The Salmond strategy
It is a given in Labour demonology that it was the SNP who brought down Jim Callaghan's government in the 1970s.
Like most givens, it is somewhat remote from the facts.
Yes, it was the votes of the 11 SNP MPs which, added to the others, defeated Team Callaghan in a Commons vote of confidence.
But defeat at the polls - and the subsequent election of Margaret Thatcher - were, of course, dependent on the votes of millions of people. Not the SNP 11.
Still, it can be a position of some influence to hold the balance of power in a hung or tight parliament.
That is the argument being advanced by Alex Salmond at the SNP conference in Inverness.
He says that his party could wield power at Westminster if it obtains its target of securing 20 MPs.
Hung parliament
To reminisce a little more (c'mon, I've been covering politics for a wee while, give a guy a break), I recall when David Steel enthused his Liberals by sending them home to their constituencies . . . to prepare for government. (The built-in pause was part of the effect.)
The Salmond message is a little different. Go home to your constituences . . . and prepare for a hung parliament.
Might be said to lack a little punch. I dissent. I believe that it is a sensible strategy from an SNP perspective.
Like most such strategies, it is born of necessity.
Nationalists are facing two taunts from their opponents in advance of the coming UK General election.
Taunt one: that they would favour the election of a Conservative government - because said Tories would be likely to have only a handful of MPs from Scotland at most, thus highlighting a claimed democratic deficit and assisting the cause of independence.
Taunt two: that SNP votes are irrelevant at a Westminster General Election because the Nationalists are in no position to form a UK government.
Serious players
Of the two, the second is more potent.
Privately, Nationalists know they have to prevent such a thought from gaining salience in the voters' minds particularly in an election where the two largest parties, Labour and Tory, will be keen to stress that they, and only they, are serious players.
The Salmond strategy addresses both taunts, simultaneously.
Firstly, the offer is potentially there for whichever party forms the next UK government.
Whomsoever the Queen invites, the Nationalists would seek to influence, should they have the clout.
That will be Mr Salmond's answer to the "Tory taunt". He will say that his stated preference is for a hung parliament.
The Nationalists, incidentally, point to polling evidence which suggests that people favour such a curb on power, particularly in the light of experience at Holyrood.
At the same time, challenged as to relevance, Mr Salmond will say - and is saying - that the Nationalists could be in a position to lever gains for Scotland at Westminster, if given the chance by the voters.
Budget measures
What is the SNP offering? No coalition: they wouldn't offer, the UK parties wouldn't countenance.
Rather case by case support: in particular, on the budget measures which are certain to follow the next UK election.
What would they want? Again case by case but, most immediately, action to ameliorate spending issues in Scotland.
For example, the release of money held in Whitehall from the fossil fuel levy.
They would also press for a role for the Scottish government in future international events: a role presently denied in, for example, the forthcoming Copenhagen climate summit.
Would they go further and demand, for example, the cancellation of Trident? My information is that would be seen as pushing it somewhat, overplaying the hand.
Would the big UK parties play? They would do almost anything rather than be dependent on the votes of the SNP.
Further, they will argue volubly that the SNP remains irrelevant to the future governance of the UK.
But, Mr Salmond will counter, the electoral arithmetic might dictate otherwise.
As in the 1970s, the outcome will rest with the voters. Not with the calculations and stratagems of politicians, however skilled.
I'm 
© MMIX~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~20~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
Wow!!!!!! The country might get the policies they voted Labour for!!!!!!
Complain about this comment
Of course the Labour demonology completely overlooks the fact that the Winter of Discontent had seen public opinion move decisively in the Tories's favour. Callaghan could have hung on until November 1979 but the outcome would probably have been the same.
What the SNP did in that vote wouldn't have made much difference.
Complain about this comment
My goodness Brian (absent a few days) and like a politican,
A PLEBISCITE TO A MANIFESTO in one "blether".
Some weekend ahead !
Complain about this comment
Welcome back with a very astute assessment, Mr. Taylor. Perhaps not hiding in the wilds of Yorkshire after all. =)
Complain about this comment
Welcome back, Brian.
A very fair and reasoned set of arguments. Could you have a go at getting your minions on Newsnight Scotland to start thinking and interrogating the same way?
You're absolutely right that "the outcome will rest with the voters", but what you forgot to add is that it will be the number of Tory voters in England who will determine whether Cameron has a "majority" or even - heaven forfend - whether Duff Gordon scrapes back in again with NuLab as the largest party.
Salmond is absolutely right not to favour one rather than the other but simply to concentrate on getting as large a voice for Scottish issues as is feasible.
Complain about this comment
There seems to be a hypothesis growing in strength that somehow the SNP are irrelevant in the UK elections. What nonsense, and pernicious nonsense. You might as well say that the BNP or the Greens or the Lib Dems are irrelevant since none of them are likely to be in a position to form a UK government. Not the point. Our parliamentary democracy requires each constituency to send a representative to Westminster, and they can be of any colour or view whatever. You might a well say that the Scottish voters are irrelevant. And that is the real view of the LAB/CONS. In this Kingdom, the SNP are the major party and to dismiss them in this way is seriously undemocratic.
Complain about this comment
Reference the previous thread:
NorthHighlander, strangely enough I find I can find I can follow both US and Scottish politics. I don't even find it much of a stretch to do so although some here are kind enough to explain some of the peculiarities of your system when they're beyond my ken.
If you had ever actually read my comments, you'd find that in no way do I deny that we in the US have problems of our own. That neither decreases my interest in yours nor my intent of commenting on them. Until Mr. Taylor says that Americans aren't welcome here, an eventuality I find unlikely, I will continue to do so.
To answer your question, the US both buys and sell armaments although the US is in a position to sell more than we buy. Your assumption that countries never buy armaments such as warships or aircraft from another country is so mistaken as to be a bit amusing.
What would be the fate of shipbuilding on the Clyde? I am not in a position to say but I do know that shipbuilding around the world continues, both military and civilian. It would be wise to make sure that the companies there are competitive in all areas. That has not happened under the union; that, sir, is very clear. So continuing under the union will not solve their problem.
Whether I am a "nat" for some reason in disguise you are free to believe or not. It's of no concern to me. =)
Complain about this comment
Salmond's strategy is impeccable.
Holding the balance of power at Westminster would ensure Scotland could finally get a taste of what it would be like to be independent by forcing the UK Govt to give Scotland more of the fiscal and other levers we need to control and benefit our own economy.
Complain about this comment
I can definitely see Salmond bargaining hard for the oil money and fiscal authority should there be a hung parliament.
One question - would the SNP join a coalition? Personally I don't think so since the SNP refuse to vote on England-only issues.
Trident would be pushing it too far and would likely be counter-productive.
Scottish voters are definitely a major factor here: if many vote Labour it might just give them enough to scrape in. But if the SNP win more seats then it might be crucial enough to allow either Cameron in or a hung parliament.
Much depends on the campaign tactics of the SNP. But the bye-election gives them an opportunity to gauge voter reaction to their message.
Complain about this comment
I have to say, I actually quite like the new SNP Conference broadcast !(God I need to get out more hahaha)
Complain about this comment
The SNP are the biggest party in Scotland as the last two elections have shown, as a result if they are "irrelevant" to the UK Parties, that is only because Scotland is "irrelevant" to them ... :-0 Shock/Horror.
Complain about this comment
If the big Brit parties do "argue volubly that the SNP remains irrelevant to the future governance of the UK" then they back up the accusation that that Scotland IS irrelevant, in the UK. "The ruling party of Scotland, therefore Scots and indeed Scotland, are irrelevant to the governance of the UK." Great! Fantastically poor PR!
(I have been saying it for a while! And they are, of course... ;-)
Complain about this comment
1076. MalcolmW2 wrote: As a declared American citizen who takes such a partial stance on the independence of an integral part of the United Kingdom, may I enquire of you what is your position on the growing and (in my view justified)calls for independence from native Hawaiians? Now Hawaii, unlike Scotland, is a country that really was stolen from its citizens and incorporated into an enforced union with a foreign power. It was a monarchy too! When last there I was surprised how much the passion in the movement for independence had grown. Talk of English aggression sits uncomfortably from an American if they don't recognise the wrong perpetrated by their own nation upon Hawaii.
Actually, you're mistaken on my stance on independence. While I am VERY SYMPATHETIC to independence, I only take a stance on the referendum. I DO say that the people of Scotland have a right to decide for themselves what their constitutional future is. I won't try to tell them what that should be although I do sometimes express arguments pro-independence and even occasionally pro-union (since the unionists make such a poor job of it), but that is only a matter of discussion.
As far as American aggression, have you seen me deny it? I'm in a good position to recognize in another country though. I won't reproach the UK and/or England for their many aggressions as long as a poster doesn't pretend it doesn't exist. You are frankly in no better a position to be self-righteous than I am. Both of our countries have horrendous records as aggressors.
Hawaii? I am very sympathetic to the call for an independent Hawaii. The problems there are quite different than here though. While we gained Hawaii through naked aggression, they petitioned for statehood and their state constitution was ratified by a majority at the polls which I am aware has never happened in Scotland.
Can you honestly say that the union was ever actually put to a vote of the people of Scotland in any way? (Not an honest question since I know that you can't.)
Notwithstanding, there is a substantial argument, in my opinion which many Americans would disagree with, that the wrongs done Hawaiians should be addressed. I support the right to the people of Hawaii to have a plebiscite on the matter and to withdraw from the union if they can acquire a majority vote to do so.
I happen to think an even stronger argument could be made for substantial portions of Indian territories. THEY never had the right to vote on statehood within the US.
As with Scotland, it is not a particularly simple situation, but I happen to be firmly in favor of self-determination for all peoples. And yes, that does include the Hawaiians and Scots.
I happen to think tha "superpowers" are a terrible idea. They lead to aggression and countires such as the US, the USSR and the UK (looks to see if the FBI is watching this discussion) being broken up reduces the wars they have the ability to fight.
Hope that clarifies some of that.
Complain about this comment
The point about using the hung parliament scenario to extract further financial benefits for Scotland is pertinent. It plays perfectly to put more distance between England and Scotland. If they get it England become even more fed up with the even larger support Scotland gets compared to on average poorer areas of England (eg the North West which has a comparible population to Scotland with nothing like the political clout). If they don't then Salmond can go into overdrive etc. etc. The outcome - increased possibility for Independence, something many Scots and indeed an increasingly large number of English very much want to happen.
Complain about this comment
It is amazing to think of how little things change the world--if there had been a closer her for Elizabeth I. If the French hadn't needed cash for selling their N. American territories. The history books will tout both events as being wondrous and fortuitous. But how many wars have both led to?
Gives one pause.
Complain about this comment
If you watch Scottish Questions you would see for yourselves how irrelevant Scotland is to the Westminster parliament by the way the SNP (Scottish Government) is treated! I would say 'Scottish Questions' is a gross misnomer.
Didn't a handful of Northern Irish MPS extract financial concessions from Labour in return for their votes when Labours own back benchers rebelled? It was all denied of course. I think there is all to play for by having more SNP MPs at Westminster.
Complain about this comment
It's certainly an exciting time for the people of Scotland. Labour are unsuitable and the Conservatives should not be trusted untill they prove themselves worthy for our votes.
At least the Scottish National Party can be relied upon to defend our interests. I do not hear Iain Gray or the Liberal Democrats (I forgot their leaders name) and I most certainly do not hear Goldie fighting against the cuts imposed by Westminster, yet Goldie is the sole unionist that will admitt that there are cuts!
Yes I do realise the financial issues. However I expect my Member of Parliament to speak up and fight my case so I do not feel the pain as much, the more nationalists elected the greater that voice shall be. Labour can't be trusted and I doubt the Conservatives (if they manage to elect one or two Scottish MP's) will speak out on our behalf.
It's time to stop voting for these parties that will seek to keep Scotland apart of the United Kingdom but in the same sentence, claim we're too poor, too stupid and can not possibly survive in the 'big bad world'.
Complain about this comment
Is the SNP Annual conference on at the moment? One wouldn't guess from the BBC's coverage. As far as I can see, we have 2 hours of live coverage on Saturday and about the same on Sunday. No coverage today or Friday. Yet, Labour (2nd in Scotland), the Tories (3rd) and the Libdems (4th) get full coverage of every day of their conferences. Pathetic! Sooner we ditch the BBC the better. Of course, that will involve independence, we might then get what we deserve
Complain about this comment
#16 hamish42
Spot on!!!
Scottish Questions-----------------------dull and irrelevant---------.
Holyrood Labour Questions----------------dull and irrelevant---------.
Labour Party Conference's doubleact
Murphy/Gray(could you ever forget)-------dull and irrelevant---------.
Complain about this comment
Noticed 2 articles in a popular, Glasgow-based, broadsheet today. One saying 1500 charities have closed last year (largely down to a lack of lottery funding, down to the 2012 Olympics), another with a picture of Stephen Purcell and Jim Murphy admiring the London site while complaining about the GARL cancellation, as it might affect sporting events in Glasgow. Does anybody else think they have a skewed perception of priorities? They couldn't be trying to affect a by-elevtion, shurely?
Complain about this comment
If there is to be a hung parliament in Westminster I can envisage a scenario where the Tories and/or Labour, if they cannot gain a majority by bribing one of the other UK parties to join them in a coalition, like the LibDems or NI Unionists, then I can see the big two joining together to stop the SNP holding the balance of power. If this happens then watch Scotland get smashed by the Unionists.
Complain about this comment
#21
Interesting point, but can't see Labour and Tories uniting, much more likely a Labour-Libdem alliance of some sort. Probably as successful as the one 1974-79. Either way, Scotland will be, at best, a lower priority. Just what we need in this recession!
Complain about this comment
21. gedguy2
Yes, "standing up for Britain". But just cr*pping on Scotland :-)
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
To reminisce a little more (c'mon, I've been covering politics for a wee while, give a guy a break)
No, the 'Chisholm' moment denied you that.
Ask Iain Gray whether he agrees that Megrahi dying in prison would have led to an increased terrorist threat.
Give us a rundown on the 'Scottish MP's' [sic] that the BBC claim are not happy with their letters from Sir Thomas Legg.
Please don't give us the usual 'he says/she says' cop out that you are fond of offering up - start earning your salary.
Complain about this comment
#21. Still--wouldn't that have an impact on the Holyrood election? Not that it would be a good outcome. Just saying...
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#1083. mrbfaethedee, thanks for this link that I wanted to repeat because it is worth a lot of people reading:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dean-baker/wont-you-please-come-to-c_b_317268.html
Complain about this comment
I found this interesting although I'm sure you guys have seen it.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/scotland/8309289.stm
Complain about this comment
27. JRMacClure
"because it is worth a lot of people reading:"
Agreed JRMacClure, the whole piece is as applicable here as in the USA.
Dean baker is very good, for those who don't know him, he's like an OnlineEd for american economic reporting, he posts at Beat the Press
It always saddens me a little to realise how poor we are now at demonstration here in the UK, i don't know how you feel about the USA. Perhaps we need to get up on our feet a little more quickly and with a lot more unity. The words are easy.
Complain about this comment
Brian
as you say - "the outcome will rest with the voters".
So the unionistas need to show why not to vote for the SNP.
But wait, it cannot be! Is this the vangaurd of the defence of the Union? Two taunts!
'mon then!
Complain about this comment
11. At 7:38pm on 15 Oct 2009, pattymkirkwood wrote:
"The SNP are the biggest party in Scotland as the last two elections have shown"
Scottish National Party:
MSPs: 47
MPs: 7
total: 54 representatives
Labour:
MSPs: 46
MPs: 41
total: 87 representatives
Scottish Conservative & Unionist:
MSPs: 17
MPs: 1
total: 18 representatives
Liberal Democrat:
MSPs: 16
MPs: 11
total: 27 representatives
Sorry the 2005 & 2007 figures show that the SNP are currently the second largest political party in Scotland, if we include the last two elections as being 2005 GE & 2007 Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
Brian,
Welcome back, we have all missed you. I thought you may have been on holiday with one Lord Mandelson on a yaught somewhere, but hey-ho!
"As in the 1970s, the outcome will rest with the voters. Not with the calculations and stratagems of politicians, however skilled."
If there is a hung parliament then the SNP could command a considerable amount of influence. I would hope they would use that influence to get further devolution for Scotland. That would be my hope, fiscal autonomy.
But the most recent poll over on UK Polling has a tory lead of only 10%, and it asks "is 10% enough for a tory majority?". Is it? Well if it is, Cameron better hope there are no byelections!
Complain about this comment
The biased BBC I hear has forgotten that the party in Government in Scotland has a conference ongoing in Inverness has Jim Murphy told them to ignore it as a non event, not a peep on the 11 o clock news are they embarrassed by this blatant snubbing. Any guesses as to Gary's phone in subject tomorrow mines 'swine flue' or 'alien abductions'.
Complain about this comment
33. cynicalHighlander
"The biased BBC I hear has forgotten that the party in Government in Scotland has a conference ongoing in Inverness"
All other incidents where pro-independence posters have seen bias to one side for now. Isn't it shameful that the coverage is so poor, not just for SNP supporters, this is part of the mechanism of democracy that is being underreported, everyone should be bothered.
Looks like the 'SNP are a sideshow' jibes were actually instructions for the beeb.
Complain about this comment
Dean, aren't the last two elections the EU election and the 2007 election?
Complain about this comment
35. At 11:37pm on 15 Oct 2009, JRMacClure.
"Dean, aren't the last two elections the EU election and the 2007 election?"
That being the case the Labour party are still larger than the SNP. It makes absolutely no difference.
But I wasn't going to include the Euro elections due to absurdly low turnout.
Complain about this comment
#31 scraping the barrel Dean, I think 2005 as a basis for your theory is a little er... Old? Maybes? LOL
Please wait til we have the election results before trying to claim the result of who the biggest party in Scotland is.
The polls all show the SNP having the largest support at this time. FYI, It also shows the Tory's nowhere. Now away and play with your Boris Johnson doll.
Complain about this comment
Gordon Brewer beaten up by a woman! Who would have believed it? It happened tonight when he interviewd Nicola Sturgeon.
Nicola must be sick of the platitudes and dismissive comments of this BBC front man.
Is trying to gain from a minority position in Westminster really any different to trying to gain from a minority positon in Holyrood? According to Gordon its not cricket.
Complain about this comment
Has anyone sussed out the truth behind the story that the Saltires that were waved for Megrahi's homecoming were supplied by the British Embassy in Tripoli?
Complain about this comment
#31 congratulations Dean misrepresentation like that takes real time and effort. Just ignore the vote share the last two times Scots have been asked to express their opinions at the polls!
The Tories are an irrelevance in Scotland, it is a straight battle between the SNP and Labour ... every thinking person in the country knows this, unionist propaganda to the contrary cannot hide this simple fact.
Complain about this comment
37. At 11:58pm on 15 Oct 2009, BoNG0_1
"Please wait til we have the election results before trying to claim the result of who the biggest party in Scotland is."
I am merely highlighting that Patrick is wrong to say that as things are now the SNP are the largest party in Scotland.
I myself think he is rather silly to be making such claims so close to a new GE which will change the political scene again, not least the fact he is wrong in the claim itself.
Oh ans FYI- I have a "Cammie" doll lol ;)
Complain about this comment
Certainly the EU election had a low turnout but going by a four year old election is hardly any more accurate. While by using that, Labour has more MPs total, whether it is the largest party in Scotland might be open to debate. I do like figuring these things out. =)
Averaging the results of the two elections, this is what you get on the average percentage of vote and average number of votes:
SNP 32% 492,617
Labour 26.5% 439,113
Conservatives 16.5% 260,268
Now your elections are much less tied to a majority vote than the US elections are, but you might want to re-think which is the largest if it comes to who has the most supporters. An argument could be made that it's the SNP.
Things have changed in the last four and a half years.
Complain about this comment
Patty is not necessarily wrong. Sorry, Dean. By vote share, Patty is right.
Complain about this comment
Rumors from the SNP conference are that Alex Salmond wants to return to Westminster after an GE. Where he hopes to led an SNP delegation that has double figures.
So wee eck wants to do another runner!.
Complain about this comment
43. At 00:25am on 16 Oct 2009, JRMacClure
It all depends on how you calculate the share of the vote.
What if we use the 2005 till now polling averages for GEs?
If we do then the Labour party is still larger [not that I'm happy about it!]:
Labour: 35.4%
SNP: 29.9%
Con: 18%
LibDem: 12.9%
But isnt all this stats stuff missing the point? Why dont we all just wait till the SNP smash Labour in the 2010 GE and the 2011 Holyrood election!
Complain about this comment
I think Glenn Campbell must have been reading Brian's blog! Twice tonight I've heard him say vis a vis the Scottish Government wanting a place at the Climate Change Summit that they want to 'shout' about their innovative green policies. A much less offensive word than 'crow' which he was using on every occasion he could last week.
Complain about this comment
#39 hamish42
The source of the saltires may well be an urban myth - but it's such an obvious thing to be able to investigate. Since the PTA, relations have been good between the UK and Libya. The whole thing was filmed. Not too difficult for a journalist of glenn cammbell's ability to fly out there and prove that they had been supplied by the SNP (Tripoli branch) or maybe left there by my Dad when he was there in 1943.
Complain about this comment
The information is from a good source.
When the tattie gets to hot' Wee eck bolts.
Complain about this comment
giggletheloneranger
All posts are pre-moderated. What does this mean?
Complain about this comment
#45. I'm happy to wait to the GE. I was just pointing out that your pointing out that Patty is wrong is -- wrong (at least by some perfectly valid numbers). ;-)
What proves something is the election so there we're agreed.
Complain about this comment
Personally I think you asre being jolly rotten to dean I read the Bunter books in my youth, and you are all cads.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/uk/scotland/article6876334.ece
"Tory by-election candidate Ruth Davidson to publish expenses online"
I bet you rotters in the Lower Fourth never came up with such a spiffing scheme!
Complain about this comment
#51 Indeed, oldnat - campaign promises you know you wont have the power to keep are all the more easily made.
Complain about this comment
She is a fine campaigner, good speaker and honest lady. I am not just saying this because shes one of mine; i've met her and she is lovely.
But she does enjoy the privilage of not having to worry about keeping promises there. She is aiming for third place with at least 7% share [thus matching 1997 levels].
Complain about this comment
Re 39 & 47
I had a closer look at that video (Search BBC News for "Anger at Lockerbie bomber welcome")
The two saltires were the only large flags in the crowd and they appear to have been positioned specifically for the camera that provided the coverage to pick them up. (Also, about 16 seconds into the piece you get a shot of one of the Saltires for a few seconds - ie. the flag's not just in shot, it's the subject of the shot.) Then about a minute into the piece there's a view from another angle that I'm sure should have both flags in shot, but they seem to have been discarded by then.
There's also Arabic across the bottom of the screen, I can't read it but it does confirm that it wasn't the BBC who filmed it, even if they did some editing to make sure the Saltires show up prominently in the piece. So the shots look like they were deliberately set-up and seemingly with, at least, the co-operation of the Libyan authorities.
Why? Maybe it was just done so the Arabic voiceover would have them on view when they were explaining to their viewers that it wasn't the UK who had released Megrahi, maybe a misguided attempt to thank the Scots for releasing someone they believe to be innocent (whether or not anyone else does), without realising exactly what it would drop us in - or maybe they got the idea and the flags from the British Embassy. It seems to be fairly widely believed that the UK government had been doing some kind of deals with the Libyans at that point - "Oil for Flags"? It's got a nice ring to it (as paranoid conspiracy theories go...)
Complain about this comment
The symbol with the Arabic writing is the logo of Jamahirya TV, the Libyan state broadcaster. They filmed it and made the footage available to a news agency.
If the Libyans had got the flags from the British Embassy they'd have been proper Scottish Saltires. The flags in the BBC video of Megrahi's return to Libya aren't proper Saltires, the proportions of the cross are wrong. The white bands ought to be wider. I'm not sure the flags are the correct shade of blue either.
How hard is it to get a person with a sewing machine to run up a couple of Saltires anyway? It's not like it's a fiendishly complicated design.
This must be the world's dumbest conspiracy theory.
Complain about this comment
"Jamahirya ... filmed it and made the footage available to a news agency."
Aye, I'd assumed it must be something like that.
I'd still like to know why they were put there though.
Complain about this comment
#55. Spoil sport! It's a perfectly spiffing (is that really a word?) conspiracy theory.
Mind the one could consider that the Libyans thought they were being nice and saying 'thank you' to the Scots who let the man they insist is innocent come home. But that's not nearly as spiffing as a conspiracy!
*goes to look up spiffing*
Complain about this comment
I honestly got the impression that the Libyans were startled at the reaction. Their statement was more or less that it was no celebration because when they celebrate they do it right. Looked to me like some people whipped up some Scottish flags, for the Libyans a small number of people showed up, and the news media decided to turn into a glencambelly kind of media lynching.
Complain about this comment
Re 58
Aye, and it did look like a very small scale event - staged for the cameras rather than the crowd.
The only thing you can tell for sure (ie. from the video) is that the saltires were also only there for the camera. But I'd be very disappointed in the Libyans if they're so childishly naive they honestly had no idea how the footage would be used here.
Complain about this comment
Don't do that Brian! I thought you were going to come out of your closet for a second: "The Nationalists, incidentally, point to polling evidence which suggests that people favour such a curb on power, particularly in the light of experience at Holyrood."
The polling evidence? Where? "Look hard and ye shall reveal the truth"
http://www.holyrood.com/index.php?option=com_holyrood&func=article&artid=2918&edition=220&brick=3
And even more Scottish, un-biased reporting.. I know! But really! Look at this!...
http://www.holyrood.com/component/content/article/11-news-main/2770-new-poll-gives-snp-strong-lead-in-uk-election
Complain about this comment
#60. Some really interesting links, gentlemanheelander.
I found this analysis on SNPTacticalVoting pretty interesting and wondered what you guys thought of it:
http://www.snptacticalvoting.com/2009/10/can-snp-win-20-seats.html
Complain about this comment
unionists are facing two taunts from their opponents in advance of the coming UK General election.
Taunt one: that labour would favour the election of a conservative government - because said tories would be likely oppose Scottish calls for greater autonomy and the cause of independence.
Taunt two: that labour votes are irrelevant at a Westminster General Election because labour are in no position to form a UK government.
tory / labour, what is the difference?
D McN
Complain about this comment
# 22 jimorr19
I'll assume that you misunderstood my post (# 21) and put your mistake down to my atrocious writing skills. If Labour or the Tories fail to get a majority in Westminster, even with a coalition with one, or more, of the other parties, then I suspect that the Unionist parties will close ranks against the SNP holding the balance of power. I don't believe this will happen as I am expecting the Tories to gain overall control. I believe that this may, in the long run, be better for the Scottish independence movement than a hung Westminster parliament. Uniting the Unionists will do nothing for Scotland and bring down the full force of Westminster against us. Whereas a resurgent Tory government will have the Labour backbenchers focus their ire against the Tories with only an odd swipe at the traitorous SNP.
So, to conclude, I hope the Tories gain control of Westminster, the SNP run riot in Scotland, add to that an increase in the Welsh nationalist vote and watch the whole of the UK slowly unravel as David Cameron struggles to balance the books caused by Labour's mismanagement of the economy and trying to keep the UK together. Interesting times ahead.
Complain about this comment
Morning all,
Long time "lurker" first time poster. Lucky enough to be in Inverness at the Conference this weekend
so I thought I'd try and post some reports/impressions etc. May not be much as I'm reliant on my phone and O2 coverage to post while I'm here but we'll see what we can manage. Looking forward to Mr Swinney's address this afternoon, I expect that's going to be a real highlight. More later, I hope.
Complain about this comment
I see my post @26 wasn't allowed to see the light of day - was it because I used glencampbly regarding the BBC ?
Or was it bacause I pointed out that labour were terrified of the unadulterated truth ?
I would like to be told - you have my e-mail address.
Complain about this comment
We've always pointed out that BBC is glencampbly. But if even BBC starts looking at that as an insult it will be too amusing! Will that admit it? =)
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Very interesting interviews with SNP delegates on Radio Scotland this morning. Interesting because at least twice when confronted on claims by the interviewer Gary Robertson, the delegates responded by pointing out the claims were made in part by the BBC and it's journalists. Is this the beginning of a subtle change from the SNP in their dealings with the institutional bias at BBC Scotland?
Robertson was at it again in an interview with former SNP leader Dr Gordon Wilson when he claimed that the SNP had brought down the Labour Government in 1979 and that they had been labelled 'tartan tories' as a result.
Wilson replied that Labour had destroyed itself and that they had betrayed Scotland by reneging on their home rule promise and that whilst the derogatory term was used by Labour the Conservatives had claimed the SNP were socialists.
Good to see Nicola Sturgeon taking Gordon Brewer apart on Newsnight last night, it followed an item aimed at mocking Alex Salmond which was presented by a Worzel Gummidge looking Derek Bateman.
Also, not sure if it is a pattern, but I'm noticing a fondness at BBC Scotland for using the term 'Nationalists' in place of the more appropriate and correct 'SNP'.
Finally:
Clever wording from the BBC this morning when they announced in their 08:30 news broadcast that "Mr Salmond claimed that [SNP] influence could only rise in the event of a hung parliament".
Anyone notice the very subtle hidden meaning here?
Complain about this comment
Deanthetory
"She is a fine campaigner, good speaker and honest lady. I am not just saying this because shes one of mine; i've met her and she is lovely."
A totally different lassie from the skinny wee thing that we used tae see on the telly a few years ago, I hardly recognised her. I reckon that she comes across as very competent............forthright, is perhaps a better description. I wonder if she is aware that the 7% tally that she needs to retain Tory consistancy will in the main be made up of intolerant atavistic Orange bigots? Someone must have made this point somewhere, hence the SNP candidates religion being made such an issue. I do not think that this will be an issue for nationalist voters in a changing Scotland, but some knuckle-draggers who wouldn't normally vote may well be inclined to go out and "vote against the Pape!" Can they bring themselves to vote for a Labour party tainted by Catholicism? Doubt it, more likely they will go tory or Smeato.
God luv them.
Complain about this comment
#45 deanthetory
"It all depends on how you calculate the share of the vote.
What if we use the 2005 till now polling averages for GEs?"
I was out last night or would have commented on your earlier posts. Your #45 is an improvement on your earlier position, but the trouble is that there are still so few Scottish polls. We haven't seen one for more than a month now, and it's only been this year that they've been more than quarterly.
For all their flaws in terms of ludicrous voting systems and resultant conflicting reasons to vote for one party rather than another, there have been exactly three proper national votes during the current Westmidden parliament:
  May 2007: SP plurality seats: 2,016,357 votes cast
  May 2007: SP regional seats: 2,042,109 votes cast
  June 2009: Euro elections: 1,104,512 votes cast
Turnouts may be disappointing, but at least they are meaningful sample sizes, unlike the Scottish "scraps" from GB polls.
The percentages and total votes cast from the 3 elections were:
  Party, PerCent, Total
  SNP, 31.34%, 1,618,005
  Lab, 28.54%, 1,473,652
  Con, 15.58%, 804,541
  L-D, 13.25%, 683,941
  Grn, 3.22%, 165,997
  Other, 8.07%, 416,842
It's also worth remembering that in May 2007, Bliar was still PM and some misguided souls expected Duff Gordon to be an improvement. Hasn't that worked out well?
Complain about this comment
As a TV License payer, I am extremely disappointed with this completely deliberate and apparant media blackout of the SNP conference, I tuned in last night to the BBC News to try and see what was said at the conference and there was nothing. Now the Labour and Conservative conferences had constant coverage, I think the BBC is forgetting that the SNP are governing Scotland at the moment. Salmonds idea to rid ourselves of the BBC is the now something I find highly appealing . Absolutely ridiculous.
Complain about this comment
First post from a bustling Eden Court Theatre, sat waiting for the day's proceedings to get underway. Theatre's filling up nicely - my early and very crude estimate would put atttendance as easily over five hundred. The atmospere here is, I suppose, like a grand family gathering. Just seen John Swinney mingling with delegates in the Empire Theatre and Stewart Stevenson having coffee in the Atrium. Seems to me that, although the SNP don't have the 'Hollywood' budget of the big Westminster parties (Although the giant video screen behind the stage is pretty impressive), they make up for it with friendliness and approachability.
Several comments amongst the delegates already about the lack of press coverage. Hopefully this will go some small way towards makin up for that. More later, although battery's low so may have to wait 'til I get back to the Hotel.
Complain about this comment
I take it my comment pointing out the bias of the BBC and there obvious blackout of SNP coverage will not be published, typical
Complain about this comment
@35 "Sorry the 2005 & 2007 figures show that the SNP are currently the second largest political party in Scotland, "
Citing figures from 2005 is an intriguing way to go about trying to prove what is "currently" the case. SNP support has increased massively since 2005, when they were still the third-placed party in Scotland behind the Lib Dems. (They overtook the Lib Dems near the end of 2005, and Labour around the middle of 2006.)
In any event, using Westminster MP figures is a massive distortion of the truth - the first past the post system so beloved of your Tory party is so enormously, blatantly corrupt that it leads to a situation where Labour and the SNP get almost equal numbers of votes, yet Labour ends up with seven times as many seats. It takes a special kind of disingenuousness for you to then use those numbers to prove that Labour is "the biggest party in Scotland".
It is not true in terms of votes - even if we accept your mockery of the term "current" as including those cast in 2005, when the picture was very different - it is not true in terms of party membership, it is not true in terms of seats in the Scottish Parliament (which was specifically designed to fairly represent the makeup of the electorate), and it is not true in opinion polling. It is, in fact, true in no meaningful sense whatsoever.
Complain about this comment
Martin Kettle's article in the Guardian today
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/oct/15/braveheart-it-aint-salmond-army
Is it me, or doesn't he seem to have a clue?
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
39. hamish42
Course they were....
Complain about this comment
Cassiel1991
Welcome, and I look forward to your posts.
I do however find it an insult that to have any coverage of the national governments conference we have to rely on a fellow blogger.
Remind me again what I pay my compulsory TV tax for?
Maybe the way to overcome this bias is to campaign against the TV tax.
Complain about this comment
#74 obviousalias
"Martin Kettle's article in the Guardian today ... Is it me, or doesn't he seem to have a clue?"
I agree, as it would seem do the Guardianistas judging by the almost universally negative comments the article has generated. I thought wotever's particularly pithy and relevant:
"The Tories scr**ed Scotland under Thatcher.
Nulabour scr**ed everyone, including Scotland, under Blair/Brown.
Scots have a chance to ditch both, and have a fresh start as part of Europe, under the SNP.
What's not to like?"
Complain about this comment
Yawn Yawn... BBC bias against the SNP... Change the record.
It's natural for any Broadcaster to ask more questions of the party in power. It's not the BBC's fault that SNP (particularly the cyber nats on here) are unable to cope with that.
Complain about this comment
I have just viewed Newsnight Scotland of the 15th.
I would dearly like someone from the BBBC to explain the opener using rather elderly footage , and why we were regaled with all the weasel words prior to the Brewer interview with Ms Sturgeon.
What part of " hung parliament " does Mr Brewer NOT understand?
Ms Sturgeon acquitted herself well, but still to polite to the BBBC.
I could not continue watching because they then wheeled on Jack McConnells biographer and I'm really not interested in what the BBBCs pet labourites have to say.
Actually,if truth be told, I am getting less and less interested in what the BBBC has to say and the Scottish media in general.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred to the moderators. Explain.
Whatever the truth behind the saltires video it has been used and abused by every political commentator and politician between John o' Groats and Lands End to do Scotland down. So it was not an insignificant event. Brian dismissed the suggestion of British Embassy involvement out of hand when someone on his Friday Big Debate radio show mentioned it, but it would have been worthwhile asking the Libyans how it came about. There is a story behind it and the truth may yet emerge. It would have had no credibility except for the fact that we know from experience that the UK government and others do these types of dirty dealings as a matter of course which makes the suggestion that it was a deliberate set up believable!
Complain about this comment
Deducted3points:
Your speaking a lot of nonsense, the lack of coverage for this conference in comparison to Labour and the Conservatives is apparent, and anyone could pick up on this, I'm not even a supporter of the SNP, just a student of politics and i'm doing my Masters dissertation on a related subject, and do not need to be a mathematician to work out that the SNP have got poor coverage and any coverage they do get is negative. They have done a lot more for Scotland than the previous coalition, specifically the Labour party whose inability to find an effective replacement to Dewer has slowed progress in a number of areas
Complain about this comment
79. At 12:16pm on 16 Oct 2009, deducted3points wrote:
Yawn Yawn... BBC bias against the SNP... Change the record.
I speak for myself, but the clear bias against the SNP and the independence movement is all too clear. Your desire to have this bias go unreported will be ignored by myself.
An excellent example of this bias was Glenn Campbell's recent trip to the USA where the he focussed on only one side of the Megrahi release issue for fully four days, even editing out comments from a state department official (Mr Kelly) that did not compliment the BBC view. Read a transcript of Campbell's dailly broadcasts from the USA here.
Taylor's 'divide by zero' trick question at the last SNP conference coupled with the state controllers suppression of the very public attack by Malcolm Chisholm in the midst of the Megrahi release issue is further evidence of such bias.
Add to that the refusal to highlight those Scottish Labour MP's who have refused to release the contents of their letters from Sir Thomas Legg, Jim Murphy included.
The examples of this bias are many and they will continue unabated as will the efforts of those of us who demand an impartial, balanced and informative media.
It's natural for any Broadcaster to ask more questions of the party in power. It's not the BBC's fault that SNP (particularly the cyber nats on here) are unable to cope with that.
Ignoring the generalised insult - a trait amongst many who support the Union - independence supporters are indeed coping with it, much to your clear annoyance.
Newsnet Scotland Edition 4 will be published this weekend, feel free to subscribe.
Complain about this comment
@80 "What part of " hung parliament " does Mr Brewer NOT understand?"
I would, not for the first time, like to speak up in support of Gordon Brewer. His job is to ask difficult questions, and to persist in attempting to get answers. We all enjoy it when he skewers hapless dimwits like Iain Gray and Richard Baker in such a manner. The SNP tend, as a broad rule, to adopt rather more defensible and open positions than Labour's embarrassing Gordian knots (thanks) of U-turns and contradictions with Westminster, and so it's rather harder to put them similarly on the spot. Nevertheless he is duty-bound to try to do so, and is fully entitled to try to trip Nicola Sturgeon up by getting her to reveal whether she'd prefer a Tory government or not. He did point out in the subsequent studio discussion that the situation for the SNP would be much the same in the event of a Labour-led hung parliament as a Tory-led one.
I don't know what Gordon Brewer's personal politics are (though I'm pretty sure I know Glen Campbell's and Kirsty Wark's). But as far as I'm concerned he's by far the best political interviewer currently working in the UK media, and it depresses me greatly when paranoid SNP supporters let the side down by making unfounded accusations of bias against him. As an institution, the BBC is - almost by definition and of necessity - biased against the SNP. Mr Brewer, so far as I've ever been able to see, is merely doing his job properly.
Complain about this comment
#79 deducted3points
"It's natural for any Broadcaster to ask more questions of the party in power. It's not the BBC's fault that SNP (particularly the cyber nats on here) are unable to cope with that."
Your point would have the tiniest smidgeon of reality if the BBC made any attempt to hold NuLab's Westmidden government to account for any of their awfulness.
Take any thread from Robinson's Ramblings and tell us how hard it challenges Duff Gordon. Just look at his 10 most recently commented upon threads and tell us in just what way they ask more questions of the party in power:
  ...gone - anti Tory
  Going, going... - anti Tory
  Was 2,000 a myth? - anti Tory
  Rising slowly - pro NuLab
  Has he got a Legg to stand on? - arguably neutral
  Cameron's very personal plea - arguably neutral
  Conferences: Not what they used to be - arguably neutral
  Another gaffe - arguably neutral
  General gimmick? - anti Tory
  Hostile environment - anti Tory
Now I do recognise it's often very difficult to tell the two big unionist Tweedles apart, but asking more questions of the party in power?
Any review of the BBC headlines on it's main UK Politics page would give an equally "balanced" list.
Complain about this comment
31. deanthetory
You don't get it when the party you don't like wins, do you!
Embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
#79 deducted3points
It could be bias,or it could be bad journalism, but there is definitely a lack of balance from the BBC in Scotland. But it's not just cyber nats on here that have noted it. I have an email from Mr Chisholm, Labour MSP, agreeing with me that BBC Scotland are "unbalanced." I also have a letter from my Lib Dem Westminster MP informing me that he has raised my concerns with BBC Scotland's controller. He wouldn't have done that if he thought that I didn't have a point.
It's not just a whinge, it's actually a potential threat to our democratic system. And has to be scrutinised because of that.
Complain about this comment
I was very careful not to name names or get personal why has my previous comment been referred ? no email nothing Im seriously thinking of legal action here if you can not even get free speech onto a public run public funded message board
Complain about this comment
86. Brownedov
#
my comment that has been moderated alluded to this point, Salmond on the webcast was given a lot of questions which he answered, I asked Brian if he can do the same with the other parties MP's
Complain about this comment
Some thoughts on John Swinney's address -
Firstly; that he went through the gears well - crunchy, minute long segments on climate change, government payments and the third sector - building up to his two key points. Firstly; that, as we all know, Scotland lacks the fiscal powers to do what's needed to safeguard it's economic future. Secondly; and more importantly for
me - this Scottish Government are well on their way to proving that they are the best managers of Scotland's finances.
They've had to be. There is no other option under this unfair devolution settlement. When the fixed, Scottish budget runs out - there is no more. This Scottish Government has had to practice fiscal prudence to an extent that would make Gordon Brown weep, if as Chancellor, he had ever been forced to deliver under such strict financial shackles.
John Swinney stands as testament to the SNP's competance as a government. They've been set a difficult task but they're managing - living within Scotland's means and still delivering front-line services. It's this competance, I think, that will be one of their strongest assets going in to the next General and Holyrood elections.
Complain about this comment
A very dismissive Anita(?) on the Daily Politics earlier today gets her comeuppance from Alex Salmond: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/the_daily_politics
Complain about this comment
#91 cass
" John Swinney stands as testament to the SNP's competance as a government. They've been set a difficult task but they're managing - living within Scotland's means and still delivering front-line services. It's this competance, I think, that will be one of their strongest assets going in to the next General and Holyrood elections"
Are you oldnats, youngnat? giggle..giggle..giggle
Tell me young one! will the SNP be the same when Salmond returns to Westminster?.
Complain about this comment
#90 romeplebian
"Salmond on the webcast was given a lot of questions which he answered, I asked Brian if he can do the same with the other parties MP's"
Seems reasonable. We'll have to see whether it emerges from the scrutiny of the godlike mods in due course.
The fact that Salmond actually answered the questions may explain why the Brian & Alex webcast is so hard to find when last year's Q&A with Alex Salmond MSP from Perth is readily available.
I was unable to watch it live and had intended to watch it this morning but forgot. Had it not been for your post I certainly wouldn't have had my memory jogged from the http://www.bbc.co.uk/scotlandnews sub-site. If anyone has managed to find it, please post the URL here.
Complain about this comment
Would any other state broadcaster on earth blackout a political party conference at the behest of the government? Didn't think so, instead whe get the Gymnastics.
Thank you BBC, I've tried to defend you for years but its just becoming impossible.
Complain about this comment
The webcast is finally available at Alex Salmond webchat timestamped today 14:38 BST.
I'll hopefully be in a position to comment on it in an hour or so thanks to the BBC's rotten implementation of the flashplayer.
Complain about this comment
#92 raisethegame
Thanks for the heads-up. Anyone wondering what the FM meant about the "underground" should also watch the DP's Is Scotland on track for independence?. Balanced? I think not.
Complain about this comment
Brian and Lex webcast: It's well hidden - but here it is: http://newsvote.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/8311079.stm
Complain about this comment
Hey.
First post and it's a teenie wee bit off topic... a question came up in the pub last night:-
When was the last GE when the Govt. majority in Westminster was small enough that if all of Scotland had voted against the eventual winner the outcome would have changed?
i.e. when last did Scotland's votes have the potential to have a decisive input into which party won a GE?
Was looking on wikipedia but didn't come up with much easily, so thought someone might have a better idea where to look for the answer!
Cheers!
Complain about this comment
94. Brownedov
"If anyone has managed to find it, please post the URL here."
Is this what you're looking for -
Alex Salmond webchat
Complain about this comment
It is always too amusing watching Alex Salmond take apart the London journalist, not sure her name, but I've seen clips of him doing it before. Her "It's always a pleasure talking to you, Mr. Salmond" literally made me laugh out loud it was palpably untrue.
He does it so well but then he's had a lot of practice.
Lord. You would THINK eventually they'd learn to treat the man with some respect -- or at least fear.
Complain about this comment
PS to my #96
Having now heard the webcast for myself, I recommend everyone to listen to it. Brian handled himself pretty well, I thought and Salmond was certainly on good form.
The closing couple of minutes [from 28m in], on balance in the media generally and the BBC in particular, was especially good.
Complain about this comment
A moment's silence for poor Dean's aspirations, everyone, please.
The LD's Dave Hodgson is the new Mayor of Bedford, beating the Tory who hoped to win on the 2nd preferences.
Could this be a sign that Salmond's dream result of a "hung" parliament at the GE is not just a pipe-dream?
Complain about this comment
#99 RyogaHibiki
"When was the last GE when the Govt. majority in Westminster was small enough that if all of Scotland had voted against the eventual winner the outcome would have changed?"
2005, and prior to that 1992. Remember that each NuLab seat that went SNP, Tory or whatever would have reduced their "majority" by two.
See United Kingdom general elections for recent majorities.
Complain about this comment
#99, from wikipedia, "The most recent hung parliament after a general election in the United Kingdom was the February 1974 general election, which lasted until the October election that year. Prior to that the last had been the elections of 1951 and 1929."
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#98 raisethegame &
#100 mrbfaethedee
Thanks folks. As you can see from the timestamp, it made its way on to the website just three minutes after I asked the question. Maybe somebody from the BBC apart from the mods actually reads these bletherings.
Complain about this comment
Well Reverend , I like to think that I am far from being a rabid " nat" and I have watched the interview again and a HUNG parliament is a HUNG parliament neither one or the other of the big two holding sway.
I can see how this would be advantageous to any small party.
And as far as I am concerned the word HUNG answers the question , no preference required.
I do agree that Mr Brewer is the best of BBBC Scotland political interviewers.
( Just wish he would'nt do that strange little mouthy thing at the end of the programme)
Complain about this comment
44. At 00:26am on 16 Oct 2009, giggletheloneranger wrote:
Rumors from the SNP conference are that Alex Salmond wants to return to Westminster after an GE. Where he hopes to led an SNP delegation that has double figures.
So wee eck wants to do another runner!.
what rumours? do you really think Alex Salmond would risk such a strategy? it would be tantamount to political suicide and the press would run rings around him for such a blatant move. angus robertson is perfectly capable of maintaining a strong presence. if salmond did return to westminster then he would accused of being power hungry and more interested in himself than scotland.
i say politicial suicide since it would cause damage to the snp, and possibly cause some internal rumblings which might spill out to the public.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Browndov and BoNGO!
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
92. At 2:06pm on 16 Oct 2009, raisethegame:
Thanks for that link, one of the most condescending and ignorant interviewers I have ever witnessed - treated with the contempt she deserved by Alex Salmond.
I noted this morning that the delegates interviewed by Gary Robertson were less than complimentary about the BBC and wondered if this was a shift by the SNP.
Salmond's comprehensive dismissal of this particular interviewer and his clear contempt fot the BBC, [Salmond called it the "British Brainwashing Corporatioin"], suggests that we might begin to see Glenn Campbell et al facing some tough responses and indeed a demand to justify some asseritons within their questions.
Things are going to get interesting at Pacific Quay!!
Complain about this comment
@108 "I do agree that Mr Brewer is the best of BBBC Scotland political interviewers.
( Just wish he would'nt do that strange little mouthy thing at the end of the programme)"
Yeah, what IS that?
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Comment 97 Brownedove:
My god, I have commented before that we should assume the BBC as the freal opposition to the SNP in Scotland - despite knowing better it always comes as a bit of a shock when they prove it so brazenly.
The argument for independence from Pat Kane at the beginning of the item was thoughtfull and well articulated. Unfortunately, what followed in the remaining three quarters of the item was tabloidesque 'Daily Record' style drivel.
Contrast Pat Kanes contribution with that of the Unionist who claimed Scotland was subsidised by England [we are in fiscal surplus Mr Unionist] and we begin to see the intellectual gulf that now exists between the two sides.
Good to see the BBC now reduced to low brow stunts though, it indicates the very real concern that exists within the Unionist establishment.
Complain about this comment
Well done Alex.
Good try Brian.
Complain about this comment
Hello DeanTheTory,
Have you noticed that there are high hopes that the European Union and South Korea may share a trade agreement that removes most of the red tape?
Now, doesn't South Korea exports cars? I hope you now realise that nationalisation of the UK car manufacturing industry is certainly not in the public interests.
Complain about this comment
#109 barbarian
Shocking aint it!.
Can any of the nats confirm that Salmond wont stand for re-election next year in his MP's seat?.
The truth is out there!.
Complain about this comment
Why is Andrew Neil steering clear of interviewing Alex Salmond on the Daily Politics? He had very good and respectful interview with Salmond some time ago on the BBC News24. That's twice I have heard Anita interviewing him and both times they had a couple of wallys in the studio to make derogatory remarks at Salmond. The programme is obviously out of touch with what is actually happening in Scotland and is not very respectful f the position of the SNP in Scotland. You have to ask if this sort of goading is this done for the benefit of their English viewers. They couldn't even get a good line for the discussion. Was that deliberate too?
Complain about this comment
113. U14094468
"Contrast Pat Kanes contribution with that of the Unionist who claimed Scotland was subsidised by England [we are in fiscal surplus Mr Unionist] and we begin to see the intellectual gulf that now exists between the two sides."
Yes, the contrast was cringe-inducing!
The 'we're subsidised' mantra of some scottish unionists has always ben a tiresome one -
1. get your unionist government to prove it by publishing all revenue and spending figures for the nations of the UK and present them to the UK public and media, what are they scared of?
2. don't forget that we don't get to choose many of the things we contribute to paying for.
3. even if it were true, why would you want to stay like that ! Surely you'd want to stand on your own feet as a nation!!!
Besides for me economics is not the reason for independence, the self-determination ofthe Scottish people is.
The only reason it keeps coming up is because it is the first roadblock put in the people's minds. I can't believe that anyone who sits down and thinks about for more than a minute would still believe that a well educated western democracy of our size would fail as a state!!!
It's almost as though people want you to be afraid of being an independent nation.
Complain about this comment
Online Ed Here
Excellent stuff from Salmond in his web chat with Brian Taylor. I particularly like the way he turned the tables on Taylor with respect to the BBC's behaviour over the leaders debate - SKY have at least contacted the Scottish Government but not so the state broadcaster, Taylor had to sheepishly sit and take it - the look on Salmond's face was enough for Taylor.
That's what happens when these BBC Scotland journalists are confronted, they are unable to answer very real justifiable criticism. Anyone notice Taylor making the point that the overwhelming quaetions to Salmond on the leaders debate were against the SNP stance?
Well Brian, of course they were, why would someone who supported the SNP stance question Salmond on it. However imagine had it been the BBC who was fielding this question, you better believe that there would have been tens of thousands of such questions aimed at the BBC.
There is a massive majority in favour of the SNP leader taking part in this debate - the Newsnet Scotland poll [open to anyone] showed those in favour outnumbered those against by 10 to 1, with over 600 people taking part.
I think todays headlines can be paraphrased as 'Salmond blasts BBC'.
Complain about this comment
#113 U14094468/Online Ed
"Good to see the BBC now reduced to low brow stunts though, it indicates the very real concern that exists within the Unionist establishment."
IMO, calling it a low brow stunt is to credit it with a grandeur it doesn't deserve. Anyone with half a brain cell could surely see that all of the train sequences were staged and the "next stop" was to Andy Smillie, the founder of A. S. Scaffolding Ltd in Glenpark Street.
Their website - http://www.as-scaffolding.co.uk/ - shows you that the nearest subway station is Buchanan Street, which ViaMichelin reckon as a 3 Km journey on foot, for which you should allow 45 minutes. Perhaps he supplies BBC Scotland's outside broadcast needs.
I think we should be told, but I doubt that we will be.
Complain about this comment
#118 mrbfaethedee
"The self determination of the Scottish people"
Jeez! Mr Button, so we can all shout we skint and have a handful of plumbs?.Man cant live on determination alone Zipper!.
Complain about this comment
Hmm. I'm doing well this week. Been posting here for, oh, about two years now and have managed to be Modded Off for "Breach of the House Rules" twice in two days. Taking my total Modding off to Three in Two years.
Once more, I cordially invite the Moderators to explain their decision to my e-mail address.
The post answered the question posed by Ryogahibiki over what the last election was where if Scotland voted against the winner. I had suggested '79 and had explained my workings.
Maybe my ultra-cybernatical paranoia is getting the better of me but twice in two days ? Time possibly for a regeneration ?
Complain about this comment
121. giggletheloneranger
"Jeez! Mr Button, so we can all shout we skint and have a handful of plumbs?.Man cant live on determination alone Zipper!."
Even lower quality gibberish than usual giggletheslackjawedyokel !!!
Keep it coming, I'm sure the people reading this blog are being swayed by your incisive political and social analysis as we speak ;)
Complain about this comment
#123mrb
Hey you missed the double zz'
And your in control?. pa!
Complain about this comment
giggle's medication is kicking in strong tonight. I'm torn over this, I was formerly of the opinion that giggles and derekbarker were NOT the same person, however we never see them together. A few weeks back we saw a calmer, more reflective derek- disappeared for a while and this manic giggles persona showed up.
Then Derek posts somewhat despairingly a few days ago then nothing.... Meanwhile giggles is back, making less sense than ever.
I'm for refusing to respond to giggles directly but reporting every single one of his abusive or senseless posts. Meanwhile I hope the real Derek reappears and giggles gets the help he needs. Perhaps someone with more psychiatric training than myself can make some sense of this?...
Dean? I dunno, I think he needs to go out and get laid.....
Meanwhile, back on topic, I thought Alex was superb talking to Brian this afternoon and simply masterful in disposing of the harridan on the Politics Show.
If he carries on like this I may vote SNP next time.
Complain about this comment
#125
Furry....Are you trying too offer me something?.
"Meanwhile, back on topic, I thought Alex was superb talking to Brian this afternoon and simply masterful in disposing of the harridan on the Politics Show.
If he carries on like this I may vote SNP next time."
Well! I just may refer to you as Mr R-Slicker now! wow! the toryness just jumps out of you Sgt.
Complain about this comment
Alex on the same biased show last year... brilliant *:o)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ifseg7LpWY
Complain about this comment
Brownedov
I am absolutely shocked that they went to interview this guy. Why? Incidently his scaffolding site hs regularly for donkeys years flew Loyalist and orange flags as well as the butchers apron backing onto Duke St next to the Louden tavern of all places.
The significance of why they would choose this individual, so out of the way and considering his obvious unionist associations cannot be understated.
Complain about this comment
121. giggletheloneranger
"Man cant live on determination alone"
It was self-determination, and if you'd read and comprehended the post, you'd know I didn't claim to base our survival on self-determination.
We'll survive very easily as an independent nation in full control of her own resources, foremost of which is the skill, strength and smarts of her people.
