly from Dumfries to South Queensferry. There was a significant Gaelic presence in the remainder of the country.
Even more importantly Gaelic is central to the formation of the Scottish concept of nationhood. The word Scot did not have its modern meaning in Old English, in Old English and early Middle English it meant "Irishman". Scyttisc or Scottisc meant the Irish language. During the Wars of Independence, the Middle English speakers of south east Scotland adopted the term Scot to refer to themselves, by doing so they were making a very clear statement that they regarded themselves as belonging to the same nation as their Gaelic speaking compatriots. The same process of social identification as Scot also occurred amongst the few remaining Cumbric speakers, and also amongst Norse speakers in the north and west (but not the Northern Isles at that time) and the more recently arrived French speaking Normans. This, by the way, is the foundation stone of the Scottish concept of civic, as opposed to ethnic, nationhood.
To complicate matters even more, because we're Scottish and we enjoy muddying the waters, the nation which formed out of this Gaelic identity then expressed its nationhood through the medium of Lowland Scots - the official language of court and state and the majority language of the extreme south east, where the capital was located. It was only after the change in social identities occurred that the Middle English dialect of the Lothians and Borders became regarded as a distinct language from English. It was now Scots. Because Lowland Scots was a language spoken by people who identified socially and politically as Scots (ie Gaels), it was able to spread rapidly amongst the Gaelic speaking population of the Scottish Lowlands, the regions under the closest control of the Scottish monarchy. Even so, Gaelic survived in Galloway and south Ayrshire until the late 18th century.
Unfortunately since Norn, Cumbric and Pictish were never adequately recorded it is impossible to revive them or to promote their use, so these parts of Scotland's linguistic heritage have been lost forever. I don't want to see that happen to Scots and Gaelic too. I'm not in favour of compulsory Gaelic classes, you cannot compel anyone to learn a language much less to use it actively, but in the modern era a language can only survive if it has state support. No one else is going to save Scots or Gaelic, so it's up to us. They're a part of what makes us who we are and we would be diminished without them.
Apologies for the lengthy post and distracting from Rob's whisky saga.
Complain about this comment
Re 487
Dean a very good post. Unfortunately you are wasting your time, some of our fellow countrymen find it more effective to write their own History books, it makes supporting your prejudices much easier.
Complain about this comment
#494 deanthetory -
"I mean as a student I know for certain that not many people by age (20) at university are getting hammered on Scotch finest!"
Were you hammered when you wrote this?
More seriously -
Minimum pricing is only one of a package of measures proposed by the SNP to tackle anti-social drinking. Other measures include - legal obligation on Councils to consider off-sales purchase age of 21 or up in problem areas; a ban on cut-price '3 for 2' or similar offers in off-sales; restrictions on display and marketing of alchohol in off-sales premises and legal powers to introduce a 'Social Responsibility Fee' for some retailers.
I have a friend with a reasonably decent job in marketing for a major distiller. He is happy to confirm that minimum pricing will have no effect on the whisky industry whatsoever - as the excise duty on an average bottle alone pushes it above the minimum price threshold.
On top of which, comparisons with student drinking are slightly irrelevant. Anti-social drinking proposals aren't aimed at students - or indeed anyone else who drinks socially on licensed premises. They're aimed squarely at drinkers who buy cheap booze from off-sales and either consume it in public (Anti-social drinking) or drink excessively at home (Alcohol dependency)
So, Dean, unless you spend a lot of your spare time hanging around the Borestone play area with a bottle of buckie; I doubt you've got much to fear from minimum pricing interfering with your tipple.
Complain about this comment
#495
totally agree. It seemed to be working reasonably well when Des browne was liaising with the Scottish government and the lcoal MSP, and things seemed to be moving forwards. There was a hope that a solution could be found.
I sincerely hope that Diageo do not now use the current squabble as an excuse to leave, stating something like "working in this country has become to difficult since devolution". Their threat to move bottling abroad was quite worrying, as I am sure that they were using the recession to angle for a better deal. But they are a corporation, with shareholders, so they are obligesd to do this. It has to be made clear to them that they would lose sales if they did this.
I suspect that the only way of stopping this happening again is to introduce a quality label for whisky which is only granted to whisky that is distilled, matured and bottled in Scotland. Otherwise we may in future see tanker loads of whisky leaving for the ports and rail terminals.
It always amazes me when I travel to the far east to see the number of whisky adverts (lots of poeple wearing pringle jumpers talking about "the Chivas lifestyle" or something like that). And having drunk some far eastern spirits, I can understand why whisky is so popular. If bottling was ever allowed to go there (and in particular china) then not much of the profit would reach back to Scotland.
John
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS