The plebiscite to end all plebiscites
There is a story told about the previous Labour/LibDem coalition.
Labour Ministers were getting increasingly frustrated at what they saw as a lack of discipline on the part of their coalition chums.
In the interests of open politics, Jim Wallace, the former Liberal Democrat leader, invited a Labour cabinet colleague to attend a LibDem group meeting.
On thus witnessing the customary blend of hard politics and quasi-anarchy, the Labour colleague opined: "Well, Jim, you must be one hard b . . . d to lead that lot!"
The leadership of the LibDems may have changed, twice, since then. But the customary, cheery blend is still to the fore.
At the Bournemouth conference, before and since, Tavish Scott has found it simply impossible to persuade some in his party to shut up about the issue of an independence referendum.
Mr Scott it was who took a notably hard line against the referendum when the LibDems considered the prospect of a coalition with the SNP after the 2007 Holyrood elections.
decision-making
Mr Scott it is who remains resolutely opposed to such a plebiscite.
He says that he is not inclined to assist with implementing the policy of a rival party, particularly when it is designed to lead to an outcome, independence, which the LibDems condemn.
But there remain LibDems - both in the Holyrood group and across Scotland as a whole - who believe in a referendum: either because they support the concept of popular decision-making or because, tactically, an early referendum could close the issue down.
Today's announcement by the LibDems that they are to review their policy on a referendum should be seen in light of the above.
The leadership wants to curtail this debate, internally - not precipitate a U-turn.
Ross Finnie has been asked to instigate a review.
That will go to a private debate at the party's autumn conference at the end of this month.
It is Tavish Scott's hope that this will allow those who oppose his strategy to have their say in the full and frank exchange which a private debate will permit.
Cul de sac
He hopes that, defeated, they then turn their attention to other matters.
This reminds me to some extent of the debate held by the SNP on whether to back a Yes/Yes vote in the 1997 devolution referendum.
Then, there were voices arguing that devolution was a con, a cul de sac.
Key difference. The SNP held that debate in public at, as I recall, a National Council meeting in Perth.
The leadership policy of backing the Yes campaign was overwhelmingly supported.
But there's more. Ross Finnie insists that he is instigating a wide-ranging review.
This will encompass attitudes to the existing referendum proposal, alternative strategies - plus a look at what might happen should another party row in behind the idea of a plebiscite.
Private meeting
That wider discussion could involve a look at preparing the ground for the terms upon which the LibDems might, in future, countenance a referendum.
Do I think the LibDems will back a referendum now? No, they will back Mr Scott.
I feel sure that outcome will be relayed to us from the private meeting.
Do I think there will eventually be a referendum? Yes.
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
And the interesting sight of BBC Scotland backpedaling like mad. =)
I think you're correct, Mr. Taylor. Down the road there will be a plebiscite. For those who are pro-union, hope the union can come up with more eloquent defenders than poor Mr. Iain Gray. I'm still wincing from that FMQ.
Complain about this comment
Not a single mention of David Cameron's speech. That is also interesting. Or maybe par for the course--since no one here but Dean is likely to vote for him. Did anyone notice there is still a Tory conference going on. lol
Complain about this comment
Jeezo!!! Brian has gone blog mental!
Complain about this comment
This is just a bunch of professional, careerist politicians, manouvering to save their own jobs and justify their existence. I do not believe that any Lib Dem "politician" believes in anything fundamental that benefits Scotland.
They are terrified of being forgotton, marginalised and effectively nutured, in a debate that has increasingly seen them ignored and seen them for what they really are; a group of chancers.
I wish they would just go away; useless idiots with nothing to offer.
Complain about this comment
Can't really agree with Brian's verdict, that The Viking will prevail. It's the next generation of Lib-dems who are agitating for a referendum, not the cosy incumbents. At the national conference, I would say that a decent number of prospective candidates felt there was nothing to lose in at least exploring the referendum issue... and possibly a lot to gain. Unless the Viking is mature in his approach to this issue, there is a real risk of this becoming a festering divisive issue which will ultimately only boost the Nationalist cause.
Complain about this comment
Lets just remember that there is a long way to go and much work to be done - Eck is magic but he needs our feet on the street.
Nobody should get too excited - a little enthused yes, but not too excited.
Complain about this comment
Well, I think that Brian is spot on with the anaysis here. It's a racing certainty that the result of all the secretly-conducted huffing and puffing will be as unLiberal and as unDemocratic as possible.
Complain about this comment
I think the lib dems have discovered that they are rapidly losing support. They will attempt to close down the idea of supporting a referendum - they will fail.
Yet another unglencampbelly report Brian - Is this a record?
The British Labour party must be beelin'. The question is what will they do ?
Complain about this comment
#8. Most likely what they always do. Attack the idea of people deciding their own constitutional destiny as "narrow and extreme". Or is that the Tories. I forget. ;-)
Complain about this comment
Well Brian what a long draw out and picturesque way to describe the FibDems scrum to avert meltdown in Scotland!
Complain about this comment
The British Labour party must be beelin'
I'm always intrigued by Scots words that would require a sentence, or even a paragraph, in English. Beelin = reduced to speechless, frustrated anger and accompanied by red face and stamping of feet.
But here's the thing - why the apostrophe at the end? Surely that suggests that it's really an English word with a letter missing - hardly correct!
Complain about this comment
This should have gone into the, “Paper Trail,” blog but I was too busy and a new thread had been started before I got a chance to add it. Given the LibDem news tonight. I thought I would include it now. Sorry if it is bit off topic.
I have been reading this blog for a long time. I also quite often read the online editions of the Scottish media. One thing that I have noticed, in the last few years, is the very real drop in journalistic standard and the blatant bias slant (glencampbellism if you like) the media has. Anyway I was wondering to myself how they would handle the following (Freddie Starr) type scenario. It’s a bit of fun. I am sure you can guess who the journalists are.
Alex Salmond, in his role as First Minister, visits a primary school. A month after the visit, one of the school hamsters escapes. Here are the headlines in the Scottish media the following day;
Herald
Hamster disappears. SNP accused.
Scotsman
Alex Salmond ate children’s hamster. Everyone in Scotland hates him.
BBC Scotland (Glenn C)
OUTRAGE, as Alex Salmond eats children’s hamster. We have interviews from shocked and angry Americans in New York.
Times
SNP policy of hamster eating condemned. Scotland is not a place fit to live in any more.
Sunday Times (a certain female journalist’s column)
Salmond eats hamster but what else can you expect from these SNP savages.
Telegraph
End of civilisation blamed on SNP as hamster is brutally murdered. There are allegations that it was sacrificed in devil worshipping rituals. How else would the SNP get into power?
Daily Record
Salmond shares hamster dinner with the tory bankers who brought down Britain.
Daily Mail
English taxpayers furious as Alex Salmond eats hamster they paid for.
The Sun
What’s a hamster?
Then of course there would be the political reaction to this scandal.
David Cameron
I respect both Scotland and hamsters. If I was prime minister, I would have blocked this. It was a bad decision to eat this hamster and it has caused Britain’s international reputation to suffer.
(Of course, “call me Dave,” won’t say how he would have stopped it (or even if he would have had the legal right to stop it.) Why don’t the Scottish press ask him this type of questions?)
Annabel Goldie (in a statement to the Scottish parliament)
We believe Alex Salmond served the hamster to Middle Eastern diplomats during trade negotiations.
Fact. Alex Salmond visited the school!
Fact. The hamster disappeared!
Fact. Salmond met with Middle Eastern diplomats, within the last year, in order to get money for the SFT!
Fact. People from the Middle East eat!
Fact. People from different countries sometime eat food that is different from our own food!
Miss Goldie added, “There is quite obviously a smoking gun here and Alex Salmond should come clean and make all the evidence available. The First Minister of Scotland should be above reproach.”
Iain Gray
If Labour had been in power, no hamsters would have died. I don’t want to live in a country where hamsters die.
Gordon Brown.
Scotland is too small to have survived the banking crises, so all hamsters would have died in an independent Scotland.
Jim Murphy.
Silence.
Steven Purcell
I bet this was a Glaswegian hamster. The SNP hate Glasgow and are biased against it. They would only ever eat Glaswegian hamsters.
Tavish Scott
We are not against the eating of hamsters but we think the eating of this hamster was badly handled. Sometimes, of course, we are against the eating of hamsters and Alex Salmond was wrong to eat it in this case (flip-flop, flip-flop.) We also believe that the eating of hamsters should be put to a referendum but then again we are against hamster eating referendum (flip-flop, flip-flop.) The public know where we stand on these issues.
Complain about this comment
12. gonephishing That's an absolutely brilliant post! :oD
I might just quibble with the idea of Jim Murphy remaining silent. I suspect he might have berated Alex Salmond for failing to work together with the UK government to promote hamster welfare.
Complain about this comment
Serious question "Do they wear flip flops in Shetland" or is all in the mind.
Complain about this comment
12. gonephishing
Welcome Liked your post, but you forgot the response from the UK Borders Agency.
"Our genetic profiling strategy has determined that domestic hamsters are Syrian, and consequently have no right of residence in the UK. We are considering applying the Scottish strategy to all genetically non-British species. We are in touch with our New Guinean colleagues to ascertain whether recipes for 'long pig' are still available."
Complain about this comment
I admit to turning my expectations up to number 11 when Wendy let go her battle-cry - 'BRING IT ON' - and I genuinely thought that we were finally going to get a referendum. I even watched Duncan McNeill being chased through the garden lobby with interest as he blurted out that Labour would not oppose a referendum. But, that was history and I really should've learned my lesson by now, but I am genuinely excited at the news the Lib Dems will have a meeting about the referendum.
Just imagine the weeks leading up to the vote in which the ideals of an independent Scotland, working with all our neighbours, a full-member of the EU, with the full sovereign levers of power to try to bring about a Scandinavian-style social democracy, and a full range of external policies concerning the wider world. Just imagine pitting that modern argument of independence and interdependence against the Westminster anachronism of dependence and deference. Bring it on, indeed.
The prospects of the poor wee hamsters, though, dinnae look too good in the event of an independent Scotland, if recent press reports are to be believed, but nevertheless, we're very close to a very exciting time, bring it on indeed.
Complain about this comment
#12- gonephishing - superb post
#13 forfar loon - I Have to disagree with your point about Mr Murphy , he was too busy saving the range in the Hebrides that now turns out was never under real threat in the first place! sad state of affairs when john smith house put out more scare story's and forget to tell the Scottish Secretary. A spin too far or is it that there are so many being issued that Mr Murphy lost track or just forgot which were real and which were not??
Sid
Complain about this comment
Today's announcement by the LibDems that they are to review their policy on a referendum should be seen in light of the above...That will go to a private debate at the party's autumn conference at the end of this month.
So will Calman be part of this review? Since the Lib-Dems are not going to form the next UK Government the only way that they are going to get the Calman proposals implemented is to put it in as a third option in a referendum and hope that people choose that instead of independence.
That's because Labour have abandoned Calman and indicated that they only want a two option referendum, First Minister Mr Gray said it would “depend on the circumstances at the time” and that the question should be a straight yes or no on independence. In any case Labour are not going to form the next government while Cameron has said that he doesn't want to do anything with Calman till after the next plus one General Election. In other words, never.
A referendum is the only way the Lib-Dems will get any chance at all of the Calman recommendations being implemented before the heat death of the universe but since two of the three parties involved in Calman have already gone cold on the mess of recommendations that it produced the Lib-Dems may be doing the same thing or they may have always treated it as a distraction and anti-SNP tactic as Labour and the Conservatives did.
Of course, in the light of their backing down over a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty the Lib-Dems are intrinsically opposed to referendums where they don't like the question and since their constitution is based on keeping the union I'd be surprised if they would ever willing go along with the idea of an independence referendum.
Complain about this comment
12. gonephishing
Thank you for that, brightened up a long day
Complain about this comment
9. At 6:10pm on 08 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
"Attack the idea of people deciding their own constitutional destiny as "narrow and extreme". Or is that the Tories. I forget. ;-)"
MacCaskil does represent a narrow mindedness. He talked of the Scottish values of mercy [so every other nation and peoples do not embue this value then mr SNP?].
Alex Salmond talks of Scottishness as if your only Scottish if you support independence. Indeed many here have accused me of not being Scottish due to my pragmatic unionism, that to me is narrow minded.
The criticism was fair, when you evaluate the MacAskil legacy, and the cybernat messages on this blog.
There is nothing unfair about defending ones values, and that is what the Scottish Conservatives shall continue to do, whether seperatists like it or not.
Complain about this comment
12. At 6:33pm on 08 Oct 2009, gonephishing
"Miss Goldie added, “There is quite obviously a smoking gun here and Alex Salmond should come clean and make all the evidence available. The First Minister of Scotland should be above reproach.”
"David Cameron
I respect both Scotland and hamsters. If I was prime minister, I would have blocked this. It was a bad decision to eat this hamster and it has caused Britain’s international reputation to suffer.
(Of course, “call me Dave,” won’t say how he would have stopped it (or even if he would have had the legal right to stop it.) Why don’t the Scottish press ask him this type of questions?)"
Pathetic, unfunny, childish and entirely representative of a narrow minded mindset. PATHETIC.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
The collapse of the Calman Alliance is behind this. Only last week Cameron effectively hammered the nails, provided by Labour, into this very coffin.
The Lib Dems are disappearing in Scotland, Nicol Stephen's refusal to enter into a coalition with the SNP ensured that the SNP set the agenda and the Unionists have been playing catchup ever since.
The Unionist parties fervently hoped that the SNP Government would collapse and with the media's help they tried with the Trump nonsense. They failed, utterly, and this is where we are now - SNP maintaining their support and consolidating their position as Government of Scotland.
It doesn't matter what the Lib Dems announce following this meeting, the damage is done, they are fragmenting. Labour are close to collapse with the lamentable Iain Gray at the helm - with Brown nearing the end in England the conditions are right for civil war within Labour.
I thnk the odds are against it - just - but it isn't beyond the realms of possibility that an MSP crosses the floor, will it be Lib Dem first or Labour?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
dean wrote:
He talked of the Scottish values of mercy [so every other nation and peoples do not embue this value then mr SNP?].
Perhaps you ought to have a word with Glenn 'Outrage' then who insists that everyone and their dog was outraged at the decision. The BBC as a whole almost exclusively cite those who were against the decision when it is covered.
Complain about this comment
#12 gonephishing
Superb.Will contact Irish blogs when I stop laughing !!!
Complain about this comment
DeanTheTory:
Dean, I made my feelings clear when you once described supporters of independence as the enemy. I asked you to look across the sea to the Republic of Ireland and Northern Ireland. That's decades of individuals holding an 'enemy menatality' for their fellow Irishmen over political, religous and royalist opinion.
Are you honestly prepared to create an enemy within? Do you honestly want children to be wary of those who do not consider themselves British? People are already worried to walk the streets at night because of crime. Are you prepared to continue this type of attitude to ensure a new generation are worried about walking the streets just on case unionists and nationalists are 'patrolling their streets'?
Is the wording that Goldie used when describing the supporters of independence and the Scottish National Party as narrow and extreme reasonable and fair?
Of course not! It was not policy that was being discussed, it was individuals! I have never been so offended. You should be encouraging everyone into your camp. You should not isolate people or behave as if somewhat you are superior to a group of people.
You wouldn't have been quick to call a group of people based on religion, background etc as narrow minded and extreme for their viewpoints, way of thinking etc would you?
I would appreciate a little respect for my own political opinion.
Respect? I will admitt that not everyone shows it. However that does not suggest that you should sink to their level. Raise above it and be the better person.
Complain about this comment
Breaking news
Iain Gray is going to be replaced by a plank of wood.
Complain about this comment
20. deanthetory
"The criticism was fair, when you evaluate the MacAskil legacy, and the cybernat messages on this blog. "
Oh! compassion is to be condemned is it.
Complain about this comment
@20
That the Scottish legal system enshrines the values of mercy does not exclude other nations' systems from doing so. A bit of double speak to suggest KM noting this as a Scottish value means he excludes other nations. That is narrow (unionist) nationalism at work. Don't miss a chance to do down Scotland through deliberate misrepresentation.
Does AS deny the Scottishness of others? Quote me something? Civic nationalism as espoused by the SNP is far more inclusive than the (unionist) nationalism based ok a narrow world view and self interested deference to the establishment. This would appear to lead to delusional behaviour where reason gives way to irrational knee jerk protagonism (Bute House Council Tax anyone?)
Complain about this comment
21. deanthetory
"Pathetic, unfunny, childish and entirely representative of a narrow minded mindset. PATHETIC."
Goldie "spineless" I call that insulting especially from someone who tried to come over all friendly or is it a law for the "born rulering class".
Complain about this comment
#26 Breaking news Iain Gray is going to be replaced by a plank of wood.
How thick will it be ?
Complain about this comment
Ross Finnie said on air that no one had contacted himself asking for a referendum, he can't say that anymore.
Ross Finnie
Complain about this comment
# 11 Re: beelin'
AFAIK the word is spelt bealin. There's no need for the ' on the end as, since it's a Scots word, there's nothing amissin.
Same applies to hotchin, mingin, kythin, takkin, wheengin... and other such words.
If we try stick to these rules, then consistency in wir ain scrievin (another) should come.
Complain about this comment
#21 Jeez .. Dean you have gone into serious mode, now you know your party will run the country next year ...well at least the English/Welsh and N Irish parts. I note as some others have ,that nobody is even interested in the Tory party conference (why Manchester though ... trying to get the northern working classes on your side eh? )
I hope the Lib Dems are realizing now that they need to back the SNP a lot more if they want to be taken credibly in Scotland again. I have Alex as my MSP but Malcolm Bruce as my MP so maybe if the Lib Dems back the referendum come Scottish Election time i wont let my dog chew on the Lib Dems canvassers trouser leg this time !
Complain about this comment
Glasgow NE by-election.
Postal workers vote 2:1 for a national strike. That's Labour's postal vote tactic down the Swannee!
Except that the contract for delivering and collecting the ballot papers will probably be given to one of Glasgow's "community security firms". And they'll get the contract for guarding the voting registers too.
I hope the SNP are having discussions with the Returning Officer as to how this will be handled. One would hate for him/her not to be aware that this issue will be microscopically examined.
Complain about this comment
"There's no need for the ' on the end as, since it's a Scots word, there's nothing amissin."
Thanks reaktor303 - exactly my point!
Complain about this comment
29. At 9:00pm on 08 Oct 2009, cynicalHighlander wrote:
"Goldie "spineless" I call that insulting especially from someone who tried to come over all friendly or is it a law for the "born rulering class"
What born ruling class? Last time I checked Goldie wasnt an aristo! Honestly the bile that anti-tories like you come out with is the best vote winner my party has! People my generation are turned off your SNP option the more you go on and on about the political events of 30 years ago [Honestly get over it, move on for gods sakes!!!]
Anyone living in the past, deserves to be described as narrow minded, because that is exactly what you are. No matter what Cameron or Osborne say you will still throw your bile and filth around--you say it yourself numerious times "I will never vote tory"--well you are narrow minded, living in a past which is dead.
Incase you need an update, Maggie isnt PM anymore, and the moder tories have just said "there is such a thing as society, its just not the same thing as the state" - what part of that dont you get?!
Complain about this comment
Anent "bealin" - it's just occurred to me that it also can mean throbbingly painful. CF. "this bile on ma bum is fair bealin". Mr Gray, anyone?
Complain about this comment
I just want to add my admiration for post number 12 to the growing list. Rarely have I seen such insight into the workings of the British media pack.
Complain about this comment
#35 Mair Doric on the post !!
Complain about this comment
I'd spell it beilin, using the traditional spelling ei (as in heid). In Scots it's better to keep ee for use at the end of words, especially monosyllables. That way Scots spelling can distinguish between pairs like deid 'dead' and deed 'died' which most people pronounce differently /did/ vs. /di:d/. But I'm in a small minority here.
Traditionally the apostrophe stands for a missing letter. Writing -in' assumes that the original form was -ing, but in fact there was never any -g here in Scots. The -in ending of modern Scots descends directly from the Old English ending -inde.
I once had a two hour long argument with someone about the best way to spell bahouchie/bahoochy, so perhaps I should shut up now.
Complain about this comment
#36 Dean 'and the moder tories' is that the anes on scooters ?
Complain about this comment
Dean I used to vote Tory up until I was 25 or so, and maybe would vote for a conservative type party in an independent Scotland, its the unionist bit I have the problem with.I must say though that i find Annabel branding me a narrow minded extremist offensive, not the best way to persuade voters to vote Tory.
Ubinworryin, we share the same politicians and the best thing about it is there is not a single Labour politician in this constituency, not even a councillor.
Complain about this comment
36. deanthetory
D Cameron never worked a day in his life worthe over £30 million as PM, thanks but no thanks. The past mistakes of Maggie by destroying communities for the love of money that will be remembered for all time. I have supported the SNP long before Maggie my belief is sincere not power motivated in how I can strut on the world stage and influence other countries for greed.
Complain about this comment
deanthetory:
#36.
"Anyone living in the past, deserves to be described as narrow minded, because that is exactly what you are. No matter what Cameron or Osborne say you will still throw your bile and filth around--you say it yourself numerious times "I will never vote tory"--well you are narrow minded, living in a past which is dead."
Cough cough... Dean, the Conservatives are not doing as well in Scotland as in England because? It's quite natural to remember the situation the last time the Conservatives ruled. David Cameron has spoke of this before but was David Cameron as aggressive and describe the Scottish population as narrow minded extremists? No. David Cameron wants to act rather then speak words. If David Cameron can take the high approach and talk of proving that they want the people of his side then why are you not promoting the same attitude? You are certainly quick to put down individuals who dislike the Conservatives based on the past.
You are not exactly brillient at handling social situations. You have to learn how to handle individuals, your are not doing it well. Would it be difficult to accept that mistakes were made, we'll fight for every Scottish vote and build up the trust that was destroyed during Thatcher?
What's better, what I said or your method of words?
Complain about this comment
44. At 10:07pm on 08 Oct 2009, Thomas_Porter
"What's better, what I said or your method of words?"
Hmm, naturally I conceed your moderate approach does command greater merit. You are correct.
It does aggravate me however, having my party, my beliefs condemned because of the actions of a woman who wasnt ever a tory! [She was a damn liberal!]
Complain about this comment
The Scottish Lib Dems were satisfied with the limited devolution settlement of 1997.They only pay lip service to the idea of strengthening it.They have been comfortable with calling occasionally for a federal solution,knowing deep down that that is a non-starter.For a federal system you need a fedaral territory.If they really wanted major change they would have kept a certain distance from the Calman Commission.
The truth is the Scottish Lib Dems are deferential to the party's UK leadership just like most Labour's MSPs and Scottish MPs are to theirs.
We are the best part of a hundred years after universal suffrage was introduced and the Scottish people have never had the chance to vote on the 302 year old Treaty of Union.There wasn't a very wide franchise in 1707.If staunch unionists are so confident in the people voting to retain their blessed Union then they should put it to the test and agree to a referendum.
The Lib Dems pride themselves on their democratic credentials yet the debate at the autumn conference will be in secret session.Tavish Scott is so insubstantial a figure he would be out of his depth in a council chamber.He makes Iain Gray look like Willy Brandt.
Complain about this comment
the one party that will be wiped during the next ge will be the lib dems. the party has ineffectual leaders who i cannot take seriously. at least with menzies campbell or vince cable as leader i could accept them, but not clegg. the man has a short temper and to me looks like alistair campbell, but without the intelligence.
about time the parties started the doorstep canvassing this time if they want to gain the votes. glasgow is critical to win from labour. i expect to see alex out there along with others. glenrothes proved there are no guarantees. winning it raises the profile of the snp. there will be a big swing, but no assumptions. it must be accepted that some votes will have been lost over lockerbie and the rail link. these need to be replaced, however few might have gone. high profile canvassing is essential - homes, railway stations, shopping centres you name it. the media cannot stop those.
Complain about this comment
Anyone see Sam Galbraith (former Labour Education Minister) on BBC Scotland admitting that they never got to grips with assessing the efficiency of teaching in Scotland?
What a devastating admission! While HMIe were developing better methods of assessing teaching in schools, Labour remained obsessive about setting targets and using inefficient measures which had the perverse incentive of lowering pupil and teacher expectations.
While Fiona Hyslop is right not to politicise the methods of HMIe, it took the electorate's decision to dump Labour to allow a proper system of assessing the system to be introduced.
Complain about this comment
It does aggravate me however, having my party, my beliefs condemned because of the actions of a woman who wasnt ever a tory! [She was a damn liberal!]
Think how the NuLabs must feel, having let themselves be hijacted by Tory Blair!
Seriously, though Dean, some of us don't vote Tory for the same reasons we don't stick our hands in a fire - we've learnt it can only lead to pain.
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory
When 'Call Me Dave' wasted no time in praising up the Sun over its 'conversion' from a Labour propaganda rag to a Tory one at the flick of a switch, that wasn't pathetic at all, was it??
A major coup indeed for the momentum and credibility of the Tory cause, having secured the endorsement of such a politically astute organ, and its army of discerning sheep - sorry, readers.
Although such seismic political earthquakes are rare indeed, and Cameron and the Sun have much in common - there remain important differences.
One seeks to grab the public attention with cheap headlines on a daily basis - while the other holds pretentions of being a newspaper!
Complain about this comment
20. deanthetory
"MacCaskil does represent a narrow mindedness. He talked of the Scottish values of mercy [so every other nation and peoples do not embue this value then mr SNP?]."
The point is that these values had been explicitly established in our laws and the due process required in following them. He is the government official charged with representing the legal face of Scotland.
So if Scotland has these values explicitly embedded at the core of its legal system, it is correct for the Cabinet Secretary for Justice to say that these are Scottish values.
How dare Scotland define itself, eh?!
Also, in no way does the assertion that mercy is a Scottish value say anything about the values of other nations.
I can't believe this got dragged up again.
Complain about this comment
Ross Finnie on BBC Scotland about the "review" on the referendum issue. Again a staggering admission. To paraphrase -
"We need this in case one of the other parties has a 'Wendy' moment. We'd need then to know how to respond."
How can any one thinking of voting for a party that can only respond to the decisions of others? That bought into the Calman Commission to make their policy, when theoretically, they have a constitutional structure that they are supposed to believe in?
Complain about this comment
36. deanthetory
""I will never vote tory"--well you are narrow minded, living in a past which is dead."
No, I just don't want to live in a future that is dead.
Complain about this comment
#22 Ed
I only pray that if any of the unionist rump at Holyrood tried to "cross the floor" to the SNP benches, that the Presiding Officer, or anyone, would pole-axe the bugger before they made it!
:)
Complain about this comment
Dean
I can easily envisage a right wing ethos represented, and indeed a healthy political presence in an Independent Scotland, with the Queen as head of state etc. Indeed, with the wealth that will inevitably be created and distributed in an independent Scotland, a very strong and enlarged, middle class will be built up and they will (quite probably, I think) have a view similar to that currently held by those in the English Tory heartlands. Now what is so distateful about that vision?
Complain about this comment
Dean, Dean, Dean - no matter how amenable you are, no matter how much you apologise, no matter how much you try to shape policy to their liking, you will never convince them of the merits of Conservatism.
Haven't you been reading their posts recently? They want to ban political parties. They want to form a federal or a confederal polity in Scotland, although you will note that they never tell you the difference between federalism and confederalism. They want to nationalism everything including your own garden. What they want to give you is communism by the back door. This is the nasty little secret and they are so confident that they broadcast on the website of the one organisation that they hate with a passion as if no one else will notice.
You may recall some time ago that I was instructed by one of them to prepare for the hurricane. They were right, though not in the way that they firmly believe.
Complain about this comment
49. obviousalias
"Seriously, though Dean, some of us don't vote Tory for the same reasons we don't stick our hands in a fire - we've learnt it can only lead to pain."
It's a good point deanthetory. I think I tried to point out on a previous thread that saying '30 years' is missing the point; it was simply 'the last time the tories were in'.
The tories will no doubt get to take power in the UK soon enough, so they'll soon be able to prove us all wrong eh?
Complain about this comment
54. Dougie-Dubh
Except Malcolm Chisholm.
Complain about this comment
#58 oldnat
Agreed!
Complain about this comment
56. MagisterIlluminatus
"What they want to give you is communism by the back door"
Well that makes a change from the usual Unionist line of trying to link us to the Nazis.
Is there no lie, so foul that you won't use?
Complain about this comment
56. MagisterIlluminatus
"Dean, Dean, Dean - no matter how amenable you are, no matter how much you apologise, no matter how much you try to shape policy to their liking, you will never convince them of the merits of Conservatism."
I wasn't aware deanthetory was a conservative policy maker, i thought he was a student! Congratulations! If people aren't converted to conservatism by him, so what - boohoo! If deanthetory wants to keep trying, that's fine - he gots a lot of responses not just because people take exception to some of his recurrent themes (and he returns in kind), but also because he is well regarded on this blog so far as I can tell.
Trying to paint him as the poor oppressed is a pathetic move - par for the course, though.
As for the rest of your drivel, a bunch of generalisation, blended with confusion and all of a sudden it's...
Red's under the bed!
Are you really so blind to what's actually going on? A lot of people want independence, some want to explore new models of government and new relationships between government and citizens.
Communists!?! That's the fear that's pushing your buttons? You sound like a charicature from the 50's.
Hardly fitting the moniker MagisterIlluminatus, more like MisterMagoo.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov, I see that Zurich allowed the minaret posters.
Complain about this comment
20. deanthetory
dean, it is difficult to sound convincing when 'one' attempts to come over as high minded, while embracing petty at the same time. Let me help.
Feeling Scottish: well it's up to each of us to decide whether we want to or not, but all are entitled to "feel away". However it cannot mean as much to unionists. They feel it is acceptable, preferable, for a Scottish voice, through a Scottish vote, to have a less significant status in British and in world affairs. As it stands, it is the voice of a mere region of a state, and not of a state. I don't think that's as good.
They're not equal. Contrary to propaganda, there isn't a benefit to being in that situation, or other countries would have followed suit. But none are. None have.
It is difficult to understand how you can be proud of "not as important", but perhaps dean knows. Perhaps the fairies can tell him.
Complain about this comment
61. At 11:27pm on 08 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee
"Red's under the bed!"
LOL- I loved this one liner ;)
"Trying to paint him as the poor oppressed is a pathetic move - par for the course, though."
Thats true, if there is one thing about me- I aint a passive oppressed little soul!
"Communists!?! That's the fear that's pushing your buttons? You sound like a charicature from the 50's."
Here comes McCarthy Jr.
Complain about this comment
56. MagisterIlluminatus
You're probably right. When the SNP get on with their plan of destroying Scotland it'll be free ginger hair dye hand outs with fake freckles.
Complain about this comment
64. deanthetory
"Thats true, if there is one thing about me- I aint a passive oppressed little soul!
You're certainly resilient :)
Here comes McCarthy Jr."
Lol! Watch out, there are worse political affiliations than tory! ;)
Complain about this comment
60. oldnat
As I believe I have written previously, if you want to play big boy's games you play by big boy's rules. Your party, which you recently joined, has made some running on demonising the Labour party and the Conservatives and making a joke of the Lib-Dems (though that's a forgiveable sin). If you dish it out, you better be prepared to take it.
63 vere_scribo
Er...how about Quebec, Piedmont, Catalonia, Carinthia, Sardinia, Corsica, Monaco, Bavaria, Swabia and Karelia, not forgetting Lichtenstein.
Complain about this comment
I'd say the SNP are more likely to lean towards communism than facism, since Scotland tends to lean that way anyway.
What the opposition can't get into their heads up here is that they are at present totally ineffective, and that is bad for the country. The only effectiveness the opposition has is that the SNP are in a minority government, which means some policies which are good are getting hammered down on purely political grounds.
For example, LIT. I have reservations about it but since there is no viable alternative, why not try it?
Maybe it's too simple for politicians to grasp, but if you are effective in opposition you have more chance of winning an election so you can be the next government. We saw this with Labour during the Thatcher/Major years, and with the Conservatives during Blair.
And if Labour had any brains they would replace Brown with Johnson. (I'm still in two minds whether to risk a fiver at the bookies on this one.)
And back on topic........I think the Lib Dems will lose half of their seats at the next ge.
Complain about this comment
Scots voting for Tories would be like Turkeys voting for Xmas. The Tories are wolves in sheeps' clothing. Cliches are cliches because they are true.
It seems to me despite the Libdums u-turn that a 2 question referendum remains on the cards what with the abandonment of Calman. Any thoughts anyone?
Complain about this comment
67. MagisterIlluminatus
What of them? Sovereign nations for the majority of their history were they? Scotland ISN'T a mere province, only a region, or a sub-whatever-you-like. It is a nation, without sovereignty.
You forgot Yorkshire and Cornwall...
Complain about this comment
67. MagisterIlluminatus
Really how insulting to Scottish nationality.
Complain about this comment
67. MagisterIlluminatus
You have indeed written that before. Of course, you don't understand that in the political playground there are no rules. Which is why it's so nice when your side comes across as a liar and a bully. Now we'll keep the fact that you are an unimportant person to ourselves. It's the lack of subtlety that you show which makes you unpersuasive. And the fact that you tell silly untruths - obvious even to those as unsophisticated as you - which shows you to be panicked.
As to your list for vere_scribo - What possible relevance has that to what s/he posted? None of those have voluntarily moved to reduce their independence. Few of them were independent states at any point. Those that were all have movements for greater autonomy, or already have greater autonomy than Scotland.
Complain about this comment
68. Neil_Small147
"I'd say the SNP are more likely to lean towards communism than facism, since Scotland tends to lean that way anyway."
Why are you succumbing to the idea that politics works on a single left/right spectrum.
Remember Ed Iglehart's dictum "One dimensional politics is only for those for whom the concept of a flat earth is too complicated."
Complain about this comment
"For example, LIT. I have reservations about it but since there is no viable alternative, why not try it?"
Doing the wrong thing is worse than doing nothing.
The local Income Tax is a tax on work- the very worst policy to be bringing in during a recession which is expected to see 3 millions out of work.
This policy may even hurt the economic recovery in Scotland. LIT cannot be implimented, it would be damaging, not helpful.
There is however a problem with local government taxation. So why not move to a system where everyone pays an equal and flat rate towards their local government?- this takes account of relative earnings, and naturally peoples who are retired, or earn under £18,000 a year are exempt.
Complain about this comment
67. At 00:08am on 09 Oct 2009, MagisterIlluminatus
You do have a point there. Many SNP supporters are the first to throw names about vis-a-vis their political opponents, sometimes with a hatred that equates to an admission of them being their 'enemy'. It is hardly acceptable.
But the moment the political opponents turn around and start to critique the SNP in harsh and unfavourable language they throw up their hands in the air and proclaim themselves morally righteous.
This is however classic SNP tactics. Bully and then run.
Complain about this comment
74. deanthetory
"Tory proposes re-introducing the poll tax!" "One-nation Conservatism dead"
Complain about this comment
69. At 01:11am on 09 Oct 2009, bluelaw wrote:
"Scots voting for Tories would be like Turkeys voting for Xmas. The Tories are wolves in sheeps' clothing. Cliches are cliches because they are true."
But we represent a more One Nationist Party than for decades.
We accept the value in the minimum wage, we accept civil partnerships, we accept the value of child tax allowances.
And we shall maintain the 50% higher rate of tax on top earners until the public sector freeze is ended- "we are all in this together"- this represents more than a mere phrase, its an attempt to remind the richer class that they have moral/ethical duties, its One Nationism.
We represent a genuine change, a compassionate change- but more importantly we will also help the meek:
we will restore the pensions-average earnings link.
Surely you are being unfair then?
Complain about this comment
36. deanthetory
CynicalHighlander says that he "will never vote Tory". You describe that as "bile and filth". Like CH, I hope that the past is remembered so that we can take lessons from it. I'd hate to think that there were many, like you, who would consign their history and heritage to the dustbin in order to protect and preserve the failed politics of a failed party within a failed system!
How on earth did you come to formulate that view? You weren't born Tory. It's not genetic, so you must have drawn your right-wing views from somewhere other than the womb.
You urge us to forget everything what makes us who we are, treat each day as if we were born yesterday, so that dishonest, disloyal and disgraced politicians can continue to reap profit and power from a broken covenant.
A degree in Politics? Can't imagine how you'll manage that without reference to the past!
Complain about this comment
BBC mods, why is such much good discussion blocked out and yet outright lies and paranoia (such as #56) is perfectly acceptable?!
Complain about this comment
"Anyone living in the past, deserves to be described as narrow minded, because that is exactly what you are."
Give up the Union then Dean, it has long since stopped working for either Scotland or England ... and what is worse is that you know it!
Complain about this comment
Dean, someone saying they will never vote for your party is not "vile and filth". It is their right. It is your right to hold a political view he dislikes.
You have totally lost your sense of proportion and your sense of humor. I suggest going to look for both.
Complain about this comment
77. deanthetory
"We represent a genuine change, a compassionate change- but more importantly we will also help the meek"
Rory Tory Jackanory!
This from Torcuil Crichton of the Herald:
"And on that deeper contradiction at the heart of “modern Conservatism” - his assertion that he has changed the Conservative party into a defender of the poor - I don’t think he took the hall with him."
Read More>>
Complain about this comment
The SNP have a vision of Scotland, taking its postion along side other nations in the UN, EU and Olympics, etc.
What vision do unionist parties have, don't know other than the status quo no matter how damaging for our country.
What is the motivation to vote liberal? Don't know, haven't a clue what they stand for, other than they seek to piggy back onto the appeal or mandate of others. By dismissing the SNP in 2007, they have confinded themselves to the margins. Marginal parties with no policy or vision, who are merely careerist opportunists, go no where.
The liberals are about as important as the tories, going no where fast in our country.
D McN
Complain about this comment
72. oldnat
As usual, I read your post with great seriousness because sometimes there is a degree of insight that is worth remembering. However, on this occasion your defence of vere_scribo seemed a little off the mark. So I had to re-read what she had posted, then re-read your post. At this point it occurred to me what was wrong. Both she and you are making the same error, you think the nation and the state are interchangeable terms. They are not.
Scotland may have been an independent nation for some time (actually about 200 hundred years, if you include the fact that the Lordship of the Isles did not consider themselves part of the Stewart monarchy until broken by conquest). But, by no stretch of the imagination could Scotland under the Stewarts be considered a state. The Stewart Monarchy was so weak and so constantly under regencies that the great Earldoms effectively operated a confederation. A confederation, as you no doubt know, does not constitute a state and in Scotland, unlike Switzerland after 1648, the Earls were at each other's throats as a matter of course.
The state, as we understand the term, is a 19th Century construct. Modern nationalism, and the reason I selected these "countries" is that all of them have nationalist movements to a greater or lesser degree, exist as a reaction to the 19th Century state-building enterprise and adherence to a separate historical tradition that they are somehow different from the larger state entity.
Interestingly, the European concept of the state and the American concept of the state are entirely different. Europe has no tradition of manifest destiny, although Eurocrats might argue that point.
Complain about this comment
77. deanthetory
"we will restore the pensions-average earnings link"
Oh, thank you, thank you, thank you, my liege!
This from an article I linked to in another post:
"State pensioners, on the other hand, are to become a “trade-off”. A review will find – for it will – that their retirement age should be increased to 66 by 2016, with women gaining equality with men, though not in a good way, by increments. This is a full decade earlier than Lord Turner of Ecchinswell, other experts and the government had believed necessary.
Osborne claimed yesterday that the reform is unavoidable if he is to match Labour’s promise to restore the link between the state pension and earnings. The chance to save £13bn a year was neither here nor there, and certainly not mentioned. Nor was the worth of the linkage in the context of a severe pay freeze explained. How many OAPs dream of a 0% increase?"
Ian Bell, the Herald
Complain about this comment
Dean,
Does this have anything to do with vile bile, narrow-mindedness, hatred and memory failure?
"Labour confirmed this morning that the writ for the Glasgow North East by election will be moved as soon as parliament returns but did no one bother to tell the Conservative candidate?"
Torcuil Crichton in the Herald
Slogan - 'New Conservatives Care about Caledonia'
Hidden Tagline - There's one born every minute!
Complain about this comment
Scotland may have been an independent nation for some time (actually about 200 hundred years, if you include the fact that the Lordship of the Isles did not consider themselves part of the Stewart monarchy until broken by conquest). But, by no stretch of the imagination could Scotland under the Stewarts be considered a state.The Stewart Monarchy was so weak and so constantly under regencies that the great Earldoms effectively operated a confederation.
I've heard some idiotic and historically inaccurate arguments in my time, but that pretty much wins the prize. A regency, my dearest, has nothing to do with whether a state exists nor does being under a regency turn a former state into a confederation. A confederation may well be a state or, for that matter, a nation. Whatever the weaknesses of the Stewarts as a dynasty, they certainly did change neither Scotland's statehood nor its nationhood.
As some here would say: Tosh and nonsense. Back to the classroom with you and try to pay attention in class this time.
Complain about this comment
# 12 gonephishing
This posting would have been really funny if it wasn't for the fact that it was so close to the truth. Doea anyone know what happened to the hamster? Is this another government cover up?
Complain about this comment
#56 MagisterIlluminatus
Wonderful post. Best example of mindless unionism I've seen - like RE on speed.
Keep up the good work. You're not an SNP agent provocateur by any chance, are you?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
This always crops up on internet blogs and articles.
Many SNP supporters are the first to throw names about vis-a-vis their political opponents, sometimes with a hatred that equates to an admission of them being their 'enemy'. It is hardly acceptable.
It isn't worth responding to, nor the recent posts from 'magister'. The fact is that the agenda is moving the way the Scottish electorate want it to move, that the SNP are behind it is a god thing for the independence argument.
We are now entering the debate on what change is to happen, and there will be change make no mistake - 'magisters' Union is now over.
Will the Scottish electorate opt fpr it be more powers or will it be independence? I said a while back that the Calman Commission was a gamble for Unionists, it had to be seen to offer enough change in order to stem the move towards independence - however the Unionists took cold feet and the alliance collapsed.
They now pretty much have to start from scratch, how they might define the third option is anyone's guess - the Liberals are out of the blocks first, although still running like headless chickens.
Complain about this comment
388. At 06:55am on 09 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
# 12 gonephishing
This posting would have been really funny if it wasn't for the fact that it was so close to the truth. Doea anyone know what happened to the hamster? Is this another government cover up?
You know it's just all glenncampbelly so look in a certain newsman's bottom desk drawer.
Complain about this comment
87. JR etc.
I've read your posting several times and still have no idea what it means. A state, a nation, a federation and a confederation are not the same thing and to suggest that they are is 'tosh and nonsense'. What I find extraordinary is that a qualified historian would even attempt to sell that line.
Every country in the world has a different history with regard to nation and state building from Louis XIV's 'I am the State'. Note, he is the state, not France. To Scotland where the king was Ard Righ, High King or the first among equals. The mormaers were kings in the own fiefdoms and, unlike the system in the rest of Europe, owed no feudal obligations to the High King. He was there because they put him there.
The advent of the Stewart Monarchy modernised that system in that the mormaers became earls and were well-paid to keep their allegiance. But, the Stewarts had a nasty habit of dying early and coming to the throne whilst young children. The competition between the earls was therefore who was powerful enough to grab the Regency and the Treasury. For some time it was the Douglases, although they constantly had to watch their backs and eventually were slaughtered at the Black Dinner.
However, to suggest that what was going on in Scotland in any way resembles a state is drivel.
Complain about this comment
#60 oldnat
"MagisterIlluminatus ... Is there no lie, so foul that you won't use?"
It would appear not, though might we ask ourselves cui bono from his bile?
#61 mrbfaethedee
"Communists!?! That's the fear that's pushing your buttons? You sound like a charicature from the 50's."
Reds under the bed, indeed!
#62 mrbfaethedee
"I see that Zurich allowed the minaret posters"
Yes, that same commune of Zürich who gave Lenin sanctuary from the Czar are at it again allowing free speech to nasty right wingers. Now that wouldn't happen in people's Glasgow, would it?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#89. At 06:57am on 09 Oct 2009, Brownedov wrote:
#56 MagisterIlluminatus
Wonderful post. Best example of mindless unionism I've seen - like RE on speed.
Keep up the good work. You're not an SNP agent provocateur by any chance, are you?
Aha! You've put your finger on it. He is in the pay of the invidious Mr. Salmond who knows anyone with a braincell (whether functioning or not) could see through that mishmash of an argument.
A conspiracy of vast proportions!
Complain about this comment
#87 JRMacClure
"I've heard some idiotic and historically inaccurate arguments in my time, but that pretty much wins the prize."
Yes, but he seems to be "on a roll" on this particular thread and is giving himself some pretty strong competition.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#92 MagisterIlluminatus
"A state, a nation, a federation and a confederation are not the same thing and to suggest that they are is 'tosh and nonsense'."
Quite so, but all have multiple meanings depending on context. In context, all of those entities along with "unions" which you forgot to mention are independent members of the UN.
And your point was?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I see that Mister Magoo is at it again. If what he is saying about Scottish history is true then one would have to extrapolate from that assumption that there are no nations on earth. My dream has finally come true.
Complain about this comment
#92. Wrong, again. Mormaer was the vernacular word used by the Gaels. Earl on the other hand is an English or Scots translation. There is quite a bit of research on the subject and I suggest you study up on it.
As far as the fact that there were a number of regencies, yes, indeed there were. But you find one single argument for me anywhere in a text of international law that says that a regency meant that a nation is no longer a nation or a state is no longer a state.
I did not, by the way, say that a state and a nation were the same thing. I said that having a regency in no way affected either. Any number of nations went through periods of regency, including England and France. It is just tosh and nonsense to say a regency affects any such thing.
However, this has nothing to do with the current situation. That the Stewarts had some regencies is about as related as that Bloody Cumberland committed atrocities on the field of Culloden. So what?
Scotland is a nation and has been a nation-state. If its people so vote it can once again become a nation-state.
Complain about this comment
98. JR etc.
Ah no. Scotland has never been a nation-state or a state-nation, depending on which came first. The concept of the nation-state did not exist until the 19th Century more than 200 years after Scotland formed part of a unified kindom and over one hundred years after political union. I suggest you read up on it. Weber would be a good start.
Complain about this comment
Incidentally, mormaer may very well by Gaelic vernacular, nevertheless it had legal force. Earl is actually Saxon, not Scottish or English. It should be noted that Alexander Stewart, third son of Robert the Second wanted to be mormaer due to its legal force, but was instead created Justiciar of the North so he wouldn't challenge the local mormaers or their church brethren. He did anyway by wiping them out and burning Elgin Cathedral after judiciously (this is a play on words incidentally) removing all the valuable stuff for which he earned the epithet Wolf of Badenoch.
Complain about this comment
Guibernau has a much better discussion of the concept of nation than Max Weber.
Complain about this comment
reactor 303 and patrickspens : Thanks for the info. I will now spell the word beelin.
Complain about this comment
101. JR etc.
I have no doubt you are right. However, I was talking about a state not a nation. Time to hit the Weber I think.
Complain about this comment
The fact that there were mormaers in Scotland who were at times regents when there was a king who was a minor is simply irrelevant to any discussion. So earls, counts, and mormaers were at times violent is also a "so what". By the time that Earl became used as a term in Scotland, the term Earl was no longer Saxon because Saxon was no longer spoken, by the way. It had become a word in English and Scots. LOL
Scotland was formerly a nation which is defined by a community, a common culture, a clearly demarcated territory, a common past and the right to rule itself all of which Scotland certainly did have. And if you want to go read Max Weber, you'll find that is exactly his definition. Whether it still truly meets that definition is open to argument. But previous to the Act of Union it most certainly DID meet that definition.
In fact, what form of government a nation has relates in no way to whether it is a nation or not.
At one time, Scotland was also a STATE in that it also had the the monopoly of the legitimate use of physical force within a given territory. If you think Scotland did not have that you are simply, once again wrong.
Frankly, I wouldn't bother to discuss this with you but it might be information that is worthwhile for others to have.
Complain about this comment
#84. At 05:50am on 09 Oct 2009, MagisterIlluminatus wrote:
"Scotland may have been an independent nation for some time (actually about 200 hundred years, if you include the fact that the Lordship of the Isles did not consider themselves part of the Stewart monarchy until broken by conquest). But, by no stretch of the imagination could Scotland under the Stewarts be considered a state. The Stewart Monarchy was so weak and so constantly under regencies that the great Earldoms effectively operated a confederation. A confederation, as you no doubt know, does not constitute a state and in Scotland, unlike Switzerland after 1648, the Earls were at each other's throats as a matter of course.
The state, as we understand the term, is a 19th Century construct..."
Leaving aside the arguments rehearsed above, that doesn't really argue for the "legitimacy" of the United Kingdom. Without taking my boots off I can confirm that it has existed for just 302 years, and as a "state, as we understand the term" for say about half of that. The glorious union aint exactly set in stone.
Complain about this comment
re. #99 (inter alia)
For a self-styled "Magister", you seem in desperate need of illumination.
Chickens (and their evolutionary ancestors) were laying eggs for quite some time before anyone came up with the word "egg". They still had handy, crackable shells and yummy-tasting yolk in the centre.
To paraphrase the Daoist philosopher Zhuang Zi: "If from the beginning, the sky had been named 'horse' and the horse named 'sky', then sky would be horse and horse would be sky."
The precise legal status of mormaer/earl certainly evolved over the centuries, as it has continued to do since. But the change in nomenclature more likely reflects the shift in linguistic dominance at court. Scots kings were Gaelic speaking until James IV died on the field of Flodden.
Complain about this comment
Magister says: Scotland may have been an independent nation for some time...
And then Magister says: I was talking about a state not a nation. Time to hit the Weber I think.
Oh, really? =)
Or maybe just time to get your arguments straight. However, you're right about one thing. You do need to hit the Weber if you're going to insist on a discussion.
#105. It is indeed not set and stone and the future of Scotland IS for the Scots to decide.
It's late here. I won't be hitting the Weber but I am going to hit my bed. Night all.
Complain about this comment
Excuse me for butting in on the usual cybernat "bash everyone but can't take it themselves" debate, but thought I should make some things clear.
First, the opposition to a referendum has never been formally adopted Lib Dem policy. It's never been discussed at a conference until now, and no formal policy document has been put forward. Formal Lib Dem policy must be approved by conference - it's why Nick Clegg and Vince Cable got themselves into a bit of difficulty in Bournemouth - and this never has been. I seem to recall the policy came about because in the 2003 elections Jim Wallace was asked about it in an interview and had to give an answer - which was always going to be "no".
Secondly, mistydougie at 46 shows a simple lack of understanding of Lib Dem policy and practice. The Scottish Liberal Democrats can - and do - make policy which is different to that of their English counterparts. Indeed, in recent times some of the party's key English policies - free care for the elderly, abolition of tuition fees - have been driven because of their introduction in Scotland by the last executive. If the Scottish party want to pursue a policy on a referendum, then they can and will, even if Nick Clegg doesn't like it.
Mistydougie also criticises the decision to have the session in "secret". (I'm not sure I understand how a publicly announced session is "secret.") It will be behind closed doors, but there is a benefit to this in that those who might not - for whatever reason - be comfortable criticising the leadership in public, will be able to voice their opinions in private.
Complain about this comment
#108. It's always interesting when someone SAYS they want to take part in a debate and start off in the most insulting terms possible.
Your viewpoint would be much more accepted if you addressed it with reasonable courtesy. Since you start with being rude to others who post here, what do you expect?
But of course, your coming here and bashing many of the posters here doesn't count, right?
Complain about this comment
84. MagisterIlluminatus
You have a point about terminology, but it's of little difference. It's all just a way of talking about how we are governed. One way has to be the one that comes to the fore. And the common factor there is sovereignty. For without it, doesn't matter what you call yourself, you aren't a player at the table where all the decisions are made. We have international organisations...
Scotland is obviously capable of being in that boat. Comparisons with other "bits" of the globe here and there only seem to serve to try to prove Scotland is too little, too badly formed (!), too unimportant...and should not be so uppity as to play a full part. But I could compare Scotland with as many places, that we share much with, that ARE independent, and who would flinch at the notion of rescinding their sovereignty, to become like Scotland. For in international politics today, it's not the imperial hand that's the governing way of choice for today's "countries", is it.
My nationality is Scottish, Britain isn't really a country, it just holds the sovereignty of four. So if I accept that Scotland is not sufficiently relevant to be represented in the way other countries take for granted internationally, then I accept that I, or my family (my sons) are so irrelevant. Well.....they're not.
Complain about this comment
MagisterIlluminatus,
Since you've said not a word on Scotland's present or future place in the world, I find myself wondering why you are here. What "nasty little secret" lies behind your presence? I'm sure that your friend Dean must be similarly confused given that he thinks we should abandon our history because it gets in the way of cuddly Cammie's rebranding campaign.
One Tory advocates the erasure of Scottish history while another uses his version of it to drown this debate. The right hand doesn't know what the red hand is doing and neither cares, so long as all three fingers of the dead hand remain firmly clenched around the throats of those who dare to question the 'divine right' of Unionists to rule.
The bumptious 'historian', it seems, has completely forgotten those glorious or, depending on point of view, inglorious days of Empire and the inevitable denouement.
Complain about this comment
109. JRMacClure
"#108. It's always interesting when someone SAYS they want to take part in a debate and start off in the most insulting terms possible"
Aye, it's a pity!
I'd have accepted keithmlegg's contribution as fair comment if he'd resisted the urge to flex the Union's third finger. They just can't help themselves!
I wonder where the Lib Dems will turn when they, finally, get the message that's being sent by the other two fingers.
Complain about this comment
# 20 Dean
Just for clarity....
As far as I am concerned you are Scottish and a Unionist. (to paraphrase voltaire)
I may disagree with your point of view, but I will never dispute your right to call youself scottish (although I do feel perfectly within my rights to doubt your sanity and judgement;-) )
John
Complain about this comment
108. keithmlegg
"Excuse me for butting in on the usual cybernat "bash everyone but can't take it themselves" debate, but thought I should make some things clear."
What is that supposed to mean?
I assume you mean bash quite pejoratively? Making out that the supporters of the SNP on this this blog are being intemperate in their responses, presumably making them bad in your book.
Yet you say they can't take it themselves (you don't define what that entails either); if they can't take it, then someone must be dishing it out - presumably the people being bashed by the cybernats, which was everyone you said.
So, the 'cybernats' bash everyone they don't agree with, and everyone bashes them back.
Well, thanks for that.
I support the SNP at present so presumably this constitutes me bashing your post. Sorry about that, it's probably because I 'couldn't take it', i suppose.
Complain about this comment
Gonephising - Superb, the funniest thing I have read for a long time and of course, deanthetory calls you pathetic. Says it all really!
Complain about this comment
#44
Thomas, By the same logic, you (I assume) are norrow minded and living in the past because you would never vote Fascist, or BNP.
O will never vote tory (in the current situation) because I fundamentally disagree with the effects of some of their policies. That is not narrow minded or extremeist, infact it is the opposite. It is thoughtful and pragmatic.
John
Complain about this comment
84. MagisterIlluminatus
And further, to regain independence is so valid, such a norm in fact that the UN Charter legitimises it - if we satisfy the criteria for the right to have a voice on self determination, and we do, why stop short of independence?
Your arguments depicting Scotland as only warranting a place as a bit of a "country", can easily be matched by the argument that it is, was and should still be, sovereign once more. Therefore it just becomes a choice between one status or another. I can't understand the push for the lesser one! In a world where power is all....
And if your argument then becomes Britain gives Scots power (again, easy to counter the supposed "merits"), well it's "power" only as a collective where there is no acknowledgment of national/regional/whatever representation in the house which manages international interaction. So it's power without representation - no deal. No power at all.
Complain about this comment
Quick comment before I head out.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/8298580.stm
Obama wins Nobel Peace Prize (it's not a spoof!)
I suppose Murphy spoiled his chances by annoying Ireland and the Nordic countries.
Complain about this comment
LDs support for the referendum would bee a coup over Labour and would give the LDs the choice of the second option question, Full Fiscal Autonomy and would leave the Labour party in the cold, what a chance.
Only Tavish gives the impression of hiding from the referendum which suggests that he is still in cahoots with Labour.
If the LDs don't do something they will lose out in Scotland.
Similarly SLAB appear to be dithering and have dodged even the Omission that was Calman.
The Tories just don't like Devolution and are still being dragged forward saying we like Devolution, but they've spread Vick lotion under their noses.
The Nats are sitting patiently as the opposition fail to make any constitutional arguement that can defeat Independence from a Fiscal point of view. The opposition are caught in the headlights.
Complain about this comment
"can't take it themselves" - What I meant was that if someone suggests that the best option for Scotland and its people might not be independence, you could at least politely accept that point of view even if you don't agree with it. Both maintaining the union - which I support - and independence are perfectly arguable points of view, but it does seem to me that, on these boards at least, those who support independence are less likely to accept unionism as a valid viewpoint than the other way round.
As it happens, I support the idea of a referendum, mainly because frankly I think this debate is dominating Scottish politics far too much and we're not really addressing issues like education, social care and the economy in the way we should be. A result either way would remove the elephant from the room - although it would linger if the result went for independence simply because of the negotiations that would entail - and let us get on with trying to sort out real problems.
Complain about this comment
120. keithmlegg
"What I meant was that if someone suggests that the best option for Scotland and its people might not be independence, you could at least politely accept that point of view even if you don't agree with it."
Thanks for clarifying that for me keithmlegg.
I think that on these boards it is the case that the view that we are better in the union is accepted. It happens that it is not agreed with by the ones you call cybernats, and normally people are asked why it is better to stay in the union (it happesn the other way around too). That's the point at which the fun starts.
Without it we would have -
'Unionista' : we should stay in the union.
'Cybernat' : i accept you point of view, but we should not stay in the union.
'Unionista' : i accept you point of view, but we should stay in the union.
'Cybernat' : i accept you point of view, but we should not stay in the union.
ad infinitum.
Not much of debate is it?
You may believe it overshadows other debates about Scottish politics, from a unionist point of view that's probably true, but one of the reasons some people want independence is for full control of all areas of the governance of Scotland - this means that for independentists it doesn't muddy or overshadow anything, it informs everything.
So i guess we can at least agree that a referendum is the best way to get past this difference in the way the two sides of the independence question frame the rest of their political arguments.
Complain about this comment
cynaicalHighlander (and anyone else who's interested), have you seen this -
off topic, but...
Saudis Want Aid if World Kicks the Oil Habit
!!!
Complain about this comment
#120 Keithmlegg
It is not the viewpoint that is dismissed, it is the arguements that are put forward. For example, most people here disagree with Dean on many levels, but he at least believes in his position and tries to put forward a "rational" argument to back up his position. On the other hand there are some other (unionist) posters whose only arguments involve lies, name-calling and childish soundbites. They are the ones who receive robust treatment.
John
Complain about this comment
#108 keithmlegg
"opposition to a referendum has never been formally adopted Lib Dem policy"
Glad to hear it.
"It's never been discussed at a conference until now"
Then shouldn't the first go at it be discussed openly in plenary with the membership?
I'm perfectly prepared to believe that some or even many L-Ds members are more Liberal, Democratic and/ot Federalist than your leadership, but they didn't seem to make much of the opportunity in Bournemouth. Will Dunfermline be much different?
#120 keithmlegg
"As it happens, I support the idea of a referendum ... A result either way would remove the elephant from the room"
Glad to hear it, but your suggestion of a binary result prompts the question: Why not a multiple choice?
In a fully multiple choice referendum, I'd expect the following options
1. Return to direct rule
2. No changes to the existing Scotland Act
3. Implement Calman without the fiscal changes
4. Implement Calman without the fiscal changes except borrowing powers
5. Implement Calman with all the fiscal changes
6. Full fiscal autonomy but UK retains taxation power for "state" functions
7. Full fiscal autonomy with "state" function agreed between the nations
8. Independence
Obviously you wouldn't be going for #8, but where do your views fit between 1 to 7?
BTW, was Clegg's fiat on voting against the EU "constitutional treaty" referendum ever discussed in conference?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#118 oldnat
"I suppose Murphy spoiled his chances by annoying Ireland and the Nordic countries."
LOL. So that's what his charm offensive was aimed at.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#108: keithmlegg -
Welcome to the debate, (We do seem to be gathering a cohort of unsuccessful, parliamentary candidates on this blog - a sign we're being listened to, I feel, at least by people who presumably don't want to reduce their party's share of the vote still further next time round)
How can Tavish be won round, then? What approach should the 'Referendum Minded' amongst your LD colleagues take, in order to get him to look more favourably on a plebiscite?
Complain about this comment
MagisterIlluminatus:
#56.
"Dean, Dean, Dean - no matter how amenable you are, no matter how much you apologise, no matter how much you try to shape policy to their liking, you will never convince them of the merits of Conservatism."
I am Conservative. I consider myself more Conservative and right-wing then Dean here...
"Haven't you been reading their posts recently? They want to ban political parties. They want to form a federal or a confederal polity in Scotland, although you will note that they never tell you the difference between federalism and confederalism. They want to nationalism everything including your own garden. What they want to give you is communism by the back door. This is the nasty little secret and they are so confident that they broadcast on the website of the one organisation that they hate with a passion as if no one else will notice."
Did you not read Dean proposing we nationalism everything and I was the person defending the free market and right to earn mass profits?
You lost the debate when you once used history as reason for remaining in the United Kingdom. You have now resorted to lying, but I must ask, why should Scotland continue in the United Kingdom? What's the benefits?
Complain about this comment
The sooner we Scots take the plunge the better!
Complain about this comment
Brownedov,
The problem I see for having an 8 choice peice of paper is that the unionist vote will be split, while those after independence will continue to vote independence.
I doubt the unionists will vote or even agree to the matter.
Complain about this comment
NuLabour’s attack strategy.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
keithmlegg wrote:
As it happens, I support the idea of a referendum, mainly because frankly I think this debate is dominating Scottish politics far too much and we're not really addressing issues like education, social care and the economy in the way we should be.
Oh how soon they forget eh? We all recall 'National Outrage Month' AKA the Megrahi release, where Unionist parties did nothing but attack, snipe and criticise the decision to release Al Megrahi on compassionate grounds. Seems they are only too willing to drop the 'serious' issues when it suits them.
There used to be a character on the Steve Wright show called 'Mr Angry', life imitated art at the BBC when we were treated to a hitherto unknown character called 'Mr Outraged' - he bore a remarkable resemblance to the BBC's very own Glenn 'Outrage' Campbell.
Complain about this comment
I'm sorry to go completely off topic, (lots on at work and haven't kept up) Re: the education report from Cppr. I live in East Dunbrtonshire and myself, and quite a few of my friends, top up our childrens' education by using tutors in the subjects they struggle in.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Did anyone else know that The Herald were forced to correct a story which suggested that almost 20,000 students were still waiting for their bursary support.
Apparently a Labour MSP tried to use it in order to attack Alex Salmond during FMQ's but fortunately someone was already onto it and had forced the newspaper to publish a correction pointing out the reports were without foundation.
Salmond was able to bat away the false allegations.
ASt the same FMQ's Labour MSP Richard Baker's blunder was an absolute beauty when he used a report based on 2006 figures to attack the current Scottish Government. It had to be pointed out to him that the figures applied to the term when his own party were in office.
Sadly, both blunders appear to have been 'Chisholmed' out of Brian Taylor's blogs and the rest of the BBC news.
Never mind, Newsnet Scotland will remedy that.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Are the Labour party preparing the ground in order to woo fans of the old firm?
I get the distinct feeling that there are behind the scenes moves aimed at persuading followers of the two clubs that remaining in the UK might be in both clubs best interests.
Not for nothing has speculation about their joining the Premiership been on the front pages of the 'Scottish' press and the subject of BBC radio shows.
Complain about this comment
"We believe that sovereignty rests with the people and that authority in a democracy derives from the people. We therefore acknowledge their right to determine the form of government best suited to their needs"
These words come from the constitution of the Liberal Democrats.
That party, and its predecessor the Liberal party, used to be known for its defence of principle. Any principled person remaining in the Liberal Democrats who supports their party's constitution should support a Scottish independence referendum.
It's that simple.
Complain about this comment
#129 Thomas_Porter
"The problem I see for having an 8 choice peice of paper is that the unionist vote will be split"
If a multi-choice referendum were held, it would have to be under STV rules to be at all fair. But in practice, I wouldn't expect as many choices as I've listed. I would, however, hope that most posting here would be able to state their own 1st and 2nd preferences on such a scale.
My 1st preference, for example, would be 7 - true fiscal autonomy - primarily because I think it would be by far the quicket way of ending UK post imperial nonsense like the permanent Security Council seat and avoiding aggressive wars like Iraq. Without ruling out independence if the experiment doesn't work out, it would also act as a spur to the other home nations - particularly an England still in thrall to an unreformed Westmidden - to sort themselves out. I do realise that the latter reason is personally selfish in that I have family in all three nations sharing the island of GB.
My 2nd preference would be 8 because it would have the same results, albeit somewhat slower.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
133. Online Ed Yes Ed, both make for amusing viewing! And they are mentioned in Magnus Linklater's article in the Times referred to by 130. Roll_On_2010 above.
Complain about this comment
84. MagisterIlluminatus
Statehood is a term which has changed in meaning over the centuries in response to political, social and economic developments. To assert that between the Middle Ages and 1707 Scotland did not constitute a state because it did not meet the modern definition of statehood is an anachronism. I'm surprised you should make such a basic error of historical analysis. It's a bit like saying that English only became a language in the 18th century when the modern form of standard English was established.
Scotland met the definition of statehood which was current at the time. In the Middle Ages, states were those countries whose monarch did not owe feudal allegiance to another monarch. The Scottish Wars of Independence were fought to establish the principle that the Scottish monarch did not owe feudal allegiance to a monarch outside Scotland. The internal organisation of the state thus constituted is irrelevant to Scotland's status as a state.
I note that you now accept that Scotland is a nation. Didn't you deny this several threads back?
Complain about this comment
#138 InfrequentAllele
I believe that in the 1320's the pope gave Scotland a vial of oil with which they were to annoint their head of state. So we certainly met the requirements of statehood then. I also believe that at that time only a very few countries had this honour.
John
Complain about this comment
120. keithmlegg
"let us get on with trying to sort out real problems"
There are none so blind as those who will not see!
For many of us the 'real problem' is the Union and those of its Scottish representatives who choose to put its interests before all else. You cannot serve two masters and, at some stage, men and women of conscience must be prepared to make the choice between blind fealty and their obligation to the people. With the exception of Malcolm Chisolm, I can't think of a single Unionist MSP who has demonstrated such integrity.
What, since May 2007, have the majority of Unionist MSPs done to convince us that they're deserving of our trust?
Elected to serve Scotland and its people they've decided, instead, to serve their London-based superiors and, in so doing, have disgraced themselves, their parties and their Unionist puppet-masters. I take no pleasure in saying that because I'd much rather see a range of views represented, with sincerity, dignity and respect than witness the debasement of Scottish politics and the unedifying spectacle of the Liberal Democrat descent into political prostitution. Their 'leaders', a procession of mindless marionettes, are completely redundant since they function only as conduits for the Westminster Word - what Glaswegians would call 'tubes'.
I expect nothing of value from Westminster but I'd hoped for so much more from Holyrood. Alas, in place of positivity and progress, we get the only things that Scottish servants of the Union are capable of delivering - subterfuge, subversion, sabotage, slander and sleaze.
They work for us? Not at all!
Complain about this comment
How long for Mr Gray - labour's north britain branch will get rid before the year is out to give the new leader 6 months to mount some form of challenge to the SNP before May.
There is a lot of talent on those labour benches, enough to fill shoe box.
D McN
Complain about this comment
If Scotland went independent it would have to negotiate with the European Union to become a member.
As the EU is moving towards a superstate then surely Scotland will not be independent in any case, even if, and most likely, it does become a member.
And because Scotland, population-wise, is around the same size as Ireland, it won't even have an EU commissioner to represent Scotland in the EU. So could some one please explain to me how an "independent" Scotland would in any shape, form or manner have any real influence anywhere.
Also, Nats like to go on "Its oor oil!". It would NOT be Scotland's oil if it had to negotiate with the EU because they want it to become a common resource and have been trying for decades to get the UK Gov to do that, with no luck.
This one of the main reasons that Norway refuses to join the EU.
Nor will Scotland find itself the beneficaries of loads of cash from the EU in the way that Ireland was.
If Scotland doesn't join the EU and tries to go it alone then it will quickly find itself marginalised in trade agreements etc...
So please, Nats, do explain exactly what benefits there are to independence? You are always going on about the Unionists to explain about the benefits of the Union. So please - put aside the fantasy that Scotland will some how become some golden land if independence is achieved - and explain to me how Scotland will be independent???
The UK - even if it was just N Ireland, Wales and England - DOES have EU commissioners under the Lisbon Treaty - and can influence the EU, but Scotland will not be able to...seems to me that you Nats are just living some braveheart fantasy and are devoid of the realities of realpoliticks.
Join the EU then no oil, no voice, told what to do by France, Germany, the UK and Italy (the big four), unable to negotiate separate trade agreements, ignored as politically irrelevent by the rest of the world, no influence what-so-ever and sidelined. Afterall, who takes any notice of what Belgium says! No one.
Come on explain to me why the present status quo isn't the best world for Scotland, try to persuade me how this independence will work in reality? Its easy to say you will be able to do that and do this, but that isn't how it will turn out in reality.
Just for once explain real, tangible benefits and not some misty-eyed fantasies that "independence" is some how in the Scottish people's best interests.
Because I'm sure the Germans and French will put Scotland right at the heart of its agendas...not.
Have you not wondered why Irish Republican's were dead set against Lisbon Treaty...they know their dream of independence is now a dead duck under the EU and Ireland is to become a mere province of the EU.
Complain about this comment
134. U14094468
It wouldn't be a surprising strategy would it, wooing often hard-to-reach voters without getting into all that politics stuff.
By the way, I keep meaning to say - Thanks for producing Newsnet Scotland, we need more diverse coverage of issues in Scotland and 'the new media' is a good channel. It must be a lot of work, it is appreciated.
Complain about this comment
130. Roll_On_2010
Thanks for that. I'd already watched it but the Linklater article is a real gem. Sometimes we find joy in the most unlikely places.
I really liked this bit:
"Mr Salmond looked like a man standing in front of a fruit machine who has seen three cherries rolling up in front of him."
That should keep a smile on my face for a while! :)
Complain about this comment
Keithmlegg at #108
Yes Keith,you are quite right.The referendum debate at the autumn conference isn't in itself a secret.But the precise arguments put forward there and who said them will not be known to the public,apart from the meagre information that will no doubt be put out by the leadership.Unless,of course,one or more of your fellow pro-referendum colleagues decides to exercise their right of free speech in the public domain.
Surely when we are dealing with the enormously important matter of Scotland's constitutional future it behoves parties to thrash out their policy in an open and vigorous way.Otherwise we could find ourselves in a society where everything is decided behind closed doors.Where citizens are legally entitled to free speech but in reality are inhibited from exercising that right.Something resembling Wilhelmine Germany in some regards.I do seem to be getting a wee bit carried away with a dystopian vision but when the Liberal Democrats start edging away from open debate I do find it unsettling.
Complain about this comment
The fact that everyone is "denying" a split in the LDs has the old antennae going. Every party, SNP Included, has wings/factions/what have you. It is quite clear that there is a "wing" within the LDs that, if they don't actively wish a referendum, see the leadership's current intractable stance as at odds with the founding principles of their party and its Liberal father before.
As for the special conference being held behind closed doors. Give me a break ! Somebody is seriously suggesting that in the (likely) event of one or possibly two MSPs standing up and totally losing the rag with the leadership is going to remain "secret" for more than about 30 seconds ? Never mind some of the activists !
Yup, I'ld still be quite happy to see Malcolm Chisholm set the precedent and cross the floor. (I think the we had a suggestion of "Shuffle round the hemicycle" at one point due to the semi-circular and sweetness-and-light-faux-euro-social-democratic-non-confrontational construction of the Parly).
Wouldn't be beyond betting however that there might be some "resignations" or explusions from the LD group first and a wee bit of room having to be found up by Robin, Patrick and Margo.
If this goes against the LD Leadership it could re-define them as a credible force rather than the wipe-out that they currently face in 2011.
If the hatches are battened down and dissent crushed, 1 to move to the Independent bit of the benches and 1 to come straight to the SNP.
Complain about this comment
141. Donald_McNairn
"
There is a lot of talent on those labour benches, enough to fill shoe box."
Remember though that clown shoes are quite big ;)
Complain about this comment
142. true-red-white-blue Mr Gray, have you nothing better to be doing on a Friday afternoon?
Complain about this comment
142.
Oh dear. Your impassioned post is shot through with misty eyed inaccuracy.
Scotland would most likely accede to the EU immediately upon independence. Scotland already meets with entry conditions to the EU by virtue of its being a part of a state which is an EU member. The legal position is fairly clear, the United Kingdom was formed by the union of England and Scotland, secession of either party means the United Kingdom is ended. England will only inherit successor status to the UK, and the UK's EU membership if Scotland agrees.
Since it's quite likely that France and Germany will use Scottish independence as a means of putting pressure upon a Eurosceptic English government, automatic English accession to the EU after Scottish independence is by no means guaranteed. Either both England and Scotland automatically accede to the EU, or neither does.
All EU states have their own commissioner. Ireland's commissioner is currently Charlie McCreevy. If Scotland were a member of the EU in its own right it would have its own commissioner. Joe Borg is the commissioner appointed by Malta (population 300,000). Tiny Malta has considerably more influence upon EU policy than Scotland does.
Complain about this comment
#142 true-red-white-blue
Welcome. An unusual, if unsubstantiated, first post.
Could you quote some sources to substantiate your allegations re the EU wanting oil to become a "common resource"? First I've heard of it. Re Norway, I think you'll find that they, like the Scottish Government are rather more worried about the fisheries policy than having their oil grabbed, but if you have any sources please quote them.
"Have you not wondered why Irish Republican's were dead set against Lisbon Treaty"?
Not at all. Many were because of concerns about their neutrality and abortion, but they seem to have been persuaded. Personally I think that's a pity because failure of the 2nd treaty referendum would have caused a rethink eventually resulting in a more democratic EU, but your point was?
"Ireland is to become a mere province of the EU"
So, presumably, Scotland is to become a mere province of a mere province of the EU. Much better, I suppose.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
142 If Scotland were independent it is England who would find it hard to remain within Europe.
Scotland has almost all the natural resources and is not so troublesome.
Full Fiscal AUtonomy is the only choice that can save this union.
I do not fear Independence but it is not my first choice. I will support it if real Fiscal control is not an option.
Complain about this comment
This pleases me: "Leading tories cite Thatcher in defending green policies"
Lo the Thatcherites are running scared, they smell the rise of One Nationists again- Cameron shall vanguish these dogs of the 80's. One can positively smell the desperation to keep Thatcher at the centre of a Cameronian revolution to bring back SuperMac.
They can see what I can see, that even the Guardian is falling in love with Cameron and the progressive One Nationist instincts he represents. According to Jonathan Freedland, "Many Guardian readers would have found themselves undergoing a new and unnerving experience: nodding along at regular intervals to a speech by a Tory leader" [todays' front page].
The only difference is that I welcome praise from the Guardian as a sign we are moving in the right direction, these Redwoodite Thatcher waving hysterics however take the opposite view- seeing this as a challenge to somehow prove Maggie has still 'got it'.
Onward march Cameron-Osborne. They and their policies and vision is now beginning to take shape, and its' a vision well worth waiting to mature.
Already we have pledged to reverse 'that womans' reforms on the pensions-
We shall restore the link between earnings and the state pension. So that the elderly can recived more generous pensions in retirement. Paid for by pushing back the retirement age a year.
We shall also keep child tax credits- but take them away from those earning over £50,000- because spending money to make the rich richer at the expense of the poor is hardly what Cameronism is all about.
We shall keep the minimum wage- it is the moral and ethical thing to do, there must be a minimum set wage, so that people have a livable income at all times.
We shall keep the 50% tax rate [sorry Thomas!]- because so long as we ask public sector workers to accept a pay freeze it is vital that we all share the burden- and the rich pay more: "We are all in this together"
"All in this together"
-one nation
-greater social mobility
-family, community, society
-less state to free society- because society does exist, it just isnt the same as the state.
Lets reduce the gap between richest and poorest! Why not! And lets' start with Osbornes' proposals to cut Tory ministerial salaries by 5% then freeze them there for a whole parliament.
In short lets Cameron-Osborne: end the modern British dilemma of "Two nations between whom there is no intercourse and no sympathy; who are as ignorant of each other's habits, thoughts, and feelings, as if they were dwellers in different zones, or inhabitants of different planets: the rich and the poor"
Complain about this comment
#142 true-red-white-blue
Thanks for the moderate expression of your views, but I have to say that you have fallen for the usual scaremongering, and inot the usual traps.
First of all (and I realise there is a debate about this) Scotland is already a member of the EU. If as you say we would have to rejoin as the membership is deemed to belong to GB. Then the rump of the UK (England Wales, NI) would also have to rejoin (that would cause some fun down south). Scotland alone is one of the most (if not the most) energy rich countries in western europe (not just oil, but also wind, wave, tide and hydro). I do not see joining as a problem.
With regards influence, we are currently dominated by a much larger neighbour who has very different needs, and a completely different economy from us. All economic decisions are currently taken for the benefit of the much larger economy (just look at past interest rates, and fisheries negotiations, etc). As part of the EU we would be in amongst many more similar economies, with no single economy being dominant. There would be no more high interest rates to cool the housing market in the SE of England while the same measure is destroying manafacturing competitiveness in Scotland. Basically the peaks and troughs would be smoothed out by being part of a much larger whole.
As for influence, the EU parliment is where the laws are made. we currently as part of the UK have the same number of representatives as Liechtenstine (sp?). and less than half those of Ireland. UK influence has not benefitted Scotland as it is used for the benefit of the larger part of the UK (eg the fishing). Only where Scotland and England's interests are aligned is there benefit in being part of the UK, and when that is the case, there is nothing to prevent two independant entities acting together.
The whole point is that the big four will not act together (small aside, shouldn't poland be in that group?), and if they do, then they will be outvoted by the rest of the EU. No single country can dominate. Unlike our present position.
The problem with the Union is that it is lopsided.
Finally I would be careful about using norway as a reason for not joining the EU. Hasn't Norway just been named as the best place in the world to live?
John
Complain about this comment
142. At 2:08pm on 09 Oct 2009, true-red-white-blue
"As the EU is moving towards a superstate then surely.."
Let me stop you right there. The EU is not moving towards s superstate. Such nonsense, tell me how is John Redwood and Co? They all ok in their anti-Lisbon hysteria?
Lisbon proposes to streamline EU decision making processes, it will end the farce of needing a unanimous on every reform- since full and unanimous agreement between 27+ member-states is simply impractical.
What Lisbon does create is genuine intergovernmental cooperation, because we need EU cooperation in a globalised world. To solve the global warming crisis- we need Europe to act as one to make more of a difference than if the UK did its own thing.
We need Lisbon to allow the EU tarrif walls to be modernised without the French holding a perminent agricultural veto! Those protection walls savegaurd UK jobs, and the UK domestic market from; among other things; Chinese [slave labour produced] textiles.
The Lisbon treaty does have flaws that I do not agree with, for example it strengthens the role and importance of the European human rights legislation- which leans too far against victim. Lisbon would also seek to create cooperation in foreign policy terms- but in all thee areas opt outs can be negotiated.
..and before you say "but then they will take them back years later" erm no they wont- because Britain still enjoys a perminent opt out on the Euro, that hasnt been taken away, or indeed has the British rebate- these agreements last because we can trust and negotiate with our European friends and allies. What picture are you painting- wher continental Europeans have it in for us? What image and legacy is that for future British generations to live and learn to?
Try again.
Complain about this comment
Also, Nats like to go on "Its oor oil!". It would NOT be Scotland's oil if it had to negotiate with the EU because they want it to become a common resource and have been trying for decades to get the UK Gov to do that, with no luck.
This one of the main reasons that Norway refuses to join the EU.
So Scotland would be marginalized and impoverished the same way Norway is? I think a LOT of Scots would take it!
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Just listening to your Big Debate on the iPlayer.
Bravo for pressing Ms Curran to give a clear answer to the question: Does devolution only work if Labour is in power at UK level?
Isn't the fact that she effectively admitted that is the case worth a new thread? Will Mr Gray be disciplining her over her remarks, do you think?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#148 forfar-loon
LOL but clearly the answer's no.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#151 thatweec
"Full Fiscal AUtonomy is the only choice that can save this union.
I do not fear Independence but it is not my first choice. I will support it if real Fiscal control is not an option."
Well said.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#142 true-red-white-blue
Isn't there something rather self-defeating about using the perceived failings of one union (the EU) as a basis for defending another union which can be characterised as being even more deficient.
It seems to me that the United Kingdom is now held together by little more than an accretion of sentiment and stasis, whereas its European counterpart has, at least, a sense of purpose, albeit an occasionally unclear or flawed one.
Complain about this comment
"154. At 3:44pm on 09 Oct 2009, deanthetory wrote:
(...)
The Lisbon treaty does have flaws that I do not agree with, for example it strengthens the role and importance of the European human rights legislation- which leans too far against victim. Lisbon would also seek to create cooperation in foreign policy terms- but in all thee areas opt outs can be negotiated."
After a bit of a struggle with the syntax, I found myself agreeing with much of what you say here, Dean. That is, until I came to this paragraph.
I believe that the reason UK victims of crime are not well looked after is not the fault of evil foreign Johnnies, but more of a British issue. Whether it is wounded war veterans, old age pensioners, or those who care for people with disability, the British state has historically shown a genius for ignoring the needy, and often for showing outright contempt. Maybe a spot of human rights legislation is just what these marginalised groups need.
Complain about this comment
Obama just won the Nobel Peace Prize. *boggle*
Complain about this comment
158. At 4:13pm on 09 Oct 2009, Brownedov wrote:
"#151 thatweec
"Full Fiscal AUtonomy is the only choice that can save this union.
I do not fear Independence but it is not my first choice. I will support it if real Fiscal control is not an option."
Well said."
----
Absolutely, we should be able to enage in a reasoned discussion about the constitutional future of Scotland.
It is well known on these blogs that I support fiscal autonomy- this has long been my position. However that is not to say that Independence is undesirable, it does have its good aspects. Yet for me it will always boil down to the less emotionally charged debate over economics- would Scotland be more fiscally 'copper bottomed' within a fiscally devolved UK than under independence? I think so.
What I hate to see are the brainless cowboys who go on about "Commies" in fully fledged McCarthyeque language [its just not Cammiesque is it ;)]
Complain about this comment
Unionists are forever saying Scotland would have to reapply to get in the EU but then all of a sudden it would have to negotiate with the EU in order to stop it becoming a common resource? So we'd be outside the EU but our oil would be within the EU? Utter nonsense.
Is Dutch gas a common EU resource? I don't think so.
Complain about this comment
I know this is off-topic but I just started looking at the world news. As someone who generally (well sometimes) supports Mr. Obama, I have no idea of why he should get a Nobel Peace Prize.
There are people out there who have spent their entire lives working for peace. I kind of like the guy. Heaven knows, I voted for him. But WTF!!???
Complain about this comment
160. obviousalias
"European human rights legislation- which leans too far against victim"
Do you mean the European Convention on Human Rights?
If yes, how so? If not, what legislation?
Complain about this comment
160. obviousalias
Sorry obviousalias, my #165 was intended for deanthetory's #154
Complain about this comment
Another bugbear of mine which ties in with this. To think we have a responsibility to the rest of union is an utter nonsense. I grew up in the SE of England and I assure you what Scotland thinks or does is irrelevant to people there. We must have the self-respect to look after ourselves and in so doing respect the abilities of others to do likewise. It's patronising as well as self-defeating to think otherwise. That's why we must have a clean break politically and economically whilst honouring socially the ties that bind.
Complain about this comment
I've got to say Obama's Nobel Prize looks a little previous. It rather risks bringing the whole thing into disrepute.
Complain about this comment
165. At 5:24pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
160. obviousalias
"European human rights legislation- which leans too far against victim"
Do you mean the European Convention on Human Rights?
If yes, how so? If not, what legislation?
You are quoting my quote of d the t, not me. I think I share your view.
Complain about this comment
166. At 5:34pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee
"Do you mean the European Convention on Human Rights?
If yes, how so? If not, what legislation?"
The European Convention on Human rights is problematic on many grounds. Not the principal the practical implimentation.
It is easily replaced by a British Bill of rights, which bares its legitimacy as an act of Human compassion on the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath.
This is preferable, no British court should be subject to any foreigh one.
Complain about this comment
#162 deanthetory
Glad to hear it Dean, but it's your leadership who need convincing. Listen to Mundell on Brian's debate today and you don't feel he's on the verge of supporting Calman, let alone a multi-choice referendum.
Particularly if the L-Ds don't emerge from Dunfermline wanting one, your lot could help themselves by offering to support a multi-choice one. It might even dig your London leadership out of a hole if by any chance the Czechs hold out on Lisbon long enough for your lot to be forced to hold one. That would make it very difficult to deny Scotland one on its own polity.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#12 gonephishing - brilliant, so good you could almost believe it. You'll have to forgive Dean (Post 21 onwards) usually he's a bit of an ok egg but on occasion his brother stands in for him.
Complain about this comment
#164 JRMacClure
"I have no idea of why he should get a Nobel Peace Prize."
For not being George Bush 3 seems to be the media consensus on this side of the pond, but they're pretty gobsmacked too.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Dean, what has the European Convention on Human Rights got to do with the EU?
In any event, the UK is signed up to many bodies that "give away" UK powers - the UN, NATO, erc.
Complain about this comment
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Convention_on_Human_Rights
Complain about this comment
Anent the Labour party making hay with the SNP anti Glasgow line. Does that then mean that the LP is retreating and turning into an insular Glasgow centric party with a narrow view of what defines Scotland? Will it have no real interest in supporting other labour constituencies outwith Glasgow if they ever regain power? Does it mean that a vote for labour is a wasted vote as all expenditure will be pointed at Glasgow and the rest of Scotland can go to hang? I think we should be told!
Complain about this comment
Here'a little more useful reading on the EHCR:-
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/libertycentral/2009/oct/04/human-rights-act-conservatives
Complain about this comment
#151 thatweec - afternoon as you can see from the others , you are most certainly not on your own with the views you expressed in #151.
personally I see true Full fiscal autonomy (not the pretendy calman version) as the next step ,but not a lot of people have been talking about it. the chances of labour & the tory's simply allowing Scotland to ride off into the sunset are very slim in fact i would go as far as to say it just will not happen, apart from anything else they cannot afford it.
I fully agree if the only choice! is status quo or independence it's a no brainer
Sid
Complain about this comment
#173. Frankly, I find it a bit of an embarrassment--a bit like when GB follows him around saying "please talk to me". There have been rumblings that he should refuse it, but I don't see that happening.
Bizarre. He had to have been nominated when he had been in office a month or two at most. It seems to me to be a "preventive prize" of something along the lines of "If we give him a peace prize maybe he won't drag people into wars" is the only thing I can think of. Because it certainly was NOT because of his having yet earned it.
Ok, off-topic. I'll drop it. I HOPE that he eventually does earn it, although... *sigh* Never mind. I'll crawl under my desk until my renewed passport arrives.
Complain about this comment
#167 bluelaw
"To think we have a responsibility to the rest of union is an utter nonsense."
Agreed, but there is surely a remnant of post imperial guilt to share. Britnats of Scottish origin including the present incumbant of #10 gained office thanks in part to Scotland's love affair with the Tweedles. This must confer just a little guilt on the Scottish electorate.
I wouldn't for a moment suggest NuLab-like apologies for slavery and the like, but surely simple things that can be done to prevent future wars of aggression being supported from the island of GB would be appropriate. In that respect, I would hope a future independent Scotland would lobby hard for any rump UK to lose its Security Council seat or for a fiscally autonomous Scotland to refuse to pay for the boys' toys and people needed to maintain it.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
# 134 Ed - Old Squirm leave for England? Then independence must be just round the corner. Good riddance. PS can you ensure that they take their sectarian bile, that has poisoned people the length and breadth of this land, with them.
Complain about this comment
I've just listened to Brian's Big Debate. I must say that he handled it well. Even though he tried to 'body swerve' around the referendum for Scotland the topic still managed to raise its head amongst his guests. All in all an interesting programme.
Ps I would have to add that it was non-glencampbelled.
Complain about this comment
164. JRMacClure
I think it is intentionally ironic that he got the prize to shame him into doing the right thing maybe ?
if not that then the loonies have taken over because given that the nominations for the peace prize close on the 1st of Feb, he was only President for 11 days after being sworn in on the 20th of January then what he performed in those 11 days, makes the immaculate conception look ordinary
source for Nobel Prize vote
http://nobelprize.org/nomination/peace/process.html
Complain about this comment
Now that the date of the by election has been fixed, 12th of November, how is the labour candidate going to be able to look the people of Glasgow NE in the eye when his party has allowed this constituency to be without representation for 6 months solely to allow the labour party enough time to engineer an anti SNP 'scandal'. I hope the good people of Glasgow NE remember this abuse of their rights.
Complain about this comment
170. deanthetory
"The European Convention on Human rights is problematic on many grounds. Not the principal the practical implimentation.
It is easily replaced by a British Bill of rights, which bares its legitimacy as an act of Human compassion on the Magna Carta and the Declaration of Arbroath.
This is preferable, no British court should be subject to any foreigh one."
Fair enough deanthetory, it's not the firts time i've heard people say that the implementation or interpretation is where the problem lies.
If that is the case, and the ECHR isn't of itself the problem (the foreign vs native courts bit aside for now), why do we need our own instead? If we got the implementation/interpretation sorted out wouldn't that be sufficient as the human rights componenent of UK legislation?
As far as subjecting Brtish courts to EU ones - it isn't forced on us, we're signatories because we agree with it, just like international treaties and law e.g. war crimes.
Or are there things in the ECHR that you don't like, and wish we were'nt signed up to? I'm genuinely curious.
Complain about this comment
169. obviousalias
"I think I share your view."
Yes, I believe so.
Complain about this comment
173. Brownedov
"For not being George Bush 3 seems to be the media consensus on this side of the pond, but they're pretty gobsmacked too."
In which case, had he won the election, John "bomb, bomb Iran" McCain would have won the Noble Peace Prize too! Yikes!
;)
Complain about this comment
176. Robabody
I still believe they think the games up, and they're looking for safehouses in Scotland to begin their regrouping for a new fight a decade from now.
Complain about this comment
# 164 Hi JR - at least it wasn't Tony Blair! Bad enough he's being proposed as a possible EU President....arrrgh
Complain about this comment
122. mrbfaethedee
"cynaicalHighlander (and anyone else who's interested), have you seen this -
off topic, but...
Saudis Want Aid if World Kicks the Oil Habit
!!!"
saudi oil
Bluntly its the Saudis trying to keep their income up because they know their reserves are in decline and all the internal problems that will cause.
Complain about this comment
164. JRMacClure
The world going mad I suppose he hasn't started a new war yet, its like golf and football as Olympic sports F1 next!
Complain about this comment
#188. At 6:41pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
176. Robabody
I still believe they think the games up, and they're looking for safehouses in Scotland to begin their regrouping for a new fight a decade from now.
A very likely sounding analysis. It would be a sound tactic sans a plebiscite. However, that still leaves them with several embarrassing positions. If they make it Glasgow vs the rest of Scotland, does that mean they write off the rest of Scotland? Doing that, exactly how do they keep the SNP from being a MAJORITY government in 2011. In which case, exactly HOW do they stave off that very embarrassing referendum vote they've been so determined to prevent?
I have some doubts about the over-all soundness of such a tactic.
In the meantime, exactly what do the Tories do to prevent such an eventuality because they sure as heck won't have any real voice in Holyrood?
Complain about this comment
#142
I read a small way down this siully rant then chucked it. Ireland provided the presidency of the EU a couple of years ago.
Complain about this comment
#151 #158
Only independence provides "real fiscal autonomy"
Complain about this comment
#187 mrbfaethedee
"In which case, had he won the election, John "bomb, bomb Iran" McCain would have won the Noble Peace Prize too! Yikes!"
Quite possibly so. Perhaps they would have given it to Ms Palin in anticipation of a speedy succession.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#194. At 7:12pm on 09 Oct 2009, sneckedagain wrote:
#151 #158
Only independence provides "real fiscal autonomy"
Ok, I keep see people talking about wanting "real fiscal autonomy" within the union. So what DO they mean by this?
Wouldn't REAL fiscal autonomy mean the ability to decide whether money went to the Trident? Or to support the war in Afghanistan? Wouldn't it mean control of the funds from oil and gas? Control of (including foreign negotiations) renewable energy sources? How do you have full fiscal control if you can't negotiate regarding important industries such as fishing?
I must admit I don't see how this can be done within the union? Can someone explain this to me?
Being an American, I'm sure I'm missing something here.
Complain about this comment
Why do some (silly) people use the silly argument 'Scotland wouldn't be independent in Europe', so what is the point they imply? I hear it time and again and it is just scaremongering.
The point is we would not be dependent on the London parliament controlling our destiny and our natural resources as they have done for the last 300 years. That will be the single most desireable benefit we will get from independence. We won't be plagued with Labour or any other hue of Westminster politician trying to subvert the elected government in Scotland and we may actually get an honest and open political system.
The other benefits will just fall into place.
Complain about this comment
#194 sneckedagain
"Only independence provides "real fiscal autonomy""
I disagree. I grant it would require repealing the Act of Union and replacing it with a new Act of Confederation passed in both parliaments spelling out how "shared" functions would be agreed and costed.
I do not suggest the Tweedles would be jumping for joy and falling over themselves to facilitate such a solution but do believe they would regard it as less bad than "losing" Scotland entirely despite all the "please get on with it and leave" posts on the NR threads.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
By the way, am I right in understanding that Scotland is now supplying England with water? I just wondered what this involves as far as finances? Within the union? What would it mean outside the union?
Complain about this comment
#196 JRMacClure
"Wouldn't REAL fiscal autonomy mean the ability to decide whether money went to the Trident?"
YES
"Or to support the war in Afghanistan?"
YES
"Wouldn't it mean control of the funds from oil and gas?"
YES
"Control of (including foreign negotiations) renewable energy sources?"
YES, but the foreign negotiations would at least in part involve use of shared functions such as embassies
"How do you have full fiscal control if you can't negotiate regarding important industries such as fishing?"
The UK doesn't have such control now under EU rules. EU representation would also be shared with right of access to both governments.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#200. I appreciate your answers but you didn't say how this would work. You are saying that you'd still have a union but be completely separate?
How?
I don't understand the part about EU representation. So you'd still trust UK negotiators to represent Scottish interests? In spite of the fact that they haven't in the past?
Or are you saying that in some way that I don't understand that Scottish interests would actually be represented unlike in the past?
If so, how?
Complain about this comment
After another hard day at the coal face......ok Windows interface....same thing.
oldnat, I'm not taken in by the "its either left or right wing" - I was being sarky.
On a referendum - there has to be a simple "yes" or "no". If the answer is "no". then there should be a second question "do you wish fiscal control?" or whatever. Anything else simply weights the poll towards independence, and as has already been stated will not be agreed by unionist parties.
On Europe: there has to be a clear explanation about exactly what would happen to an independent Scotland. It's all rather confusing at present.
196. At 7:27pm on 09 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
On fishing rights, I believe Scotland would only have full control if they were outside the EU. Can anyone clarify this?
176. At 6:03pm on 09 Oct 2009, Robabody wrote:
Anent the Labour party making hay with the SNP anti Glasgow line.
The SNP have to be careful with this one, because it might actually work. It might not be so much Labour accusing the SNP as being "anti-Glasgow", but "pro-Edinburgh". Or have I just given them an idea?
122. At 11:44am on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
Well, the world is going to have to find an alternative soon. And Saudi Arabia is not exactly prime land for agricultural oil.
184. At 6:36pm on 09 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
Now that the date of the by election has been fixed, 12th of November, how is the labour candidate going to be able to look the people of Glasgow NE in the eye when his party has allowed this constituency to be without representation for 6 months solely to allow the labour party enough time to engineer an anti SNP 'scandal'. I hope the good people of Glasgow NE remember this abuse of their rights.
Fair point, but there hasn't exactly been howls of protest about it. Love to see Smeato win it just for the acceptance speech!
Complain about this comment
190. cynicalHighlander
"Bluntly its the Saudis trying to keep their income up because they know their reserves are in decline and all the internal problems that will cause."
Yes, it's amazing the sort of regime all that oil money's been able to sustain, it certainly buys the friends you need.
Complain about this comment
199. At 7:51pm on 09 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
By the way, am I right in understanding that Scotland is now supplying England with water?
Not yet as far as I know but climatologists are predicting that England is going to turn into semi desert the way that some mediterranean lands are just now and Scotland is going to get wetter.
In fact they say that Scotland will hold half of Europes water.
England and some parts of continental Europe will have to start importing the stuff.
So the next time you complain about the rain remember that one day Scotland will have England over a water barrel regarding the stuff.
Liquid gold.
Complain about this comment
199.
If Scotland is supplying England with water then it is a commercial arrangement between Scottish Water and the relevant English water company. Any revenues generated go to Scottish Water. Unlike the water companies in England and Wales however, Scottish Water has not been privatised.
This would presumably remain the position post-independence too.
Complain about this comment
#200 I guess I don't see the advantage to England in 'keeping' Scotland if they lose the oil, gas and taxes. I assume they'd still have Scottish soldiers in their army but beyond that--what would be the advantage?
They would still have bases in Scotland to use without paying rent on them (or would they then have to pay for having Trident in Scotland and the missle base and so forth?)
I'm totally confused as to what you envision.
Complain about this comment
192. JRMacClure
"If they make it Glasgow vs the rest of Scotland, does that mean they write off the rest of Scotland? Doing that, exactly how do they keep the SNP from being a MAJORITY government in 2011."
Yes, i see what you mean, It only makes sense if they've already conceded everything. I can't see that yet.
Why try for Glasgow vs a'body then? Maybe they thing they can keep changing tack and get away with it, and once the current Glasgow vote is done they'll change their tune and see who buys it? I'm no political strategist so, any hypotheses gratefully accepted.
Complain about this comment
196. At 7:27pm on 09 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
On fishing rights, I believe Scotland would only have full control if they were outside the EU. Can anyone clarify this?
I apparently didn't ask the question clearly. I meant: Would Scotland have control of the negotiations?
It would appear that Scotland has been as a severe disadvantage in leaving this in the hands of London negotiators although, of course, I'm open to being corrected on this.
#204. Thanks on clearing that up. I'd read it was the case but wasn't sure of the accuracy. It was in a blog post somewhere.
Complain about this comment
195. Brownedov
"Quite possibly so. Perhaps they would have given it to Ms Palin in anticipation of a speedy succession."
'You betcha!' ;)
Complain about this comment
200. Brownedov
Would real fiscal autonomy mean the money going to Trident - No.
Or to support the war in Afghanistan - No
Defence and Foreign policy forms no party of fiscal autonomy and any attempt to suggest it does is false.
Wouldn't it mean control of oil and gas funds - No.
Oil and gas are state assets and any attempt by Scotland wrest control of them from the state would be considered a de facto and de jure act of war.
Control (including foreign negotiations) of renewable energy sources - No.
These energy sources are owned by both British and Foreign companies. Control would involve nationalisation which would be sternly resisted by the UK governmnet and the EU.
Given the the previous the suggestion that the British Governmnet would negotiate on anything is, to say the least, obtuse.
Complain about this comment
#199 JRMacClure
"By the way, am I right in understanding that Scotland is now supplying England with water?"
I believe so, but there is no charge associated in the latest GERS. That would clearly have to change.
BTW, there's a Scottish Government paper on options for fiscal autonomy here. However, it shows no options between independence and "devolution max", presumably not envisaging that Westmidden would consider anything but a "top down" solution. Full fiscal autonomy would indeed require repealing the existing act of union and replacing it with a short but very different act of confederation or association.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
198. Brownedov
"I disagree. I grant it would require repealing the Act of Union and replacing it with a new Act of Confederation passed in both parliaments spelling out how "shared" functions would be agreed and costed."
Brownedov, this is the bit that I don't get about full fiscal autonomy.
Wouldn't the negotiations you describe be asymmetric unless we were a full peer in the relationship, i.e. - already independent?
We'd just have the larger nation getting the best deal, wouldn't we?
Complain about this comment
204. U14153624
And others
UK gets first desalination plant
They will wake up to their sinking feeling one day.
Complain about this comment
202. Neil_Small147
"Well, the world is going to have to find an alternative soon. And Saudi Arabia is not exactly prime land for agricultural oil."
Indeed - I wish we had some momentum with that, but we don't. We need to get the finger out!
Complain about this comment
205. InfrequentAllele
"If Scotland is supplying England with water then it is a commercial arrangement between Scottish Water and the relevant English water company. Any revenues generated go to Scottish Water."
Makes you wonder why Tarnished Goldie's tories want to get water out of our hands eh?
Complain about this comment
#194 sneckedagain:
Only independence provides "real fiscal autonomy"
There's a lot of woolly thinking about "full fiscal autonomy" in Scotland and you're quite right. "Full fiscal autonomy" is a consequence of independence not a half-way house on the road there.
Full fiscal autonomy would mean control in Scotland of all the revenues raised in Scotland on oil, gas and whisky. It would mean the control of taxation including income tax and corporation tax and it would mean that the Scottish Budget was completely disconnected from the English budget and no decisions made on a budget for England could have any effect on Scotland. That would mean a separation not only in the currently devolved areas but in reserved matters such as social security and government borrowing.
The Calman Commission was a chance for the unionist parties to pull the fiscal autonomy rabbit from the hat but it was already dead by the time it cleared the rim. The proposal on tax was that the current unused 3p in the pound variable rate for income tax was to go up to a 10p in the pound variable rate and the Scottish Parliament could think up new taxes if it wanted. Presented as a radical step it was an old idea dressed up in new threadbare clothes. The Calman Commission was useful as a yardstick to measure the fear in Westminster of losing control of tax and revenue to Scotland and as a yardstick to measure the timidity and conservatism of all three unionist participants in the Commission.
Anyone who thinks that Westminster will hand over the oil, gas and whisky revenues raised in Scotland to Scotland and give Scotland its own budget with control over tax revenues and rates while it's still part of the UK is living in cloud-cuckoo land.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
For anyone who wondered just why Scottish Labour politicians are rarely taken to task by BBC journalists I commend Brian's big debate to you.
Labour's representatives on the big debate, yes there were two, were Alf Young and Margaret Curran. Brian Taylor doesn't even try yet still manages to reduce Curran to a stammering wreck over Labour's backtracking on a referendum for the Lisbon treaty.
Curran gives a pretty shambolic performance resorting to her usual hectoring style. She also however confirms Labour's descent into the political sewer by suggesting connections between those of the far right and Labour's opponents.
Click Here to listen.
Listen to the applause near te end when Fabiani defends the right of any nation to decide it's future.
Complain about this comment
#202.176 Help ma boab Neil - where aboots? Edinburgh has been turned into dump city by Lab and their Lib dem chums. You're right about the SNP having to be careful as I'm sure the media will keep up the Glencambly reporting on the Anti -Glasgow issue while failing to give equal prominance to the rebuttals - good point
Complain about this comment
#201 JRMacClure
"I appreciate your answers but you didn't say how this would work. You are saying that you'd still have a union but be completely separate?"
Yes, or rather a confederation but I wouldn't care if they called it a union.
It would work, or not, pretty much as the Swiss system works, probably starting with two sovereign nations within the confederal state and rapidly expanding to three, or possibly four if Northern Ireland decided not to re-unify the island.
A short constitution would be needed, but basically the arrangement would be simply that the only costs shared are those agreed by both/all. A very small UK parliament would be needed with perhaps 50 MPs total and, say, 5 Senators per Nation to legislate on "shared" matters such as defence and border control, working to budgets approved by their own nations. The existing Westminster Hall would be more than adequate. The existing Palace of Westminster would be adequate for a new English parliament.
Those institutions could take a year to get running properly and in the meantime the existing UK and Scottish Governments would simply have to negotiate on an ad hoc basis.
"I don't understand the part about EU representation."
The costs of the UK's permanent mission to the EU would be shared on an agreed basis, with their services available to ministers of both/all the home nations. The same would be true of the permanent missions to the UN, etc. and "regular" embassies.
It may sound complex, but surprisingly little would need to change. 50 or so Scottish MPs would be redundant, and Scotland would need its own, proper, Treasury. The Tweedles would have to change their attitudes, of course, but I suspect they will be less reluctant to do this than to remove all the blue and create a very anaemic union flag, not to mention the loss of face.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
143. At 2:20pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
134. U14094468
It wouldn't be a surprising strategy would it, wooing often hard-to-reach voters without getting into all that politics stuff.
By the way, I keep meaning to say - Thanks for producing Newsnet Scotland, we need more diverse coverage of issues in Scotland and 'the new media' is a good channel. It must be a lot of work, it is appreciated.
You're welcome.
Newsnet Scotland went through the 300 subscribers barrier two days ago. The aim is 1000 by around July next year - we are on target.
The result of the Newsnet Scotland 'Salmond Leaders Debate' poll will be known tonight, well over 600 votes thus far - poll ends tonight.
Complain about this comment
#219. Where I see a problem is that it would mean giving up their big boy toys and their private member waving since it is hard to see how they would afford this on their own. Or maybe they could considering the constant whinging that Scotland just lives off England's bounty.
That is what I see as a stopping point for agreeing to either "real fiscal autonomy" or independence for Scotland. No PM wants to give up the chance to pretend to still be a real player on the world stage.
And, yes, I do mean pretend.
Complain about this comment
#206 JRMacClure
"what would be the advantage?"
Economies of scale and a captive customer for Scotland. Guaranteed energy supply and no loss of face for England. No border control for people or products. Some shared projects, perhaps, like cross-border railways and highways.
Agreed, shared, defence costs would have to allow for notional rent of facilities, a perfectly normal accounting exercise. I imagine that Trident would be allowed to "wither on the vine".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
It's seems that what ever the tories do, Alex likes to copy.
AS, has appointment a former military man to advice the SNP, on what exactly? NATO? could be!.
Complain about this comment
Swiss Confederation--not a state, as we all know. ;-)
It would be an interesting model. Good luck in working toward it. If it could be done, it would be a huge step forward not just for Scotland, England and Wales but for the world.
I admit I am skeptical that you can pry those toys and the attachment to playing with them in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere away from the UK politicians though. But I hope you're right.
Complain about this comment
Interesting!
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/salmond-appoints-former-head-of-the-army-in-scotland-as-government-s-military-advisor-1.925150
I'm still mulling that over but would be interested in if anyone has thoughts on it.
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
Scotland will have a veto on rumpUK retaining its seat on the Security council. It will be Scotland's perogative to decide whether rumpUK is the sucessor state. That's another very important reason why the UK is desperate to keep hold of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
It raises interesting questions about the reasons (much speculated upon) for General McDowall's retirement. There were rumors he much opposed the changes in the Army in Scotland.
Very interesting. Most people would consider it, I think, as an association which will not hurt the SNP.
Complain about this comment
#210 MagisterIlluminatus
We're obviously completely at odds over this and doubtless destined not to agree, but your post does not address full fiscal autonomy but rather what the Scottish Government describes as "devolution max". Had Westmidden a mind to, that could be voted through the UK parliament on Monday but full fiscal autonomy is as I have described and clearly requires a different constitutional settlement, recognising the supremacy of the Scottish people rather than the supremacy of the crown in the UK parliament.
As such, it is little different from independence except in having economies of scale and retaining some semblance of unity in front of the neighbours as well as allowing the retention, for the time being, of the monarchy as is and the union flag, etc.
"Oil and gas are state assets and any attempt by Scotland wrest control of them from the state would be considered a de facto and de jure act of war."
Really? They're in Scottish waters and any attempt by a rump UK to wrest control of them would not sit easily with the EU, NATO, the Council of Europe and others. Do have a look at the history of the break-up of Yugoslavia and ask yourself whether the Britnats would fare any better than the "Greater Serbians".
"These [renewable] energy sources are owned by both British and Foreign companies. Control would involve nationalisation which would be sternly resisted by the UK governmnet and the EU."
Control of existing resources need not be exercised by nationalisation but can be achieved through taxation. New resources are, well, new and could be funded by a combination of national and private sources to suit the people.
"Given the the previous the suggestion that the British Governmnet would negotiate on anything is, to say the least, obtuse."
I am afraid I don't understand that sentence, but if, as I suspect, you mean that the UK government would refuse to negotiate such arrangements then you're possibly correct. If they did simply faunt off in a huff of course, then there would be no reason for the Scottish government to stay and de facto independence would follow. In such circumstances, the rump UK will hardly be putting itself in the best light when third parties become involved to unravel things like sharing the national debt, and the Trident bases would be de facto Scottish.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
225. JRMacClure
"I'm still mulling that over but would be interested in if anyone has thoughts on it."
Although against the wars promoted by nuLab they are concerned about the medical treatment when they return from duty.
Complain about this comment
#212 mrbfaethedee
"Wouldn't the negotiations you describe be asymmetric unless we were a full peer in the relationship, i.e. - already independent?"
Logically yes, but in practice I believe not. With the support of a referendum as well as the pre-existing declarations of right the Scottish government would have a democratic legitimacy in the eyes of the world which the UK lacks. Not to mention resources the UK needs, of course.
Serbia overplayed its hand in the break-up of Yugoslavia and eventually as a result lost even its closest ally - Montenegro - and parts of its own territory in Kosovo. Dumb many Westmidden politicians may be, but I'm not convinced that their civil servants are actually quite that stupid. Ultimately it could be spun as a victory for democracy and, coupled with the retention of the Security Council for a while, would look better than Scotland separating entirely.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Latest UK daily poll:
YouGov: Con 44%, Lab 27%, Lib 17%
17% lead for the Tories.
This is after quite a bit of serious scrutiny of the Conservatives!!
The Lib Dems have taken a bit of a hammering lately, Labour are simply treading water.
Complain about this comment
185. At 6:36pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"If that is the case, and the ECHR isn't of itself the problem (the foreign vs native courts bit aside for now), why do we need our own instead? If we got the implementation/interpretation sorted out wouldn't that be sufficient as the human rights component of UK legislation?"
A fair point to make, however the practicalities in making the kind of reform to the ECHR is daunting. If indeed such changes could be agreed upon at all. It is my understanding that it would require a reform treaty, or agreement which then- based upon current procedure- demands unanimous agreement so to the proposed changes. This would be near impossible, lengthy if possible to gather such consensus at all. It therefore is a less desirable option, due to the procedural challenges involved [however Lisbon would remove much of these procedural challenges]
"As far as subjecting Brtish courts to EU ones - it isn't forced on us, we're signatories because we agree with it, just like international treaties and law e.g. war crimes."
The Conservatives haven't signed up to it- on principal all courts in the UK should not be accountable to any higher court outwith these isles. This is the stance of the tories, the HoL was once the highest court in the land, it has been replaced by Labour piecemeal [as with all their 'reforms' it proved half hearted and ultimately lacking in completion one way or the other].
The UK should withdraw, and establish a British Bill of Rights which better reflects the interpretation of Justice on these isles, but also removes the unacceptable element of domestic law courts being subject to a foreign court. Naturally the ECHR goes beyond the the UN legal obligations; the ECHR now influences domestic legal proceedings at even a most basic level- our prisoners may even get the right to vote due to its influences over the UK! Indeed the SNP now also have to deal with the 'slopping out' scandals because again, ECHR influences at the most basic parts of our legal proceedings.
I believe Scots should be accountable to Scots law, and not foreign courts interpretations as to the 'human rights' of our prison population- a British Bill of Rights is fine.
Complain about this comment
#288
I'm sorry Browndov but you've just provided a recipe for interminable negotiation across a whole range of issue which would be very useful to delay any significant movement towards Scottish autonomy, probably for ever.
As I've said before if we want a Federation (and I don't see how we can have such with England 10 times the size of the rest put together unless Scotland and Wales are given parity with the likes of Yorkshire or Devon in the arrangements)... if we want a Federation it would be easier to negotiate such after independence.
Complain about this comment
#221 JRMacClure
"And, yes, I do mean pretend."
That's one of the reasons I believe it would be grudgingly accepted, since the pretence could continue, at least until Trident is retired, by which time the then current PM will have long retired or been booted out. The pretence could not continue under the alternative of full independence.
Naturally, they'll try to get away with "giving away" less, but what I suggest is probably close to their "bottom line".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
231. At 10:38pm on 09 Oct 2009, U14094468
Osborne's honesty about the depth of the cuts has been well received then. Indeed the public seem now to see Boy-George come of age as the next Chancellor of HRH government.
I personally realize that the reforms proposed where risky, but they were the most One Nationist in generations [ironically Cameron spoke on the anniversary of SuperMacs 1959 GE win].
Ian Hyslop was even impressed on Question Time, the master has spoken- and he likes Goerge and Cammie! [sorry for more Cammiesque ramblings]
Complain about this comment
#226 bluelaw
"It will be Scotland's perogative to decide whether rumpUK is the sucessor state. That's another very important reason why the UK is desperate to keep hold of Scotland."
Yes, and something which should be used sensibly in the negotiations. The Tweedles will stay in denial as long as they can, but such a concession ought to be helpful in oiling the process.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
231. At 10:38pm on 09 Oct 2009, U14094468 wrote
The Scottish breakdown is particularly warming [for me, despite the usual caveats oldnat]:
Weighted sample: 93
Unweighted sample: 110
Labour: 24%
Scottish Conservative: 26%
LibDem: 15%
Other [SNP]: 35%
That, despite the usual caveats about unreliability etc, it does seem to reinforce the more recent track results from the Scottish samples- all for the last month have indicated my lot above 20% [and the last Scotland wide poll with over 1000 sample found that we were on 22% so it does bare out a consistent picture of my lot in the 20%-25% region].
I am betting on 8 SNP MPs [maybe 9 if Killie & Loudon is taken, 10 if Glas East is held]
Scottish Cons shall surprise all critics and romp home with 6-9 MPs
Labour will still unfortunately have over 30 MPs and therefore a majority of the MPs from Scotland.
Complain about this comment
230. Brownedov
Help me out Brownedov.
There's a fair bit of assumption there, and even if you're calling the attitude of the UK correctly, i'm not getting a sense of the process being less tangled than negotiating full independence.
(I'm pro independence by the way)
Complain about this comment
Britain's economy ready to bounce back, says Gordon Brown
"Mr Brown’s relatively upbeat assessment of the likely rate of recovery appears at odds with the Treasury’s own forecasts of annual growth of 1.25 per cent and the predictions of bodies such as the IMF and CBI of 0.9 per cent."
Only reasonable assessment is that he's overdosed!
Complain about this comment
232. deanthetory
"A fair point to make, however the practicalities in making the kind of reform to the ECHR is daunting. "
I was talking about the ECHR being the human rights component of any prospective bill of rights etc... in the uk to save exactly the hassles you mention. The ECHR woldn't need reformed as long as its contents were acceptable. You hinted that they were and that implementation was the issue. If there are problemeatic areas for you in the ECHR, then your previous statement makes more sense to me, but you don't mention any.
"The Conservatives haven't signed up to it- on principal all courts in the UK should not be accountable to any higher court outwith these isles."
I haven't signed up to the Union but I'm bound by it ;) The conservatives don't get a choice, the UK is signed up at present isn't it? Again if the EU has established a common policy on human rights, and its members agree with it and sign up, why should the members not be accountable under it? Again, your position makes more sense (to me) if you don't like the ECHR or parts thereof.
"The UK should withdraw, and establish a British Bill of Rights which better reflects the interpretation of Justice on these isles, but also removes the unacceptable element of domestic law courts being subject to a foreign court."
It would not solve your problemm, a Bill of Rights isn't an interpretation of UK justice, it is a formalisation of principles in exactly the same way that the ECHR is, and as a consequence requires interpretation and implemetation in the UK legal system in a similar way to the ECHR. The only difference would be the origin of the laws, and the highest legal body with competence in that area.
Are you sure it isn't some part of the ECHR you don't like, rather than the whole interpretation/implementation thing (which would happen with UK laws, but they wouldn't get the press headlines).
Or is it just that you can't bear having the EU as the highest legal body dealing with a subset of UK law.
As an aside -
"Indeed the SNP now also have to deal with the 'slopping out' scandals..."
For what it's worth, I think slopping out is a disgrace. I also happen to think that alot of people in prison get an easy ride which is in no way constructive, but degrading them is clearly wrong. It's a real shame that the taxpayer is on the hook for a consequence of our poor penal system.
It's still a degrading way to treat a fellow human being though, and frankly if it wasn't for the fact that convicted criminals are now going to be paid compensation for it, I don't believe we'd be in any hurry to do anything about it.
Complain about this comment
Labour in Glasgow
Complain about this comment
233. sneckedagain
"if we want a Federation it would be easier to negotiate such after independence. "
Not that I'd want it after independence, but I agree.
Complain about this comment
231. At 10:38pm on 09 Oct 2009, U14094468 wrote:
Think it proves that many people who voted Lib Dem before are now going to return their original choice, be it Labour or Conservative. Up in Scotland I would imagine the votes will be SNP instead of Conservative.
The Lib Dems at present are a party without definite purpose.
With the other parties you know what they represent, even if the division between Labour and the Conservatives is narrow.
Can anyone here come up with a headline Lib Dem policy that they reel off without any thought?
Every since Ashdown left they have had problems. Kennedy may have been Mr Nice Guy, but the frank truth is he was an alcoholic, and comparisons to Churchill were a joke to be honest. Campbell was pretty solid but the media and his opponents hammered him about his age. Clegg is an arrogant and short-tempered individual who - to me at least - appears to be shallow. Cable I like but he would do better in another party. The Lib Dems MSPs are weak and ineffective.
The Lib Dems will always have their safe seats, so it is highly unlikely the party will ever be wiped out.
Currently they have 62 Westminster and 16 Scottish seats (please correct if wrong!). I reckon this will drop to around 30ish Westminster and probably about 10 Scottish seats after the elections.
Losing a lot of seats will destabilise the party, and I can see it fracturing. Cable will most likely take over as leader and perhaps recover their fortunes.
Of course, if my football predictions are anything to go by lately I'll probably be totally wrong!
Complain about this comment
#233 sneckedagain
"I'm sorry Browndov but you've just provided a recipe for interminable negotiation across a whole range of issue which would be very useful to delay any significant movement towards Scottish autono my"
Hopefully not interminable but you're right that they wouldn't be instant. Trouble is, neither would be the negotiations for full independence, and with no positives at all for the Britnat politicians to clutch at they would be resisted every step of the way. Given the balance of populations and natural resources, a Czechoslovak-style velvet divorce is unlikely.
You have a point that perhaps the whole sorry mess of the UK constitution has to be broken up before any new structure of co-operation can be built but selling a 50%+ vote for full independence will be significantly harder than selling a fairer polity which doesn't break all of the ties, yet which would be easy to convert to full independence within a decade should events warrant it.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
Expenses bills return to haunt up to 100 MPs
"The report will be published in December together with full details of expenses claims from 2008-09. Unlike last summer’s official disclosure of such information, when huge sections were blacked out, these will be uncensored except for details such as bank account numbers."
Complain about this comment
With regard to the possibility of an independent Scotland having to re-apply for EU membership, I'd like to share a couple of thoughts.
Firstly, given that there isn't much in the way of precedence for dealing with seceding states in the EU, I'd be somewhat suspicious of anyone who claims to have a definitive answer on the subject. And as the last 10 years have sadly demonstrated, international law isn't exactly watertight in any case.
Secondly, Scots are currently EU citizens and as such are entitled to work and live in any other EU country. Many, many thousands do just that. Would the EU really countenance repatriating them all, should that entitlement vanish on independence day? Just suppose the remainder of the UK somehow retained EU membership - would all the Anglo-Scots be herded up the A1 and M6 and shoved over the border? And what message would the above treatment send out to places like Northern Ireland, Wales, Catalonia, the Basque Country, Corsica, the north of Italy, Flanders, Wallonia, etc., where substantial numbers of people vote in favour of secession?
No, it's always worth remembering in these discussions that countries are groups of people, not mere abstract geographical entities. I rather suspect the EU would want to avoid anything quite so unseemly, especially when the "new" member has attained independence through democratic means. Scotland's strategic location, abundance of natural resources, long-standing cultural and trading ties to the rest of the continent and EU-compliant legal system would make us a shoe-in. And if all that is still not enough, I suspect the EU would be only too happy to reward the country that had weakened it's most Euro-sceptic member.
Complain about this comment
43. At 11:59pm on 09 Oct 2009, Neil_Small147
The LibDems have 11 seas in Scotland, this will likely drop to 9 or 8 depending upon how well the tories perform in West Ab and Kincardine and also in Berwick on the border.
Complain about this comment
235. deanthetory
"Osborne's honesty about the depth of the cuts has been well received then. Indeed the public seem now to see Boy-George come of age as the next Chancellor of HRH government."
I've re-written this post several times because it's difficult to come up with the words to express (without offence) how wrong i think you are on this.
He hasn't a clue, he only has no choices to make.
He can't go after business, this is the tory party ffs!
He can't go after the rich, this is the tory ...
He can't consider that recession rather than budget crisis is the bigger issue, that's what nulab think, therefore
He can't try to avoid public sector cuts as much as possible and try to ride out the recession.
Therefore hit the public sector (big noise on cutting govt spending, the public hate the govt), cut as low down the demographic as you can without being seen to be going after the poorest, but tell them that we're all in it together and get someone else to tell them that business is to important to hinder - they're going to save us.
If he has been well received by the public i would put it to you that it's because the public have already decided to vote tory (down south) and they have to receive Osborne too or live with the cognitive dissonance - we go to great lengths to avoid cognitive dissonance.
"Ian Hyslop was even impressed on Question Time, the master has spoken- and he likes Goerge and Cammie! [sorry for more Cammiesque ramblings]"
He hates Broon, it wouldn't take much to convince him.
Complain about this comment
133
the same FMQ's Labour MSP Richard Baker's blunder was an absolute beauty when he used a report based on 2006 figures to attack the current Scottish Government. It had to be pointed out to him that the figures applied to the term when his own party were in office.
Sadly, both blunders appear to have been 'Chisholmed' out of Brian Taylor's blogs and the rest of the BBC news.
That Richard Baker i can`t stand just a horrible guy and chuffed to bits with that clanger hes nowhere near in the same league as AS way out his depth.
Complain about this comment
To Dean the Tory
Here we go...this is the first piece....more to come
"BRITAIN’S vital North Sea oil and gas supplies are to be taken over by Europe under emergency plans revealed for the first time in Brussels yesterday.
EU leaders are demanding control of British energy reserves to prevent power blackouts that have left millions of eastern Europeans without heat in Arctic weather due to the Russian gas blockade."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
202. Neil_Small147
"I'm not taken in by the "its either left or right wing" - I was being sarky."
Thanks Neil - didn't sound like you!
Complain about this comment
To Dean the Tory and the other ostriches with their heads in the sand...
Scotland would not automatically become a member of the European Union if it became independent, the European Commission has said.
The commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison told daily The Scotsman that a possible separation of Scotland from the UK would entail negotiations with Brussels on the terms of EU membership.
Complain about this comment
#225. JRMacClure
"I'm still mulling that over but would be interested in if anyone has thoughts on it."
Although against the wars promoted by nuLab they are concerned about the medical treatment when they return from duty.
Of course, they are. I don't think, however, that relates to the former General agreeing to sign on with the SNP.
You might want to give the ramification of that some thought.
Complain about this comment
I'm sure you realize that Electoral Calculus (which you may dispute, of course, and I don't know your methodology for predicting swing) would predict a very different outcome for those percentages. While Electoral Calculus might well be predicting too high for a 35% SNP vote, I suspect your number is wildly low. In fact, I recently laid a bet at somewhere in the middle of the two. ;-)
But I couldn't prove anything not being anything like knowledgeable about Scottish swing.
Complain about this comment
#238 mrbfaethedee
"There's a fair bit of assumption there, and even if you're calling the attitude of the UK correctly, i'm not getting a sense of the process being less tangled than negotiating full independence."
Agreed. I don't believe it would be more tangled. It would, however, be potentially an easier "sell" to get the 50% of votes; it would offer some economies of scale; it wouldn't be loved by the UK politicians but would be a less bitter pill to swallow. All of the changes in Scotland would be necessary after independence anyway, so would in no way preclude it as a future step.
But, it's now 01:30 CET and I have things to do in the morning so I'll say goodnight all.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
232. deanthetory
"The Conservatives haven't signed up to it"
You are confusing the Council of Europe (source of the ECHR) and the EU.
Without membership of the Council of Europe (all European countries - including those outwith the EU) there can be no membership of the EU. It is a fundamental precondition of membership. The ECHR is a fundamental declaration of the values of the whole European community (EU and others). The Tories have signed up to this as has every mainstream party in every country in Europe. There is NO opt-out!
Complain about this comment
207. At 8:25pm on 09 Oct 2009, mrbfaethedee wrote:
192. JRMacClure
"If they make it Glasgow vs the rest of Scotland, does that mean they write off the rest of Scotland? Doing that, exactly how do they keep the SNP from being a MAJORITY government in 2011."
Yes, i see what you mean, It only makes sense if they've already conceded everything. I can't see that yet.
Why try for Glasgow vs a'body then? Maybe they thing they can keep changing tack and get away with it, and once the current Glasgow vote is done they'll change their tune and see who buys it? I'm no political strategist so, any hypotheses gratefully accepted.
I'm no political strategist either but I suspect you may be right that they simply believe they can get away with changing tack.
I'm sure that some areas are so deeply Labour that they're right. Whether they're right across the country, I'm in no position to say. I'd guess they've deeply annoyed some outside Glasgow but hurt long-term? *flips coin*
Complain about this comment
237. deanthetory
"despite the usual caveats oldnat"
No one is disputing that reliable polls show a rise in support for the Tories and the SNP in Westminster voting intention since 2005. However, these reliable polls are ones which poll Scottish voters only, are weighted according to the Scottish demographic profile, and have polled at least 1000 people. Even then the margin of error is + or - 3%.
That you continue to claim these tiny Scottish sub-samples as evidence of anything shows that you have little understanding of statistical sampling, or that you do and are deliberately misrepresenting the data. Brownedov and I have similarly advised SNP posters making much of such tiny samples. When we quote such data we describe them as a "bit of fun".
Let's wait for the next Scottish poll, after the end of the Scottish conference season, before anyone attempts to see what the polling data shows.
I'm not giving "caveats". I'm telling you that these samples are unweighted in any meaningful way, and the sample size leads to a massive margin of error. If you don't understand that, go talk to one of your lecturers who can set you straight.
Complain about this comment
#253. At 00:25am on 10 Oct 2009, true-red-white-blue wrote:
To Dean the Tory and the other ostriches with their heads in the sand...
Scotland would not automatically become a member of the European Union if it became independent, the European Commission has said.
The commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison told daily The Scotsman that a possible separation of Scotland from the UK would entail negotiations with Brussels on the terms of EU membership.
To the Unionist scaremonger and others basing their arguments on false fear tactics:
I actually think you're right. There would have to be negotiations to be sure that individually Scotland met the requirements for membership. That should take possibly even a couple of weeks. Done. Because everyone knows that Scotland would. The requirements for EU membership aren't some deep dark secret.
Here, maybe you should read up on it. http://ec.europa.eu/enlargement/enlargement_process/accession_process/criteria/index_en.htm
Complain about this comment
250. true-red-white-blue
Please provide a link to the source, or at least quote the source, if you don't have the skills to provide a link.
Otherwise your "quotations" are as useful as a Daily Star front page.
Complain about this comment
true-red-white-blue:
#253.
"To Dean the Tory and the other ostriches with their heads in the sand...
Scotland would not automatically become a member of the European Union if it became independent, the European Commission has said.
The commission's representative in Scotland, Neil Mitchison told daily The Scotsman that a possible separation of Scotland from the UK would entail negotiations with Brussels on the terms of EU membership."
I will point out that I do not believe it has been stated Scotland would become an automatic member of the European Union. However unless European Union members are willing to search for Scots, also non-Scots residing in Scotland to be removed since Scots will no longer be entitled to live and work abroad and non-Scots (including leftover Brits) residing in Scotland will no longer be legally allowed to live and work in Scotland without Scotland having some of the legal benefits of being a member of the European Union.
Be a little realistic. I doubt the members of the European Union shall create a fuss since Scotland has became independent and Scotland will continue to have certain privilages of European membership untill we do become official members.
But wait, doesn't Europe want to control our resources? I doubt they'll reject us then.
Complain about this comment
253. true-red-white-blue
Again you need to source your material. There have been a variety of opinions quoted at various times and, since you are obviously unaware of EU rules, the Commission is not the body which would take such a decision. At the end of the day, it will be a political decision taken by the Council of Ministers.
Complain about this comment
The UK would NOT have to renegotiate its EU membership if Scotland went independent because the UK is ALREADY a member as a legal entity in its own right whether Scotland is part of it or not.
It would be Scotland that would have to negotiate its membership (EU commission has already said this - see earlier posts)
And I didn't say that Scotland would be outside of the EU and have to give up the oil (which is nearly spent in any case - and you obviously missed the news a couple of years back about a vast amount of oil discovered off the South of England and the Falklands, so don't think oil is the reason why unionists want to keep Scotland within the Union).
What I said was that the price that Scotland will have to pay for EU membership will be what oil remains...just like the fishing was the price the UK had to pay. And just for the record, England paid a far heavier price than Scotland did as there was a far bigger fishing fleet south of the border than north! Were there no fishing fleets in England? Do you think the fishermen of North Shields, Whitby and Cornwall are not - beg the pun - in the same boat as their Scottish brethren?
As for commissioners I was wrong but right on the Big Four: "under the Lisbon Treaty, countries would not 'appoint' their commissioners, proposing and deciding them. Member states would make suggestions only. Their appointment would be by the EU European Council. This is a real shift of power away from the smaller member states, including Ireland, and into the hands of the Big Four and the Commission president."
To Browndov - I wasn't talking about the Irish people per se but Sein Fein who were opposed to Lisbon. Imagine fighting for independence for all those years and suddenly you're back in another Union with even less say in matters.
As for the EU becoming a superstate - that has always been the avowed aim of the the political elites. They knew they couldn't do it in one fell swoop and would have to do it over a long period of time, bit by bit, drip by drip.
If you have a president, embassies, a foreign affairs dept., your own army, a national anthem, a parliament, a flag, power over the smaller components ie member countries, make most of the laws, control over foreign policy and home policy and decide how the budget is spent you are de facto a STATE. (Hmmm...that sounds suspiciously like the United States! Are you telling me the USA is not a federalist superstate? What makes you think the EU is not aspiring to the same course?)
But that is just the beginning and anyone who seriously believes that EU is finished grabbing power with Lisbon is seriously deluded.
In fact the Lisbon Treaty actually says that in future the EU will NOT even have to ask the countries whether they want to give up more power...it allows the EU to take what it wants, when it wants.
Don't believe me? Go to the EU council of the regions website and have a real good read - its very illuminating.
Apparently parts of Scotland are to be hived off and lumped with bits of Denmark, sweden and northern Germany.
The long term plan is that those lumped together false EU regions will then have to go to Brussels for their budgets - oh and where does that leave Independent Scotland? Just a hollow shell just like England (Kent for instance will be lumped with bits of Belgium and France).
Again I'm still awaiting for ONE so-called nationalist to explain to me how independent Scotland actually gains anything tangible from breaking with the only people who give a damn about you - the rest of Britain.
All I ever read from SNP supporters is some cloudy ideas but very little substance. It all very well talking about being independent - the reality will be very very different...
Complain about this comment
There would, I suppose, always be the possibility of Scotland going the same route as Norway, which I rather suspect the EU would prefer to avoid. While I doubt it, that could always be something Scotland wanted to consider. It has seemed to work darn well for them. ;-)
I don't really see that happening but you can bet at some point it will go through people's minds.
Complain about this comment
#237
I am more comfortable with Electoral Calculus's current projections which are for 10 SNP gains and two Tory gains. I suspect that could be an underestimate of the SNP's current potential though 6 months is a long long time in politics. Electoral Calculus has a record of being about the most accurate forecaster.
Complain about this comment
264. true-red-white-blue
Well that post makes things clear. You are a Brit Nat europhobe. That's a perfectly legitimate stance, but unless you give references to your claims, then your views are of no more value than those of people who suggest that we have already been invaded by aliens from outer space in UFOs.
For example, the EU Council of the Regions is a site with a vast amount of data. I have visited it on a number of occasions, and have never seen a suggestion (let alone a policy) that "parts of Scotland are to be hived off and lumped with bits of Denmark, sweden and northern Germany." I note that you prefaced this with the word "apparently". This suggests that you have not visited the website yourself, you have not seen the wording yourself, that you have taken someone else's word that uch a proposal exists.
This is a site where evidence is valued, as opposed to simple assertion. If you learn how to present an argument, then you will be given a fair hearing.
As to your final rather rambling question as to how Scotland would benefit from independent membership of the EU, the following is rather obvious. Denmark is a country of similar size to Scotland, and has significantly more autonomy than Scotland has.
btw Were you abducted by aliens?
Complain about this comment
true-red-white-blue:
#264.
"...and you obviously missed the news a couple of years back about a vast amount of oil discovered off the South of England and the Falklands, so don't think oil is the reason why unionists want to keep Scotland within the Union)."
Evidence? There is actually quite alot of oil in the world. The problem is reaching the oil and bringing the substance to the surface. As far as I know, the Falklands remains far too difficult to drill for oil. Has any been reached to date? Same goes for the South of England. How much oil is expected? How soon can it be drilled and how much profit can be expected from it?
"What I said was that the price that Scotland will have to pay for EU membership will be what oil remains...just like the fishing was the price the UK had to pay. And just for the record, England paid a far heavier price than Scotland did as there was a far bigger fishing fleet south of the border than north!"
Fishing fleet does not represent how much resource (fish) are actually in English waters. Could you be more specific and explain the differences on the amount of fish expected in Scottish and English waters? You might then learn why fishing in Scottish waters highly prized.
"I'm still awaiting for ONE so-called nationalist to explain to me how independent Scotland actually gains anything tangible from breaking with the only people who give a damn about you - the rest of Britain."
First of all I urge you to travel. You clearly have not been to England enough, not everyone does care and some people actually beleive that Scotland is either apart of England or already a different country.
Question: What are the benefits for remaining in the United Kingdom? You have been critical, scaremongered but gave little reason why we should remain in the United Kingdom.
What do I gain? I get a country that works for the people and who does not pretend to be a world power.
Scotland will also be a member of the European Union by either as an independent country or by default as apart of the United Kingdom. So, what's the point being a member of a Union, that is a province of the European Union while we can cut the middleman and just be a little region of the European Union?
I see little logic follwing an ancient political union when the European Union is almost a modern version of the current United Kingdom. Scotland gives powers to London. Britain gives powers to Brussels. Scotland sends Scots MP's to London, Britain sends MEP's to Brussels where we negociate with our neighbours.
Scotland can gain more from Europe alone then with being attached to a little country on the fringes of Europe.
Complain about this comment
JRMacClure:
#265.
"There would, I suppose, always be the possibility of Scotland going the same route as Norway, which I rather suspect the EU would prefer to avoid. While I doubt it, that could always be something Scotland wanted to consider. It has seemed to work darn well for them. ;-)
I don't really see that happening but you can bet at some point it will go through people's minds."
Europe turned their backs on Iceland, what happened? Russia swooped in. If Scotland was kept out the loop I would expect outsiders to influence Scotland in order to have an ally next to the economic superpower of the world. Scotland does afterall have valuable resources, technology, access to waters which others do not etc
Complain about this comment
To OldNat
you obviously missed the bit in the quote that gives it its sourse: the Scotsman.
And you are right, of course, it would be the Council of Ministers.
But when commissioner - who it would be hoped know more about such things than me and thee - say there is no automatic assumption that an independent Scotland would automatically become a members then that has to be a concern what they would want in return.
To Thomas Porter - I don't believe for one moment that Scots would be herded together and driven across the border by the EU or the UK Govs.
However, they might be by the British people. Don't think for one moment that Scotland would just be allowed to break up the Union. Ever heard of civil war...that's what will happen.
There are forces in Britain that will simply not allow for the break up of the UK. Military coup anyone! Do you truly believe the rest of the UK is going to forgive Scotland for destroying the nation? You are simply deluded. Please tell me when the UK has left some where historically without a fight and I mean a war! Oh I could make a very very long list here...
Now then - I'm not saying that Scotland couldn't be an "independent" nation - so could say Mercia or Northumbria, or Cornwall - but it's what you mean by independent. Scotland will certainly NOT be independent in any true sense of the word at all.
The UK is big enough to stand up to Germany, France and Italy, England by itself is big enough, but Scotland with 5m people would be sidelined in the same way that the smaller states in Europe will be in the forthcoming decades.
What I'm banging on about and yet again not ONE nationalist has actually shown that an "independent" Scotland would truly benefit more by being independent than the status quo.
None of you have ever answered in REALITY that question. You bang on about whiskey taxes and oil (that won't even exist soon - in relative terms I'm talking about here) and how it will be a socialist paradise like Sweden (You must have missed the bit about Sweden turning away from this model because it just too expensive to keep on running!) and, of course the mythical arc of posperity that has since crumbled to dust.
But you never seem to look to the actual long term prospect of what it really means.
Some one earlier posted that they couldn't wait because it would mean the UK lost its UN security seat...and you think that is in Scotland's long term interest?????? You are simply deluded to think such things.
Oh I'm having fun tonight!
Complain about this comment
I love those "the oil is all gone" lies. The fact that HALF the oil is still remaining and new fields like the Glenlivet oil field now being developed -- Scotland should just ignore that.
Right? ;-)
Sure they should.
And how about you link to ANYTHING official from the EU that says that "parts of Scotland are to be hived off and lumped with bits of Denmark, sweden and northern Germany."
Anything? Nope. I thought not.
No one is going to buy these silly comments. You were told--you want to make these accusations, show up with some evidence.
Complain about this comment
#244
I agree the progress towards independence will be resisted every step and we must face the prospect up initially of getting less than we want. Obviously the SNP will accept any increase of powers for Scotland as a benefit. But there is no precedent to suggest that independence negotiations will be any more fraught than they have been anywhere else and they have been fairly strightforward in most places. UK is of course an original signatory of the UN charter and I will be deeply surprised if they are not very aware of the responsibilities this saddles them with. As that is the case most obstruction will be mounted before any indpendence vote is won. After that vote things will be much simpler.
However the overeaching imperative for the SNP is to campaign all the time for proper independence.
Just because our progress is gradual doesn't mean that we should adopt gradualism as a strategy.
Before devoultion was ceded, due to SNP pressure, there were some "clever" people in the SNP arguing we should go for devolution as a first step. Thankfully much cleverer people in the party recognised this as a nonsense as they recognised that devolution would only be ceded because the SNP was keeping up the pressure for independence.
The minute the SNP had settled for "devolution as a first step " was the minute devolution would have come off the table and some lesser concession would have been offered.
Sadly some of these eejits are still in high positions in the SNP today.
Complain about this comment
#269. I don't agree.
Who has swooped in on Norway? Mind you, I think that Scotland WILL join the EU, but not doing so would certainly be a possibility. And Norway is a much better comparison than Iceland although I don't see Iceland occupied by Russia so I'm not sure what your point is.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#272. sneckedagain
Those are some excellent points.
Complain about this comment
Haha! Someone didn't like my comment in 274.
We need to add something to gonephishing's - #12
Scaremongers will run in circles shouting that Edward I will return from the dead to devour Scottish babies.
Complain about this comment
270 - "There are forces in Britain that will simply not allow for the break up of the UK."
That'll be the bbc then?
R,W & B, can I strongly encourage you to post as much, as often and on as many bloggs as possible?
D McN
Complain about this comment
I wonder if our 'friend' 'red,white and blue' is another reincarnation of Derek as they have spelt 'whiskey' in the american way, or is there some sort of ex Brit pat community over in the states taking turns to slag off the SNP with baseless scare stories. If this is the case then do we now have the authors of that anti-Scotland website 'Boycottscotland'?
Complain about this comment
# 270 true-red-white-blue
Please tell me when the UK has left some where historically without a fight and I mean a war!
Hong Kong, Canada, Australia, New Zealand etc.
and I mean a war!
Can I assume that you are against military action if/when Scotland decides to cede from the Union, or are you supporting military action?
There are forces in Britain that will simply not allow for the break up of the UK. Military coup anyone!
A distinct possibility. We have already had one in the UK in 1975 which resulted in the 'resignation' of Wilson. Are you for or against a military coup if Scotland cedes?
Complain about this comment
" 232. deanthetory
"The Conservatives haven't signed up to it"
You are confusing the Council of Europe (source of the ECHR) and the EU.
Without membership of the Council of Europe (all European countries - including those outwith the EU) there can be no membership of the EU. It is a fundamental precondition of membership. The ECHR is a fundamental declaration of the values of the whole European community (EU and others). The Tories have signed up to this as has every mainstream party in every country in Europe. There is NO opt-out!"
The Tories created the Council of Europe and the ECHR. It was one of Winston Churchill's pet projects, for crying out loud! Don't tell me that the Tories are now disowning Churchill!
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Online Ed Here
A couple of days ago I pointed out that Amanda McMillan, the newly appointed managing director at Glasgow Airport, and fresh from her years at Diageo, had decided to join Stephen Purcell's laughable 'anti Glasgow' attacks on the SNP over the GARL cancellation.
McMillan has even written a letter to every MSP in the Scottish parliament giving her view of the costs and of course informed The Herald.
However, today The Herald reveals that Amanda McMillan has been looking at a range of options to generate substantial savings over the winter months, including the closure of Terminal 2 (T2) (which was opened only five years ago at a cost of £12m) and the complete closure of the airport overnight.
The cost-cutting moves are being considered at a time when owner BAA is under pressure to sell off either Glasgow or Edinburgh Airport, and comes against a backdrop of falling passenger numbers.
It is understood some jobs could go if the terminal building is shut. An announcement confirming closure could be made nexy week.
A spokesman said: "We are currently looking at a range of options to reduce costs over the quieter winter months when we traditionally have fewer passengers."
So, whilst BAA are condidering closing terminals and considering other cost cutting measures the tax payer should simply have continued building an expensive rail link.
Looks like McMillan has tried to use the GARL cancellation as a smokescreen to hide her own cuts. I wonder what Purcell thinks of the prospect of the termial closure and resultant job losses at Glasgow Airport. Is BAA guilty of being 'anti Glasgow' Stephen?
The Herald though manages to conflate troubles at the airport due to the recession with GARL:
The Scottish Government’s decision last month to scrap the multi-million pound Glasgow Airport Rail Link has further dented confidence in the airport's long-term future.
Complain about this comment
270. At 02:10am on 10 Oct 2009, true-red-white-blue wrote:
To OldNat
you obviously missed the bit in the quote that gives it its sourse: the Scotsman.
The 'Scotsman' is an English controlled 'paper' with a blatant anti - Scottish, anti SNP agenda.
The same headlines every day, SNP accused etc. from labour PPC's like David Maddox.
That so called paper has turned into a joke as it's plummeting sales figures show.
Try quoting from something more credible and factual like the Beano.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Purcell's one man 'anti-Glasgow' campaign has now found its way onto The Scotsman pages.
Can any journalist, come on just one, ask this man where the money is to come from? What other local authority must be denied funds so that an airport link can be built to an airport that is closing it's own terminal due to falling passenger numbers?
Is Purcell supporting borrowing powers for the Scottish Government that would allow such funds to be raised? Is there any journalist or media outlet that will treat this juvenile campaign with even an ounce of mature scrutiny?
We know there is a by-election on and that this is part of Labour's clumsy campaign but do the media have to behave in such a blatantly compliant manner?
Complain about this comment
# 270 true-red-white-blue
The UK is big enough to stand up to Germany, France and Italy
I thought the idea was not to stand up to them but discuss Europe wide policies with our European partners.
Scotland with 5m people would be sidelined in the same way that the smaller states in Europe will be in the forthcoming decades
This is an interesting concept. Did you have to go on a course to learn how to see into the future or is it just a natural ability that you have?
not ONE nationalist has actually shown that an "independent" Scotland would truly benefit more by being independent than the status quo.
Obviously you haven't been keeping up to date with the postings on Brian's blog. While we are at it, could you do us a favour and point out to us the benefits of staying within the Union that are positive as opposed to the normal Unionist stance of showing us the negatives of leaving the Union. Even one positive point would be welcome to start off with.
You bang on about whiskey taxes and oil
Among other things, yes. So what is your point on that?
the mythical arc of posperity that has since crumbled to dust
As opposed to the UK being bankrupt?
Some one earlier posted that they couldn't wait because it would mean the UK lost its UN security seat
Of course the UK will lose it's seat because if/when Scotland leaves the Union it will no longer be the UK. However, I'd be happy to support England retaining the seat on the UN if it wants to.
Oh I'm having fun tonight!
I'm glad to see that you are happy
Complain about this comment
# 227 JRM - Gen McDowall is a fine son of Wigtwonshire (Stranraer) and a grand bagpipe player. So he's probably been brought on board by the SNP to see how to wrestle the world bagpipe chamonpionships from Glasgow (while causing the maximum of offence to the council) and giving it back to the various towns around Scotland (including Stranraer) which used to host the event. Another pernicious anti-Glasgow plot by the SNP
Complain about this comment
# 284 U14094468
We know there is a by-election on and that this is part of Labour's clumsy campaign but do the media have to behave in such a blatantly compliant manner?
Apparantly so.
Complain about this comment
snecked - had there been a referendum around, say 1999 I don't think the SNP would have got the answer they wanted. Devolution, for all its issues, is the best way forward as it gives the SNP the opportunity to prove themselves, something they are achieving in several areas.
282. At 08:57am on 10 Oct 2009, U14094468 wrote:
What is the betting that Glasgow will be sold, and the primary reason will be the cancellation of the rail link. Until Swinney announced the cut, most people were not even aware of the rail link, but Purcell sees this as an opportunity to hit at the SNP. It will be used in the by election campaign. The media are very good at distorting facts, something I've noticed with some recent stories lately where I know the true facts.
All the councils are making cuts at present, including South Lanarkshire - and they are blaming the Scottish Government. And as I have already mentioned, they are targetting the more high profile cuts - the worst being the free fruit and water given to P1 and P2 pupils. What is the betting they are trying to use similarities when Thatcher cut school milk (I remember that!) by saying the Scottish Government aka the SNP are responsible for young children not getting some healthy food?
The secondary schools are also being forced to make cuts in subjects, and my eldest will be directly affected. Control of education subjects should be removed from councils and centralised so that all children in all parts of Scotland have access to the same opportunities.
Complain about this comment
Which high ranking eeejits are you referring to sneckedagain?
Complain about this comment
# 288 Neil_Small147
There was a referendum in 1979 but the UK government didn't get the answer it wanted so they ignored it on the pretence that the majority of potential voters didn't vote for it. In any UK wide election FPTP was good enough for them but apparently not when it comes to a referendum.
Complain about this comment
As usual Red-White-And-Blue and all the other unionist scaremongers are missing a pretty fundamental point about EU membership.
Scotland is not a part of a US style federation of states from which it can "secede", leaving that federation substantially intact. Scotland, with England, is a partner in the United Kingdom. It was the United Kingdom which joined the EU not England and some minor dependency up noth.
Therefore when Scotland regains its independence that Union will be dissolved at which point both Scotland and England will either remain members as successor states or BOTH will have to re-apply.
Complain about this comment
#289
My lips are sealed
Complain about this comment
#288
Neil Small
You miss my point.
It is entirely likely thas the SNP would have lost a referendum in 1999 (but not certain).
What is absolutely certain is that had the SNP foolishly settled for devolution we would have been offered half of that.
The only reason for devolution is the SNP's success at growing support for independence which devolution is designed to prevent(but can't).
It is essential that the SNP campaigns for full independence at all times.
Complain about this comment
Headlines next week - "What did the SNP know about the winter closure of Glasgow airport Terminal 2" or "SNP pressure BAA to close Glasgow airport to save money on GARL project.
Complain about this comment
261. oldnat
"250"
Probably the daily express :
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/79059
(will work out how to do a proper link later)
Complain about this comment
IMHO a three question referendum will split the unionist vote not the Independent one.
Complain about this comment
I don't want to insult the people of Glasgow NE because, like the rest of us they are the victims of circumstances generally beyond their control. However, if poverty and deprivation resulting from joblessness are the order of the day for many people in the constituency, how many of them would benefit from the rail link to Glasgow Airport? Wouldn't they rather have some real investment to improve their lot? They are likely to benefit more from the improved transport links around the City which are already being out in place.
Complain about this comment
295. Jimmythepict
"(will work out how to do a proper link later)"
Quicker to point you to good wee page at tipiglen, than type it out here.
Complain about this comment
228. Brownedov
My apologies for not responding sooner, but certain things came up last night which required urgent resolution. In relation to your distinction between 'devolution max', as you describe it, and 'real fiscal autonomy', neither would have any impact on oil and gas assets. Both are drawn from beneath the seabed which is Crown Realm (for the purposes of understanding JRMacClure - think Federal Domain) and recognised as such by numerous international treaties. Seizure of these assets would constitute a Violation of Treaty under international law and an Act of Deposition under national law, both of which are de facto and de jure acts of war.
Complain about this comment
MI - I ask this in a genuine spirit of enquiry. If Scotland leaves the Union, the UK ceases to exist, as I understand things. How then is it possible for the newly constituted state of Scotland to seize assets belonging to the non-existent UK?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Fellow posters:
Beware being drawn into circular arguments about nothing.
I've seen the tactic before where one poster simply engages in ever increasing nebulous definitions of what is war, a nation, a country, Nationalism etc, etc.
You end up wading through a meaningless sea of rhetorical treacle. It can be very time consuming and ultimately fruitless - don't say I didn't warn you.
Radical ideas, informed opinion and interesting analysis coupled with the odd link to obscure but illuminating articles make this blog what it is.
Complain about this comment
#299 MagisterIlluminatus
Recently, under the 30 year rule, documents and papers were released from the government archives. In particular those drawn up by the Labour government in 1975.
One such paper, by Graham Kear, under-secretary at the Department of Energy, suggested that the Northern Isles might be hived off from Scotland. He wrote: “If Scotland and the Orkney and Shetland Islands are both regarded as states, separate from the rest of the United Kingdom, median lines can be drawn to divide the United Kingdom Continental Shelf between Orkney & Shetland/Scotland and between Scotland/England.”
If what you say is true, why?
Why would they be prepared to redraw the Northern Isles boundaries when the seabed as you say was/is crown property?
Complain about this comment
HL Mencken once said for every complex question there is a simple answer - and it's always wrong. The area of international law regarding the creation of a new state is fearsomely complex, so the correct answer to the question of an independent Scotland's membership of the EU is also bound to be complex. The argument turns on whether or not Scotland would be a successor state to the UK. The pro-independence position is that it would be, the Unionist position is that only England-Wales-NI would be the legitimate successor state.
As far as I understand it, international law broadly distinguishes two categories of new state. Firstly there are new states created as a result of decolonialisation, for example the countries of Africa which gained independence from their former colonial masters in the 1960s. Secondly there are new states which result from the splitting up of an existing state, for example the separation of Czechoslovakia into the Czech Republic and Slovakia. The rights and obligations of new states with respect to existing treaties differ depending upon which category they belong to. Decolonialised states do not automatically inherit the treaty obligations of the former colonial power and are not regarded as successor states. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vienna_Convention_on_Succession_of_States_in_respect_of_Treaties
Claims that Scotland would not be a successor state to the UK essentially rest upon the position that Scotland is currently a colony of the UK. Unionists who claim Scotland would be expelled from the EU should be asked to clarify whether they believe that the UK is Scotland's colonial power.
In the second category however, all states which result from the splitting up of an existing state do inherit treaty obligations entered into by the state they formerly belonged to, and the new states have an equal legal status as successor states. Scottish independence from the UK falls into the second category. Scotland is not a colony of the UK, it is an integral part of it and is a founding member of the Union of 1707 which created the UK in the first place. Both Scotland and England-Wales-NI would be successor states, and both would equally inherit all treaty obligations entered into by the United Kingdom. Since the UK is currently a member of the EU, successor states to the UK would also remain bound by EU treaty obligations.
England-Wales-NI does not have the unilateral right to designate itself as sole successor state. It has no legal right to insist that it and it alone remains in the EU, but Scotland should be expelled. This is relevant to the UK's seat on the UN Security Council as well as to EU membership. England-Wales-NI will only be able to inherit the Security Council seat if Scotland consents. (Russia inherited the old USSR seat only with the consent of the other former Soviet Republics.) This will prove an extremely useful bargaining counter which I am sure the SNP's constitutional lawyers are fully aware of.
Politicking will certainly come into play. In the run up to a referendum on independence we can expect to hear dire threats and warnings from the usual suspects that Scotland will be cast into the wilderness, but these threats will vanish immediately independence is achieved. The EU will then be confronted with the facts on the ground, and will have to accommodate them. It is not in the EU's interests to expel a member state which is willing to comply with all membership requirements.
This does not mean that both Scotland and England-Wales-NI would automatically accede to the EU without any negotiations. International law specifies that successor states can only accede to multilateral treaties with the consent of the other parties involved. This point is especially important. It means that even if England-Wales-NI were to be recognised as sole successor state, it would still have to negotiate the terms of its membership with other EU powers. The UK's EU opt-outs would be an immediate focus of discussion amongst other EU members.
Both Scotland and England-Wales-NI require the approval of the other 26 EU member states in order to remain EU members. However Scotland and England-Wales-NI must be treated equally, the other EU states cannot decide to recognise only one of the new states as the successor. They have to admit both, or expel both. Other EU states will certainly take advantage of the situtation to wring concessions. This will prove a greater political problem for a Eurosceptic Westminster government than for a pro-European Holyrood government. There would have to be negotiations regarding the respective contributions paid by each as well as on a whole range of other issues. However these negotiations will not be as complex as those which new applicants for EU membership must go through. Scotland already meets the entry criteria for the EU because Scotland is currently a part of an EU member state.
In the event of Scottish independence, it is highly unlikely that Scottish membership would be blocked by any EU power. Scottish independence will be achieved peacefully and legally and will be recognised by Westminster. Scotland is a founder member of the UK, which it freely joined in 1707, and which it is equally free to leave. This is quite different from the situation in Kosovo or the Basque Country. Unlike the provinces of Serbia or Spain, the UK does recognise that Scotland and England-Wales-NI have the sovereign right to secede. Any block on Scottish membership would also result in a block on England-Wales-NI membership.
Blocking Scottish membership also sets a precendent which could result in the EU capital of Brussels being outside the EU should Flanders secede from Belgium. There is also the partial precedent of Greenland, which had to negotiate its way out of EU treaty obligations when it attained self-government from Denmark.
An independent Scotland would certainly become a member of the EU in its own right upon attaining independence, but that doesn't mean there is no need for negotiation, and it certainly doesn't mean there won't be arguments and misinformation along the way.
Sorry for going on so long, but this is a complex and important issue.
Complain about this comment
#301 U14094468
Sorry Ed I answered before I saw your post. Have just given my wrist a good slapping.
It won’t happen again…. now I have got a limp wrist.
By the way I am not going blind!!!
Complain about this comment
300.obviousalias
No the UK does not cease to exist. SNP policy is quite clear, the Queen would remain Head of State. In that respect Scotland's legal position would be exactly the same as the Dominions of Canada, Australia or New Zealand which are also Crown Realm. As an interesting aside, the Crown recently prorogued the Canadian Parliament albeit at the request of the Canadian Government. But, it does give you an insight into what the Crown can do in relation to Crown Realm.
Complain about this comment
295. Jimmythepict
"daily express"
Thanks for the link. I do love the way that these scare stories are created by misinterpreting the documentation, and making wild exponential extrapolations from that.
They were referring to the protocol in the Lisbon Treaty that empowers the organs of Europe, the Parliament, the Commission and the Council of Ministers to draw up common legislation to allow Europe become energy independent. In other words, to reduce imports to Europe. It's not about seizing fossil fuel assets at all.
I wonder from what source he managed to create the myth that Scotland is to be dismembered!
Complain about this comment
Is the UK a legal entity?
The UK was formed when a few Nobles were bribed and went against the wishes of the vast majority of the people as was demonstrated by the riots throughout the country.
It therefore has no democratic legallity should be able to be annuled via the European courts.
Complain about this comment
305. And should the monarch as head of state prorogue Parliament without the consent of the elected government, s/he'd not be head of state for much longer.
The Queen is currently head of state in 15 independent countries. In each of these her status as monarch is distinct and is determined by the unique constitutional provisions of each independent country. The rights and duties of the Crown of Scotland will be determined by a future Scottish constitution. Sharing a monarch does not give a future English government carte-blanche to determine what happens in an independent Scotland.
Complain about this comment
true-red-white-blue:
#270.
"I don't believe for one moment that Scots would be herded together and driven across the border by the EU or the UK Govs.
However, they might be by the British people. Don't think for one moment that Scotland would just be allowed to break up the Union. Ever heard of civil war...that's what will happen."
You do understand that the British Government could not send soldiers to invade Scotland after a democratic referendum? I wonder how everyone else in the world will view this. Oh I see, the English are that uncivilised that they will not allow Scots to continue to live and work in England and we will expect them to be chased away?
"There are forces in Britain that will simply not allow for the break up of the UK. Military coup anyone! Do you truly believe the rest of the UK is going to forgive Scotland for destroying the nation? You are simply deluded."
You have discussed a civil war. It would not be in the interests of Britain to use milirary force after loosing an independence referendum. Infact I would expect most unionists in Scotland would accept the loss and be turned off that Britain has taken military action which will end up with dead bodies. Have you checked the amount of Scots in the military? Hoiw would they feel? Would you send them north to put down the democratic people?
Now then - I'm not saying that Scotland couldn't be an "independent" nation - so could say Mercia or Northumbria, or Cornwall - but it's what you mean by independent. Scotland will certainly NOT be independent in any true sense of the word at all.
"The UK is big enough to stand up to Germany, France and Italy, England by itself is big enough, but Scotland with 5m people would be sidelined in the same way that the smaller states in Europe will be in the forthcoming decades."
If population matters, England will have a lower population compared to France and Germany (who always stick together) and so, won't you be at a disadvantage? Deluded? It appears you think that England and England alone can take on France and Germany...
"What I'm banging on about and yet again not ONE nationalist has actually shown that an "independent" Scotland would truly benefit more by being independent than the status quo."
Actually, the status quo has major issues and unionists have never managed to defend the status quo which is why we are discussing the constituational settlement. There are problems and we are discussing the best way forward.
"None of you have ever answered in REALITY that question. You bang on about whiskey taxes and oil (that won't even exist soon - in relative terms I'm talking about here)"
Whisky and oil are our largest exports. Oil will not last forever, but have you the slightest idea the potential of green energy that Scotland can produce?
"...and how it will be a socialist paradise like Sweden (You must have missed the bit about Sweden turning away from this model because it just too expensive to keep on running!) and, of course the mythical arc of posperity that has since crumbled to dust."
I don't like socialism. The arc of prosperity does exist as most of those countries went into recession with an average GDP higher then the average Brit and they still have a higher GDP... Let's not play down that the UK also has had major issues. Are we even out of recession here? How much are we in debt (including pensions and PFI projects please)?
"But you never seem to look to the actual long term prospect of what it really means.
Some one earlier posted that they couldn't wait because it would mean the UK lost its UN security seat...and you think that is in Scotland's long term interest?????? You are simply deluded to think such things."
I can understand that the UN security council place does have special advantages. However, why does that benefit Scotland? It doesn't and have you noticed who chairs the other seats? WORLD POWERS! Britain does not have an Empire and has little influence in the world stage. There are new kids on the block mate, do you honestly expect them to listen to little Britain?
You still have to point out the benefits of the union. I am waiting but instead I exdpect you to lead another critical attack on nothing...
Complain about this comment
307. U1513654
The United Kingdom was formed when Queen Elizabeth died without issue and was succeeded by James VI of Scotland. I don't where you get bribed nobles and riots in the street from, or are you referring to the Treaty of Union 1707 as opposed to the Union of the Crowns of 1603. It was the Union of the Crowns that formed the United Kingom as the name would surely imply. No one,or at least no one who matters, is calling for the dissolution of the 1603 Union.
Complain about this comment
296. At 1:50pm on 10 Oct 2009, bluelaw wrote:
IMHO a three question referendum will split the unionist vote not the Independent one.
Which is why you will never get the unionist supporting parties to agree to anything but a single "yes/no" question.
297. At 1:57pm on 10 Oct 2009, hamish42 wrote:
I don't want to insult the people of Glasgow NE because, like the rest of us they are the victims of circumstances generally beyond their control. However, if poverty and deprivation resulting from joblessness are the order of the day for many people in the constituency, how many of them would benefit from the rail link to Glasgow Airport? Wouldn't they rather have some real investment to improve their lot? They are likely to benefit more from the improved transport links around the City which are already being out in place.
As I said earlier, not many people seemed to be aware of GARL until it was cancelled, so the Labour attack will be "the SNP is anti-Glasgow". But on investment, they will use the cancellation of GARL as an example on "under investment" by the Scottish Government. What matters is how people interpret the messages from the various political parties come the bye-election.
On Europe, despite reading all the above links and posts, I still find it confusing as to exactly what Scotland's status would be in Europe if independent. One thing I think is fairly clear however is remaining within Europe will be a hinderance to the fishing industry.
On a lighter note.....Monday should be interesting regarding MPs expenses!
Complain about this comment
310. At 3:57pm on 10 Oct 2009, MagisterIlluminatus wrote:
307. U1513654
The United Kingdom was formed when Queen Elizabeth died without issue and was succeeded by James VI of Scotland.
No. The crowns were joined at that time. The KINGDOMS were not joined and the United Kingdom was not forumed until 1707 with the Act of Union. What did you think the Act of Union did? The union of the CROWNS did not unite the kingoms.
Missed classes again, I see. ;-)
It was NOT called the United Kingdom until after the Act of Union and there were indeed riots in the streets.
Complain about this comment
311. Thomas_Porter
No Thomas, I'm sorry to say that you are the one who is deluded and the suggestion of a three question referendum shows just how deluded. Do you seriously think that anything other than an overwhelming vote for independence is going to cut the mustard? Do you think chronic political instability in a major portion of the British mainland will be viewed with equanimity in Whitehall when that major portion has Britain's entire strategic nuclear arsenal located there? Do you seriously believe that the UN Security Council is going to sit on it hands when that political instability has the potential to threaten the safety of the world?
Complain about this comment
303. InfrequentAllele, very well put.
As you say, of course, there would be negotiations but hysterics are not called for.
Complain about this comment
312. JR etc.
The Union of 1707 united the Parliaments, the Union of 1603 united the Crowns, therefore a United Kingdom, whether they called it a United Kingdom back then, I don't know, though I'm pretty sure they did. If they didn't it would represent a clear breach of the reason for Union in the first place, namely Protestant hegemony confirmed in the execution of Charles the First and in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Complain about this comment
#306. oldnat295. Jimmythepict
"daily express"
Oh my. So the EU is going to seize all Scotland's oil and gas, eh? It must be true if the Daily Express said so!!! [stitches sides back together, re-attaches head]
No wonder some people on here are reluctant to reveal the source of their "wisdom".
#303. InfrequentAllele Very interesting post, thanks for that. I can just picture the EU technocrats all having to apply for a work permit in newly independent Flanders...or maybe not.
Complain about this comment
3278. At 07:40am on 10 Oct 2009, gedguy2 wrote:
I wonder if our 'friend' 'red,white and blue' is another reincarnation of Derek as they have spelt 'whiskey' in the american way....
Either Derek or another hysterical American.
I've mentioned this before but let me address it briefly. Do not necessarily expect support from Americans, even "Scottish Americans" on the subject of independence. Although some no doubt will, you can expect the opposite from many. It seems strange but they feel very threatened on the topic of Scotland becoming independent.
Being part of a federation of states, Americans really don't distinguish between Scotland becoming independent and one of our states deciding to become independent. This causes SERIOUS anxiety attacks. And there are at least two states (Hawaii and Alaska) that could potentially have serious movements toward independence. The one that could be the most serious is Hawaii.
I was shocked the first time I brought up the subject of Scottish independence with some Americans and they became irate at the very thought of such a thing. Most English are mild by comparison.
Complain about this comment
313. MagisterIlluminatus, get a grip. No, the UK is not going to go kill everyone in Scotland and jail the SNP. No, the UN wouldn't tolerate much less support such a thing. And yes, a majority would be quite enough.
Seriously, go have a cup of tea and calm down.
Complain about this comment
The TA have to cut training for six months at a saving of 20 million pounds or so. be itneresting to see the total inappropriate expenses for the past 5 years come next week.
Complain about this comment
# 319 Neil_Small147
Depending which units in the TA are going to be under trained could have far reaching effects on the RAMC (Royal Army Medical Corps) and the ability of the RAMC to function, as 80% of their numbers are TA soldiers.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Interesting tactic by the SNP in highlighting the very real possibility of a hung parliament at Westminster.
This could focus the minds of the undecided voters and give them a very good reason to opt for the SNP.
Complain about this comment
MagisterIlluminatus:
#313.
"No Thomas, I'm sorry to say that you are the one who is deluded and the suggestion of a three question referendum shows just how deluded."
First of all I did not write comment 311, which you appear to have taken a qoute. Scots voted for the current set up (along with tax powers). I did not believe Scots voted for Calman, therefore I would expect at least a multi-choice referendum. Why does that make me deluded?
"Do you seriously think that anything other than an overwhelming vote for independence is going to cut the mustard? Do you think chronic political instability in a major portion of the British mainland will be viewed with equanimity in Whitehall when that major portion has Britain's entire strategic nuclear arsenal located there?"
The referendum simply has to show that more then 50 percent of Scots want independence (depending on type of referendum). I also do not believe it's political instability, afterall the SNP question clearly states that they are asking for the permission of the Scottish people to negociate a settlement with the British Government. It's quite civilised and democratic and both sides will have to work together. I see no reason why it would benefit nationalists to turn violent or even attempt to seize the nuclear weapons. We've won as far as I am concerned, unless your hinting that the unionists will kick up a fuss?
"Do you seriously believe that the UN Security Council is going to sit on it hands when that political instability has the potential to threaten the safety of the world?"
Because both unionists and nationalists seek to destroy the world? I am laughing like mad, why would an independent Scotland pose a security risk to the rest of the world? The Scottish Parliament has voted against Trident before, we do not want it! Your baseless claims are soo stupid I do not see why you even bother writing such ****
Are you prepared to risk a civil war after the people of Scotland vote for independence? Are you prepared to use violence or do you seek a peaceful and as fair a settlement as possible?
Complain about this comment
#315. At 4:32pm on 10 Oct 2009, MagisterIlluminatus wrote:
312. JR etc.
The Union of 1707 united the Parliaments, the Union of 1603 united the Crowns, therefore a United Kingdom, whether they called it a United Kingdom back then, I don't know, though I'm pretty sure they did.
Well, you're pretty sure wrong.
The union of crowns did EXACTLY what it says. It joined the CROWNS and only the crowns. They were still two separate kingdoms with separate governments. The Act of Union joined the kingdoms and formed the United Kingdom.
Oldnat was, as usual, correct.
If they didn't it would represent a clear breach of the reason for Union in the first place, namely Protestant hegemony confirmed in the execution of Charles the First and in the Glorious Revolution of 1688.
Not really. Until 1707 although it was described as a union of crowns, it was really two separate crowns (that of Scotland and that of England) worn by the same monarch. Although James I wanted it to constitute a union of the Kingdoms, it was the Parliament of England that refused such a thing at that time because of their fear of his belief in an absolute monarchy. There was some negotiation toward a union of the kingdoms which failed.
In 1606, 1667, and again 1689 there were attempts through act of parliament to combine the kingdoms all of which failed. Actually this is all pretty basic history. You can look it up very easily.
Complain about this comment
#321. At 4:54pm on 10 Oct 2009, U14094468 wrote:
Online Ed Here
Interesting tactic by the SNP in highlighting the very real possibility of a hung parliament at Westminster.
This could focus the minds of the undecided voters and give them a very good reason to opt for the SNP.
Very smart tactic, it would seem to me.
Complain about this comment
#299 MagisterIlluminatus &
#305 MagisterIlluminatus
Your assertions would carry some weight if you backed them by verifiable sources but the key issue here is that one of the wonders of the The English Constitution as Bagehot called it, is that no UK Parliament can bind its successors, so what will happen in the event of a referendum YES authorising the Scottish Government and/or Parliament to negotiate with the UK Government and Parliament for further devolution or amendment or repeal of the Union with England Act 1707 will clearly be a matter of horse trading and no doubt an employment opportunity for lawyers.
In such conditions, most bets will be off, but it would sit very strangely with the street parties organised by the London tabloids in celebration of the departure of "scrounging Jockland" to be called to arms in either a British civil war or a war of aggression against a newly seceded Scotland. It wouldn't look good to our European and American cousins, either.
Do you really believe that Westmidden would not go a very long way indeed to retain some semblance of a UK? Do you really believe that the rump UK would go to war with a democratically independent Scotland?
If so, please respond, but you'll need to provide some evidence to convince many here.
PS: the definition of 'devolution max' was not mine but taken from the SG's National Conversation, which would doubtless welcome your contribution.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
323. JRMacClure
"The union of crowns did EXACTLY what it says. It joined the CROWNS and only the crowns. They were still two separate kingdoms with separate governments. The Act of Union joined the kingdoms and formed the United Kingdom."
I thought it interesting that Magister referenced the Glorious Revolution of 1688 (English only).
When the English deposed James VII, they unilaterally broke the first (1603) Union of the Crowns, as James continued to be King of Scots. The current Union of the Crowns began in 1689, when the Scots deposed James, using the principle of the sovereignty of the Scots people, and decided to appoint William and Mary as joint monarchs. The current Union of the Crowns is a creation of the Scots Parliament.
Complain about this comment
#326. That is a good point. The current Union of Crowns was in fact based on the principles set out in the Declaration of Arbroath that it was the right of the Scottish people to depose a king. It was interesting that they then so blithely disposed of the Scottish Parliament which had created that union.
As a totally off-topic tangent, I have always been convinced (and could support with some evidence if I were put to it although it's primary and not online) that had they not had the act of union that the support in the later uprisings would have been much less. Quite a few of the Jacobite were actually more anti-union than they were pro-Stewart.
The eventual cost of the Act of Union to Scotland was far more than most realize.
Complain about this comment
#326 oldnat
Quite so re the Union of the Crowns, but would you call the current one the second or third in the light of English non-recognition of Charles II from his succession in 1649 until 1660?
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
I have to say I'm interested in seeing some polls with enough data to be meaningful in Scotland post-conferences. The SNP one is next weekend, right?
Anyone have any guesses about when that might happen?
Complain about this comment
British politics going "postal" as we call it in this country. =)
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2676659/Labour-ministers-callous-gaffe-on-David-Camerons-son.html
;-) And to show that it isn't just The Sun:
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/2676659/Labour-ministers-callous-gaffe-on-David-Camerons-son.html
Always fun to watch someone ELSE'S political parties ripping into each other.
Complain about this comment
#328. At 6:17pm on 10 Oct 2009, Brownedov wrote:
#326 oldnat
Quite so re the Union of the Crowns, but would you call the current one the second or third in the light of English non-recognition of Charles II from his succession in 1649 until 1660?
Still only the second, I believe, although I'm open to being corrected by Oldnat. But I don't think that constituted a separate union of crowns but was part of the original.
Complain about this comment
Haha! You want to know something funny? I had purely coincidentally The Braes o' Killiecrankie playing on my iPod. It's on random play at the moment.
Complain about this comment
329. At 6:18pm on 10 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
I have to say I'm interested in seeing some polls with enough data to be meaningful in Scotland post-conferences. The SNP one is next weekend, right?
Anyone have any guesses about when that might happen?
The 75th Annual Conference of the SNP takes place in the new Eden Court Theatre in Inverness between 15 and 18 October.
Believe it or not I'm not an SNP member, I've never attended any of their events - I'll remedy that at some point.
Complain about this comment
328. Brownedov
"would you call the current one the second or third"
You spotted that I had dodged that question! Not that it greatly matters. What I was more concerned to do was to deconstruct the Whig school of history's view that history was the story of how the British constitution of the late 19th century came about. In that story, they glossed over a whole lot of inconvenient facts, and highlighted points that suited the story of "Britishness". That inaccurate story has been taught to generations of Scottish children.
"First came the Union of the Crowns in 1603, then inevitably the Union of the Parliaments in 1707."
Virtually every reader of this blog will have been taught that. In reality that story is a myth promulgated by the British, to try to consolidate the British state. I was talking to an ex-steelworker yestreen (to throw in another Scots word). He's a bit older than me (such people do exist), and doesn't support independence (yet) though he's working hard to overcome the fact that he "was conditioned to be British", as he described it. A remarkable bit of self-analysis I thought.
Complain about this comment
Any idea when we're likely to see any realistic Scottish polls? Basing anything on a polling group of less than 100 is beyond absurd.
#334. The propaganda that is done about the Union is just unbelievable. You will see many people state with a perfectly straight face that the Scottish Enlightenment was because of the union, for example. Nothing could be further from the truth but there are many, many people who have been taught this and actually believe it.
Complain about this comment
334. Well if there have been three unions of the crowns, then each must have been of slightly lesser bejewelled headgear importance than the one before. So we started with the Union of the Crowns, followed by the Union of the Tiaras, and we are currently on the Union of the Spangly Alien Antenna.
Complain about this comment
Anent this Union of the Crowns not being the same as the Uniting of the Kingdoms, can I gently point out the simple fact that after Jamie the Saxt became King of England as well he was designated James VI of Scotland and James I of England according to whichever documents he was setting is seal or sign manual.
The two Charlies who followed were both the first and second of the name in Scotland and England, but Jamie the last was otherwise officially known as James VII of Scotland and James II of England.
Two separate countries (who went to war with each other four times between 1639 and 1650) with the same guy filling in on both thrones; not a united kingdom at all.
Complain about this comment
333. U14094468
"The 75th Annual Conference of the SNP takes place in the new Eden Court Theatre in Inverness between 15 and 18 October.
Believe it or not I'm not an SNP member, I've never attended any of their events - I'll remedy that at some point."
oldnat, you just (re)joined didn't you - are you going? If so i'm sure you could do a wee liveblog, and we could give 'Blether with Brian' some company, maybe 'Chewing the fat with Oldnat' ?
;)
Complain about this comment
oldnat
I have been intending to ask you for some time but keep forgetting.
About 5 years ago I visited Dunotta Castle with my uncle and from that site you can see a monument to soldiers from the last war. It was partly finished, my uncle saying that further bits were added as veterans died. Have you any further information, I have tried to Google it without success.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone else been over on political betting? Any thoughts on what was said there about the Glasgow NE by-election?
Complain about this comment
#338 mrbfaethedee
'Chewing the fat with Oldnat' does not have the same ring as ‘Blether with Brian’. Perhaps something like ‘Natter with Oldnat’ at least has a ring to it!!!!
Complain about this comment
338. mrbfaethedee
"'Chewing the fat with Oldnat' ?"
LOL
No. Diplomatic negotiations with Mrs Nat would result in the nuclear option being exercised if I don't finish those DIY jobs!
Complain about this comment
330. At 6:21pm on 10 Oct 2009, JRMacClure wrote:
British politics going "postal" as we call it in this country.
It's sad to see the party of Hardie, Maxton and MacDougall reduced to personally attacking people as their own policies have failed and they have nothing to offer the electorate.
For God's sake, labour, just wind up your party before you embarrass yourelves any more.
Complain about this comment
339. Roll_On_2010
I presume you mean the Stonehaven War Memorial on Black Hill? I always presumed it was designed that way, and this site confirms that
http://www.aboutaberdeen.com/stonehavenwarmemorial.php
Complain about this comment
341. Roll_On_2010
"‘Natter with Oldnat’"
Well I made a start on a similar thought when I reported Lord Foulkes describing the voters of Glasgow NE as "all underclass".
I'd call it 'Nutters with Oldnat'.
Complain about this comment
#334 oldnat
"You spotted that I had dodged that question! Not that it greatly matters."
Yes and note that you still do, although I agree it's not exactly relevant today despite Scots having thought Cromwell's visit pretty important at the time.
As you say, airbrushing of history, but I'd say the re-writing began earlier in C19 with the Saxe-Coburg love affair with Balmoral and the completion of the East and West coast railway routes.
Re "conditioned to be British" that's indeed perceptive self-analysis, which many of us share.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#343. Vicious personal attacks have always been a part of politics in my own country going back almost as far as we've had politics or else I'd have to bemoan what has happened to the party of Lincoln.
The presidential campaign of 1828 for example was absolutely brutal including accusations that Andrew Jackson was an adulterer and that his wife was a bigamist. It was one of the dirtiest campaigns in American history.
I'm afraid we tend to look at it as how politics are done although using a child's death to attack someone would be considered a low blow even over here, I suspect.
Complain about this comment
Oh, to make it clear considering that Jackson's people baselessly accused his opponent of being a pimp--dirt was flung from both sides.
But it gives you an idea of how dirty our politics can get.
Complain about this comment
UK ICM poll in tomorrow's News of the World. Previous poll was towards the end of the LD Conference and the changes from that are shown in brackets.
(hat tip - Anthony Wells on UK Polling Report)
CON 45%(+5), LAB 26%(nc), LD 18%(-5)
The question needs to be regularly put to voters. "The Tories will be the next UK Government. Who will best protect Scotland from them - Labour or SNP?"
Complain about this comment
Brian this wee meeting organised by Captain Mainwaring will have only one purpose, to whip everyone into line behind the mad viking.
Any other outcome would require Tavish Scott to resign and they can't have that so soon after Nicol Stephen's ignominious departure as they would start to look as unlucky with regional branch leaders as Labour.
They'll emerge in their beards and jumbo cords , unanimous to a man and woman in the pompous belief that a referendum would be a bad idea "at this time".
Anyone who deviates from that message after the vote at the meeting will be viewed as a bit of a cad and their career progression in the party will enter a cul de sac.( Stop laughing at the back)
Their attitude to a referendum has merely reaffirmed my belief that they are hardline unionists and not very democratic.
Brownedov 325, that picture you conjure up of people being hauled away from the street parties celebrating the departure of the scrounging Jocks to go and don uniforms and drag the hated sweaties back to Blighty by military force is just hilarious.
I remember a poster either here or on the Herald who used warn about sending in the tanks all the time. Not surprised to see it resurrected here in the name of desperate unionism.
Complain about this comment
oldnat
That’s the one. My Uncle is 85 years old so I found it a bit difficult to hear what he told me, stood in the wind, or it could be me that's going Mutt ‘n’ Jeff
Thanks.
By the way, my appologies, I spelt Dunnottar Castle wrong.
Complain about this comment
Betting Glasgow NE by-election
Ladbrokes currently have
Labour at 4/9, with the SNP at 2/1 and John Smeaton at 12/1.
SNP will do well to win its a big ask but I'm sure their % poll will be good.
Complain about this comment
350. GrassyKnollington
"Stop laughing at the back"
Sorry. Couldn't.
Complain about this comment
Well, now keep in mind that I'm used to US politics where a "military" vote is a fairly big deal. After all, we have a LOT of military. Is this a factor at all in your elections. In this country, take Colin Powell for example, when important retired generals ally themselves with political parties it is generally considered an important event so I am kind of baffled at this not being important over there. Not enough military? They don't vote? They're not influenced by the military affiliations? Or it isn't seen as throwing support behind the party to be advisers as two retired generals have just agreed to (if I understand the stories I've read).
In both cases, I would have expected more reaction.
Complain about this comment
#352. Over on politicalbetting Mike Smithson said that George Galloway says that Ladbrokes has it wrong and that the SNP will win. Didn't Galloway used to be Labour? Not sure exactly what he is now. *shrug*
I have no idea but apparently Smithosn took Galloway's opinion seriously.
Complain about this comment
351. Roll_On_2010
Always glad to help.
Complain about this comment
#321 and #324.
"Interesting tactic by the SNP in highlighting the very real possibility of a hung parliament at Westminster.
This could focus the minds of the undecided voters and give them a very good reason to opt for the SNP."
Interestingly, there was a letter in the East Kibride News this week pointing out that it would be advantagous to have as many SNP MPs in Westminster for exactly the reason you give. And funnily enough that idea was reiterated by Linda Fabiani in Brian's Big Debate this week.
Complain about this comment
354. JRMacClure
Indeed it is different here. While these cases are unusual, they won't sway many people. Generals aren't seen as representing the glory of the state here. However, that the former chief of the Army in Scotland, Major General McDowall, is to become an advisor to the Scottish Government on veterans' issues and the welfare of soldiers and their families will resonate with some families here as the "top brass" are generally seen as being remote from the troops they command.
McDowall was the only commander in today’s army to have started his career on the bottom rung, so he may be seen differently.
I'd also be surprised if he didn't give the SNP the benefit of his advice on wider defence issues.
Complain about this comment
355. JRMacClure
Galloway is currently the "Respect" MP for a London constituency. I would doubt that he has much current knowledge of Glasgow politics. Mind you, that's still more than Mike Smithson has!
Complain about this comment
Galloway doesn't look like an SNP supporter from what he writes in the Daily Record. However, perhaps that shouldn't affect his assessment if he is trying to be truthful.
I think he is pretty well anti-Labour, at least from the point of view of the Iraq war. He is more pro-Sadam, but backed a loser there. I hope he will be better with his latest forecast.
Complain about this comment
349. At 7:48pm on 10 Oct 2009, oldnat wrote:
"The question needs to be regularly put to voters. "The Tories will be the next UK Government. Who will best protect Scotland from them - Labour or SNP?""
This is unacceptable Oldnat. You know it.
Scotland doesnt need protecting from the Tories! WE ARE A SCOTTISH PARTY NOT JUST AN ENGLISH ONE!
The arrogance it takes to m,ake such statements, and from a teacher- the selfish and ignorant self righteousness. I am shocked at you Oldnat- and insulted that you think Scotland needs protecting from people like me.
Complain about this comment
#350 GrassyKnollington
ROFL re the L-Ds' "career progression" and well said re "desperate unionism".
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
#360. At 8:28pm on 10 Oct 2009, hamish42 wrote:
Galloway doesn't look like an SNP supporter from what he writes in the Daily Record. However, perhaps that shouldn't affect his assessment if he is trying to be truthful.
I don't think he was supposed to be pro-SNP so much as giving an assessment on what would happen in that by-election. Of course, if he is anti-Labour that could well be a biased opinion. Since, if I understand it correctly--always a question on UK politics--he was kicked out of the Labour party so I'm not sure he's a good source. It still struck me that Smithson believed him enough to say he'd laid a bet on the strength of that.
Complain about this comment
Ok, I admit it. I NEVER thought I'd identify with a SINGLE word Prince Philip said and I was just proven wrong:
"They put the [TV] controls on the bottom so you had to lie on the floor, and then if you wanted to record something the recorder was underneath, so you ended up lying on the floor with a torch in your teeth, a magnifying glass and an instruction book.
"Either that or you had to employ a grandson of age 10 to do it for you."
Pardom me, but I still have a hard time believing he really does record things--but the mental picture did make me chuckle. Don't they have butlers or something?
Not having in age ten grandchildren puts me at a disadvantage I suppose. LOL
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/8300524.stm
Complain about this comment
#361. Dean, you aren't the entire Tory Party, you know. Don't take things so personally. You'll end up with a heart attack before you're 25 at this rate.
Complain about this comment
Red,White,Blue [or Derek]
In regards to Lisbon I naturally agree with you up to a point.
There are uncomfortable aspects of Lisbon- the self ammending clause for example. This would effectively end the treaty process in the future- and the referendums along with it [and therefore reduce transprency and democracy].
This I agree is uncomfortable and undesirable for the UK.
But we must recognise the positive aspects too! Nothing is ever black and white- there is always shades of grey; and this is where diplomacy resides.
Lisbon is correct for example in its attempts to end the requirement for unanimous agreement- this simply isnt practical for a trading community of 27 member-states. Thus majority decision making at the Council of Ministers is preferable.
See, good as well as bad aspects.
And for those areas we may be uncomfortable with- we can negotiate an opt-out of veto power [though opt-out is by far the more likely outcome for the UK].
I feel you should be a little more tolerant of the EU- it benefits the UK hugely.
Complain about this comment
360. hamish42
"Galloway doesn't look like an SNP supporter from what he writes in the Daily Record. However, perhaps that shouldn't affect his assessment if he is trying to be truthful."
As long as he doesn't salute Alex and call him indefatigable.
Complain about this comment
361. deanthetory
"Scotland doesnt need protecting from the Tories! WE ARE A SCOTTISH PARTY NOT JUST AN ENGLISH ONE!"
In ones dreams but reality says different.
Complain about this comment
#359 oldnat
I always thought Galloway’s best performance was on BB. Not that I watched it!
Just heard one or two of his many fans yakking about it.
Complain about this comment
#361 - "The arrogance it takes to m,ake such statements, - the selfish and ignorant self righteousness."
Dean, doesn't Auntie Bella make such statements about "narrow minded nationalists"?. Is she selfish, ignorant and self righteous when she dismisses over a third of the electorate?
Complain about this comment
#363 JRMacClure
This website's Galloway expelled by Labour reports georgeous George, ever the moderate, as saying: "This was a politically motivated kangaroo court whose verdict had been written in advance in the best tradition of political show trials."
Odd that he accepted the NuLab whip as long as he did.
Post or reactive moderation for all except CBeebies, please!
Complain about this comment
370. At 8:52pm on 10 Oct 2009, ForteanJo
"Dean, doesn't Auntie Bella make such statements about "narrow minded nationalists"?. Is she selfish, ignorant and self righteous when she dismisses over a third of the electorate?"
Ouch, youve got me... what accurate shooting! Tell me, do you go Grouse shooting? Thats damn accurate..lol
Complain about this comment
361. deanthetory
"This is unacceptable Oldnat"
I wondered when you would take umbrage.
It's perfectly valid electioneering. No one needs protection against you, dean. Scotland will need protection, however, from a British Tory Cabinet following an agenda determined by their important supporters in the South and Midlands of England.
I don't subscribe to the "wasted vote" concept regularly peddled by your party - most recently by Ms Goldie. But in most of the critical seats in Scotland it is an SNP/Lab contest, and that should be the critical question for the large majority of Scottish voters who don't want to be governed by the Tories. This isn't 1951.
Complain about this comment
#361 Dean
your lot only have 1 MP. There is a very good reason for that. The tories devastated Scotland the last time they were in power. We Scots will never forget that and that is why in the GE many Scots will be voting on the basis ' who can protect us best from a Tory UK Government'. You may not like it but that's the way it is.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
369. Roll_On_2010
Galloway taking on the US Senate was his best performance. I don't think they understood how Scots debate politics! JR mentioned how dirty US politics can be. Scots politics demands sharp technique, quick thinking and a grasp of the detail.
Funny how that reflects what happens both here and in the Holyrood Chamber. In both, Unionists struggle to keep up (Grey doesn't even struggle any more).
Complain about this comment
Re 361 Dean
Dean people in Scotland have long memories, the havoc and the complete unfairness of the Tory treatment of Scotland last time will live a long time in the memories of Scots.
Listening to Cameron and Osbourne last week brought back many unhappy memories for me and I suspect many Scots. The rhetoric wasn't that much different.
I don't see either having any appeal in Scotland. A Tory government will not be popular here, this will bounce many more Scots into supporting Independence.
I really don't want Independence, I really don't trust Salmond, certainly don't want his pompous arrogant attitude representing Scotland. However he is less objectionable than Osbourne.
I fear for the future in an Independent Scotland, I don't like many of the nationalist attitudes towards a range of issues, they create division and have a lot of half-baked ill-thought out ideas.
However, I don't think I can stomach another era of Tory lords telling us how to live with little or no understanding of what they do. Independence might be a the lesser of two evils.
Nothing last week showed me we had any different Tory party than before, John Redwood and co are still hovering around, will be brought back to life after the election should they win, which looks highly likely.
That is the reality as many Scots would see it. It may well be Hobsons choice.
Complain about this comment
#335 Hi JRM - anent your post: "You will see many people state with a perfectly straight face that the Scottish Enlightenment was because of the union, for example. Nothing could be further from the truth but there are many, many people who have been taught this and actually believe it." Just a thought -
And there were a huge number of children, including me, raised in the 1950's and 1960's who new more about the "wild west" and "Roy Rogers" than what happened in Scotland's past. Enlightenment, what the ferk was that? And more to the point, how did it help me, as I was groomed to be factory trash for the union?? Enlightenment?? Ho, Ho, Ho!
Complain about this comment
376. northhighlander
"I fear for the future in an Independent Scotland, I don't like many of the nationalist attitudes towards a range of issues, they create division and have a lot of half-baked ill-thought out ideas."
Such as?
Any thoughts that contradict your thinking are "half baked" in your eyes only, I am still waiting for the benefits of nuclear power which you have said you don't wish to return to, the only sane conclusion that one can come to is that you can't give any indicating that you have a closed opinionated mind on the subject. i.e. you know best!
Complain about this comment
North Highlander:
"I fear for the future in an Independent Scotland, I don't like many of the nationalist attitudes towards a range of issues, they create division and have a lot of half-baked ill-thought out ideas."
Please expand your claim that nationalists create division. I want to be shown SNP policy and not attitudes of those who be members or the SNP or those who support the SNP or of those who support independence.
I'd like, an in your face SNP policy that creates division.
Otherwise I find you misleading and creating division yourself by pointing to a group of people based on little other then nothing and claim they are the troublemakers.
Complain about this comment
"Will Scotland rise up against 'English' Tory rule?" Iain MacWhirter's political blog:
http://iainmacwhirter2.blogspot.com
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
380. At 10:06pm on 10 Oct 2009, raisethegame
Again what is with this tories = english? We are a Scottish political party as much as English- we do not deserve to be singled out by the SNP and their sympathisers [or is it that the SNP fear losing in the Tayside and want to attack the progressive tory image?]
Scotland deserves better than such scaremongering as oldnat aptly demonstrated with his childish "The question needs to be regularly put to voters. "The Tories will be the next UK Government. Who will best protect Scotland from them - Labour or SNP?""
I have said this till I'm blue in the face, the Conservatives arent bringing back Tebbit and his lean mean crew! Cameron could barely stand mentioning Tebbits name [according to Tebbit himself, daily tele 1oth Oct].
Complain about this comment
Allergies cost NHS Scotland £130m
"One in three of the Scottish population is affected by allergies at some point in their lives - higher than in England, according to a new study."
mmm... there has to be a common cause.
Complain about this comment
#380 Talk to MacWhirter about it. He's the one who said it.
Complain about this comment
#375 oldnat
369. Roll_On_2010
Galloway taking on the US Senate was his best performance. I don't think they understood how Scots debate politics! JR mentioned how dirty US politics can be. Scots politics demands sharp technique, quick thinking and a grasp of the detail.
Funny how that reflects what happens both here and in the Holyrood Chamber. In both, Unionists struggle to keep up (Grey doesn't even struggle any more).
Watched FMQs last Thursday although most of it was memorable, the part I rolled over laughing at was the last part with Gray when AS said:
I look forward to debating every Thursday with Iain Gray in this Parliament as I have debated with the two previous incumbents of his office. I am on my third Labour leader and the way Iain Gray is going I might soon be on my fourth.
Gray did not know what to do with himself. At one time I thought he was going to crawl under his lectern.
Just how many times can someone run into and bounce off a brick wall, then get up to ask for more?
Complain about this comment
Hello.
Is there anybody in there?
Just nod if you can hear me.
Is there anyone home?
Come on, now.I need a bit of inspiration, a little bit of trust and political know how!because I have become politically numb.
Complain about this comment
382. deanthetory
"Again what is with this tories = english?"
It's not. It's the fact that you are a British party - but one dominated by the South of England. Labour are also a British party, but are more acceptable to some in Scotland because much of Labour's support comes from the North of England (whose demographic is more similar to ours). They are deluded of course, as they will see when Brown stands down.
In the meantime, SNP and Con are picking up much of the transient NuLab vote. You'll never get the ex-old Lab vote. That'll go to the SNP or SSP.
What will be really interesting after the GE will be to see the reaction to a Tory Government in action by those who decide to vote Tory, but have no commitment to you.
Complain about this comment
382. deanthetory
"I have said this till I'm blue in the face"
lol
Complain about this comment
382. deanthetory
Have you read the article dean? If not do so and then try reading the comments and tell us if we all have to forget a history which we lived through to reach your promised land. If you remember someone (oldnat I think) pointed out to yourself awhile ago how entrenched her policies inflicted harm in all aspects of Scottish life and that it will take a long time if ever to be forgotten by its citizens.
Complain about this comment
Why aren't you people out having a nice brew at the local? It IS Saturday night there, you know. Maybe Oldnat is excused since Mrs. Oldnat possibly keeps him home for DIY... =)
Complain about this comment
#386 derekbarker
Hi Delboy
Pink Floyd - Comfortably Numb
Is that what you are doing withdrawing into yourself. Not surprised with the number of handles you have.
Complain about this comment
Monday, MPs will receive their letters from Sir Thomas Legg on the validity of their expenses claims.
"The “Legg letters” will fall into three categories: MPs who are told to repay cash, those who are ordered to provide further information about their claims, such as receipts, and those who are told no further action will be taken. A senior Whitehall source told The Sunday Telegraph that “more than half” of the 646 MPs would fall into the first two categories."
Unwise of any party to make much of this till the details are known though!
Complain about this comment