You're too afraid, how sad!
You giggle like a clown smiles.
Tragic.
Complain about this comment
126. giggletheloneranger
"Well! I just may refer to you as Mr R-Slicker now! wow! the toryness just jumps out of you Sgt."
Terrific contributions.
Where do you get them?
Are you going to post this rubbish for long.
Try harder, i'm sure you've something to say.
Complain about this comment
125. Sgt_Furry
"Meanwhile, back on topic, I thought Alex was superb talking to Brian this afternoon and simply masterful in disposing of the harridan on the Politics Show."
Yeah, I thought he was pretty good on both too. The webchat with Brian Taylor was the most effective, thanks to its range of topics.
He was on C4 news too, quite short though - just enough to get the talking points across.
Complain about this comment
#129 mrbeef
( parlez vous francais) Pierrot? smile!
You make me feel like laughing' going too laugh the night away.(leo)
Complain about this comment
132. giggletheloneranger
Cheesey pop references aside, still got nothin' to say eh?
I'll try and help get you started. Remember back at 121 when you came close to saying something -
"we can all shout we skint and have a handful of plumbs?"
We won't need to shout on anyone for plums or pocketmoney, we'll cut our cloth to suit our needs. Your union would continue to maintain its self-delusion of imperial power by writing cheques it can't honour.
Sound about right gigglestheloanarranger?
Complain about this comment
#133mrbitter
Taylors and determination still wont be enough to cut the need of some 6 million people, your plumbum lead is not weighted enough, you offer no real progressive motion to improve the Scottish peoples lot, other than borders and weak government.
How much would an Independent Scottish government raise to govern with?.
now! that should give you a thinking start?.
Complain about this comment
134. giggletheloneranger
All parties would be Scottish parties.
What could be more progressive for Scottish policies than being an independent nation, which means that all parties policies would by definition always be aligned with Scotland's interests, rather than in only in our intertests when that that fits with UK policy.
The same is true of our economy - we support the industries that it is best to support for our own sake, not just where they can be accomodated without upseting the industrial and economic gearing of the UK.
Scotland would raise at least what it raises now, i'm not sure why you imply it would be anything different.
There you go, in good faith I've answered your questions, despite the fact that you still can't bring yourself to give a postive pitch for staying in this union. Will give a real pitch now?
Complain about this comment
#135mrb
" Scotland would raise at least what it raises now, I'm not sure why you imply it would be anything different"
You make my case! why have Independence, when Independence means no change. Take the EU debate at the SNP conference today, some want to go straight into the Euro, while others want to go in when the time and condition are right,the exact same policy as the now UK government.
Why?????
Complain about this comment
#128 ruarithered
It wouldn't surprise me. Google the man's name and you'll find references to his company on Rangers supporters' sites.
Complain about this comment
136. giggletheloneranger
"You make my case! why have Independence, when Independence means no change. "
Only if you ignore the rest of my post.
Assume we start from a position of raising what we currently do, that puts us in a position to spend it how we see fit. Not Westminster. We spend to improve the lot of the Scottish people in the way we think best, not to improve the lot of the UK which can quite easily not be best for Scotland. So even if we start by raising the same amount of money as present, self-determination still allows us to use it as we think best.
Also, you're focusing only on the financial argument. If money's what matters to you, find the richest country you can and move there. As I've said already, i believe the real reason is so that Scotland defines herself, and how she interacts with the rest of the world positively and proactively. Not as the shadow of a nation in the back-pocket of the UK and its tired dreams of good old Great Britain.
Locally, why should our politcs be defined by the society of our larger neighbour, it wasn't for nothing that many Scots felt cheated by the transformation of Labour to suit the political desires of the English electorate just to win power without principle for Blair, Brown, and Mandelson. Why shouldn't our politics be defined by the concerns of Scotland instead?
Globally, why shouldn't we as the nation of Scotland decide whether or not to go to war, to leave or join organisations, to sit with other nations as peers and collaborate on the problems facing the world?
Complain about this comment
#138mrbfaethedee
I'm just a common man from a common background, my wealth is measured in my children's success at school, my daily feed and my humble home.
I care about my fellow common people and I dont want to see their lot weakened by some false profit promising a land of new milk and honey.
Today there is some form of platform that indeed does need to be uplifted but your plans offer no certainties, today comfort, tomorrow soweto.
A nation once again is only sentimental value, it does carry a load of goods and most Scottish people feel Scottish without the need to have borders.
You dont want to have your society defined by a larger neighbour however your party wants to be defined by a larger union, the EU? is that not a bit contradictory?.
Complain about this comment
9. Neil_Small147
"One question - would the SNP join a coalition?"
No.
Next question.
Complain about this comment
139. giggletheloneranger
"I'm just a common man from a common background, my wealth is measured in my children's success at school, my daily feed and my humble home."
At least we're starting from the same place then. My measures are the same, and we both know we can't secure these things for oursleves but within the context of the state we exist in.
I'm sure you'll already be aware that I'm a believer in the responsibility of the state to look after the people who permit its existence first and foremost (if not, read back through some of my posts or take me at my word). Again, i think our motivations are close.
We begin to differ though when you describe the proposal of independence as the promise of a land of milk and honey - i don't see it. The only time I really see anything like 'we're going to be soooo much better off' is by bloggers and posters and usually in response to 'you'll never manage' from the other side. Playground stuff, i'm sure you'll agree - but the SNP isn't saying it. If asked I'm sure they'd tell you something along the lines of "we'll certainly not be worse off, and we can decide what to do.".
You're right, there is no certainty to it.
There is no certainty in the union either. There is a trend in the union though, and it is a trend away from the belief in society and its well-being as the primary measure of success. Even now, in the aftermath of the 'financial crisis' (i'll forgo any other terms for it in case i take us off track), it's all about the bottom line.
It's not just sentimentality, i've no sentimental attachment to a nation back in history. I'm sincerely all about the future, and what in my own humble opinion i feel is going to be best for me, my family, and fellow scots.
I confess, that i'm not sure what your concerns are about borders. The freedom of travel of UK citizens isn't going to be curtailed in Scotland is it? Europeans will come and go as at present if we go into the EU too. Any other interactions will be exactly as for other independent nations. I'm sorry, you'll have to spell this one out for me I'm afraid.
Regarding europe, even taking your description at face value, we'd be in that position twice over - once for europe and once for the UK. Losing a layer of it would be good. But actually, it's not the same as the way our politics are affected by UK parties. The scottish tories, ld's and labour are not appendages of european parties pursuing european policies - they are uk parties pursuing uk policies, if they don't always suit Scotland tough luck for us. Neither does the EU or any party within it define the SNP. It will of course the SNP must have positions on EU policies - but so do all nations with all the organisations they belong to, the UK does.
For what it's worth, I've got some serious reservations about europe - but they're not the ones you give. So I see no contradiction.
I don't see any chance of us getting a fairer more equitable society under the union, i think our chances are better as an independent nation. I think our ability as individuals to push for change will be more potent, and i think there will be a window of opportunity where some substantial constitutional innovations can be built into our renascent country. I fear that the longer we stay in the union the more our society will become a collection of "i'm alright jack!" individuals - and Scotland will be gone except in name and some constitutiional accidents on the road to our demise.
Complain about this comment
21. gedguy2
"then I can see the big two joining together"
As they have done at Holyrood.
Complain about this comment
139. giggletheloneranger
I'm off to bed now. Thanks for the chat so far, i'll catch any more tomorrow if you posted.
Complain about this comment
22. jimorr19
"Interesting point, but can't see Labour and Tories uniting..."
They have already done so in Scotland. Remember Calman?
Complain about this comment
109. barbarian9
"do you really think Alex Salmond would risk such a strategy?"
I see no evidence of any thinking being involved. Just a bit of rather childish mischief-making.
J don't doubt that the good people of Banff and Buchan would happily return Alex Salmond to Westminster if he chose to stand again. But in order to do so he would have to give up his seat at Holyrood and the position of First Minister. Why would he do that when all the signs are that he will head a majority Scottish government after the election in 2011?
Complain about this comment
Personally, I'd like to see pretty much all of them hung...
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS