A bill, not the bill
And so we have a Bill for an independence referendum. Not THE Bill. Not legislation to go before Parliament. But a Bill.
Opposition parties are tentatively beginning to advance the notion that the delays and discussions surrounding the Bill add up to "another broken promise from the SNP."
They might be wise to pursue an alternative path. As Alex Salmond pointed out at First Minister's Questions, if his rivals would withdraw their opposition, he would introduce a full-blooded Referendum Bill tomorrow.
Still and all, is Alex Salmond playing tactical politics with this issue? Yes of course he is.
The consultation over the new Draft Bill is due to end on April 30.
Opposition leaders
That is conveniently timed to ensure that the process is coterminous with the campaign for the General Election which is expected on May 6.
Mr Salmond is hoping that the issue of independence will thereby form a significant part of that election campaign. His opponents seem reluctant to play.
That was evident at FMQs. Not one of the Opposition party leaders chose to major on the just-published Referendum Bill.
They were intent on signalling that they regard it as an irrelevant distraction. They chose instead to question the FM about knife crime, the number of civil servants and bonuses at Scottish Enterprise.
The referendum finally featured in rather lively exchanges towards the close.
Political debate
So where are we now? We have the draft Bill. It proposes two questions, one on independence, one on extended devolution.
On the latter, there will be consultation as to whether that means Devolution Max or the Calman package.
This draft Bill will be, potentially, a standing sub-text for the next stage of political debate in Scotland.
That sub-text will remain in place - just as the fundamental substructure of Scottish debate is the range of opinions about Scotland's constitutional future. That is and remains the core fault line in Scottish politics.
I suspect, however, that Mr Salmond will be relatively content, having published his Bill, to engage on issues which will be germane at the UK General Election, not least the economy.
He will do so in the context of his perspective about independence.
His rivals will engage in those debates on their own terms, disdaining to accept Mr Salmond's parameters.
Tax powers
Among the many questions posed by the media, self included, today, herewith a few of the more entertaining.
1) How can Labour be so set against a referendum in Scotland - when they back one on Alternative Voting for Westminster and are apparently content to endorse one on enhanced devolution in Wales? Labour's answer - the circumstances are different and the responses tailored to those differing circumstances.
2) Say, following consultation, the "extended powers" option on the ballot paper is Calman. How could Alex Salmond campaign for a Yes/Yes vote, as he promises, when he has described Calman's tax powers as inimical to Scotland's interests?
The SNP's answer - they expect that the option would be Devo Max, not least because the Calman proponents appear averse to submitting their plan to a referendum.
3) The independence proposal on the ballot paper includes Scottish membership of the European Union. How can the SNP guarantee that would be the case when it would be an EU decision? The SNP's answer - they are entitled to describe their vision of independence in a consultative referendum. Scotland would inherit EU membership from its current status within the UK.
For now, though, this is not about the precise referendum questions. That is because this is, presently, about political strategy, not legislation. This is A Bill, not THE Bill.
I'm 
~RS~q~RS~~RS~z~RS~04~RS~)
Comments
Sign in or register to comment.
The Bill.
It really is fascinating to watch the union vote paint itself in to a corner.
Could they ignore the public outcry and win elections....?
Complain about this comment
What will the opposition do?
Given an upcoming UK GE and the draft referendum bill out in the open, Malc in the Burgh has a salient post for Labour.
And their supporters.
Complain about this comment
Repeated from end of previous blog
A wee prediction if you will allow?
If the Liberal (cough!) Democrats (cough!) do not support a referendum (that incidentally would almost certainly deliver their favoured position of Devolution Max) in the run up to the 2011 Scottish Election, they will be wiped out at that election and much of their evaporating support will move towards the SNP.
Win-Win for Alex. He either get LD support or LD votes.
Should be fun watching Tavish try to unravel that little conundrum. Or perhaps, more likely, whoever replaces Tavish after May 2010.
Alex is right - the General Election is critical. A strong, or even respectible SNP showing, coupled with a disappointing result from the LibDems or Labour could change things completely. Even the Tories may move towards a referendum if the parliament is delicately balanced.
Exciting times
Complain about this comment
Fromlast topic:147. mrbfaethedee:
141. enneffess
"Devmax is the way forward."
'That's a fair enough position to take, though not mine.'
Fair enough!
"Some will argue only full independence will secure Scotland's future. if that is the case, then why, despite having an immensely unpopular government are people not out in the streets?"
'We could ask the same for devmax or any other point along the spectrum.'
True, but people do not tend to protest for the status quo.
"Support for the SNP is growing, but this is likely to be mainly down to their governance rather than a desire to split from the UK."
'Your suppostition may or may not be correct, but how much of the snp support do you think would be left if the pro-indepenence snp supporters were removed from the picture?'
Quite a lot at present. A lot of people who I know are intending to vote SNP do not - at present - want independence. But they see a fairly stable and competent government in place in Holyrood. That is something that can be built on.
You could look to other political parties. All start small - some wither, some prosper. The SNP is at a critical stage in its development. How they perform over the next two or three years will - in my opinion - determine the future of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
brian,
as the person who asked the question, are you happy with the answer: " Labour's answer - the circumstances are different and the responses tailored to those differing circumstances"? If I had asked the question, I would be doing a paxman.
Maybe however the answer is contained within that statement:
Circumstances: this is Scotland, that is Wales or the UK
Tailoring: We will do what we want, without need to be consistant, or a requirement to explain why
John
Complain about this comment
Any time Ian Gary opens his mouth on this issue I find myself infuriated at his complete refusal to engage with it or offer anything close to a constructive approach on the issue, incidentally Tavish Scott’s attempts to tackle the issue are little better. Both the Lib dems and Labour support idea of increasing the power of the Scottish Parliament yet refuse to do anything to advance this cause, one which will only become more difficult in the event the GE should return a Tory government. His position on this issue truly defies belief rather than say take the front foot and put forward proposals for say a referendum of how to strengthen the power f Holyrod without putting the issue of independence on the table or ballot, it could gain even more strength if it was done as cross party effort with the Lid Dems, he does... oh why nothing bar make personal dig at the FM, Alex is a bit full of this Ian we get it now something useful. This would take him off the back foot and place the SNP in the position to ever accept his Bill or put them in the uncomfortable position of being the party refusing to allow the people a say on the most important issue facing Scotland. But inside he’s left himself in the near untenable position for Politician in modern Democracy, that being denying the people as say on an issue they desperately want, his stance suggests that he fear the will of people and any politician in this position is living on bored time. Chuck in that lack of a real appetite for independence from the people of Scotland at the moment and his stance is truly mystifying!
Complain about this comment
" The independence proposal on the ballot paper includes Scottish membership of the European Union. How can the SNP guarantee that would be the case when it would be an EU decision? The SNP's answer - they are entitled to describe their vision of independence in a consultative referendum. Scotland would inherit EU membership from its current status within the UK."
Brian, Did you by chance look at the report on Catalunya linked to in one of your previous blogs a couple of days ago. It answered this question in its entirity, and would have saved you from using up one of your questions.
John
Complain about this comment
The world of journalism is certainly a small and weird place. It is evident that the inhabitants evidently believe that they are at the front line of national and international events, and that they are performing a valuable, indeed essential, public service. Hence the self-ascribed virtues of 'professionalism' and 'integrity'. Yet they can write and broadcast material which is utterly misleading, wrong or deliberately mendacious, and only in the occasional case of personal defamation will they be called to account.
Glenn Campbell and the BBC Scotland news team have been given a Royal Television Society award for a 'scoop' concerning the release of al-Megrahi. Coming from such a sonorous-sounding body, you would think it was some sort of sort of prestigious national honour, but it's actually a bit of back-scratching by other journalists. And what was this 'scoop'? Several times during the couple of weeks before the release, Campbell and his colleagues had been suggesting on air that it might occur: was this the 'scoop'? - spreading speculative gossip, rather than declaration with evidence?
The first time Campbell and his colleagues appeared to have any certainty about the release was when it was under way. Then they reacted with tabloid mock outrage, as though it were a great surprise to them, and milked the story for weeks, recycling what was already known, and pretending that answered questions were unanswered. One of the most despicable aspects of their behaviour was the misrepresentation of both Scottish and international opinion: they declared, without evidence, that there was universal anger about the release, but could find nothing like that unanimity at home or abroad: indeed, while they eagerly and repeatedly cited the only dissent they could find overseas - by a tiny minority of US citizens - the greater volume of international support for the release went unreported.
It was, in fact, a rather grubby and self-serving little episode which was no credit to those who perpetrated and participated. But not unusual in the world of journalism.
Complain about this comment
Two blogs in as many days. Pace yourself Brian, we've an election coming, wouldn't want you to burn yourself out!
Relatively balanced piece overall, however......
Why no critique of FMQ's today? Is that because Elmer, Tavish et al had theirs handed to them?
More importantly though, the unionist pact to block a referendum in Scotland while actively supporting similar plans for Wales and a UK-wide plebiscite is completely untenable. This will do the SNP no harm at all in forthcoming elections but yout failure to pursue this "difficult" line of questioning highlights the paucity of journalistic standards (or lack of backbone) at the Beeb and across Scotland.
Complain about this comment
The first to posts have got it right.
It's not about independence, it's about playing games.
Complain about this comment
4. enneffess
"Some will argue only full independence will secure Scotland's future. if that is the case, then why, despite having an immensely unpopular government are people not out in the streets?"
'We could ask the same for devmax or any other point along the spectrum.'
True, but people do not tend to protest for the status quo."
I agree, but that's not what i'm saying.
Devmax, calman, and even a change of govt are all not the status quo - yet you don't insist that they ought to be out in the streets.
Complain about this comment
4. enneffess
"Quite a lot at present. A lot of people who I know are intending to vote SNP do not - at present - want independence. But they see a fairly stable and competent government in place in Holyrood. That is something that can be built on."
I'm not disagreeing that current non-snp supporters might be tempted to vote for them on the basis of witnessing their governance, what I'm suggesting is that the pro-independence vote is the core and majority of the SNP support.
Complain about this comment
AS is becoming one great bore on the devolution topic. Whilst the EU wants to expand to form a larger more influential economic and political body this man wants to shrink into his anti UK (English?)cave, quite remarkable. If he ever does get what he wants then perhaps he will be happy that Scotland becomes a properous small nation like Iceland, LOL.
I've been born and raised in England but regard myself firstly as British, it's a pity that others can't think this way.
Complain about this comment
Brian? Was that you asking a difficult question?
1) How can Labour be so set against a referendum in Scotland - when they back one on Alternative Voting for Westminster and are apparently content to endorse one on enhanced devolution in Wales? Labour's answer - the circumstances are different and the responses tailored to those differing circumstances.
Good question. However, might you follow up on Labour's answer regarding different circumstances, with a supplementary - referencing their previous stance "that they are not against a Scottish Referendum in principle, just not at the current time due to a preferred focus on recession and recovery"?
In Scotland, refusal to consult the people on their constitutional future is apparently a matter of bad timing, at Westminster and in Wales the time is right?
Those certainly seem like different circumstances alright!
Are we not all in the same recession?
Could you ask them to enlarge on "different circumstances" perhaps?
I'm confused.
Complain about this comment
If DevMax is to be the way forward then so be it in that case I still think the SNP could be voted in to run the Scottish Government,many people point out the broken promises but we must take into account they are in a minority and the unionist parties can block anything the SNP bring forward and the animosity shown to the SNP by Labour on all things makes you wonder if they can ever get over the fact they lost the election,the Tories seem to have accepted what has happened and are getting on with it,the Libs well less said about them the better.
Complain about this comment
is this the same alex salmond who said in 1990 "free by 93"?
what is the slogan this time? "in heaven by 2011" "take the delve in 2012"
Complain about this comment
Labour is just point blank opposed to allowing Scotland to advance or grow at all. It's bizarre you have a party campaigning by telling the voter they are too stupid to have more control over there lives. Being anti-Scottish at every opportunity promoting remote control from London. Telling the voter if they have there way we wont be allowed a democratic say on the running of our country. What's even more bizarre is people vote for this! On the subject of bizarre the Labour party propaganda service (BBC region of scotland news service) winning an award! Someone's having a laugh!
Complain about this comment
Why does the editor of the BBC Scotland web page think that a story about snow on the A9 is more important than the referendum plan?
Guess which of the two is at the top of the page?
Complain about this comment
Mr Taylor’s quote:- “Say, following consultation, the “extended powers” option on the ballot paper is Calman”---
I think using the ‘Calman’ word in a referendum would be a mistake.
In the event, I expect Labour will disingenuously campaign full square behind Calman, - but I imagine they will not tell the public that if in power at Westminster, they are intending to implement a ‘variation’ of Calman, which is in their White Paper ‘Scotland’s Future in the United Kingdom’. -- ie. Re: borrowing- New capital borrowing for the Scottish Government would be introduced to allow more public investment in the Scottish economy…… but hey ho,…. if we dared to use this borrowing power – QUOTE- “ It would be self-financed, by increasing revenue from taxation in Scotland ‘above’ the level of the rest of the UK.”
Also, if we are hit by a recession, Scotland would struggle due to her dearth of fiscal powers.
The fog has already started to descend. Hamish MacDonnell at Calmerc has an article stating- “Labour has backed the Calman proposals but does not want a referendum”.-
This is not strictly true- Labour supports and will implement THEIR version of Calman, which is frankly not the same as the original Calman proposals. (The public should be made aware of this).
The bottom line is, if labour remains in power at Westminster, and Calman is the preferred choice of the Scottish people- what would we get?
Complain about this comment
11. mrbfaethedee:
The problem the SNP have is that they are still viewed by some as a party that wants independence and nothing else. That is the way the media presents them. But the SNP are also failing to promote the alternatives properly.
Similarly, Labour have a problem in that the leading "personalities" are pretty much unknown. I'd say it is a fair bet that most people have no idea who Jim Murphy is or what he does, and the same applies to Ian Gray.
Complain about this comment
#13 David
The SNP are pro-EU, so I don't get what your point is?
And the whole 'anglophobic' lark is really getting old. There are English SNP MSPs, and the party has always stated that an independent Scotland would be on friendly neighbour terms with England.
Oh and forgive me for not pledging allegiance to the flag that my ancestors were slaughtered under. The decline in the British identity is certainly not a 'pity'.
Complain about this comment
Salmond Has Raised The Banner!
So, escaping from 'Bankrupt Britain' is now a top priority. Salmond has grabbed the agenda and the timing is perfect. Scots must stop thinking about Tory v Labour and start thinking about 'bankrupt Britain' versus independence.
Complain about this comment
Labour's claim that a referendum shouldn't be held because of the recession is the mentality of a military junta making vague promises about a return to democracy when circumstances are right.And of course the circumstances are never right year after year.Politicians in a democracy have no right to veto a referendum when it is clearly wanted by the majority.It is the right of the people to decide in a vote if they want independence,if they don't want independence or if they think independence is a good idea but now is not the time.That decision is the Scottish peoples' right and thieving politicians or for that matter honest politicians have no justification in preventing the democratic process from taking place.
Complain about this comment
BBC Source: News Team on “Red Alert” For Election Call
Guido understands that the BBC political teams have been told not to go away over the weekend.
Complain about this comment
Actually Labour could implement Calman immediately. They fact they haven't and have been stalling, clearly indicates they are not interested in implementing any of the Calman proposals. Rather by stalling until after the election they are trying to hoodwink the public by promising something they have no intention of implementing. I think you will find if they won the election it either would be indefinately delayed or they would introduce a considerably watered down package. Considering the Calman proposals are watered down weak proposals this doesn't bear contemplation.
Complain about this comment
As for the statement "Calman is the preferred choice of the Scottish people". What referendum was this decided in? I think devo max at the very least would be the prefered option. But hey lets have a referendum instead of deciding we speak for the entire Scottish electorate.
Complain about this comment
13. David
"it's a pity that others can't think this way.
"
What a parochial attitude that others have to think the same way you think and how interesting that you are convinced that others shouldn't have the right to decide their OWN national status.
However, you don't say in what way becoming independent, yes, like Iceland ( a proud people) and Ireland and Norway and Macedonia and Slovakia and the numerous others who have REGAINED independence in Europe in the last 100 years means "retreating to a cave".
You are a BRITISH nationalist--so you are retreating to a cave? Or only SCOTTISH nationalists are to be so scorned and derided?
I happen to be an AMERICAN nationalist. We had a word or two to say to you British lot a few years ago. I haven't noticed that we've retreated to any cave or demanded for you to come back and run the country for us.
Now mind you, you Brits seem to think you should follow along on our coat tails. Maybe a "broken Britain" is something for Scots to consider. Do they really want to continue in a country that can't think for itself and follows us into Iraq and then into looming bankruptcy?
Something for THEM to decide. Not you. And not me.
Complain about this comment
Some excellent articles online over at The Caledonia Mercury.
Complain about this comment
I'm going to quote Hamish Macdonell (hell just froze over):
"Part of Mr Salmond’s calculation is based on the possibility of a hung parliament. With the Tories needing to beat Labour by 11 percentage points or more to secure an overall majority, that prospect is becoming more likely by the day."
He actually gives a fairly balanced article (in my opinion--others may disagree) over at the Cally. But I mentioned in the last thread that polls are showing more and more likelihood of a hung Parliament.
http://politics.caledonianmercury.com/
Mr. Salmond said (and people decried it as impossible) that a hung parliament was extremely likely and that a strong SNP block at Westminster would put Scotland in a good bargaining position. This is something to give SERIOUS consideration as the British parties try to "squeeze" the SNP in the run-up to an election.
Complain about this comment
#16 kenstor
"is this the same alex salmond who said in 1990 "free by '93"?
Yes it is.The difference being that in 1990 he was the new leader of a party with just 3 MPs and 1 MEP.Now he is FM in a Scottish Parliament.Something you are obviously in denial about still.
Complain about this comment
#13 David wrote:
" I've been born and raised in England but regard myself firstly as British, it's a pity that others can't think this way. "
OK david you have convinced me to be a convert to your way of thinking. You were born in England and regard youeself as British. Congratulations.
Can I now convince you that I was born in Scotland and regard myself as Scottish. It's a shame others can't think this way.
Complain about this comment
13. David
"I've been born and raised in England but regard myself firstly as British, it's a pity that others can't think this way. "
I imagine that you just visited to leave your calling card, but in case you are still around ----
If you want more English people to feel firstly British, then that is entirely a matter for you and them. Why bother telling us?
Complain about this comment
Labour have shown their true colours...they have no intention of seeing Scotland cutting the apron strings with London Government and are quite content to see us not reaching our full potential as a nation.They want us to remain as a drip fed colony of London and in so keeping the Unionist Scottish Labour soul alive. Watching the Labour benches at FMQ's is like feeding time at the zoo but the sad thing is the Beeb never question their integrity.
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, I've wanted your opinion on the most recent UK polls. I'm not in a position to understand how swing is likely to work over there. (I'll ignore the Harris poll since they no longer have a recent polling record in the UK to go by)
YouGov polls consistently give the Tories only a 6 point lead which I understand is very much in hung parliament territory but there is the issue of marginals.
Any comments? Or from the other polling geeks hereabouts? :)
Any thoughts on if a TRUE Scottish poll is likely before the GE?
Complain about this comment
Let me remind you all that I tend to rant when the subject of Iceland comes up and the treacherous treatment the people of Iceland got at the hands of a certain Mr. Gordon Brown.
None of us want to go into that subject, do we? ;)
Complain about this comment
13. David
"I've been born and raised in England but regard myself firstly as British, it's a pity that others can't think this way."
Well! point being I'm alright Jack so don't upset my lifestyle.
We live on a small group of islands all with vastly differing needs and lifestyles, one size doesn't fit all life isn't like that. I've had snow in my garden since 17th December, over a foot in the last 24 hrs, have you.
Its OK you'll be alright without us sponging our pocket money from a corrupt Westminster.
Complain about this comment
Definately off topic.
Best ever Blonde Joke?
A blonde calls her boyfriend and says:
"Please come over here and help me. I have a killer jigsaw puzzle, and I can't figure out how to get started."
Her boyfriend asks:
"What is it supposed to be when it's finished?"
The blonde says:
"According to the picture on the box, it's a rooster."
Her boyfriend decides to go over and help with the puzzle.
She lets him in and shows him where she has the puzzle spread all over
the table.
He studies the pieces for a moment, then looks at the box, then turns to
her and says:
"First of all, no matter what we do, we're not going to be able to
assemble these pieces into anything resembling a rooster."
He takes her hand and says, "Second, I want you to relax. Let's have a
nice cup of tea, and then (he said with a deep sigh) ..........
"Let's put all the Corn Flakes back in the box."
Complain about this comment
One thought - re: the timing of the consultation on the draft referendum bill - had Labour and the Lib Dems not decided to play dirty, by sending Margo's assisted dying Bill to an ad-hoc committe, thus denying (for the time being) the SNP of their convenership of the Referendum Bill Committe - would there have been a consultation?
In other words, has Labour and the Lib Dem's cunning political manouvering (which I'm sure they were all rubbing their hands over, with glee, at the time) blown up, pretty spectaularly in their faces.
Having the Referendum Bill on the front pages - two days (allegedly) before the UK General Election is called - can't have been part of their plan? Can it? Having a consultation on the Referendum Bill running right through their UK Election campaigns can't have been their idea? Could it?
Labour and the Lib Dems played dirty with Margo, they've tried to play dirty with the Scottish Parliament and play dirty with democracy - and it's all blown up, spectacularly, in their faces.
And, the ultimate humiliation, the consultation period might yet prove long enough to see the 'ad-hoc' committe merry-go-round turn far enough to leave the SNP sitting in the convener's seat when the Bill does come to committee.
Failure breeds failure, it seems. Or maybe failure just breeds Labour MSPs
Complain about this comment
this tactic by Alec Salmond over the draft bill looks like the West Lothian question in reverse !
Complain about this comment
37. cynicalHighlander
You mean that Iain Gray is a blond?? =)
(sorry, couldn't resist)
Complain about this comment
evening all, I think using the phrase "the calman proposal's" ensures too much wriggle room for all 3 unionist party's to exploit.
my own preferred option of devolution max or full fiscal autonomy as a step on the road to full Independence is going to be difficult enough to secure with the unionist party's pulling all sorts of "silly stunts" to ensure full fiscal autonomy on there terms is what they try to "gift us"
we are about to reach a very dirty and nasty part of the journey,(ok even more nasty and dirty than it is just now)but it will all be well worth it when we cross the finishing line!
Sid
Complain about this comment
# 37 cynicalHighlander
Rofl
Complain about this comment
Three truly woeful performances right at the end of FMQs from the opposition benches. I think it's fairly safe to be able to say today.....
Taxi for David McLetchie!
Minibus for Pauline McNeill!
And after THE most ridiculous and swiftly rejected point of order EVER raised in the history of the Scottish Parliament -
Fleet of double deckers for Elaine Smith!
Complain about this comment
What do labour want?
Haven't figured this one out, nor what labour stand for these days.
I think we may be deluding ourselves over a hung westminster parliament. English folks will enter the booths on May 06, five more years of brown or five years of some sort of change proposed by tories. English folk have made their mind up about labour.
I assume iain gray will fall after May election, perhaps a new broom may usher in new thinking?
All to play for SNP!
C McK
Complain about this comment
40. JRMacClure
It wasn't till after I posted it that that similarty also came to me.
Complain about this comment
44. Calum McKay
"I assume iain gray will fall after May election, perhaps a new broom may usher in new thinking?
"
Since the "Scottish Labour Party" is run from London, I'm not sure how that new broom would bring in new thinking.
I'm not sure about the hung parliament. Mr. Salmond is a pretty fair hand at politics, I'm told so I don't lightly write off what he says and at the moment UK polling *seems* to indicate he may be correct.
However, it's when people mark their ballot that counts as I'm sure we both realize.
Complain about this comment
#7, John.
The apparent legal situation of both England and Scotlands in regard to the EU is rather different to what is being shown by Westminster. In fact, "The UK of GB & NI", was the result of a legal treaty. Only two countries signed that treaty - Scotland & England. Like any other equal partnership, if one party withdraws, is no longer a United Kingdom. Neither Scotland nor England can thus continue to call itself the UK of GB & NI. As for NI & Wales, when the Treaty of Union was signed, Wales was a principallity of England and the, then,English Parliament already ran Ireland. Thus any treaty or agreement, with either country, signed after the Union of the Parliaments was signed with the UK and not with either Scotland or England alone. These agreements would thus be void.
So let us not assume that, on independence for Scotland, England, Wales and NI would continue as a rump UK.
Complain about this comment
42. gedguy2
Hat tip Daily Referendum
Complain about this comment
34. JRMacClure
"the most recent UK polls."
Frankly, it is very difficult to tell.
Both the YouGov weighted Scottish polls (margin of error c. 4%) and the average of their Scottish sub samples are broadly in agreement - approximately Lab 40% (+4) : SNP 20% (+3) : Con 20% (+4) : LD 12% (-10) (changes since 2005 in brackets). The standard seat calculators would still suggest that to be a largely no change election in Scotland. However, the Andy Cooke seat calculator on PB, and Ladbrokes analysis (for different reasons) suggest that YouGov are over-estimating Labour for a variety of technical reasons. They both estimate the SNP seats as increasing by around 10.
YouGov certainly provide "the narrative" since Murdoch has bought that by paying for daily polling. Are YouGov right? I'll tell you on May 7th! :-)
The main two concerns as to YouGov's methodology relate to
1. their not weighting by likelihood to vote. Someone who expresses a vague support for a political party gets the same weight as someone who is guaranteed to vote
2. their weightings within Scotland are suspect on aspects like newspaper readership and an assumption that there are lots of "shy Tories" who need to be weighted up from their reported base.
None of that would matter if other polls agreed. Ipsos-MORI normally show the SNP as much nearer their 2007 support. Critically they do weight by likelihood to vote, and, as far as I can see have a lower weighting for the "shy Tory" factor.
Harris seems to be a waste of space in UK terms - as they don't reveal their methodology. They seem to use a secret magic formula!
Angus Reid will be interesting when they eventually produce a Scottish poll, as they weight by political ID here separately from the rest of GB, and they have agreed to look at the weighting by newspaper readership in Scotland.
Not much help perhaps, but that's my polling geek opinion!
Complain about this comment
20. enneffess
"The problem the SNP have is that they are still viewed by some as a party that wants independence and nothing else. That is the way the media presents them. But the SNP are also failing to promote the alternatives properly."
I see where you're coming from, but my perception is different. Interestingly, it's different for the very reasons you yourself gave earlier; the SNP are proving themselves, competent, resilient, and balanced in their approach to government while maintaining both idealism and integrity. All that despite the media. So, i think it is becoming less and less the case that people view them as an independence only party.
I'd like to see them promote independence more too, but i'm reigning in my discontent for a while longer as there political strategies have been pretty good thus far; i'll give them the benefit of the doubt just now :)
"Similarly, Labour have a problem in that the leading "personalities" are pretty much unknown. I'd say it is a fair bet that most people have no idea who Jim Murphy is or what he does, and the same applies to Ian Gray."
I was about to say ' long may it continue', but as long as it involves actual scrutiny, i'd like to see that pair exposed to the public more.
Same goes for Goldie; she's a chocolate teapot - put her under pressure and all you get is standard tory talking points with matronly delivery. Tavish Scott; words fail me!
Complain about this comment
41. sid_ts63
"wriggle room for all 3 unionist party's to exploit. "
I disagree. I see an unavoidable trap for them. They see it and are currently try to pretend that it doesn't exist.
On Question 1, they are being given the "choice" between Calman or Devo-Max as the proposal. If they reject Devo-Max (and my guess would be that most Scots would prefer that), then they force the choice as between the timid Calman proposals and full Independence. They can't reject Calman - since they created those proposals themselves, so they would then need to support a 3 question referendum (or throw their toys out of the pram) - Calman : Devo-Max : Independence. Regardless, they are forced into preventing the Scots having any say - even on their own proposals - or putting the constitutional issue back as the core fault line in Scotland. They are like people with a foot on both sides of a growing fissure in a crevasse.
Complain about this comment
#13 David.
The EU is formed by a series of treaties between sovereign states and those sovereign states continue to exist. Your idea that the FM hates England,(UK), is also utter tosh. Your statement that Salmond is withdrawing into his, "anti UK (English?)cave", is also utter tosh. England is not the UK. The Treaty of Union was only signed by Scotland & England, and as equal partners. If we withdraw from the UK then there is no longer a UK and England, complete with her principallity and her taken in war, Ireland, will also thus be NO LONGER part of the UK - or the EU.
Complain about this comment
Anyone who hasn't had their daily dose of misinformed, condescending metropolitan mince could do worse than visit Martin Kettle here. "If the polls are right, for Alex Salmond the party is over"
It's like Paxman, Cameron, and Kelvin Mackenzie rolled into one.
Complain about this comment
#17, Kenstor.
Yes it's the same Salmond and he said it to the same Labour Party who started out as a, "Home Rule for Scotland", party under Ramsey McDonald. Why have we not got home rule after all those UK Labour Governments being in power?
Complain about this comment
50. mrbfaethedee:
I think the independence issue is not of the agenda, until now anyway, because the SNP have been relatively quiet about it. Look at their EU election campaign, and their PP broadcast - not a peep about independence, rather the focus on what they have achieved.
I still do not believe a straight jump for independence will get the votes required in the near future. But an approach via increased powers will.
The Falklands oil drilling might actually be the catalyst for Westminister to relieve the purse strings. I know any income what happen overnight, but if Westminster is suddenly getting an influx of oil from the South Atlantic, Cameron might feel there is little to be gained in controlling the budget. It might actually be acceptable then for the devmax option, as in everything except defence and foreign affairs.
And as far as Argentina is concerned, they can take a running jump. They invaded the Falklands to try and resolve political issues at home, so why should they now reap the benefits.
Complain about this comment
49. oldnat
Further information now available. We now have the Angus Reid Scottish sub sample. While still small (296) and not weighted to the Scottish demographic, because it is politically weighted to Scotland itself, so it is less misleading than most!
Lab 37% (-2) : SNP 25% (+7) : Con 18% (+2) : LD 13% (-10) (changes since 2005 in brackets)
Also - sorry, my comparisons with 2005 in my previous post were wrong!
Should have been
Lab 40% (+1) : SNP 20% (+2) : Con 20% (+4) : LD 12% (-11)
Complain about this comment
The unionist parties have been all over the shop on this, except the Tories who are not interested because they are due a go on the merry go round at Westminster, the Westminster power is of course the political goal the the two parties Labour and Tories, (now indistinguishable in 2010) always put before Scotland's constitutional future economic or cultural interest.
The labour party in particular score many own goals on every subject when it comes to Scotland, they will not get the easy time they enjoy between elections from the media and of course the people with a vote.
How this constant lack of properly debated replies from Labour and the relationship with Scotland, again on any subject, will appeal to anybody is demonstrative of Labour's lack of understanding about how unattractive this knee jerk "opposition for oppositions sake".
The biggest knee jerk of all was the inept Calman Commission, which not only deliberately ignored Independence, but also came out with lame proposals that simply are not attractive to the voters (who would go for the Dev Max option over Calman easily) but was simply an attempt to land Scotland with some Westminster approved light legislation that would be easily watered down later (as Labour have already done) or ignored by the Tories or Labour if either get in at Westminster without being deservedly hung.
This chance of a hung Parliament at Westminster makes it attractive to vote SNP should you have a vote in Scotland, because we would get dev Max at least if plenty of SNP MP's get in at a general election.
There is no chance at all of a reduced labour in the UK even paying the obvious lip service it pays now to the future of Scotland should they either win narrowly or lose the Westminster elections, or if there is a hung Parliament-the SNP will address all these issues.
Labour campaigned on the status quo in their manifesto in the 2007 election that they lost to the SNP; merely having the SNP in Government in Holyrood changed their minds for them, they were dragged kicking and screaming to Calman, but the election of the SNP showed that labour were wrong, a disastrous trait they have enjoyed demonstrating quite often in the last 6 years in Holyrood and in Westminster.
Labour campaigned on the status quo and changed their mind only when the Scottish electorate gave them a message they couldn't ignore.
Their hot and cold attitude to a referendum is self serving politics at their very worst, and again, they claim to know for a fact that Scots wouldn't vote yes to Independence, of course this is the opposite, even if it looks close they will be scared to the death, and the arguments and debates over a referendum would be there and their own vacuous arguments will be easily found wanting under any scrutiny at all, just as the majority of comments above show.
On the referendum, labour are fooling nobody, the Tories are a nice version of Labour until they get the big stick so are confident enough to be dismissive and really unionist Like labour, the liberals have rendered themselves irrelevant and are in serious political danger as the grassroots and many MSP's support Dev Max but are staying silent for reasons that are not worthy of being gagged.
This is a dangerous game for the unionist parties, because being negative doesn't win the people over unless you have talent, and the talented people prefer the easier and more moral option of being positive; hence the real lack of half decent unionist politicians, even those in westminster are amateur night merchants, and come across as the directionless, robotic sound bite merchants that they undoubtedly are.
Complain about this comment
51. oldnat
I agree; calman forces them to play (unless they want to look like idiots), while devmax highlights what a hamstrung offering calman is. At the same time as allowing independence to be proposed to the Scottish people.
:)
All in the runup to GE where the parties are intent on sidelining Scotland's governing party (how disrespectful to the electorate!).
:)
Complain about this comment
55. enneffess
"I think the independence issue is not of the agenda, until now anyway, because the SNP have been relatively quiet about it. Look at their EU election campaign, and their PP broadcast - not a peep about independence, rather the focus on what they have achieved."
As i said, i think (hope) that is a matter of strategy, independence cannot just casually be aired in the media, nor in parliament, whenever the SNP want; the unionists have too much control.
Except where the SNP introduce it formally in parliament. As now.
'Now' being the crucial point; the SNP will be afforded fairer representation in the media during GE campaign time.
As other posters have pointed out, the nature of the consultation put forward makes it difficult for the opposition not to play it.
"I still do not believe a straight jump for independence will get the votes required in the near future. But an approach via increased powers will."
I think devmax would be a great boon to Scotland.
I think it leaves Scotland tied the most unsavoury aspects of the Union (for me) foreign policy and defence (and the associated arms trade).
I think devmax will stall independence for at least a generation.
I think independence would be a greater boon.
I hope that once people are accepting of devmax (while not yet having it), once the remains are pointed out (foreign & defence), the step to independence will seem small to take but fully liberating.
Complain about this comment
55. enneffess
As far as Argentina goes, i couldn't care less.
Let's get completely out of the Union, and let the UK remainder figure out how to grab the oil down there while staying on reasonable terms with one of the 21st century's emerging economic regions.
Complain about this comment
55. enneffess
"The Falklands oil drilling might actually be the catalyst for Westminister to relieve the purse strings."
Argentina is and highly likely to get the backing of other S. American coutries through the UN over their rights making the UK to be the bad ones due to their diminishing standard in the World's eyes, we have no friends to rely on anymore due to the past actions worlwide. Profit before honesty brings the chickens home to roost.
Complain about this comment
56. oldnat
"We now have the Angus Reid Scottish sub sample. While still small (296) and not weighted to the Scottish demographic, because it is politically weighted to Scotland itself, so it is less misleading than most!
Lab 37% (-2) : SNP 25% (+7) : Con 18% (+2) : LD 13% (-10) (changes since 2005 in brackets)"
What would be the margin of error on that? 7%? I do get confused on how that works. :)
Complain about this comment
59. mrbfaethedee
"I hope that once people are accepting of devmax (while not yet having it), once the remains are pointed out (foreign & defence), the step to independence will seem small to take but fully liberating.
"
What I think may make a difference is people coming to the conclusion that independence is something that could actually happen--and that will only be the case when there is a referendum actually scheduled.
I have to ask: how many people say that they wouldn't vote for independence now simply because they don't believe in the possibility or don't believe it is possible "in this generation"?
Complain about this comment
By the way, was anyone else amused, watching the FMQ, by the remarkable lack of comment about any type of "gate"? =)
Complain about this comment
Alex salmond is calling the unionists' bluff. He has produced a draft of a double referendum bill for which they can find no SENSIBLE way of objecting as it allows them to support their own proposals.
They will of course object nonetheless and make fools of themself in the process
And the longer the three main unionist parties cohabit the same political positions the more they become indistinguishable in the eyes of the public
The new political polarisataion of Scotland between nationalists and unionists continues to strengthen.
Complain about this comment
61. cynicalHighlander:
I don't think Argentina would risk an attack on the Falklands again. Remember that during the conflict no formal declaration of war was made by either side, and that the British forces did not attack the mainland.
But it would be nice if people remembered that the Islanders themselves should decide who they wish to be with, and it is certainly not Argentina.
----------------
59. mrbfaethedee:
The problem of getting rid of the arms trade is the massive loss of income. Since the world has yet to grow up, there is a constant demand for arms. And if we do not provide it, someone else will. Sometimes you have to do something unsavoury if you wish to develop your economy.
Would you wish to see Scotland give up its shipbuilding because it was selling warships?
Complain about this comment
64. JRMacClure
"By the way, was anyone else amused, watching the FMQ, by the remarkable lack of comment about any type of "gate"? =)"
They didn't want to bring offence to anyone or have I become unhinged! sorry.
Complain about this comment
Now then! Now then! the proposed draft bill for constitutional change, left open in terms of date but no doubt an issue likely to top the forthcoming general election.
Those crunching TV debates will draw the constitutional question to the front, as the audience demand to know what will MP's do to restore confidence in politicians and reastablish the framework of serving the public and not self service.
Shrewd move indeed!.
Complain about this comment
Unionist Parties run scared yet again: "another broken promise", by whom? Referenda for permanently rigging the election system to ensure a perpetual Lib-Lab Pact: good, referenda giving people a genuine choice on the constitutional future of their country: bad.
What a truly Orwellian world we live in, with Aunty beeb playing the role of Squealer, Skeletor that of Napoleon and Gordon Brown that of Big Brother.
Complain about this comment
62. JRMacClure
"
What would be the margin of error on that?"
My Maths aren't good enough to work it out, but it's not just an arithmetical progression. Anyway, MOE isn't worth bothering about if the sample isn't demographically adjusted.
I'll want to see the next MORI Scottish poll to get a more realistic picture, but I'm increasingly struck by how silly YouGov are being in not using likelihood to vote as a factor in their headline numbers.
In Scotland, we know that the SNP are particularly strong among older voters (we've seen both Tory and Labour UK Governments) and this GB analysis by MORI seems likely to apply to Scotland too
http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2545
It's as simple as older voters, vote more regularly than younger ones. No pollster who fails to take this into account is likely to be accurate in their estimate of voting intention.
Complain about this comment
It is apparent that the Scottish Government is quite capable of maintaining the intensity of the controversy concerning an independence referendum throughout the whole period between now and the election in May 2011. In that period there will be at least one obviously relevant major political development, the UK general election this year, and one obviously major economic development.
Blighty is going to perform an economic miracle with Falklands oil? In that time frame? Ever? For that time frame what is being predicted by those who saw the present recession coming a long way off is extremely serious trouble for the UK, not least because its ridiculously hefty deficit will be greater than Greece's ridiculously hefty deficit this year.
The CDS (Credit Default Swap) speculators who have been targeting Greece are very much expected to target dear old Blighty in a big way after feasting on Portugal and Spain and one or two other states. If the UK triple-A credit rating is lost as a result of this, the cost of servicing Blighty's ginormous public debt goes up, and in consequence of this public spending will have to come down possibly even more than one might imagine.
If the Scottish budget provided by Westminster looks like being slashed, will the independence option be likely to seem more or less attractive, considering the size of the public sector in UK Scotland? As First Minister Salmond noted in an interview in a major financial journal during a recent official visit to France, those who forecast that there would never be a Scottish parliament and that he would never lead an SNP government are the people who are claiming that a majority of the Scottish electorate cannot be induced to vote for independence. They are also for ever telling us that everything in the Blighty garden is lovely.
In reality the W double dip that respected economists such as Drs Roubini and Jorion, among others, have been warning about may just conceivably provide the economic and fiscal environment in which the Scottish constitutional issue will be coming to a head. Far be it from me to make such a prediction or indeed any prediction, but there does seem to be a plague of locusts on the horizon, and it seems to be heading your way. Nighty night.
Complain about this comment
In a democracy the people of Country (Scotland) that is controlled by another country (England), the people should be regularly asked if they still want to be controlled by London England.
This is fair politics and human rights
BEFORE YOU VOTE read the McCRONE REPORT
available at
http://www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
In a democracy the Scottish People should have been consulted on the 1999 order to turn 6,000 miles of Scottish Sea into English Sea. Which was passed in Secret by Henry McLeish (Labour) Donald Dewar (Labour), Tony Blair (Labour)
Now when you play Golf at St Andrews and look 80 miles out to sea you are looking at English Sea ???
BEFORE YOU VOTE read the McCRONE REPORT
available at www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
66. enneffess
"I don't think Argentina would risk an attack on the Falklands again."
They don't have to just by deny access to ports will suffice as the recoverable oil will be bordering on extraction viability without access to friendly neighbouring facilities to keep costs down. I know the UK likes to spend £5 to save a pound to keep face but when one is insolvent whose going to lend us that fiver!
Complain about this comment
66. enneffess
"The problem of getting rid of the arms trade is the massive loss of income. Since the world has yet to grow up, there is a constant demand for arms. And if we do not provide it, someone else will. Sometimes you have to do something unsavoury if you wish to develop your economy."
No, you do not have to do anything of the sort. Phrasing it so merely absolves those who accept it of any guilt they might otherwise feel for doing the 'unsavoury'. It is a tired and lazy cynicism, and it is the very thing that prevents the world from 'growing up'. Let someone else do the dirty deed, we can find life affirming uses for an intelligent, industrial and positive Scotland.
The same argument you use could be applied to anything - 'there's money to be made, and if i don't someone else will, it's the way the world works'.
All it says is that money counts more than anything else. Anything.
I don't share that view of the world, i want to see an independent Scotland leading the way by being bold enough to follow its positive convictions.
"Would you wish to see Scotland give up its shipbuilding because it was selling warships?"
I think that if Scotland had enough warships for its own needs, the with the possible exception of the judicious sale of warships to very close long-term allies, i'd have no problem at all with Scotland trying to find other interests for heavy industry to pursue - wouldn't you?
Complain about this comment
For information on recent Scottish politics from a nationalist point of view visit http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html#Scotlands_marine_boundries
Complain about this comment
The more I consider the SNP direction the cleverer it appears. I have always argued that the doctrine of popular sovereignty enshrined in Scots Law means that the Scottish parliament, as a legitimate elected representation of that sovereignty,has the right to assume all and any powers up to independence on behalf of the people it represents.
This second question seeks to formalise that position and it has to be said that if the Scottish people agree to afford that powewr to its parliament there would be no need in the future for a referendum. Any parliament elected on a manifesto of negotiating independence would be empowered to do so.
Complain about this comment
Scotland can survive on its own.
Over the last three years the Scottish Economy without the £48 Billion Oil and Gas revenues the Scot's donated to London was £2.3 IN SURPLUS
The UK economy with this very generous donation was -£24 Billion IN DEFICT.
www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
49. oldnat
"Angus Reid will be interesting when they eventually produce a Scottish poll, as they weight by political ID here separately from the rest of GB, and they have agreed to look at the weighting by newspaper readership in Scotland.
Not much help perhaps, but that's my polling geek opinion!"
Interesting that AR has agreed to look at weighting by newspaper readership in Scotland. It's always good to hear your opinion.
I simply have no trust in subsamples. They're not meaningless but the margin of error is SO large (and adding them together certainly doesn't reduce that) it makes them next to meaningless.
I do with AR would do a Scottish poll but they have to have a client. These companies don't do it for the fun of it.
Complain about this comment
The problem with the Union's amongst Countries is that they are very costly.
For example it costs every UK citizen (man woman and child) £234 a year to be in the European Union.
However it costs every Scottish citizen (man woman and child) £2300 a year to be in the United Kingdom Union.
For more facts and figures on Scotland's OIL Rich GREEN ENERGY Rich Economy visit www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
I am wondering in a general way about news coverage in Scotland. It has happened in the past that at least one newspaper for a short time supported the SNP. It could happen again.
Sometimes loss of income focuses one's mind wonderfully. I urge anyone who feels that coverage in Scotland is biased to not do anything to feed income to the newspapers there, including page views and purchasing dead-tree copies. If you have influence with companies that advertise with them, express your displeasure (hard when you don't read it but you probably already know). If you yourself advertise with them or use their services in any way, refuse to do so.
Hitting the owners in the pocketbook is the only way to change the situation of news coverage in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
The referendum!
The opposition and the political commentators all say there is very little support for independence. However, the referendum, as we have heard, covers more than the independence question. We have also heard that opinion polls show support for having a referendum at 80%, but this never gets a mention in any debate. Even Alex Salmond is quite coy about using this statistic which, if it is true, kind of undermines the opposition's opposition. Is it a valid statistic?
Complain about this comment
66. enneffess
"The problem of getting rid of the arms trade is the massive loss of income. Since the world has yet to grow up, there is a constant demand for arms. And if we do not provide it, someone else will."
If we dont provide enough nuclear weapons someone else will is that what you are really saying, I hope not. Otherwise as knife crime is on the increases we produce more knives as its good for the economy. Armaments are the problem not the solution except for defence of its citizens to defenend itself.
Complain about this comment
Another problem with Scotland being controlled by another Country is that England does not have the potential to generate GREEN ENERGY.
Therefore the Calman Commission suggest that Scotland should build Nuclear Power Stations, like the eleven nuclear power stations planned for England.
Which is environmentally criminal, when Scotland has the potential to supply a 1/4 of Europe with Green Energy from wind and wave power.
Unfortunately for the citizens of the United Kingdom, London's Unionist
politicians will go to any lengths to put Scotland down and prevent the Scottish people's right to request Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
The STV Politics Now programme last night gave a much more expansive interview with Gordon Brown with his comments on the referendum, compared to the BBC's 2 seconds of, 'no we don't want it'. The answer was the same on STV, but Bernard Ponsonby at least gave Brown a run for his money.
Complain about this comment
If you live near the Gareloch, did you know that the Nuclear submarines based at Faslane have accidentally leaked untreated nuclear waste into the Loch over fourty times now, three of these have been so serious that SEPA have said if Faslane was a nuclear power station it would have been closed down.
However the MOD are outwith the remit of SEPA, the UK Government based in London, England intend to close the English nuclear submarine base in Davenport and move these submarines to HM Naval Base Clyde.
The SNP strongly oppose the nuclear submarine base at Faslane. The unionist opposition parties mention the quarter of million jobs created in Scotland in the last 10 year and promises more new job for Scotland.
Will these be new jobs in Faslane.
Why Scotland does not need jobs in nuclear polution.
http://www.scottishindependenceconvention.com/Myths.asp
The story on Faslanes leaking submarines as reported by Channel 4
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_future.html#Trident
Complain about this comment
Mods
Clearly you change shifts around 11.30 pm, but it would be nice if you stopped blethering about you love lives, and got back to moderating posts!
Complain about this comment
If the Scottish people cannot get their head rounds the fact that if they are 30 of older they have each donated £48,000 to London in Oil and Gas revenues.
They should try and understand that Scottish Oil could last for another 100 years according to oil industry experts. The first oil well in Texas is still producing oil.
The should also know that massive oil fields have been discovered on Rockall.
Rockall is a rocky islet in the north Atlantic Ocean.
The closest land mass lies within 200 nautical miles from the Scottish Islands of North Uist and St Kilda.
As Scotland is the closest Nation with an existing Oil Industry, this could be another Scottish Oil Bonanza.
Therefore an Independent Scotland would have a good claim on this oil.
Unionist politicians are currently trying to lay UK claims on the oil, to once gain by pass the Scottish People of their true Wealth.
SKINT SCOTS STRIKE OIL - SCOTLAND THE ONLY NATION IN THE WORLD TO STRIKE OIL AND GET POORER ?
www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
Scotland the nuclear dustbin for any Countries nuclear waste, including the 250,000 tonnes of low level radioactive waste that was taken from the London Olympic site and dumped in secret in landfill in Falkirk.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_news.asp#2012_London_Olympic_Waste_dumped_in_Scotland
Complain about this comment
Well it's nearly an our and a quarter since the first unmoderated post still pending (#67), so I'm off
:(
Complain about this comment
The Unionst Politicians and Scottish Press have for year deliberately played down the impact Scottish Oil and Gas Revenues could have on Scotland population.
Scottish Oil is worth
£22,831 a minute
£32 million a day
£12 billion a year.
Scotland could build 2 High Schools
16 wind turbines
256 two bedroom houses
300 small hydro stream turbines
(600 would provide 52% of Scotland energy needs)
With a single day's Scottish Oil revenue, if the Scot's did not give it ALL TO LONDON.
BEFORE YOU VOTE read the McCRONE REPORT
http://www.oilofscotland.org/mccrone_oil_reports.html
Complain about this comment
People blame the Scottish Bankers for the credit crunch recession.
If you look closely at the "credit crunch" it was the banks / property industry and the need for politicians to create the illusion of wealth and prosperity.
So if you live in a house with a property value of £250,000 it is actually in an non inflated world only worth £225,000.
So what the World Government's have done is give the banks the £25,000 for what essentially is a worth that only exists on paper, well until they handed out our tax to allow the World continue in this bubble.
In an Independent Scotland, the Scottish Government may have forced the banks to split corporate (gambling banking) from retail banking as Banking is Scotland's biggest industry after Oil and Gas production.
A Scottish government would have more than likely done a check on the stability of one of it's biggest industries. Unlike Westminster who never when the Scottish Banks asked the Bank of England for a Loan before the credit crunch hit.
A large proportion of the Scottish Bank bail out was money that was used to pay back the Bank of England immediately.
www.oilofscotland.org
Helping the Scottish people understand the Scandals, Lies, Secrets and truths behind Scottish Politics and enabling them to fight for the rights of the Scottish people to referendum on Scottish Independence.
Complain about this comment
70. oldnat
"My Maths aren't good enough to work it out, but it's not just an arithmetical progression. Anyway, MOE isn't worth bothering about if the sample isn't demographically adjusted."
I thought that sample was demographically adjusted (by at least some demographics) but I may have misunderstood--highly possible. ;)
The whole MOE thing is so complex I won't touch it except to take people's word.
I have an unpleasant impression that YouGov may have sold its soul to one Rupert Murdoch and they wouldn't be the first. The man is evil incarnate in my opinion. Perhaps I'm being alarmist but I'll take anything they say with at least a touch of skepticism until they're proven innocent which wouldn't be fair in court but we're not.
Complain about this comment
The SNP have done justice to the Scottish People by presenting a Scottish Referendum draft bill to be rolled out at the next general election.
However although the United Kingdom is supposed to be a democracy remember the 1979 devolution referendum.
If you are too young to remember the 40% rule, which had never before and never since been imposed in an election, even one in a third world emerging democracy.
But that says a lot for what Westminster and Conservative Liberal and Labour Unionist politician think about the Scottish people's voting rights.
In the 1979 Devolution Referendum - 52% said YES Westminster said NO!
On the 1st March 1979 the People were asked this question? 'Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect ? '
Scotland voted in favor of devolution by 52% to 48%
However before the election took place SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers, the dead, foreign students who had left the country as No voters.
32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes, only 7.1% short of the 40% of the electorate who had voted.
52% voted Yes 1,230,937
48% voted No 1,113,502
At the time of the referendum there was 62 Scottish MP's, 43 of them voted Yes and 19 voted No.
Had the same conditions been imposed on the 1975 EEC referendum, Scotland would have left the EEC.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html#1979
If you give a monkeys about Scotland, the Queen of Scotland and the Scottish People.
VOTE YES - YES and stop destructive Unionist Politics ruining both Scotland and England prosperity.
Complain about this comment
The SNP have done justice to the Scottish People by presenting a Scottish Referendum draft bill to be rolled out at the next general election.
However although the United Kingdom is supposed to be a democracy remember the 1979 devolution referendum.
If you are too young to remember the 40% rule, which had never before and never since been imposed in an election, even one in a third world emerging democracy.
But that says a lot for what Westminster and Conservative Liberal and Labour Unionist politician think about the Scottish people's voting rights.
In the 1979 Devolution Referendum - 52% said YES Westminster said NO!
On the 1st March 1979 the People were asked this question? 'Do you want the provisions of the Scotland Act 1978 to be put into effect ? '
Scotland voted in favor of devolution by 52% to 48%
However before the election took place SDP, MP George Cunningham had proposed that 40 % of the electorate must vote Yes, thus effectively counting abstainers, the dead, foreign students who had left the country as No voters.
32.9% of the electorate had voted Yes, only 7.1% short of the 40% of the electorate who had voted.
52% voted Yes 1,230,937
48% voted No 1,113,502
At the time of the referendum there was 62 Scottish MP's, 43 of them voted Yes and 19 voted No.
Had the same conditions been imposed on the 1975 EEC referendum, Scotland would have left the EEC.
http://www.oilofscotland.org/scottish_politics.html#1979
If you give a care about Scotland, the Queen of Scotland and the Scottish People.
VOTE YES - YES and stop destructive Unionist Politics ruining both Scotland and England prosperity.
-------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
FOR FULL COVERAGE ON THE SCOTTISH REFERENDUM BILL and a easy to navigate list of its contents.
Visit http://www.oilofscotland.org/scotlands_news.asp
FOLLOW US ON TWITTER - ScottishOil
If you want to download and print posters for you local Scottish Community visit the real flower of Scotland ... www.oilofscotland.org
Complain about this comment
73. Truth Teller
Actually the new demarcation line would be the international demarcation line between Scotland and England - unless Berwick decides to join us, in which case the line moves further south!
Territorial waters are calculated by drawing a line which is equidistant from the nearest part of the relevant coastlines.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
http://www.oilofscotland.org
ARE YOU VOTING FOR
A POLITICIAN WHO
WILL STAND UP FOR
SCOTLAND'S RIGHTS
or
Do you want to
be represented by
a Political Pu**et of
a London based Party
Download this black and white poster, print and put it a toilet wall, a community centre notice board, a School notice board, or laminate it and stick it up a set of traffic lights.
Power to the people of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
95. Truth Teller
IIRC We had to ban you from quirky nats for spamming the site with links to your blog. You now seem to have decided to try the same thing here.
Mods please note.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
Oldnat, I am curious about your reaction to the contention that the voting public likes PMs who are bullies and that pulling a secretary out of chair or throwing a phone at a chauffeur is an indication of having "manhood" in your eyes.
While I doubt you agree with this contention, I am curious to your reaction. As someone who is single and dates occasionally, it makes me think of men who think to impress me by yelling at the hapless waiter.
I am not impressed. But perhaps UK voters think differently.
Thoughts?
Complain about this comment
102. JRMacClure
"Thoughts?"
For a moment, I thought that you thought I was advocating that! Phew!
I can totally understand anger and frustration. We've all felt that.
There does seem to be a problem both North and South of the border here in so many people seeming to think that violence by men against women is acceptable (and, though its seldom spoken of, violence by women against men).
I suppose one of the reasons that I'm a Nat is that I have huge problems with the concept of groups (or individuals) exerting their power and dominance over others. Frequently, in my experience of troubled families during my career, that is an expression of the feelings of inadequacy within the abuser - "I need to be more powerful than somebody else, because I feel so bad about myself".
I'm either an idealist - or a wimp! :-)
Complain about this comment
No, not advocating it at all. I was just struck over at PB at a large number of people who went on about how admirable it was in a Prime Minister to be a bully and that this indicated a sufficiency of testosterone.
I couldn't help but ask (and I VERY rarely post there) how picking on typists (or others who are incapable of defending themselves because of their position) was an indication of manhood. But I do have to wonder if this is the thinking of the typical UK voter.
Are they right that this is how people think, I wonder.
Complain about this comment
103. oldnat
"I suppose one of the reasons that I'm a Nat is that I have huge problems with the concept of groups (or individuals) exerting their power and dominance over others. Frequently, in my experience of troubled families during my career, that is an expression of the feelings of inadequacy within the abuser - "I need to be more powerful than somebody else, because I feel so bad about myself".
I'm either an idealist - or a wimp! :-)"
I agree with you which is why I think that ascribing bullying or abusive behavior to being a strong leader is probably the opposite of the truth. (not saying you may not have your idealistic moments) :-)
Complain about this comment
Hands up those who don’t think that NuLabour are a load of Numpties!
I cannot see any hands, up so it’s unanimous: NuLabour are a load of Numpties!
Complain about this comment
#106 Roll On
With logic like that, you must have been running the '79 Referendum ? :}
Complain about this comment
Newspapers misrepresenting the ‘clarification’ by the Holyrood housekeeping committee on use of parliamentary resources.
“Parliamentary resources must not be used for any significant party political purposes and, to put the matter beyond doubt, this includes party political fund-raising.”
The statement above only adds to the confusion, note the phrase ‘significant party political purposes’, that can cover lunch with any guest or indeed any event at all. Note also that it leaves out lunches held after the fundraising event has taken place elsewhere. I don’t know if this is the extent of the statement but it is anything but clear.
The Herald:
First Minister, Alex Salmond and his deputy Nicola Sturgeon effectively lost their case for hosting lunches at Holyrood as party fund-raisers.
No lunches were hosted at Holyrood as party fundraisers – fundraising lunches were hosted in a Glasgow restaurant.
The Scotsman:
ALEX Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon were wrong to auction lunches at the Holyrood restaurant for party funds, Scottish Parliament authorities suggested last night.
Note that The Scotsman can only suggest that there was wrongdoing, demonstrating that the so called clarification statement has not put the matter beyond doubt.
Interestingly, and not prominently headlined was the fact that Salmond and Sturgeon were cleared this week by the Standards Commissioner of breaching parliamentary rules over fund-raising pledges, in which they would entertain people in return for party donations.
That is very clear and unambiguous – MSP’s can promise to entertain people in return for donations to the party and the context of the decision suggests that they could have entertained people in the Holyrood restaurant.
The statement by the housekeeping committee is being twisted in order to mislead the reader, it applies only to events that take place at that time. The Scotsman may get away with it by using the word ‘suggested’ in their article, sadly Robbie Dinwoodie lets himself down by clearly saying that Salmond and Sturgeon have lost a case that they clearly won.
The PCC will almost certainly not entertain any complaints from any third party, they have begun citing the third party rules as reason not to take action against Scottish newspapers – this despite taking action against the Scotsman after such a third party complaint over the divide by zero nonsense.
Only an official complaint to the PCC by the SNP would force them to look into the matter.
Complain about this comment
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/africa/8537925.stm
So, who do we side with, Switzerland or Lbya?
Complain about this comment
#107 Chiefy1724
I just wanted to see what a NuLabour Numpty felt like!
The 1979 referendum:
Naw, I would have counted abstainers, the dead, foreign students who had left the country as Yes voters.
I would have also overseen the postal voting personally.
Scotland would have been FREE 30 years ago.
Does that sound logic enough? :}
Complain about this comment
I think if the SNP supporters were honest about the nearing election, they would hold their hands up and say they haven't quite delivered on their manifesto pledges.To be honest, it would be easy to convince the public on the door step that the SNP, have broken several promises.
I think Alex Salmond knows this and has shrewdly diverted the Scottish General Election, to the question of constitutional change. Whether the Scottish parliament is an event or a process, is undoubtably a top question,People want to trust their representitives and under this current climate I'm afraid that the majority of the public don't trust their representitives!.
Alex Salmond has played this issue well and 129 MSP's must now search their souls for answer to the future of Scottish politics and probably more importantly the draft bill is not a process for party collective thought but a question of constituency responibility, in short, it now falls on MSP's to consult their constituents as to the future of the Scottish parliament.
Complain about this comment
This comment has been referred for further consideration. Explain
Brian,
I really must protest about the coverage on Nicola Sturgeons statement to parliament about the letter she wrote.
OK, she read out here statement, but why of why where Labour the only ones to get their questions in before the programme cut away to some Westminster business?
Surely in order to get a "balanced" view of the questions and mood in the chamber, then the other opposition parties questions should also be broadcast.
Why is that programme always like that?
They always let Labour get their questions in, but deny this to the other parties in the chamber.
Obvious bias, isn't it.
To be fair, they should really end coverage before Labour get to ask any questions. That would be fair to the other parties.
Complain about this comment
Euro in danger as the Greek crisis deepens and Merkel admits currency is at risk.
Greece's debt crisis has plunged the euro into a ‘difficult situation’, the German Chancellor Angela Merkel admitted last night, prompting fresh fears about the collapse of the single currency.
Complain about this comment
111. kered
"I think Alex Salmond knows this and has shrewdly diverted the Scottish General Election, to the question of constitutional change."
What a silly comment! The Scottish General Election was always going to be about constitutional change. How could it possibly be otherwise when constitutional change, in some form, is part of the platform of every party contesting that election?
Complain about this comment
#111 Kered ..
'I think if the SNP supporters were honest about the nearing election, they would hold their hands up and say they haven't quite delivered on their manifesto pledges.To be honest, it would be easy to convince the public on the door step that the SNP, have broken several promises'
I think that if pro unionist campaigners get to the doors first and use this tactic it would be logical for SNP ones following up to point out that as a minority government a lot of their policies were blocked by the opposition. Of course i would make this point clear if the SNP were at peoples doors first.
Had a thought the other day (no steam didn't come out of my ears) ..why have the Lib Dems abstained a lot lately. Are they not wanting to appear to side with Labour so to keep their identity but also keeping the option open should Labour need a coalition to be in charge again ? Or are they just ditherers who dont know what they want. They should get behind the SNP and work with them big time instead of possibly being wiped out like the tories.
Complain about this comment
I found the New Liberal Party site QI!
This,
"The modern National Liberal Party, like its predecessor, is happy to work in coalition and partnership with other political groups. Unlike however our earlier forebears we have developed a better understanding of the National Liberal ideology and won’t surrender our independence. We call upon all those who recognise the ‘national liberal’ within them to join us in bringing sanity back to British politics."
Would that no make you vote for Tavish the Viking?
Complain about this comment
Wow! In the latest IPSOS-MORI poll, of the 80 Scots polled, only one considered 'nationalism/government control of institutions' a major issue.
And that person didn't even rate it as the top issue.
114. Salmond's Law has struck again. "Whatever Alex Salmond promotes as 'the obvious choice' will quickly be shown as 'the worst choice'."
Not only can he bring down national economies with such comments, he seemingly can also bring down a pan-continental currency!
Independence didn't stand a chance with him promoting it, did it.
Complain about this comment
91. And here with have that old nationalist lie being plugged again.
The SNP themselves have shown this is utter rubbish.
It's strange how nationalists have to rely so heavily on lies to promote independence.
Complain about this comment
116. Scarymannie: "...that as a minority government a lot of their policies were blocked by the opposition."
Wrong. A vast majority of SNP manifesto promises have not even been raised in Parliament. So how could the opposition block them?
The SNP started reneging on their manifesto from their first month in power and you know it. Hoping people have forgotten is insulting to the people of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#115 EH
I wont hold a post to your greeness?.
Most of the general public vote on the economic issue, jobs, employment, transport, schools, hospitals.On the door step, the public want to know who will put more beef on their bones Electric Hermit. In normal election mode! people generally couldn't give a jot about Independence as opposed to putting the daily bread on the table however, this pending election may return a conservative government that sorely abused the Scottish electorate from 1979 too 1997, that and the expenses scandal does mean this election more than any other has a serious constitutional question to answer.
Nothing "Silly" about that EH.
Complain about this comment
I wonder what Brian will discuss in his "big debate " today
will he get round to discussing what everybody else is discussing ?
Sid
Complain about this comment
#118 RE ... would this be the poll of over 1,533 people conducted between Feb 19th and 22nd ? Obvious Scotland doesn't matter to these pollsters if it could only poll 80 !
Complain about this comment
114. Roll_On_2010
Yes, some people are reporting that the big hedge funds have the euro in their sights.
Complain about this comment
In a recent poll of people who have to listen to him, 0 found the lying troll to be interesting.
Complain about this comment
#111 kered
Manifestos are made up of "targets" not "promises".
All sensible people know that they indicate what a political party's aims and what it would like to achieve.
I could fill several pages with the manifesto targets of the present Labour government which have not been fulfilled but I wont because I imagine these will have largely been admirable and well intentioned ideas they meant to try to do but couldn't.
There is of course no mention of these in the press including across the press collusion to ignore the fact that Labour in Scotland had GARL on its 2003 manifesto WITH A SPELT OUT COMMITTMENT TO HAVE IT COMPLETED IN THAT PARLIMENTARY TERM.
As they sent back money to London every year there is no excuse for them on that one (except perhaps it was realised there is no economic case for a vanity project that was probably no more than window dressing on a manifesto to start with)
Complain about this comment
118. Reluctant-Expat
"In the latest IPSOS-MORI poll, of the 80 Scots polled, only one considered 'nationalism/government control of institutions' a major issue. "
Leaving aside the fact that your failure to provide a link to this poll, I will comment only on the remarkable shallowness of you thinking. Were you able to see past the blinkers of your ideological prejudice you might realise that, while the constitutional settlement itself may not be specified as a priority, all the issues that are so specified ultimately depend on the constitutional settlement.
The contempt you show for the people of Scotland by assuming that they share your inability to recognise this simple fact clearly places you in the same camp as the BLP/Tory alliance that so shames our nation.
Complain about this comment
#125 Mrb .. interestingly both RE and Kered have vanished ..could it be that Mr and Mrs Smith have gone out for lunch ?
Complain about this comment
120. Reluctant-Expat
"A vast majority of SNP manifesto promises have not even been raised in Parliament."
List them.
Complain about this comment
121. kered
"Most of the general public vote on the economic issue, jobs, employment, transport, schools, hospitals."
The silliness lies in your inability to recognise that the ability to address these issues stems from the constitutional settlement. You insult the voters of Scotland by your impertinent assumption that they make the same silly error as yourself.
Complain about this comment
126. sneckedagain
"Manifestos are made up of "targets" not "promises"."
A fact so obvious one is moved to wonder what kind of fool would need to have it explained to them.
Complain about this comment
#118 Electric Hermit ... it could be this one
http://uk.news.yahoo.com/22/20100226/tuk-uk-britain-poll-fa6b408.html
Complain about this comment
121. kered
"this pending election may return a conservative government"
Then you must be referring to the UK general election and not the "Scottish General Election" as stated. The fact that you cannot make the distinction would be just one more facet of your silliness.
Complain about this comment
As a matter of interest and following my last post I should point out that I have written to the Herald on several occasions pointing out the that the labour inspired campaign against the SNP Government on the GARL Project is dishonest. On my last but one effort they did me the insult of printing most of my letter but leaving out the main thrust of it. I thn wrote again in the terms I attach below. They still have refused to print the fact that GARL was Labour committment completely ignored when Labour had the power and the funds to do it. Nothing indicates more clearly to me the death of the Herald as a serious newspaper.
Here is what I wrote
I submitted a letter to you last week of which you printed a part. You did in fact remove the main point of it however and I would not like to think that that was done for partisan reasons. The bit you chose to remove was the bit that effectively blows Labour’s GARL project campaign out of the water.
I am sending that part again.
17th Feb 2010
The editor
Sir
The serious question about the cancelled GARL project is not being asked.
This is - why the Labour Party, who conceived of the project in 2002 and put it on their manifesto, didn’t lift a brick, lift a shovel or lay a foot of line on it over a period of nearly five years in power during which they regularly sent “surplus” money from the Scottish budget back to London.
Was it quietly dropped perhaps because there was no sensible economic case for it then?
There is most certainly no sensible economic case for it now.
Go on, Herald. Ask the right question.
Complain about this comment
oldnat:
I believe that there is a message for you.
Complain about this comment
#126 Sneckedagain
So why has the SNP failed to win the last two MP elections and why are they polling less support now than they were in 2007?.
A fairer comment might have read!. All sensible people know that the SNP's support has deminished.
Sneckedagain! try not to go straight into attack mode, my post was a valid point.
Complain about this comment
Leave RE alone and allow him to continue his ridiculous posts.
It gives us decent practice in rebutting the banalities which the unionists are reduced to deploying in targetting their support base which is becoming more and more exclusively of the numpty nation variety.
Complain about this comment
125. At 11:47am on 26 Feb 2010, mrbfaethedee wrote:
"In a recent poll of people who have to listen to him, 0 found the lying troll to be interesting."
Ooh, nasty!
Complain about this comment
128. At 12:08pm on 26 Feb 2010, Scarymannie wrote:
#125 Mrb .. interestingly both RE and Kered have vanished ..could it be that Mr and Mrs Smith have gone out for lunch ?
Scarymannie! Monster Inc with a rather loony post.
HairyF you gone tits up!.
Complain about this comment
132. Scarymannie
No point in even looking at it. Even if the question asked was such as might elicit a meaningful response, the sample size would be far too small to be useful.
Complain about this comment
Despite all the passion which such "blogs" precipitate there are still two facts that those wishing "full independence" seem to fail to grasp.
These seem to be the SNP's Inconvenient Truths.
Firstly the comments about the European dimension are problematic. If Scotland were to leave the UK, even with full proper democratic process it would be interpreted as leaving the EU as the UK is the member state. We would be OUT! The position would then be that we would have to re-negotiate entry in exactly the same way as the current small Eastern European states are having to do. To think that we'd get a nod and a wink is fool hardy. Mind you we'd get to sit next to Saudi Arabia at the UN, between them and Senegal because we'd be off of the permenent council
Secondly, I have NEVER heard Mr Salmond comment on this, and I'd be happy to hear! The Union cannot be dissolved unless BOTH Scotland and England have a vote on this. This is why Westminster will always have the upper hand. This, I believe, is in the Articles of Union. (If that's not the case then I'd like to be corrected.)
Any action to unilaterally withdraw from the UK would be seen by Westminster (and Brussels with all the European issues) as a breach of this act which was signed by both Scottish and English Parliaments.
The "New UK" would need to change it's name to "England and Northern Ireland" because there are actually only two kingdoms in the UK (Scotland and England), poor old Wales, being a principality wouldn't even get a mention however I digress, You can bet (because you won't be able to spend it) your last newly printed Scot-Euro that E+NI would block our entry into Europe because of the breach of the Act and it probably would be perfectly legal to do so.
Whether this is right or wrong, moral or not if the SNP insists on a unilateral referendum this will be what happens.
Complain about this comment
#133 Hermit
Hermit you've been isolated for too long a period! if only you could catch a fleeting glimpse of reality! your head might swell like a balloon, as sense inflate you.
Stop being impertinent and come out of that bunker.
Complain about this comment
136. kered
"All sensible people know that the SNP's support has deminished."
How many do you know? How many of them have you asked?
How many of them crossed the street when they saw you coming?
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
All these points have been addressed comprehensively and repeatedly. You just didn't want to hear.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"If Scotland were to leave the UK, even with full proper democratic process it would be interpreted as leaving the EU as the UK is the member state. We would be OUT!"
Are you a constitutional law expert? By what authority do you make such a pronouncement?
Complain about this comment
#139 Derek
'Scarymannie! Monster Inc with a rather loony post.'
Having been on this blog for a good while, i know you are more than capable of spotting loony posts, being that you have been responsible for writing quite a few ;o)}
Complain about this comment
SNP support is at a considerably higher level than it was in 2007 and has remained there despite a continuous onslaught by all the media.
Despite not winning the last two MP elections (against massive Labour majoritiies) the SNP increased its share of the vote in both of them, very largely so in Glenrothes.
The actual tally of votes cast at all REAL elections in 2009 shows the SNP up 12 points on the year and Labour and the Lib Dems well down.
Only those who swallow the convoluted nonsense printed in such reliable organs as the Express, Mail and Record believe that the SNP is well down though the onslaught I mentioned has had an effect (which is now diminishing again)
These are facts and I don't go into attack mode unless I see nonsense.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"The position would then be that we would have to re-negotiate entry in exactly the same way as the current small Eastern European states are having to do."
Even if Scotland did have to renegotiate membership - which is not nearly as certain as your imagination tells you - it is a logical nonsense to suggest that a nation which has already been part of the EU for decades would be in the same position as a state newly applying for accession.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"The Union cannot be dissolved unless BOTH Scotland and England have a vote on this. "
Quite simply, wrong.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"You can bet (because you won't be able to spend it) your last newly printed Scot-Euro that E+NI would block our entry into Europe..."
Even if they could, why would they?
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"because of the breach of the Act"
Assuming you mean the Act of Union, negotiated secession is not a "breach".
You quite evidently do not know what you are talking about.
Complain about this comment
#134 sneckedagain,
Can you clarify something for me.
Are you saying that Labour did nothing at all on GARL during their 2003-07 term in office?
Complain about this comment
By McGribbons! Electric Hermit has tripped the board fantastic!.
Lets hope he has something constructive to offer?.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
"...if the SNP insists on a unilateral referendum this will be what happens."
What is a "unilateral referendum"? A referendum held in the place where the referendum is held?
It is not the SNP which will decide on a referendum, it is the Scottish Parliament. The democratically elected representatives the Scottish people.
Complain about this comment
#141
AS HAS BEEN EXPLAINED AT LENGTH AND ON MANY OCCASIONS IF SCOTLAND WAS TO LEAVE THE UK THE TWO PARTS OF THE UK WOULD AUTOMATICALLY INHERIT THE TREATY OBLIGATIONS OF THE PREVIOUS UK STATE. THAT INCLUDES MEMBERSHIP OF THE EU. THERE IS NO MECHANISM TO REMOVE MEMBER STATES OR PARTS OF MEMBERS STATES FROM THE EU. THIS IS ONLY DONE BY NEGOTIATION.
THIS IS THE CONFIRMED EU POSITION THOUGH UNIONISTS LIKE TO SLYLY IMPLY SOMETHING DIFFERENT. THEY CAN NEVER BACK ANYTHING UP WHEN ASKED TO DO SO.
I DIDN'T READ ANY MORE OF A POST WHICH STARTS SO STUPIDLY.
I AM NOT SHOUTING. AS A ONE FINGER TYPIST I DIDN'T NOTICE THIS POST WAS IN UPPERCASE TILL I HAD NEARLY FINISHED IT
Complain about this comment
142. kered
I completely understand why you are so embarrassed. I would be too, if I was unable to tell the difference between a UK and a Scottish election. But then, I would surely have sense enough not to put such ignorance on public display.
Complain about this comment
128. Scarymannie
"#125 Mrb .. interestingly both RE and Kered have vanished ..could it be that Mr and Mrs Smith have gone out for lunch"
:)
I'm pretty sure that should read 'out to lunch'
Complain about this comment
#141
Absolute rubbish
first, Scotland would not leave the UK, The UK would be dissolved. The two constituant parts would inherit the treaties and obligations of the former whole. This has all been explained many times.
second, in Scotland, unlike England, the people are sovereign, so if they decided to change their parliment, then they could, and no foreign power would be able to intervene.
John
Complain about this comment
Ah dearie me, isn't it funny when you get pompous pronouncements on the Union from the clueless.
Scotland cannot secede or otherwise break away from the United Kingdom. As has been pointed out many times, if Scotland declares itself independent the union will be dissolved - simple as that.
There will be no "rump" United Kingdom to break away from. Either Scotland will automatically remain a member of the EU, having inherited that status along with all the other international treaty obligations which it was signed up to as part of the former United Kingdom - or else both Scotland and the newly independent England will both require to re-apply.
If the latter turns out to be the case, which application will be the more popular?
Complain about this comment
#156
LoL! hysterical bolts of laughter.
Your in danger of repeating the conservative line that the SNP has nothing to offer this 'pending' election.
Is it a case of 20 seats? to no seats EH......careful!.
Complain about this comment
Lunching on to MrB's posts, I have to say MrB has been putting some good posts out on the qurikynats site........Food for thought!.
Complain about this comment
And that's you told #141 :-)
Complain about this comment
There is a philosophical question arising out of a throwaway remark I made in an earlier post.
For good or ill we talk of Scottish independence. If we were, as #141 put it, to secede from a larger country then we would indeed be declaring our independence.
In reality, as Scots we belong not to a province or a region, but to a discrete country which is currently joined by a Treaty of Union with a neighbouring one. If that union is then dissolved, whether unilaterally or by mutual consent, then the present binary state will cease to exist.
Therefore I’m not sure that independence is the right term to use in regard to the two successor states. Scotland is not now nor ever has been a part of England and therefore cannot become independent of it, any more than England could be said to become independent of Scotland in the event of a dissolution.
So how therefore do we describe the parting of the two kingdoms?
Complain about this comment
160. kered
"...this 'pending' election."
Have you yet grasped that this will be a UK general election and not a "Scottish General Election" as you earlier stated? The next Scottish Parliament election will be held on Thursday 5 May 2011 - a full year after the "pending" UK general election.
Glad to help.
Complain about this comment
160. kered
"Your in danger of repeating the conservative line that the SNP has nothing to offer this 'pending' election."
I am happy to leave the parroting of Tory/BLP lies to drones such as yourself.
Complain about this comment
#160 kered
and you appear to be in the same danger of making sense...
John
Complain about this comment
158. John: "second, in Scotland, unlike England, the people are sovereign"
Please enlighten us on how you came to this bizarre conclusion.
Complain about this comment
#152
That is exactly what I am saying
Complain about this comment
Tea time and my goodness, what a response!
I'm quite happy to accept that my own understanding of such matters may very well be completely stupid, ignorant, wrong and whatever else but I have every right to express my views whether you agree or not.
However one thing's for sure, time will tell....
Complain about this comment
#141 noblewilliamw
I believe that Browndov posed an answer to the point you raise in a previous thread here
Catalonia will remain in the EU if it became independent from Spain.
According to a report, there are "legal and political arguments" that support the concept of the "internal extension" of the Community when territories that are already part of it become independent of their current state.
It also indicates that neither Catalunya and other territories from Spain or other European states such as Scotland (Great Britain) should apply for admission as new members of the EU, they only have to ask for recognition its new status". The report mentioned legal and political arguments applied to interpret the treaties of the European Union, and in this sense, indicates that the international practice shows that in cases of "succession of States", the policy developments set the legal reality and not vice versa.
Complain about this comment
163. Caledonian54
"So how therefore do we describe the parting of the two kingdoms?"
Divorce.
Complain about this comment
163. Caledonian54
"So how therefore do we describe the parting of the two kingdoms?"
Secession from the union seems to describe the process quite adequately.
The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a "binary state". It is a unitary state created, over time and by various instruments, by the union of four distinct entities - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. With the secession of Scotland what would be left would be, subject to the negotiated settlement, the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Great Britain would cease to exist, reverting to the situation which pertained pre-1707.
Of course, the "rump" UK might opt to do away with that designation altogether.
Complain about this comment
#165 Electric Hermit
Phishing Hermit! your a right scammer!.
Complain about this comment
#167 R-E
Your incredulity does you no good with people who would have a reasoned debate. If you had been paying attention you would have known the reason for that statement, and would not have called it bizarre.
John
Complain about this comment
161. kered
"Lunching on to MrB's posts, I have to say MrB has been putting some good posts out on the qurikynats site........Food for thought!."
lol!
Are your lunches normally this long, or just when stretching figures of speech to breaking point? ;)
Hey! - what about my posts here in the communal blether, aren't they any good?
Complain about this comment
167. Reluctant-Expat
"Please enlighten us on how you came to this bizarre conclusion."
Only an imperialist toady would find the concept of popular sovereignty "bizarre".
"We, gathered as the Scottish Constitutional Convention, do hereby acknowledge the sovereign right of the Scottish people to determine the form of Government best suited to their needs, and do hereby declare and pledge that in all our actions and deliberations their interests shall be paramount." - Claim of Right 1988 as signed by the overwhelming majority of Scotland's elected representatives.
And as since reneged on most notably be the treacherous representatives of British Labour Party in Scotland - including the so-called "Father of the Nation", Donald Dewar.
Complain about this comment
169. noblewilliamw
"...but I have every right to express my views whether you agree or not."
Matters of fact are not subject to your "views".
Complain about this comment
#172 Hemit
"Great Britain would cease to exist, reverting to the situation which pertained pre-1707."
Electric old chap! are seriously suggesting Scotland should revert back to 1707.
Lets do the time warp again!.
Complain about this comment
#175
Always happy to read your stuff MrB, even in your second identity?.
Complain about this comment
163. Caledonian54
"So how therefore do we describe the parting of the two kingdoms?"
Overdue.
Just as an aside, couldn't the "rump state" continue to call itself the United Kingdom as there was once upon a time a Kingdom of Ulster ? Isnt England itself an amalgamation of various Kingdoms ? It would make no difference to us in the Scotland what our neighbours called themselves !
What do we call ourselves ? The Kingdom of Scotland ? The Free State of Scotland ?
I personally have a hankering for The Republic of Scotland :}
Complain about this comment
173. kered
Phishing is a criminal offence. I would have ample grounds to refer such a defamatory accusation to the relevant authorities. But I am aware that you are totally ignorant of the meaning of such terms and that you are merely repeating words that you've overheard grown-ups using.
Complain about this comment
179. kered
"Always happy to read your stuff MrB, even in your second identity?. "
Sorry - and i know there's no way I can convince anyone - i only keep one ident on political blogs (i use thelatemrb for a few other things).
i have been tempted but, i can barely keep up with one me posting stuff, and if i had any more time I'd probably blog instead of maintaining a 2nd ident.
I'm genuinely curious who you thought my alt was though.
Complain about this comment
#168 sneckedagain,
Well its no surprise that the Herald ignored your allegation, because it is simply untrue. There was a significant amount of planning & preparation work undertaken during that parliamentary term, including a very extensive consultation process. Whilst not as visible as laying foundations and installing track, it is all essential and unavoidable in terms of getting a large project such as this though Parliament. Parliament approved the bill in late 2006, with an almost unanimous vote if I remember correctly.
Complain about this comment
180. Chiefy1724
"I personally have a hankering for The Republic of Scotland"
You are not alone. Although I prefer to think of it as an aspiration.
Complain about this comment
178. kered
"Electric old chap! are seriously suggesting Scotland should revert back to 1707."
We are talking about constitutional law. Given your proven propensity for making a complete fool of yourself on far less complex matters, perhaps you should be a good little troll and butt out.
Complain about this comment
#180
Chiefy1724
" I personally have a hankering " does it require medical attention?.
Complain about this comment
169. noblewilliamw
I have every right to express my views whether you agree or not.
Of course you do. And other people have the same right to point out that your views are factually incorrect.
If Scotland were to leave the UK, even with full proper democratic process it would be interpreted as leaving the EU as the UK is the member state. We would be OUT!
I posted this info some months ago, but cannae find it now, so here we go again...
International law regarding successor states and the creation of new states is highly complex, and it is very much in the interests of the Unionist parties to spread misconceptions.
As I understand it, essentially two categories of new state are recognised in international law. The first category consists of new states which were colonial territories. These new states are not regarded as successor states of the former colonial power, and do not inherit treaty obligations entered into by the colonial power. A colony of the UK which gains independence does not automatically inherit EU membership or membership of any other international body to which the UK belongs. So what you say would only be true if Scotland were a colony of the UK.
The second category consists of new states which result from the breaking up of an existing state. Examples include the break up of Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia or the USSR. The dissolution of the UK would also fall into this category. All the new states are regarded as equal successor states under international law, and all equally inherit the treaty obligations of the former state unless one or more of the new states decides to acknowledge another of the new states as the successor state. This is what happened with the USSR's seat on the UN Security Council, for this purpose the other ex-Soviet states agreed to recognise Russia as successor state to the USSR. England-Wales-NI would only be regarded as the successor state to the UK under international law if Scotland agreed to recognise it as such, so England-Wales-NI would only retain the UK seat on the UN Security Council if Scotland agreed. The break up of the USSR set a clear legal precedent.
From the point of view of successor states to the UK within the EU, the other member states of any international body can insist that the new states renegotiate the terms of their membership of the international body. This applies as much to England-Wales-NI as it does to Scotland. In other words it's up to the French, Germans et al. to decide whether or not they're prepared to allow England-Wales-NI to remain a part of the EU with all the existing UK opt-outs and those special provisions which annoy our EU partners so much. This hands the Scottish delegation a huge pile of bargaining chips on a silver platter. And the Scots can refuse to recognise England-Wales-NI as the legal successor state to the UK, so if one new state which resulted from the break up of the UK is to be expelled from the EU, then the other new state would have to be expelled too.
The Union cannot be dissolved unless BOTH Scotland and England have a vote on this.
That's not true either. In fact strictly speaking the Union can be legally dissolved without either the Scottish people or the English people being consulted. (Not that I'm suggesting that's a good idea.) All it takes is an Act of Parliament.
Complain about this comment
#185 EH
Propensity!. LoL! your consistently squelching it out now Hermit.
Constitutional law! decreed by sovereignty and the crown or a dozen and a few more wealthy men in a cellar.
I think you could be tempted by the lure of gold. What say thee! EH?.
Complain about this comment
167. Reluctant-Expat
"158. John: "second, in Scotland, unlike England, the people are sovereign"
Please enlighten us on how you came to this bizarre conclusion."
Why am I hardly surprised that RE is unaware of the sovereignty of the people in Scotland and objects. Not to mention going back and forth between his various identities no doubt makes him a bit dizzy. Perhaps he needs some anti-nausea meds from the spinning between here and blogs where he turns his coat. :)
The people of Scotland have ALWAYS been the sovereign power in Scotland. Thus, IF the people of Scotland express the will to leave the union, that is the end of the matter.
Complain about this comment
BBC Scotland:
“Glasgow's Evening Times was one of the biggest fallers among Scotland's local newspapers last year, as all but three saw circulation decline.
Industry figures show the Glasgow title's average daily sale fall by more than 13%, ending the year below 60,000.
The Evening Times, sister paper of The Herald, was also the fastest faller among evening papers in 2008, down by 8%.
The Herald fell 9% to less than 57,000 while The Scotsman fell 7% over the year, to 47,000 average daily sales.
The most recent figures for national newspapers revealed that the Daily Record's circulation in January was down 10% on the previous year, at 332,000. Of them, 14,000 were sold outside Scotland.”
Unless the owners/editors of these papers take remedial action the decline and possible demise of some of these papers seems inevitable. No doubt the advent and growth of online news coupled with the disaffection of a large, and growing, part of their readership has hastened the decline in newspaper sales.
They have addressed the former but alas not the latter.
Complain about this comment
141. noblewilliamw
The withdrawal from the treaty would not, as you seem to think, equal to some kind of act of war which would put Scotland in the status of some kind of outlaw state. While many Englanders would no doubt be in a bit of a snit as people often are in a divorce, practical considerations would be uppermost such as access to Scotland's resources. Not to mention as has been pointed out, Scotland would continue as an EU member. The breakup of states is hardly unusual. Many nations in Europe have regained their independence in the last 100 years.
Hysteria and threats over the matter are hardly seemly. If you want some information on the legal status of states newly regaining their independence, here is an article with links to a study on the topic:
http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/catalonia_will_remain_in_the_eu_if_it_became_independent_from_spain/2102100725am
To quote a salient point: It also indicates that neither Catalunya and other territories from Spain or other European states such as Scotland (Great Britain) should apply for admission as new members of the EU, they only have to ask for recognition its new status". The report mentioned legal and political arguments applied to interpret the treaties of the European Union, and in this sense, indicates that the international practice shows that in cases of "succession of States", the policy developments set the legal reality and not vice versa.
Complain about this comment
179. kered
"#175
Always happy to read your stuff MrB, even in your second identity?. "
I would suggest the phrase "pot meet kettle" except it would be pot meet pot since it is our dear kered/derek/giggler/etc/etc who not only changes his identity but his political stance depending upon which phase of the moon it is and which blog he is on.
Dearie me. How silly.
Complain about this comment
#184
So you suffer from the same condition!. "Hankering"
Entertainment! EH!............LoL!.
Complain about this comment
190. tullibardine
"Unless the owners/editors of these papers take remedial action the decline and possible demise of some of these papers seems inevitable. No doubt the advent and growth of online news coupled with the disaffection of a large, and growing, part of their readership has hastened the decline in newspaper sales.
They have addressed the former but alas not the latter."
But have they SUCCESSFULLY addressed the former? I would say no. Most of their attempts at online content have been rather ham-handed. Only a few newspapers successfully (that is to say profitably) go online. They have difficulty understanding that going online involves more than merely dumping print content onto the internet. It tends to involve community building which certainly The Herald has fought tooth and nail.
I will repeat what I said in an earlier post. If you do not want to see a continuation of their policies, do not give them page views or buy dead-tree copies. I admit this is difficult, but it is the only way to bring home to them the seriousness of their offense against journalism by hitting them the only place their miserable OWNERS care about--the pocketbook.
Complain about this comment
#192
Jeez! MrB-you came out rather fast?.
Far across the deep blue waters 'lies' a Scottish daughter!.
Complain about this comment
I'm suprised individuals ignore the rights of succession states. I would also consider it not in the EU's interest to attempt to remove Scotland from the European Union, if we were removed then current treaties would no longer have effect. In other words many European immigrants would loose their rights, privilages and benefits. Our neighbours would loose access to our seas and the European Union would loose many millions of investment in Scotland, all for what?
It does not hurt to read the international laws regarding this type of change. Especially the rights of succession states.
Complain about this comment
#172 "The United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is not a "binary state". It is a unitary state created, over time and by various instruments, by the union of four distinct entities - England, Wales, Scotland and Northern Ireland. With the secession of Scotland what would be left would be, subject to the negotiated settlement, the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Great Britain would cease to exist, reverting to the situation which pertained pre-1707."
I beg (respectfully) to differ; the United Kingdom was created by a treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England. Ireland and Wales were not parties to that union in their own right and indeed Ireland remained independent until 1803. At that point a further act of Union brought it in, but the subsequent secession of what is now Eire in 1922 effectively took it out again. Ulster is only a dependent province, whilst Wales is likewise a dependent principality; neither of them equate to a kingdom in their own right, as Scotland does.
Therefore by withdrawing from the Union, Scotland would leave not the United Kingdom, as that would no longer exist, but the Kingdom of England and its dependencies standing alone.
That does however beg an interesting supplementary question as to the status of Ulster. Having been colonised at James VI's behest by Scots after 1603 is it really an English dependency or a Scottish one, and do we want it? If not what substantive claim does England have to it?
Complain about this comment
192. JRMacClure
"...it is our dear kered/derek/giggler/etc/etc who not only changes his identity but his political stance depending upon which phase of the moon it is and which blog he is on."
It seems I am due genuine contributors an apology. Not being very adept at keeping track of these clones I have inadvertently been feeding a known troll by responding to "kered".
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
195. kered
"#192
Jeez! MrB-you came out rather fast?.
Far across the deep blue waters 'lies' a Scottish daughter!. "
Again can we say pot and pot meet pot and pot.
He/she/whatever is going to contend that Mr. B and I are the same? That is just TOO funny. =)
Next I'll also be Oldnat for variety.
Complain about this comment
195. kered
"Jeez! MrB-you came out rather fast?.
Far across the deep blue waters 'lies' a Scottish daughter!. "
By the by, where DID you hide giggler? At least that incarnation had a sense of humor sadly lacking in all your others.
Complain about this comment
I'm busy for the day having a project I must finish so I'll leave it to someone else to remind our dear kered/derek/I've-lost-track-of-the-numerous-others that constantly changing IDs and pretending political beliefs on various forums tends to come back to bite one on the arse. Hand him a bandage. He's bleeding. ;-)
Complain about this comment
197. Caledonian54
"Having been colonised at James VI's behest by Scots after 1603 is it really an English dependency or a Scottish one, and do we want it?"
I really do have to go but may I first suggest an answer to that? I would suggest a resounding NO. After all, it was William of Orange who made much of the mare's nest that is the situation in Ireland with help from successive BRITISH governments. Let them sort the thing out.
Bye now until much later.
Complain about this comment
#200 JRMcClure
How Bizarre..........p:(
Complain about this comment
I just have to post this piece from Fraser Nelson in today's Spectator. It's his analysis of the answers Gordon Brown gave in an interview with the Economist. You can sense FN's frustration that our PM is getting away with murder..
"An interview packed with Brownies"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5802438/an-interview-packed-with-brownies.thtml
Complain about this comment
197. Caledonian54
"I beg (respectfully) to differ; the United Kingdom was created by a treaty of Union between the Kingdoms of Scotland and England."
It is the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The "absorption" of Northern Ireland into that union cannot simply be ignored.
"That does however beg an interesting supplementary question as to the status of Ulster. Having been colonised at James VI's behest by Scots after 1603 is it really an English dependency or a Scottish one, and do we want it? If not what substantive claim does England have to it?"
I agree. Which is why I used the phrase "subject to negotiation". The status of successor states and unions is by no means fixed in law. But it seems reasonable to assume that the "rump" UK would seek to assert a right to assume the status of the unitary state which existed prior to Scotland's secession. Therefore, we would have what would effectively be the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland. Although, as I also pointed out, it would not necessarily adopt this designation.
The historical context of Northern Ireland's status that you refer to, while interesting, is unlikely to outweigh subsequent legislation. Unless, of course, the people of Northern Ireland choose differently.
Complain about this comment
#206
More unbridled hankering or should I say havering from the Electric dreamer.
Come on! Hermit, please post some factual stuff.
Complain about this comment
#202 JRMcClure
" I'm busy for the day having a project " my sympathy goes to the project.
Complain about this comment
# 203. At 5:44pm on 26 Feb 2010, JRMacClure wrote:
197. Caledonian54
"Having been colonised at James VI's behest by Scots after 1603 is it really an English dependency or a Scottish one, and do we want it?"
I really do have to go but may I first suggest an answer to that? I would suggest a resounding NO."
Absolutely, but here again I beg to differ with the Electrified Hermit. The Kingdom of Ireland was absorbed into the glorious Union by the Act of 1803. This was effectively dissolved by the creation in 1922 of the Irish Free State/Eire. Ulster however seceded from the Kingdom of Ireland in order to remain a dependent province of the United Kingdom, not a successor state to the Kingdom turned Republic of Ireland.
Now, the point of my supplementary question was that if Scotland has no desire to take it on as a dependency in the event of the dissolution of the United Kingdom, what then. Does it become a dependent province of the Kingdom of England or does it accept the logic of reverting to becoming a part of the former Kingdom of Ireland and is this the real reason why the Orange Order is so frightened on the SNP?
Complain about this comment
205. raisethegame
"I just have to post this piece from Fraser Nelson in today's Spectator. It's his analysis of the answers Gordon Brown gave in an interview with the Economist. You can sense FN's frustration that our PM is getting away with murder..
"An interview packed with Brownies"
http://www.spectator.co.uk/coffeehouse/5802438/an-interview-packed-with-brownies.thtml"
And more Don't be fooled: GDP was actually revised down
Pity we don't have an unbiased public service media to highlight these untruths.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
209. Caledonian54
"Absolutely, but here again I beg to differ with the Electrified Hermit."
Such pointless discourtesy does you no credit. Shame, really! I had previously been prepared to regard you as a serious contributor. But off you go to the troll-basket!
Complain about this comment
#211
Moderated again Hermit! such a shame. El-dor-Phishing.
Complain about this comment
#212 "Such pointless discourtesy does you no credit. Shame, really! I had previously been prepared to regard you as a serious contributor. But off you go to the troll-basket!"
I apologise if I've offended you.
No slight was intended, merely a touch of levity
Complain about this comment
Although I've not blogged on this point yet, for my money this is a slow burning story. As it is intended to be. Despite clear press hostility towards independence - the commentators and reporters suffer from anxieties of the democratic conscience and as such, will likely visit those tensions upon the opposition-parties-in-denial.
In particular, given the pervasive media narrative that if held, such a referendum would generate a Unionist conclusion, the level of referendum avoidance demonstrated by Labour et al seems excessive - suspiciously so. Pestering questions are the inevitable consequence. Equally, Scottish Labour remains hamstrung by their continued allegiance to Wendy's accidental 'bring it on' position that they all so cravenly and unconvincingly acquiesced in. I've been arguing for sometime that their contingent justification for 'no referendum' might have seemed like a blessed relief a few months ago, but has now forged a decidedly uncomfortable chain for them to drag around after them. Particularly since Labour's interests at a UK level and those at a Scottish level diverge. And as we've increasingly, predictably seen, also diverge from the interests of the party in Wales.
A little more discussion of the referendum, in any case, and what Thomas Jefferson might have to say about it here.
Complain about this comment
What most people are missing here is the fact that Scotland and England never became United Kingdoms...It became England and has always been about London, hence the referendum by the SNP. Are you really telling me since 1707 all the wealth has went 50-50 ? The wealth is in London, the business nerve centre is in London,the economy is run from London, Stock market is in London and important political decisions come from London. Was there ever a referendum debating which city should be the capital of the UK? Correct me if I'm wrong but this a united Kingdom by name only.
Complain about this comment
212. EH please haul Caledonian54 out of the basket, he really is no troll!
Complain about this comment
#187 Allele
I'm sorry to say it but I'm afraid you are entirely incorrect in your analysis, particularly with reference to your definition of new states.
You draw several analogies, Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia and the USSR. There is a significant difference between that and the UK, in those situations the 'state' in question ceased to exist upon the breakup, that is not the same as the UK. The United Kingdom as a state has existed in various stages, with countries coming and going at various points. When Ireland left the UK, the UK did not cease to exist. Ireland became a country, but the UK did not change its status as one.
An analogy to think about would be the United States. If Alaska were to vote and decide that they wished to join Canada, would the US need their permission to join the Security Council??? I think not.
I personally don't think any of this has any relevance to the discussion. But with regards to those of you who argue that we are automatically entitled to all of the treaty obligations made by other countries with the UK I'm afraid you are just wrong. That's not to say that, in the case of the EU for example, that the EU won't vote straight away to allow us to join immediately upon seccession from the UK, but it's not an automatic guarantee as some on here regularly post.
Moreover, why is it such a big issue to Nationalists? Surely Independence should be a principled issue, not a matter of trading one boss for another. As I said though, I don't think this is the main issue, it's just annoying to see you misleading people with incorrect facts.
What's frustrating here however is that the SNP have managed to completely misread the public mood in focusing on this issue. We're just coming out of a recession, the rate of joblessness is increasing, we're facing serious cuts in the near future. I'm a recent graduate, one who thankfully has found employment, but many of my compatriots are struggling to find work. Thousands of other young school leavers are facing similar difficulties. Were the SNP to get their referendum, they would spend the months running up to it campaigning for it. This is the single only issue Salmond cares about, he would spend a pretty large amount of his time on the campaign trail. Do we really want him to be spending 3/4 days a week out campaigning for an Independence vote that everyone knows will never come, or do we want him to spend that time working to help us recover from this recession.
As for the apparent dichotomy of Labours support for an AV referendum, I really don't care. It's certainly true that a referendum on AV is not the same as one on independence. An independence referendum has negative short term effects on business confidence in an area, as has been witnessed in Quebec, but moreover involves a far greater degree of activity. An AV referendum is a consultative thing, there would be a discussion amongst the public but a yes vote would not involve any major overhaul of the country. Businesses like stability, this isn't the best time to destroy it.
That said, what exactly is wrong with the Labour party in Scotland having a different position from the part in England? The SNP ranters on here are always complaining about them apparently taking the same position as the national party on everything, is this not exactly what you want?
Complain about this comment
#218 NCA999
Bizarre and totally scary how the pro nationalists seem to think that every one should adhere to the party line!.
Some may accuse oversea's personal of having a chinese syndrome?. They call for freedom, yet, seem to want to constrain the freedom of speech.
There maybe SNP supporters out there, that are against Independence!, should they be removed from the party and the party vote?.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
"That's not to say that, in the case of the EU for example, that the EU won't vote straight away to allow us to join immediately upon seccession from the UK..."
The possibility of and independent Scotland not being granted immediate accession to the EU is so vanishingly remote as to be unworthy of serious consideration.
And you are confused. The discussion was not prompted by someone claiming that there was and "automatic guarantee" of EU membership. On the contrary, it was kicked off by some serious foolishness about Scotland being excluded from the EU.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
"Moreover, why is it such a big issue to Nationalists? Surely Independence should be a principled issue..."
Independence is a "principled issue". That does not prevent people discussion related matters.
Complain about this comment
Oops, it appears that I've jiggered the html codes on my previous post. The links to the predictable Scottish Labour argumentative difficulties on the referendum are to be reached by deleting the final '/' in both addresses. Alternatively, they can be found here, and here.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
"What's frustrating here however is that the SNP have managed to completely misread the public mood in focusing on this issue. We're just coming out of a recession..."
In the five decades that I can recall there has never been a time when we were not either recovering from some economic crisis or facing the imminent prospect of one. Economic instability is inherent in the capitalist system. If we allowed economic instability to deter us, we would never do anything.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
"An independence referendum has negative short term effects on business confidence in an area..."
The people are not subsidiary to private profit, nor in its service. The people are sovereign.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
"As for the apparent dichotomy of Labours support for an AV referendum, I really don't care. It's certainly true that a referendum on AV is not the same as one on independence."
To lock people into a two party dictatorship with AV and you discount its relevance sums up the quality of the other parts of that long winded post.
THE ECONOMISTS' NEW CLOTHES
The 55min video is worth watching as this country is still in recession heading for a depression instigated by both major parties from as far back as the sixties.
Complain about this comment
#218. NCA999
**“I'm a recent graduate, one who thankfully has found employment, but many of my compatriots are struggling to find work.”**
SNAP!- The above was me circa mid 80's. The UK was a basket case economy (like now), we had just discovered oil, and if MANY of us had known then what we have learned since, by living through the Wilson, Callaghan, Thatcher, Blair and Brown years, I expect you and your compatriots would now be in an independent country. Hindsight is a very valuable thing.
Complain about this comment
Alex is very clever man. He publishes a draft bill so that he can keep the drive for independence going. That's what all nationalists want and for idiots like RE to suggest we have given up on that is laughable.
The two ballot papers is masterly. Whilst us mere mortals talk about numerous options on one ballot paper thereby producing results that cannot be clear Alex comes up with the idea of a second ballot - yes or no to independence.
As usual the unionists are on the run. Apparently we are out of the recession so what excuse are they pulling out the hat now? They are on the back foot and will soon fall over.
Freedom
Complain about this comment
The ones who scream and shout against independence the loudest are the ones who don't understand it. With all the negative propaganda over the years from Labour and the Tories have we fallen off the world yet? Is the world not round? Has any country in the world since obtaining independence fallen into the sea and their people also falling clutching their souls in terror? Labour and Conservatives are the same beast.
Complain about this comment
The jist of my point re: EU earlier was just to point out how badly wrong the analysis and facts stated earlier by Allele and many other nationalists on here has been. I don't really know what would happen in the EU if Scotland withdrew from the UK. I doubt it would be as rosy as the SNP pretends (given issues that the Spanish and Belgians would probably have) but at the same time I doubt we would have much difficulty joining in a very short time period. The second point I actually made regarding this was that I really don't care. I just find it a bit annoying that Nationalists are a)claiming facts about things they really don't know, I at least admit that I don't know what would happen, they should do so also and b)have so little confidence in the strength of their argument that they need to incorporate the EU as a protective measure.
Further to this my point about principles is very valid. Look at the nonsense that was just posted by #226 about oil, and the similar tripe that's been spouted by the SNP for years about how oil revenues are a reason for independence.
There are two arguments here.
1) We should become independent because Scotland should be self governing
2) We should become independent because we would be rich from the oil.
Anyone who believes in Independence because of the second reason also believes that Scotland shouldn't be independent if there was no oil. In 20 years time, or whenever the oil runs out (please don't post up correcting me on this I don't care!), will all of the SNP members who claimed this as a reason for voting Independence still support it? I imagine that yes they will, which leads to one conclusion and one conclusion only - that argument number 2 is not an argument of theirs. The SNP use this argument because, knowing that the Scottish people don't want independence per se, they need to try and give other reasons, unrelated to Independence, to buy support. This seems to fly in the face of the principle of sovereignty of the people that they claim is their sole care.
That is why I upsetedly post about principled debates. I equally have similar problems with unionists who talk about Scotland being 'subsidised' by the UK. They are doing exactly the same thing. We all know in reality, even if few would admit it, that there is a grey area in the middle. In all likelihood Scotland is probably a net contributor some years and a net receiver in others. We don't do badly out of the UK, we don't do amazingly either. Money is not a reason for or against Independence. Thankfully the attempts to twist the debate as such seem to be happening less by the Unionist parties (although aren't completely gone) but they are still very prevalent amongst nationalists - even more so amongst a few of the ranters that spam this blog ever day.
Complain about this comment
195. kered
"Jeez! MrB-you came out rather fast?.
Far across the deep blue waters 'lies' a Scottish daughter!. "
So, we come within touching distance of a coherent and mutually informative exchange, then suddenly off you go...
:(
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
I respectfully disagree, and I am sorry that you are frustrated by the truth. Sometimes the truth is uncomfortable.
You are simply incorrect on your main point. The legal entity known as the United Kingdom was created by the Union of 1707. England and its dependencies prior to 1707 was not the United Kingdom. One party to the Union of 1707 was the historical Kingdom of England with the bits it had absorbed (like Wales and Cornwall), the other party was the historical Kingdom of Scotland plus the bits it had absorbed (like Orkney and Shetland). Wales was not defined as being distinct from England, legally it became a part of England with the passing of the Laws in Wales Act of 1535. Wales did not regain its status as a distinct legal entity until the 20th century.
Ireland later joined the Union which was created by Scotland and England. When (part of) Ireland left, the original union which had created the UK remained intact. As a person who is of recent Irish ancestry, I'd be happy with a description of Irish independence as a process of decolonialisation. It therefore comes under the first category of new state mentioned in my previous post - states which are not successor states to the previous colonial administration and which do not automatically inherit the colonial power's treaty obligations. However the main point is that the secession of Ireland did not undo the original Union which had created the United Kingdom in the first place.
The hypothetical secession of a US state does not provide an analogy to Scotland leaving the UK. The USA was not created by the union of one state with another state, it was created by the simultaneous union of 13 states to which further states were later added. Should one state leave the US - even if it's an original founding member - the Union itself remains in place, just with one less member. This is not the case with the United Kingdom, should Scotland leave the United Kingdom, there is by definition no more Union.
Inheriting a set of treaty obligations does not mean that the treaty does not have to be renegotiated. I said as much in my previous post, which I suspect you haven't really read that carefully. I also said that the other parties to the treaty have the right to renegotiate it with the new states. This will apply as much to England-Wales-NI as it does to Scotland - and you can bet your bottom euro that the French and Germans will insist upon renegotiating England's treaty obligations to the EU as much as they'd want to renegotiate Scotland's. It is wrong and highly misleading to suggest, as noblewilliamw did, that England-Wales-NI would automatically inherit EU membership but Scotland would not.
Believe it or not I agree that all this is probably not that important in the cosmic scheme of things. When new states are formed, Realpolitik has more influence than legal precedent - Kosovo illustrates that point. However it is important to counter the postings of people like yourself and noblewilliamw, who assert or imply that Scotland would be cast into the international wilderness should it ever become independent. It's only because this sort of scaremongering goes on that "nationalists" need to deal with the topic at all.
Complain about this comment
229. NCA999
"...have so little confidence in the strength of their argument that they need to incorporate the EU as a protective measure."
What nonsense is this? Independence in Europe is SNP policy for the simple reason that it is the only policy that makes any sense. There simply is no viable alternative to EU membership for any European nation. Scotland would be no different.
Complain about this comment
111, Kered.
Did you not read the post about the Labour Party starting out as a Home Rule For Scotland Party under Ramsey McDonald?
We are still awaiting them to honour that very first Labour Party promise.
I don't think any UK, or Scottish Government has ever kept all its policies. What is more the reason the SNP have not kept every promise is because the Unionist opposition stopped them doing so. They have, though, done more than enough. Including today's news of increased education spending.
Complain about this comment
229. NCA999
"There are two arguments here."
No there aren't. There is only one argument. Scotland should be independent if and when that is the settled will of the Scottish people. Individuals' reasons for favouring independence are irrelevant.
Complain about this comment
215. Lallands Peat Worrier
Welcome!
"Particularly since Labour's interests at a UK level and those at a Scottish level diverge. And as we've increasingly, predictably seen, also diverge from the interests of the party in Wales."
The fault lines are clearly there, but I think that it's going to take real coup in Scottish Labour before a resolution either way is possible.
"A little more discussion of the referendum, in any case, and what Thomas Jefferson might have to say about it here."
I was going to post a link to it earlier, but i'd just linked one of your earlier pieces here, and i don't like to overdo it :)
Complain about this comment
#233 Auld Bob
Ramsay McDonald? please reframe from mentioning his name again.
I have consistantly said that I believe the devolution of Scotland was a process! a process which would grow with strength giving time.
Auld Bob you seem a decent chap and that's why I feel you will absorb the truth. Bob at this giving time the proposed two questioned referendum is a climb down on behalve of the SNP. Alex Salmond would happily accept a Scottish parliament with increased powers.
Bob as NCA999 has pointed out! it would be seriously dangerous as well as stupid for Scotland to gain Independence under this present economic climate.
Complain about this comment
#141. noblewilliamw.
Sorry to burst your bubble but there were only two countries who signed the Treaty Of Union. Scotland & England, and as a treaty is a legal document, if one party withdraws, then the UK no longer exists. Any treaty that was subsequently signed with Ireland, NI or Wales was signed with the UK and as that is disolved it is no longer valid. So if Scotland is not to be an EU member then neither is England. Not even the Westminster Parliament belongs to England as the original burnt down and was rebuilt by the UK with UK tax money.
Complain about this comment
#230
MrB-it did seem strange that JRMcClure decided to answer a post on your behalve.
In doing so she/he left an open goal!.
Anyway! glad to know your still here!. my apologies.
Complain about this comment
#232 Well two of the three small countries that Salmond likes to compare us to aren't in the EU, albeit one has now gone bankrupt, but that's beside the point. Thanks for your thoughts.
#231 Allele I'm sorry mate but you're completely wrong again. You're argument that, if a founding member leaves a state, that state ceases to exist (upon your created unique condition where there was only two founding members) is just wrong. A state is a legal entity, under international law it is recognised as such. The notable example of this would be the Knight of Malta, who no longer have a country but are still recognised legally as a state.
To use the United States as an example, imagine that the first treaty had only been signed by New York and Pennsylvania on the first day, and that on the second all of the other states signed a new treaty to join this union. A hundred years, and 50 states later, if one of these states left do you seriously believe that the USA would cease to exist?
Lets make another analogy, that of a company. My company, and Mr Smiths company merge and we come up with a new name for the two companies, lets call if the X Group. Over the next hundred years 20 other companies join the X Group so now it is a group with 22 different departments. One of those departments has a management buy out, that department used to be Mr Smiths company. Does the X Group cease to exist? No.
You have not cited a single piece of precedence to claim that the two original members of a legal entity are the two which define it's existence, not one single piece. All members have equal rights. In order ot dissolve the United Kingdom it would take a decision by the United Kingdom. The only decision which Scotland can take is to withdraw from the United Kingdom, this is a very different thing. Your legal analysis is simply wrong, I'm sorry, but that's just that.
What's amusingly contradictory about the SNPs position on this is that they accept the need of their hypothetical country to "renegotiate terms with the EU" whilst simultaneously arguing that they would "automatically retain membership". These two positions are mutually exclusive. If we have to renegotiate terms, it's because we've forfeited the previous agreement. The logical conclusion is that if we fail to negotiate something that everyone else is happy with we would not be allowed in, thus contradicting the automatic membership argument. Salmond is smart enough to realise this yet keeps peddling his disinformation.
There is a debate about the EU, but it's not about whether we would become a member, but on what terms. Cyprus, Spain, Belgium, France amongst many others have a massive issue granting precedent in recognising seccessionist states. They would back down about membership, as they would have no legitimate grounds to oppose us, but they would string it out, and they would make it on the worst possible terms for us. An interesting discussion is found here [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator] about it.
Complain about this comment
218. NCA999
A certain as you may be of your own wisdom, time (and a vote) will tell if the SNP have misjudged the public mood.
Economic troubles, unempoyment, wars, these things come and go - they are convenient excuses for you; nothing more.
I would be extremely concerned if, after a referendum was timetabled, any party did not campaign for their position on it.
You'd rather they were busy interfering with businesses and stuff to 'sort out' the economy or something?!
Businesses like everything their own way all the time. Funnily enough the ones that can survive good times and bad are the ones worth keeping. I would hope that after the public have been put on the hook for the sake of certain private businesses, that they'd be wary of also constraining the public's right to their democratic life. More likely it's just a few lone voices conveniently crying 'won't somebody think of the businesses!'
You don't want independence? Fine!
You think a referendum consultation bill is an unwelcome step towards that? Fine!
You expect me to buy into some scare story that a referendum will hurt our economy? Unlikely!
Complain about this comment
Kered:
There is equal risk for remaining inside the union between Scotland and England. It should be expected that not all plans for recovery will be made in Scotlands specific interests, it will be focused on London, maybe middle England too as both part of the United Kingdom are seen as valuable in terms of voting power and economic power.
The next British Government will look to make cuts and it will is easier to pass the buck to the Scottish Government, the media will attack the SNO regardless of the fact the SNP have no control over the economy and are simply forced to act on the current circumstances that the London Parliament creates.
The fall of 'Scottish banks' is a prime example of passing the buck. It does not matter who regulated the system or the fact that these companies were hosted as fantastic British instituations, I don't even think anyone considered handing control to Scotland, but Scotland was at the frontline of the criticism once the banks failed, although, it was never Scottish policy to buy the banks, it was Britains.
Complain about this comment
236. kered
"Bob as NCA999 has pointed out! it would be seriously dangerous as well as stupid for Scotland to gain Independence under this present economic climate."
Why what are your reasons to agree with that silly statement as we sit on a crumbling ledge with an abyss of unknown depth waitng to swallow the UK up.
Complain about this comment
226. cassidy
Well said cassidy!
Complain about this comment
#158 John.
Perhaps you best explain that statement in your reply?
The average person does not know the massive difference that makes.
It has been too long hidden from the people.
Basically it means the Royal is Monarch of England but Monarch of Scots and the UK is a constitutional monarchy.
Complain about this comment
#241 Tom
You make some very good points and the cuts will come no doubt but in what shape and from and more importantly time scale is the crux of this whole election.
Tom, the point about the economic climate and Independence referendum is! can Alex Salmond afford to campaign for Independence when all effort should be focused on recovery and stability.
Complain about this comment
229. NCA999
"Further to this my point about principles is very valid. Look at the nonsense that was just posted by #226 about oil, and the similar tripe that's been spouted by the SNP for years about how oil revenues are a reason for independence.
There are two arguments here.
1) We should become independent because Scotland should be self governing
2) We should become independent because we would be rich from the oil."
I think you misread cassidy's point, I think what he is pointing out is the widely recognised fact that the revenues from the recently discovered oil were blown on masking the effects of poor governance of the UK.
I think that more generally, the focus on oil comes about as the first objection that people throw up in the way of independence is the idea that we wouldn't be economically capable. Saying we'd have our oil revenues just short-circuits a pointless discussion on whether a modern, well-educated, industrialised nation with great natural resources could be economically viable (!?!).
I and many others believe that Scotland should be independent on the will of, and for the multifarious benefits to the self-determining people of Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#163. Caledonian54.
Thing is we are not seeking independence from England. We seek independence from the UK. We signed up as equal partners, (in fact Scotland signed first). Then, of course, there is another dimension. We each signed the same Treaty of Union and went home and we each drew-up, and passed in our own parliaments, Acts of Union. As it was the Scottish Parliament that signed that Scottish Act Of Union it is moot if only a Scottish parliament can recind it? Who knows that answer?
Complain about this comment
#242 cynicalhighlander
Why? What are my reasons?. Can seriously afford a campaign for Independence when the abyss is so close?.
And do you really want to spend x amount of millions on an Independent referendum, that would probably fail at this giving time?.
Complain about this comment
236. kered
"Bob as NCA999 has pointed out! it would be seriously dangerous as well as stupid for Scotland to gain Independence under this present economic climate."
Why?
Complain about this comment
'cammy dave' sets up a strategy unit to prepare for a possible hung parliament.
Complain about this comment
249. mrbfaethedee
"Why?"
They can't ask that question, far less answer it.
Complain about this comment
My previous message was censored for posting what I'm about to post again and I haven't received a reason why, probably because there is none but never mind.
Allele, your analysis is flawed and wrong. I'm sorry but you obviously have no understanding of the subject. Your analysis that legal entities are dependant upon their founding members for their continued existence is just incorrect. Hypothetically, had the first declaration of Independence been signed by two states, and the rest all signed a new document the next day, the US wouldn't end the moment one of those two left.
A state is a legal entity, and it is not bound by who it's founding members were. When Wales and Ireland joined the UK they became as much members of that union as Scotland and England. They all have equal membership.
An analogy would be that of corporate groups. Two companies a and b merge to form a company called c group. C group over the next ten years merges with 5 other companies. The staff of department b have a management buy out and leave. C group still exists.
This is the logical, and precedence based, conclusion to draw as to how a legal entity like a state would be treated. The state would still exist even if none of it's founding members were still members.
Think of it a different way, if all of the founding members of the EU were to withdraw, but the other countries all stay, are you arguing that the EU would cease to exist as a legal entity?
Your analysis is contrary to what would be the logical conclusion. International law in this area is grey and inconclusive and I will happily accept that there are no absolute answers. I would equally however point out that you haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back your claim that a state is dependant on it's founding members for existence.
Actually as a thought on this point, look back at past colonial history. Take for example Portugal. The Portugese government moved to Brazil at one point after Spain took over Portugal and the land became part of Spain. The Dutch government moved to the West indies I think during the 2nd World War. A more recent example is the Knights of Malta, who no longer own their country, but are still a state in international law. All of these are examples where the founding parts of a state are no longer present whilst the state lives on. You haven't provided a single piece of evidence to back up your assertions, which are don't make logical sense.
What this debate should really be about however is not whether we would get into the EU, as obviously we would eventually, but whether the new conditions would be beneficial to us.
Complain about this comment
238. kered
Thanks for clearing it up.
Apologies from this end too - i just assumed you'd gone off on one ;)
As quick to characterize as the next man i'm afraid - hopefully i'll learn over time.
p.s. was that who you thought i was, or were you just fishing earler without having anyone in mind?
Complain about this comment
An interesting discussion is [Unsuitable/Broken URL removed by Moderator]
Complain about this comment
#180. Chiefy1724.
The answer is that the United Kingdom bit was due to the Union of The Crowns and not the Union of the Parliaments. At that time the Irish crown rested upon the head of the English Throne and Wales was an English principallity. So when it came to the Union of The Parliaments the two states joining the Union were the parliament of Kingdom of England & The parliament of the Kingdom of Scotland. These two crowns also rested upon the same head but the difference was both were sovereign states while neither Wales not Ireland were. As to the treaties signed later these were with the UK of GB. So if one opts out of the union the latter treaties are void but the crowns still all rest upon one head. It would be up to the people of Scotland if they wanted the crown head or not. The Scots monarch is King/Queen of Scots, not King/Queen of Scotland. The crown does not own Scotland - but is made King by Scots.
Complain about this comment
Just spent 2 hour sorting out my pc - don't let your kids near yours!!
Anyway, few things popped up so I'll try and divide this into different posts:
EURO
Reading a bit (not much tbh) into the problems of Greece and now apparently Germany, is there a danger that the Euro may collapse? If that happens, what does Euro-using countries do?
And if it does happen, is that not going to give Labour an unlikely boost, since they have kept us out of the Euro? More importantly, would such an event damage the SNP, based on a rather old article linked here:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/819692.stm
I really am speculating a lot here, since I'm not up to full speed on Euro economics and SNP/Labour policies. But the fall of the Euro could be an unlikely saviour for unionist support.
Can anyone provide some facts?
Complain about this comment
245. kered
"can Alex Salmond afford to campaign for Independence when all effort should be focused on recovery and stability. "
All effort that can be usefully brought to bear by the Scottish Government, surely?
Which is to say that a government can only spend so much time doing things to help the economy - however parlous its state.
The degree to which the Scottish Government can actually do a great deal to effect economic change, is very limited and dilutes further the idea that they need to be 'fixing the economy' round the clock still further. That's as a direct consequence of the constituational arrangements the indies seek to change.
Complain about this comment
#249
MrB- I think every knows that the full effect of this global melt down have to to be played!. Alex Linxton of west-lothian council has suggest it will cost west-lothian around 1000 jobs over the next 3 years, several coucil authorities are preparing for cuts in education, health and transport.
I simply believe we need to focus on that and if possible try our best to minimise the effects.
If we try and run a campaign for Independence in the midst of this, we could easily lose focus and the effects could be even more serious.
I like to play safe!I think the majority of Scots would like to play safe in terms of putting the jigsaw together piece by piece first.
Independence is a massive responsibility that carries a very heavy load of organisation, an I ndependent Scotland couldn't be achieved with the flick of a switch. People count MrB, it's a slow train and time will be the healer here.
Complain about this comment
248. kered
For your info.
"The total cost of conducting the referendum is likely to be around £9.5 million, the bulk of which will be spent on running the poll and the count. Proportionately this is comparable to the estimated cost of as much as £120 million for the Alternative Vote referendum proposed by the UK Government for the whole of the UK."
Now can you give reasonable reason/s for not now.
Complain about this comment
#253 MrB
I'd rather keep that under my hat for the time being. Hope you don't mind but I'm pretty sure you might just have a bigger say on other web-sites than you let on.
Complain about this comment
#198. Electric Hermit wrote:
Oh! Its all right to reply to Trolls if doing so makes a point for other readers of the blog, (perhaps just lurkers or not registered). If it does now allow making an interesting point just ignore the daft b****r, (Err! Blogger).
Complain about this comment
It turns out, as I suspected and tested in my #254 post there that my original post was blocked because it had external links in it. Those were to articles by the University of Edinburgh and University College Londons Costitution departments explaining why Allele is wrong. Further the UCL one makes interesting points about the analogy with Kosovo, highlighting how much the French,Cypriots,Belgians and Spanish would not want to support a seccessionist state and how they would make sure any deal for Scotland to rejoin the EU was on the worst possible terms for us so as to send a message to their own seperatist minorities.
That said the reason i make this comment is to protest the stupid rules that blocked my previous post. If the moderators really had an issue with a link I had posted then they could have removed the link, rather than removing an entire post and forcing me to re-type it. Further the fact that I have not been contacted either time to explain why my posts were removed meant that i very nearly fell foul of this daft technicality twice because I almost posted the link in my second comment. It would be nice if the moderators followed their own rules whilst enforcing them upon the rest of us.
Complain about this comment
On economic arguments for and against independence. Some of my points come across as profoundly negative but I'm trying to play devils advocate, since people will want to know. No use in saying everything will be ok.
The total debt for the UK as a whole must be around 600 to 800 billion if PFI is included. The figure is a (relatively) informed guess based on reading about ten different pages on the Internet, none older than 6 months.
Assuming Scotland takes 10% of that debt, that leaves us with a debt of 60 to 80 billion, which is well above GDP. That debt has to be serviced at the very least at a cost of a few billion (3-5?) per year.
The other thing to consider about going independent is that there will be job losses, mainly public sector as the Westminster withdraws services from Scotland. By that I mean organisations such as DFID which is based in East Kilbride (I don't work there). Added to the high percentage of public sector jobs in Scotland how quickly will these people find jobs? Inward investment sounds fine, but look at what has happened in recent years. Plus retraining needs to be considered.
You also have to add in loss of pension earnings, since many who lose jobs might also lose a chunk of pensions they have built up.
To balance the argument, pensions have been hammered ever since GB decided to raid them. What proposals do the Conservatives have about dealing with these? Likewise, PFI continues to ramp up. And the Conservatives want to stay on the selling-off-the-assets bandwagon. The SNP have been clear about retaining public ownership.
We also are facing massive cuts in public services and spending. But there is a danger of the cuts being too deep and with massive job losses, and a related loss of consumer confidence, we enter the double dip of a recession.
So, we go independent and face possible high debt levels and an initial dip in employment, or we stay within the UK and face exactly the same!
Be interesting to see how each side pitches their arguments.
Complain about this comment
256. enneffess
Not really, I did post a link earlier (my #124). Its just a single perspective, but the gist of it is that some of the big hedge funds are ready to 'target' the euro. But it's about reducing its value against the dollar (presumably to point the market detemines is appropriate) to close to parity.
Longer term concerns are that the euro is fundamentaly flawed because the countries making up the zone are too much of a mixed bag.
I think even the possibility of a euro-collapse would at the least require some of the eurozone countries to default.
Someone else will hopefully post something more useful in repsonse to your request, on international finance and economics i'm closer the left hand side of idiot-savant ;)
Complain about this comment
Cynical Highlander
Having, I assume, slightly more than just the one brain cell I'm quite sure that you're well aware those who are arguing that a referendum makes bad economic sense are not protesting the net cost of hiring the polling staff (although I for one think there are a lot of better things to spend 9.5 million on - like some of the schools the SNP promised and forgot about).
As such answering your question is pointless, because you already know the answer, and are just trying to misdirect the debate. Such tactics are more often utilised by those who don't have faith in the strength of their own arguments
Complain about this comment
#183
Exactly
They promised it would be BUILT and completed in the term of that Parliament.
That is exactly what their 2003 manifesto said.
It wasn't even started.
They started dragging their feet on it and went through a slowed down process of planning etc meant to insure that it was never started.
Do not treat us as daft
Complain about this comment
258. kered
I agree, the effects have barely started.
I also think that you're right to say we need focus and stay focused on mitigating the worst of the effects.
My niggle is that no govt (not least the Scottish) can spend all its time doing things about it. There are also plenty of less than important things the governments of the world (ours included) will be busying themselves with while the economic crapstorm ensues. Why should the movement towards independence be singled out for prohibition?
Even if that needed focus is a potential problem, it doesn't mean it has to stop other processes.
(just as an example) Perhaps the parliament could maintain an 'oversight committee' for the duration of the process to ensure that when situations arise where the govt could be actively assisting the economic situation they are made to.
Safety first is a good strategy in times of crisis, but so is getting hold of things the you need in order to take control of your situation.
A great responsibility indeed. Slow isn't the word though - if the opposition were saying 'yes, but we need to take it slowly' i could buy it; but they aren't - they are blocking any movement towards it.
Complain about this comment
256. enneffess
Euro Heartbreak Best Faced
The pound is highly likely to be devalued later this year bringing even higher inflation than we have now. Keep your tin supplies well plenished.
Complain about this comment
#216. paul Hunter wrote:
Yer richt bit yer wrang tae. In fact England always dominate. Scotland only has 59 MP but England has 533. However, what is being quoted for legal equality is the terms of the Treaty of Union and of each countries subsequent Act of Union. These are, of course, still the legal contracts of each country but remember that Scots law differs from English law, (another term under the Treaty of Union).
Complain about this comment
262. NCA999
"blocked because it had external links in it."
They don't like "pdf" files
Complain about this comment
I don't usually listen to Brian's Big Debate but I did so this morning (mainly because the TV signal was down).
The programme was a love-in for Gordon Brown with a totally skewed and politically unrepresentative panel. BBC impartiality at work again?
Complain about this comment
265. NCA999
In other words you can't, thanks for your honesty.
Complain about this comment
#259 cynicalhighlander
1/ several compainies become nervous at the thought of an Independent Scotland, so much so! they up sticks and leave creating more unemployment, last month Scotlads unemployment rose by 10,000
2/ Scotland's banking sector is in disarray, Independence at this time would only worsen our banking system and the collapse of RBS and HBOS would be immient.
3/Scotland would have to hold a referendum of the EU and whether we would accept the Euro, Greeece is in financial turmoil just now and the Euro may even weaken an Independent Scotland further at this persent time.
4/Scotland can only collect tax revenues from it's oil and gas reserves, although they would be healthy Scotland couldn't live on those revenues alone and we haven't quite can to terms with securing our renewenable energy needs and technology niether.
5/Scotland remains a complex case in terms of religion and political endeavours, any sudden dive into Independence could spark a very dangerous,, possible situation (Irish issue)
6/So far, no one from the nationalist benches has put up exactly what an Independent Scottish governments budget would be?.
7/Foreign policy, would an Independent Scotland remove all Scottish personell from Afghan and would an Independent Scotland fund an Independent army, navy and airforce?. Would an Independent Scotland set up ambassadors in foreign countries?
8/What type of health service and social welfare service would an Independent Scotland support?.
9/What would Scotland do to gain more fishery rights?Would an Independent Scotland nationalise any companies. like whisky companies.
10/ Independence may just be bigger than you imagine cynicalhighlander and the road to that destination is a slow burn.
Complain about this comment
265. NCA999
"I for one think there are a lot of better things to spend 9.5 million on"
If we can afford to finance the killing of people in foreign lands we can afford to maintain the democratic process.
Complain about this comment
The doctrine of the sovereignty of the Scottish people dates to the Declaration of Arbroath which asserted the right of the Scottish people to depose and replace a monarch that did not suit them. The sovereignty of Parliament through the monarchy was established in England before the Union of 1707 and has no counterpart constitutionally in Scotland.
The union allowed the two very distinct legal systems to remain in place. There has been no change except that the Claim of Right which introduced the renewed Scottish Parliament firmly confirmed the constitutional sovereignty of the Scottish people
"In 1707 when the Act of Union was passed in the Scot’s Parliament Article 3 shows quite clearly that the Parliaments of Scotland and England were held to be in abeyance ad interim and that a new Union Parliament was to be elected. It is important to note that both English law and Scot’s law were excluded from this Treaty of Union designed to set up a completely new United Parliament. What this means is that Scottish Civil Law and Scottish Constitutional Law were left un-compromised and that Scotland retained popular sovereignty. The people of Scotland remained the superior constitutional authority in Scotland and that is still the case today as we approach the year 2011. It was with the foregoing in his mind that in 1953 Lord Cooper of Cardross as Lord President of The Court of Session in the case of "McCormick v The Lord Advocate " pronounced that, "The unlimited sovereignty of Parliament has no counterpart in Scottish Constitutional Law" unquote. Thus Lord Cooper reaffirmed that Scotland not only has a written constitution but that it is alive and well. Extant in 1953, Scottish Constitutional Law now has an in situ Legislature ensuring that Scottish Sovereignty remains un-compromised and that only the will of the registered electorate in Scotland can change the status quo."
Complain about this comment
260. kered
No probs. Any more protestations on my part will no doubt just make you more convinced.
If you do find out that i'm just me, please let me know your theory - my vanity can't resist not knowing :)
Complain about this comment
#218. NCA999:
Shame on you NCA999. You accuse Salmond of caring only about Independence yet today it was announced more funding was given to education. As a student you benefitted from Scotland's better studentr funding. Then we have such things as the frozen council tax, the removal of bridge tolls, prescription charges and more than a few other benefits the SNP have pushed through. There would have been more but for the opposition parties who take orders from London. With independence the London link will go and whatever party is the Scottish Government will be working only for Scotland.
Complain about this comment
#267 MrB
Yes! there is no doubt a blockage there.
The process must go on.I can think of no other worse case outcome, than niehter question receiving a result.
I said early that I thought AS played this issue well, again I repeat! MSP's must search their souls and of course the constituents will on the future of the Scottish parliament.
Curiously! wouldn't it be nice to know just who many MSP's want more powers for the parliament
Complain about this comment
263. enneffess
Some answers will be here somewhere.
Papers on the Scottish Economy
Complain about this comment
kered
It would be useful if you got your figures into some kind of context
The revenues raised in Scotland are over £110 million per day. A Referendum would cost at most a couple of hours of Scotland's revenues
Complain about this comment
Hello all,
I've been lurking for a while
Why the concern for the price for a referendum compared with the cost for trident - both monetary and human?
Complain about this comment
#280
Sneckedagain, the health budget is almost 12Bn a year? I don't think you want to go there Sneckedagain. AS doesn't say Scotlands revenues would be dripping with honey and every Scot would be better off?.
Complain about this comment
265. NCA999
"...like some of the schools the SNP promised and forgot about)."
Surely school-building would be a diversion from dealing with the recession.
Complain about this comment
#277
As a student I benefited from the scrapping of fees that was done by the Lib Dems as part of the Lab/Lib coalition in the first Scottish Executive.
Were I still a student I may have been very upset that the SNP promised to "dump student debt" as a way to win student votes, but never had any intention of doing any such thing.
I may have been upset at the SNPs narrow minded attempts to ban those between 18 and 21 from drinking alcohol, as a way of stopping 15 yr olds from doing it (genius that)
I may have been upset by the SNPs plan to start charging students council tax under their L.I.T plans, as part of a group of previously economically challenged groups they proposed to tax in order to pay for a tax cut for (by the support of) the rich.
I may have signed the following letter that was signed by the Presidents of every Student Union in Scotland confronting the SNP for promising things they had no intention of delivering:
Dear Fiona,
At the last election your manifesto promised to replace the student loans system with “means-tested student grants” and to remove “the burden of the debt repayments owed to the Student Loans Company by Scottish domiciled and resident graduates”. This would have cost nearly £2 billion to implement. In comparison, only £30m has been set aside for student support next year.
We believe that the Government has not grasped that student hardship is the overriding priority for students in Scotland. The actions taken by the Government in its two years, to abolish the graduate endowment and provide grants to part time students, while useful for those that have benefited, have focussed only on reducing debt for graduates rather than helping students while they actually study.
With student hardship levels increasing and the economic downturn beginning to impact on students, as it is families across Scotland, it is time for a re-think.
It is beyond doubt that there has been a large increase in hardship at university and college campuses across Scotland. Student support levels have fallen far behind the rest of the UK, with hardship funds and funds for childcare in Scotland stretched to breaking point.
The student support system in Scotland is failing to meet the needs of students. The maximum level of support for most students in Scotland is over a third less than the maximum for students from elsewhere in the UK. Many groups of students are being let down, and the Scottish Government has so far failed to act. Improving the student support system is complex and will involve joint working within the parliament, Scotland and the UK. However, the resources currently set aside are wholly insufficient to deliver what was promised. Furthermore, the options proposed by the Scottish Government in its consultation fail to maximise the impact of the funds available.
We believe that you should look at new proposals that would focus the available funds far better. These should be based on the following principles:
- a £7000 minimum income, or as close as possible to it, for the poorest students.
- focussing resources on tackling student hardship, not graduate debt.
- increasing the availability of student loans.
- addressing students’ continuing reliance on commercial credit.
- increasing funds available for hardship and childcare funding, looking at the potential for reform.
We believe the Scottish Government, by limiting the scope of its consultation on student support, has let down students and failed to listen or react to their needs. We call on the Scottish Government to address student hardship – including increasing student loans – to address students’ reliance on commercial credit, and to increase funding for hardship and childcare funds.
This letter should act as a wakeup call for Scotland. The Scottish Government must take a new direction and we stand ready to work with you to help students through this difficult time. We hope that you see past political differences, listen to the concerns of the students we have heard loud and clear and act to tackle student hardship in Scotland.
Complain about this comment
278. kered
Re: the blockage - it's a great shame we haven't managed to move the nature of of political process on much since devolution. I know it's still young but less of the rigid defensiveness on all sides would go down a treat.
I do think some movement on the referendum wold soften all the parties stances and let them relax a little (but then, i would say that).
"Curiously! wouldn't it be nice to know just who many MSP's want more powers for the parliament"
Honesty from all members of all parties at holyrood on what powers they woud seek/settle for would certainly be interesting.
- snowballs and hell though!
That's me off for now...
Complain about this comment
273. kered
Thanks for that we have looked/enquired as to peoples concerns I will try and answer what I can later and it might give the night squad something to do.
10/ Its been burning here for over 4 decades and the wax is running out.
Complain about this comment
#229. NCA999:
Regarding your rant about Scotland's financial viabllity. There is a great deal more than oil to prove Scotland contributes much more to the UK than she gets back. The point about the oil is that the revenue is classed as extra regio income so that it does not count as part of Scotland's contibutions. However, there is more than just oil revenues from the North Sea. There is fishing and now off-shore generation and the service industries. That though is dwarfed by the other things that are not counted as Scottish contributions. For every UK tax there is a Scottish component. Then we have such as TV licence income, Road fund tax, Invisable earnings but most of all, every UK wide business, like ASDA for example, has a London Head office and pays its due from there. These are, unlike Scottish Oil, credited as London income but have a Scottish component. Now many smaller Scottish only concerns have, believe it or not, A London Head Office. These can be set up on-line and offer a limited company, a phone and PO box service and the tax is paid via that accommodation address. I checked this out years ago and to my great surprise Dunfermline FC had a London Head Office. There are many such anomolies. The embassies, etc., are part Scottish. The first electricity grid began around Edinburgh and soon went over the border. Electricity has been exported over the border ever since. Get the picture? Scotland is a richer country than most people realise. The point of all that is that the SNP must defend their corner and that means refuting the lies and propaganda that Scotland is too poor, too stupid, too wee, too weak to defend herself. What Scotland is is too ill informed by the powers that be. Ask yourself a simple question. Why is England the only UK country that does not get a capped block grant but is funded directly as the UK? Here is another, Why, if the UK has a Transport grant, and the UK funding is only England, is it necessary to make extra transport grants to such as London Transport, to finance cross-rail systems and so on. Yet Scotland has to stay within her block grant? May I suggest that you do a little research before expounding on the blog? The alternative is to ask rather than expound. You just may learn a wee bit from old curmudions like me.
Complain about this comment
281. Bouncy
"Why the concern for the price for a referendum..."
The "concern" is not for the price of a referendum. It is fear of change.
Complain about this comment
#265. NCA999:
God your hopeless! The SNP provided more to Scotland as a minority government in one innings than Labour has for as long as I can remember, (I'm over 70). Example is the announcement a few weeks back that the notorious A9 is be improved. This as opposed to Labour's promise on GARL that they promised, did nothing about while in office, sent unspent cash back to London every year, yet continue danceing on the spot and spitting out their colletive dummies when the SNP canceled a daft scheme that would only replace a 10 minute bus trip. Worse still they claim the SNP are anti-Glasgow when Weegies get the largest per capita funding in all Scotland. Laughably the biggest part of GARL is not even in Glasgow. And, just become an ex-student, they just announced a bigger education grant than before.
Complain about this comment
EH, I fear no change, I want it - I was just trying to point out that some people appear to think that the cost of a refendum is prohobitive whereas we are spending the money on other things that I consider to be less important - Scotland is a rich country both in people and resources - and not just oil as some people would try to make you believe
Complain about this comment
EH - I was just too young to vote in 1979 - by a couple of years - and when the result came out I was more than just a bit disillusioned - I understood some of it, but not enough - but it is only now that I understand the 40% 'rule' that stopped us getting some sort of say in our lives.
Complain about this comment
290. Bouncy
I was agreeing with you. The fuss about the cost of a referendum is a red herring. As has been made clear, it simply doesn't stand up as an argument. The real fear is change. But we can't afford to be hindered by the fearfulness of a few. There is a future to be built.
Complain about this comment
#282 kered
What has the health budget got to do with the cost of a referendum?
I'm perfectly happy to go there.
The estimated revenue from Scotland 2008 to 2009 was just under £50billion - that is about £125 million per day or over £5 million perhour. Against that the cost of a referendum which will determine the future of a nation is peanuts but it sounds like a lot to the numpties which is why it is being bandied about.
The estimated Scottish fiscal surplus last year was £219million (The estimated UK fiscal deficit was about £50 billion).
Are you trying to make some point about Scotland being subsidised perhaps? Is this the old insulting "Scotland, the beggar nation" line we are on?
You are on pretty shakey ground. Since the SNP got into power the GERS annual reports have had to be accurate. They show the opposite to be the case.
Two points
- are you suggesting that the UK is hanging onto Scotland to throw money at it? Hardly likely.
- are you suggesting that a Scotland needing subsidy is somehow a benefit of the union.
As Andrew Hughes-Hallet pointed out if that was the case it would show economic mismanagement of Scotland for the last forty years of Zimbabwean proportions.
I have noted sensible,thoughful and constructive comment from you sometimes but you will need to arm yourself better if you want to enter that particular debate
The sorry fact of the matter is that without the revenues from Scottish oil the UK is out the window at the moment with no other security at all against huge and silly borrowing.
It was the same when Healy and Callaghan bust Britain.
-
Complain about this comment
'284
Thew LibDems did not scrap student tuition fees, they merely put them on at the end of the course. Everybody knows that so why you make a silly statement that blows the rest of you contribution right out of the water I don't know.
The SNP did scrap them however.
In fact as I read on your rant becomes even sillier.
On the proposal for LIT the Institute of Fiscal Studies has indpendently confirmed that it will hugely benefit the poor, the old, the unwaged and the lowly paid but will cost the well off more.
Very few students will go above the thresshold and most would pay nothing in LIT
However waged people presntly avoiding paying Council Tax because they share a residence will pay. Hurrah.
I am surprised at your support for tax dodgers
Perhaps you would prefer the way Labour deals with students in England with full tuition fees and now proposals to hit students with hefty top up fees.
Complain about this comment
#293
Sneckedagain, your having a laugh now! surley.
The reality is that a Scottish government would need oil prices to peak at 2007 levels to draw in 9.6Bn, Alex Salmond now admits that. Further more, when oil prices peak, the cost of energy sores.
Are you advocating that the Scottish public endures wide-spread fuell poverty for higher oil prices.
Sneckedagain, corporate tax, direct tax, business tax, still leaves us with a short-fall, as opposed to the now budget but Hey! if you have the figures and the evidence that Scotland would have a budget of offer 50Bn plus, on oil and gas revenues alone, then lets see that evidence Sneckedagain?.
Everyone in Zimbabwe is a millionare but very few can afford a loaf of bread.
Your taking the Michael Sneckedagain.
I give way to your Callaghan and Healy input but it was Thatchers privatisation that failed to nationalise the oil industry.
Several wells have been extracted to the point were new technologies are required to continue that extraction, if those cost become offset by higher tax, then the private companies will not run a well at a loss.
It's how you extract the oil which is the important part.
I think your itching at the bit on this issue to shout out loud about "peak oil time" There's no doubt that wars will be fought over oil.
Hitler thought if he could capture the caucasus oil wells, then victory over the Russians was in his mind certain.
Complain about this comment
I just had a look at Scottish Labours website....boy they dont half have it in for the SNP ! Virtually every article is nat bashing. Why cant they look at themselves and figure out some policies to take on the nats with instead of just being bitter because they are in opposition !
Complain about this comment
Alcohol-related liver disease trebles in 15 years
The number of Scots with chronic liver disease - which is associated with binge-drinking - has almost trebled in the past 15 years, giving the nation the second-highest rate in Europe.
According to NHS statistics for 2008 released yesterday, 9,072 people with the condition were treated in hospital and the disease was the cause of 1,059 deaths.
Among 30 to 39-year-olds the mortality rate associated with chronic liver disease has soared five-fold in 25 years.
Are you NuLabour Numpties listening?
2008 - 9,072 treatments and 1,059 deaths. In many cases preventable with intervention.
Guess not.
Complain about this comment
You want to see something amusing, go back to around January 11 and read posts from our kered where he pretends to be pro-SNP. Just a heads-up.
Complain about this comment
296. Scarymannie
"Why cant they look at themselves and figure out some policies to take on the nats with instead of just being bitter because they are in opposition !"
Because they ARE bitter that they are in opposition.
Complain about this comment
Nice wee article in the Herald by Nicola:
Recession ‘good for SNP’s cause’.
Surprisingly Flash Gordon accused the SNP of having “this constitutional obsession that it’s always about separation”.
The Prime Mentalist also said he believed the issue was “not really what people are thinking about at the moment”, adding: “There is a time to deal with constitutional issues but it’s not now.”
In other words “We are having two referendums down here during the recession but you can’t have one in Scotland because of the recession”.
Complain about this comment
Meanwhile back at the NuLabour funny farm:
Labour election warning over SNP
Well I can’t say its unexpected, after all they have NO POLICIES so what else can they do but spout bile.
Complain about this comment
Ah someone didn't like my pointing out that when he first started posting as "kered" he presented himself as an SNP supporter. It's easy enough to check. Look up those posts. Just a heads up. =)
Complain about this comment
Britain’s recession is over but the moneymen still see trouble ahead
News that the economy grew by 0.3 per cent during the final three months of 2009 - up from the previous estimate of just 0.1 per cent - ignited concerns that this extra growth had been “borrowed” from the first three months of 2010 as shoppers brought forward purchases to beat the rise in VAT at the end of last year.
Economists said this increased the possibility that figures for the first three months of 2010 could be worse than those for the end of 2009.
Looking at the, only, positive side, next quarters figures may bite NuLabour on the ‘bottom’ at just the right time before the GE.
Complain about this comment
CH:
Thanks for that link on the Euro - scary stuff.
I've always considered that the EU would tear itself apart within 50 years, it is probably going to be far less than that. If debts continue they way they are I can see Germany and France tearing up the treaties. Legally that would be a problem but on the other hand what can anyone do about it? Start a war? The one thing that GB appears to have done correctly is not to adopt the Euro.
On bridge tolls, I do not see why people should not pay even a small amount, if anything to help pay for the maintenance costs. No one gives me free parking in Glasgow City Centre on a Friday, the only day I don't use public transport.
LIT is another area of caution. I've worked out that under the proposals for 3% or even 6%, I'm probably better off, provided water charges don't get silly. But having everyone in a household paying is the same principle as the Poll Tax, Scotland's favourite. I KNOW it will be less than the council tax, but there is the danger that some areas will end up paying more.
Why can't the government do what the Armed Forces do, and set a flat rate regardless where you live, and you pay it via a small additional tax? Less bureaucracy for a start.
Then central government pays a council a grant dependant on population and required services.
Complain about this comment
#304 enneffess
“The one thing that GB appears to have done correctly is not to adopt the Euro.”
But then ‘Midas in reverse’ Flash ploughed most of the gold reserves he sold, at the bottom of the market, buying Euros which could end up worthless.
Complain about this comment
What have Ed Miliband, Harriet Harman, Willie Rennie and Tom Harris got in common, besides the blindingly obvious?
They have all been ‘twitterjacked’
Complain about this comment
263.enneffess wrote "Some of my points come across as profoundly negative but I'm trying to play devils advocate"
lol, you Neil? Surely not.
I was wondering as I've seen you cite it as something you might tend to favour in the past, what chance you think there is of the opposition parties coming up with policies which could fall under the banner of devomax?
They seemed to take long enough to come up with the pig in a poke that is Calman. Wouldn't Devomax be so far out of their comfort zone as to be pie in the sky?
Complain about this comment
Just a quickie.
Re: Euro concerns of enneffess - another piece on euro exposure at the zero hedge website; the headline says it all - Net Euro Speculative Positions Hit All Time Record Of -71,623, A Massive 20% Increase In Short EUR Exposure (Commitment Of Traders), notice that that pound is the 'second most hated' according to the article.
Complain about this comment
#307 grassyknollington,Morning, That was the whole point of Calman.
the unionist trio either don't want to go to full fiscal autonomy or more likely England just cant afford it!
they will all push for Calman despite it already having been proven to be unworkable and more importantly definitely not in Scotland's interests.
Nothing new there then is there.
Sid
Complain about this comment
309. morning sid, agree about Calman. I keep seeing people using the phrase devomax but at the moment really it's just a fairly meaningless catchphrase like full fiscal autonomy.
I have no idea what either of these would involve and no confidence that any of the unionist threesome would go near them with a barge pole and yet they're continually referred to on blogs as if they are tangible things instead of amorphous wish lists which mean different things to different people.
Complain about this comment
#282. kered: You wrote:- the health budget is almost 12Bn a year? I don't think you want to go there Sneckedagain.
I'm sick of all these squint figures claiming Scottish dire poverty. This is my humble attempt to show we are,per capita, richer than our beloved next door neighbours, (I'm not being sarcastic there). Sorry about a long post. Scotland has the lowest average economic growth of any small west European country. Yet Scotland’s economy is a,“reserved”, Westminster function. There is no reason why an independent Scotland wouldn't perform at least as well as any other nation, even without a penny of oil money. Why would the country that gave the World Adam Smith, who invented, "The market", be so inept they couldn't look after their own financial affairs? The Westminster government's own top economist , Gavin McCrone's, report,when oil first came on-line, showed an independent Scotland would become an oil-rich nation and thrive. Of course his report was buried by subsequent Labour and Tory governments and only revealed under freedom of information in 2006. Since then Scotland's contributions, in only oil revenues, is going on £130 billion, and the revenues jump higher as the price per barrel goes up, and most oil revenue stays down south. What else would pay for wars plus nuclear weapons and submarines in the Clyde base? All three in spite of being against public opinion in Scotland. However, oil is only the icing on the Westminster Scottish Bannock, for an independent Scotland would be rich, as are most other small nations in Europe, either in or out of the EU. Westminster keeps holding up the GERS, (these are statistics of public spending), and using them as blatant propaganda to prove Scotland is far too poor, and inept financially, to go it alone. These figures have no relevance, whatsoever, as to how Scotland, when independent, would run their own economy. Simply put they show only how governments at Westminster have mishandled the present Scottish economy and not how a Scottish government's policy would run things. First,North Sea revenue, (including from oil), is credited as from, "Extra-Regio Territories", not from Scotland. Around 98% of the oilfields are in Scottish waters and are policed by Grampian Police and supported by the Ratepayers and Council Tax payers of Grampian with no extra financial support from Westminster. Strange they are Scottish for expend but extra regio for income. In effect Westminster has created an new extra country called, "Extra Regio Territories". Q - Where is this new territory? : A - The new country is in Scotland, but on devolution Westminster also annexed 6000 square miles of Scotland into England's jurisdiction. That's against international boundary laws. There seems also some North Sea revenues classed under "Gross operating surplus", and, "The Crown Estates Income", but it's almost impossible to get these figures. That's not the whole story either. Here is a list of UK tax revenues that Scotland, (On a per capita basis), contributes to the UK Treasury: -
VAT;Hydrocarbon Oils Tax;Tobacco Duty, Alcohol Duty;Betting & Gaming duty;Air Passenger Duty;Insurance Premium Tax;Landfill Tax;Climate Change Levy;Aggregates Levy;Income Tax;National Insurance conntributions;Non-North Sea Corporation Tax;Capital Gains Tax;Inheritance Tax;Stamp Duty;Vehicle Excise Duty;Business Rates;Council Tax;Other Taxes & Royalties;Interest & Dividends;Gross Operating Surplus & Crown Estates Incomes.
Still think Scotland cannot stand on her own two feet? Think again.
Complain about this comment
#295
Why don't you just read the GERS report for 2009.
That's the figures provided by the Government
That's the ones I'm quoting
I don't understand what point you are trying to make about fiscal deficits.
Have you any idea what you are talking about?
The UK fiscal deficit is about the largest in the world. The UK fiscal deficit per capita dwarfs the occasssional Scottish fiscal deficit but nearly all countries run all the time with fiscal deficits. There are a few notable exceptions to this - Norway being the closest to us.
Scotland generally does not have a fiscal deficit or at worse a very small one.
Scotland provides more to the UK treasury than it gets back in expenditure every year. Fact.
All the rest of this debate is deliberately over-complicated to cover up that basic fact.
Complain about this comment
#295
Again
Do you have even the faintest idea who Andrew Hughes-Hallett is?
Please post again when you have found out.
Complain about this comment
#309
One of the beauties of the SNP's latest proposal on the referendum issue is that it is inviting the densely stupid opposition to vote for their own proposals - and, of course, they wont.
(Just as well- as these proposals have been exposed as really stupid.)
I'm really enjoying this
Bring it on, Mark 2!
Complain about this comment
#312
Sneckedagain, have you read the GERS report? the price of a barrel of oil is half the price it was a few years ago.
Stop misleading the Scottish public.
Have you any idea what level of take the Scottish government recoups from it's oil and gas revenues?.
Still waiting for that elusive evidence?.
Complain about this comment
Thanks Auld Bob, though why you bother to respond to what appears to be a " multiple" Labour Rapid Response troll is beyond me!
The spelling and grammar varies with posts to such an extent that it can't possibly be the same poster.
Afternoon Sid and how are you on this dreich day?
I have seen nothing in the papers with regard to hospital sell offs ,but then I only read on line.
Is there any more information?
Complain about this comment
P.S Have any of you viewed the OECD economic figures - a projection for 2011 is most interesting.
You'll find them in the Coffee House at the Spectator in Fraser Nelsons piece.
Complain about this comment
#310 grassy. afternoon, as we saw with "calman" full fiscal autonomy or devolution max means numerous things to numerous people. what is included in either of those descriptions or indeed more importantly what is excluded from those descriptions is the problem.
for people like myself it should be as it says on the tin it should be FULL fiscal autonomy or indeed devolution MAX
but I know in my heart of hearts that the unionists will pull every trick in the book out of nowhere to ensure it doesn't happen the way it should .
That's why we need it spelled out in black and white before the start of the referendum process with absolutely no wriggle room as if we give them an inch they will take a mile!
remember 79- the dead voted no!
Sid
Complain about this comment
The Caledonian Mercury are routinely moderating some posters. I am one of them and I know from general comments to Newsnet Scotland that there are others.
I have posted a number of comments asking why this is happening but have yet to receive a response. Comments alluding to the moderation are being removed completely.
Note that moderation doesn't mean that all comments do not appear, only that they are checked before being published.
There is no way that my comments can be described as abusive or somehow contravening the Cal Mercs policy. The only possible reason is that the Cal Merc are afraid of certain posters.
I also notice that their online editor Mr Kirkpatrick is very selective regarding the comments that he responds to.
I urge people to click HERE and take a look at just how Mr Kirkpatrick views those who disagree with the views of his journalists - scroll halfway down to see his comment.
Note the straw man arguments that are addressed and the tone of the comment.
I now distrust this publication and note that Mr Knox has once again been given the opportunity to express shall we say views that are not sympathetic to independence.
A rival to the Cally is immiment ;o)
........... watch this space.
Complain about this comment
#316 diabloandco - Afternoon, the only place I am finding any more info is over in the Scottish Review. Kenneth Roy and his team are still doing some digging and coming up with even more interesting facts and some interesting coincidences.
Sid
Complain about this comment
319 online ed - I agree with you regarding the cally.
Looking forward to the new online paper !
Complain about this comment
More interesting reading.
A blog that seems to be dominated by a few with entrenched "views"
I would have thought that every single thing posted here was nothing more that a point of view as despite quoting, probably very correctly, historic documents. We at the present moment are dealing purely with speculation and political debate about events that have yet to transpire. I think that is a fact. (We're not indpenedent yet or is that wrong too!)
To those that have posted a reasoned response (rather than the vitriolic insults) I thank you.
So, having read all the stuff about taxes and so on please explain to me why in any material and practical manner would an independant Scotland be "better off" as a state in Europe as opposed to being a state within the UK? Even if there was a Scottish Parliament with all those powers, if most future laws and governance would be coming from Brussels then what's the point. Brussels or Westminster we're still ultimately abdicating control to outside entities. Or would that not be the case? If it's not the case then why bother with Europe?
So returning to the issue of the blether, if it is such a good thing and since apparently there are no difficulties to leaving the UK and joining Europe (unless I am misunderstanding the posts here, we're good to go!) Why doesn't the SNP just go for a Yes or No?, seriously if it is SO good what's the hold up.
I've said before that I am happy to be shown that I am wholly wrong but I haven't been shown anything to change my mind in a practical sense.
This is the difficulty I have with "nationalism". It seems to me that Nationalists seem to want their cake and eat it. Get this independant country then join another politcal union! I ask again what's the point?
Could it be that people at large really don't care?, that they're happy with things the way they are? or do the experts here think none of the rest of us know our own minds and that we are all just big fearties?
Complain about this comment
#284. NCA999:
As a student you may also have considered that others, who never had the chance of Uni, who went to work at around 16 years old, have paid tax, contributing to local & national taxes, in part to finance YOUR further education. An education that increased ONLY YOUR potential earning power for the rest of your working life. Do not those who paid for YOUR education deserve some measure of recompense for the sacrafice they made for YOU? Just what right entitles someone to accept free education at the expense of others? You do realise, don't you, that the money spent on YOUR education DID NOT come from either the Westminster or Holyrood parliaments but the taxpayer who finance both governing bodies?
Complain about this comment
NCA999
[sigh] Nope. You're still wrong. The legal foundation of the United Kingdom is the Treaty of Union of 1707. Later changes to the status of Wales do not alter that.
I used to be a legal interpreter/translator. Understanding legal documents was my job, one which required detailed understanding of legal concepts in different legal systems. I spent years translating legislation. (It was very boring, but paid very well.)
I still know a lot of lawyers, including constitutional lawyers, and have discussed the topic of Scottish self-determination with them. Spanish constitutional lawyers are extremely interested in the topic of Scottish independence as it has implications for Catalunya and the Basque Country. So I don't come on here and just vent from a party political point of view.
But this is likely to turn into one of those You're wrong! - No YOU'RE wrong! sort of "debates" which are so typical of blogs, so I shall leave you to it.
Complain about this comment
#304. enneffess:
In regard to why people should NOT pay bridge tolls. The reason is simple, the Scottish bridges in question are all main integral parts of the main Scottish road transport system. None of them were built, unlike GARL would be, to duplicate an existing quite reasonable system. In effect, if you charge tolls for a main transport link then you are discriminating against a certain area. Take the Skye Bridge, without it there is no main road transport system to the Isle. For both the Forth & Tay you isolate Fife from both north & South and Taysise too. What if they decided to charge a toll to maintain the A74/M74 and the M8/M9? That would, among other places affect the economy of both Edinburgh & Glasgow.
Complain about this comment
322. noblewilliamw
"Brussels or Westminster we're still ultimately abdicating control to outside entities. Or would that not be the case? If it's not the case then why bother with Europe?"
We it not be more sensible to learn something about what the EU is and how it operates before commenting?
PS - Reading the Daily Mail does not count as "learning".
Complain about this comment
I note that glassy eyed wee nyaff and Westminster expenses "victim" Dougie Alexander is to scare hapless Strathclyde University students away from the SNP with a reprise of sister Wendy's "Bwoken Pwomitheth" theme today.
Though not normally prone to violence I must confess Dougie does have what my gran once described as "a face you'd never tire of slapping".
Complain about this comment
327. GrassyKnollington
"...a reprise of sister Wendy's "Bwoken Pwomitheth" theme today."
Doubtless without any sense of irony.
Complain about this comment
#327 grassy knollington,having met my MP in the past I can guarantee he will talk and talk and talk about anything & everything EXCEPT what he is paid to do as a constituency MP.
anything that the local council has done ,anything that the Scottish Parliament has done ,lately demanding that the council do not cut school bus provision,moving the cut off from 2 miles to 3 miles from school & secondary pupils only.I agree that what the council is doing is plain wrong ,I at least have an alternative idea about where to make the savings but of course he and his colleagues in the council and the Scottish Parliament have nothing to say about what they would do differently.
but they make a lovely picture for the local papers all standing with there red ties on.
the other point being he is speaking to the strathclyde uni labour student group so the question must be will more people turn up to hear him than turned up last week to hear the Governor? will his speech be just as successful?
Sid
Complain about this comment
Allele, I note you still haven't been able to find a single comparable reference or piece of precedence to back up your rather bizarre definition of a state.
"I still know a lot of lawyers", that's nice. Let's actually talk about the issue though. You're asserting that the 'state' known currently as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland is only a contract between Scotland and England, and that when one leaves, all leave. You haven't provided any evidence of this, just your own Nationalist wishes.
Let me give you, yet another, example. Pakistan. When Pakistan was created it was a Union of two countries, West Pakistan and East Pakistan. When East Pakistan decided to secede from that union and form the nation state of Bangladesh, Pakistan continued to exist and maintain it's status. It was the same legal entity the day after separation as it was the day before.
Exactly what relevance is your point that Spanish constitutional lawyers have an interest in this? Of course they do. That statement has contributed nothing to this discussion.
Another example, shareholders. If there are originally two founding members of a company who each own 50% of the shares, and then later they each sell 1/3 of their shares to a third person, all three have an equal say in the future of the company. If one of the two original members leaves and gives his shares to the remaining two, the company continues to exist.
I've provided both analysis and examples. I've talked about this in the context of legal entities, and in the specific context of nation states. The reality is that International law is unclear in this area, but that there are logical conclusions which would be drawn from legal precedent. I've provided justification for my point, you have provided none. The closest you have gotten is to claim that you have "spoken to constitutional lawyers" about it, good for you. I cited the examples of the Universities of Edinburgh and University College London who have both posted explaining why what you have said is factually flawed. I've actually given evidence, you've just pretended you have some.
Finally I would note that your position on this legal situation isn't even the position of the SNP, who themselves disagree with your interpretation.
This isn't a case of back and forth "You're wrong" statements, it's a debate, and one in which you are the woefully misinformed loser.
Complain about this comment
330. NCA999
What, exactly, do you imagine you have proved?
Complain about this comment
#331
Steady kermit! your in danger of being out judged?. LoL!
Hey! are you capable of doing "imagine"
Still and all, you are funny.
Complain about this comment
#331
What I have done is respond to the assertions by Allele and others that were Scotland to leave the UK, that the UK would cease to exist (and thus lose its membership of the EU/UN etc). I did so initially just because he was repeatedly posting something which was incorrect, I did so subsequently because he continued to refute and attack my post with innaccurate analysis and made up facts. When you enter into a discussion about facts, and someone repeatedly counters you with incorrect arguments, you do your best to explain the reality to him. This is especially important since one would hope we could have a debate on the future of our country based in a)reality and b)proper planning for any possible outcome.
If you actually read my initial comment you would see that, as well as refuting the nonsense arguments about sovereignty which were being made, I also argued that I don't think it is of relevance were we ever to have an Independence debate.
There are several obvious facts.
1. Were Scotland to leave the UK we would have to re-apply to join the EU (the SNP now concede this point calling it "renegotiate our membership").
2. The chances that we would not be able to continue in the EU are extremely slim. An Independent Scotland not becoming a member of the EU is not a likely or sensible future to expect.
3. With the concern in other EU countries (Cyprus, Belgium, Spain, France et al) about seperatist minorities in some of their own regions they would be very concerned about setting a precedence where this benefited us. Whilst they would likely oppose our membership, there would be unrealistic chances of success at this and so there pound of flesh would be in the form of a much worse deal from the EU than we currently get. This, unlike all of the non-issues espoused above, is where the main debate should be. Not whether we would become an EU member, but what form that membership would take.
Complain about this comment
322. noblewilliamw
"Why doesn't the SNP just go for a Yes or No?"
To what question?
Complain about this comment
#330. At 4:25pm on 27 Feb 2010, NCA999 wrote:
"Allele, I note you still haven't been able to find a single comparable reference or piece of precedence to back up your rather bizarre definition of a state."
There's nothing at all bizarre about Allele's "definition". The facts of the matter are very straightforward; in 1707 two countries, Scotland and England were joined in an Act of Union which created the United Kingdom - previously of course both kingdoms happened to share the same monarch, but they were not united. In 1803 the Kingdom of Ireland, which also happened to share the same monarch but had its own parliament, also joined the Union, which then became the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. Then in 1922 Ireland left to become the Free State/Republic/Eire. The province of Ulster seceded to remain under British rule, but is not and cannot be regarded as the Kingdom of Ireland. Therefore as of 1922 the United Kingdom reverted to its original form. Should Scotland now withdraw then the Union will dissolve not simply because the partnership has been dissolved but because there will be no such thing as the United Kingdom, just the independent kingdoms of Scotland and England and the province of Ulster belonging to whoever gets stuck with it - which comes back to my earlier suggestion that this may underly the apparent hostility of the Orange Order towards the SNP.
Complain about this comment
333. NCA999
"...unlike all of the non-issues espoused above..."
Talking about "non-issues", you have managed to produce inordinate verbiage on a matter which you concede has no impact whatever on the issue of Scotland's independence.
Complain about this comment
335. Caledonian54
"Should Scotland now withdraw then the Union will dissolve not simply because the partnership has been dissolved but because there will be no such thing as the United Kingdom..."
Straightforward enough. The point I was making earlier was that the "rump" UK would almost certainly seek to inherit all the rights and obligations of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. It would seek to become effectively the United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland in the sense that it would be equivalent, to the fullest extent achievable, of the prior entity - minus Scotland.
The actual name, "United Kingdom of England and Northern Ireland", would obviously be a nonsense. But it does usefully describe what Westminster would surely seek to take away from the negotiations leading up to Scotland's secession.
Complain about this comment
I've been thinking about the whole "Gordon Brown is a bully" thing that went on a few days ago. I have to say I was appalled by the people he was accused of bullying: secretaries, guards, chauffeurs, people whose status was such that they had no way to defend themselves. I suppose the police officer whose hand he ignored after President Obama shook hands with the man is kind of typical of the man. He does not strike one as a nice person.
However, even I (who pretty openly dislikes him) have to admit that the real questions are: Does he run the country well? Has he made the right decisions for the country? And will giving one's vote to the SNP put them in a better position to negotiate for Scotland's advantage in the possibility of a hung (or closely held) parliament?
Complain about this comment
330. NCA999
"Let me give you, yet another, example. Pakistan. When Pakistan was created it was a Union of two countries, West Pakistan and East Pakistan. When East Pakistan decided to secede from that union and form the nation state of Bangladesh, Pakistan continued to exist and maintain it's status. It was the same legal entity the day after separation as it was the day before."
Pakistan was created out of a group of provinces of British India, not the union of previously independent states.
Why is it relevant to the discussion about the union of two states to form a single new one, and their subsequent (postulated) separation?
For the record - i have no particular position in this, i couldn't really care. As far as it affects EU entry, the idea that the EU would seek to block or hinder Scotland's entry pretty unlikely in general; at the current time I find even less likely.
With that aside to one side though, here's what would help clarify, for me, part of the discussion you and infrequentallele are having -
What is the status of Great Britain?
The Acts of Union (1707) created Great Britain out of Scotland and England (which had already completely subsumed Wales).
The Act of Union (1800) created the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland.
After that act who were the parties invloved - Great Britain and Ireland, or Scotland, England, and Ireland?
Complain about this comment
NCA999:
#333.
"There are several obvious facts.
1. Were Scotland to leave the UK we would have to re-apply to join the EU (the SNP now concede this point calling it "renegotiate our membership")."
I call this manipulation of the facts. If Scotland was the successor state, Scotland is entitled to continue the same treaties, the only thing needed discussed is the contribution to the EU etc and the extra voting power.
Argentina is claiming the Falkland islands on the basis that Argentina was the successor state and entitled to continue all treaties, rights and claims that Spain originally made.
"2. The chances that we would not be able to continue in the EU are extremely slim. An Independent Scotland not becoming a member of the EU is not a likely or sensible future to expect."
I agree. Scotland is apart of the European Union through the United Kingdom, hence I don't believe circumstances would change come independence but it would be funny if we were refused entry as that would be symbolic about the mistreatment of Scotland in the political union.
"3. With the concern in other EU countries (Cyprus, Belgium, Spain, France et al) about seperatist minorities in some of their own regions they would be very concerned about setting a precedence where this benefited us. Whilst they would likely oppose our membership, there would be unrealistic chances of success at this and so there pound of flesh would be in the form of a much worse deal from the EU than we currently get. This, unlike all of the non-issues espoused above, is where the main debate should be. Not whether we would become an EU member, but what form that membership would take."
This is not likily. Those with their own minorities claiming independence have to say why Scotland, shouldn't be allowed to continue membership and simply saying 'because our minorities might get more popular' is not good enough. In fact, I know many of the countries you mentioned have investments in the seas that os technically Scotlands. When one door closes another one opens, Scotland will simply refuse access to her fishing grounds.
Scotland is at a position of strength I believe.
Complain about this comment
#301 Roll_On_2010
'Salmond asked students to invest their future in him, but in government he has refused to invest in theirs,” Mr Alexander will declare'
I guess the timing of this part of his speech was wrong given the conflicting news on education spending released the other day by the Scottish Government. I believe the amount allocated to unis and colleges was more than ever before.
Complain about this comment
333. NCA999
"There are several obvious facts."
Assertions. Perhaps well-founded and reasoned, but assertions nonetheless.
"1. Were Scotland to leave the UK we would have to re-apply to join the EU (the SNP now concede this point calling it "renegotiate our membership")."
Can be read completely differently from the way you do. We could have no re-application at all, be guaranteed entry - all we have to do is agree temrs. The current terms apply to the UK, none exist for Scotland they would have to be defined, it doesn't necessarily mean we have to re-apply per-se. Clearly the actually will lie somewhere in-between; even a guaranteed entry won't be cast iron if we can't come to mutually agreeable terms. The point is though that what you claim is just the SNP 'calling' re-application something different is not.
"2. The chances that we would not be able to continue in the EU are extremely slim. An Independent Scotland not becoming a member of the EU is not a likely or sensible future to expect."
Agreed, I also suppose the same thing. I wish it were incontrovertible fact.
"3. With the concern in other EU countries (Cyprus, Belgium, Spain, France et al) about seperatist minorities in some of their own regions they would be very concerned about setting a precedence where this benefited us. Whilst they would likely oppose our membership, there would be unrealistic chances of success at this and so there pound of flesh would be in the form of a much worse deal from the EU than we currently get. This, unlike all of the non-issues espoused above, is where the main debate should be. Not whether we would become an EU member, but what form that membership would take."
All possible, but so is the likelihood that the EU as a body would not tolerate the antidemocratic and petty spiting of a european country by some member states simply because they themselves have unconstitutional issues.
Also, the very acts that you suggest they might take are exactly the sorts of behaviours which would become high profile examples to be siezed upon by the their own internal 'secessionists'; i'm unconvinced that they would be so politically naive.
Plenty scope for healthy and interesting discussion, that's because facts are seldom that.
Complain about this comment
338. JRMacClure
Whoa. Apparently we are now not allowed to refer to the fact that Gordon Brown has been accused of being a bully? I mentioned absolutely NOTHING that hasn't been headline news.
Complain about this comment
337. Electric Hermit
"Straightforward enough. The point I was making earlier was that the "rump" UK would almost certainly seek to inherit all the rights and obligations of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "
Absolutely, they would try. However, there is no reason why they should be allowed to get away with it!
They would also try to claim that all of the UK DEBTS should be shared by Scotland but none of the UK assets which Scottish taxes helped pay for! You can bet on it.
Again, there is no reason (and no way) they should be allowed to get away with it.
That Scotland would have to reapply to the EU has possible and has been discussed by the SNP but is NOT a certainty as shown in an article that has been several times referenced.
http://www.barcelonareporter.com/index.php?/news/comments/catalonia_will_remain_in_the_eu_if_it_became_independent_from_spain/2102100725am
Since I don't have access to the paper that this article refers to I'm not sure how accurate its conclusions are (and I'm not a lawyer who deals in this kind of thing either). But insisting that that newly independent states would be required to reapply rather than inheriting membership is an assumption, not a fact.
Complain about this comment
344. JRMacClure
"However, there is no reason why they should be allowed to get away with it!"
Of course. And if we have the likes of Salmond, Swinney and Sturgeon negotiating on our behalf I doubt "they" would get away with very much.
Complain about this comment
337. Electric Hermit
"Straightforward enough. The point I was making earlier was that the "rump" UK would almost certainly seek to inherit all the rights and obligations of the former United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. "
The rest of the UK would remain the UK after we left. A few points of note, we never formed the United Kingdom on the act of union, we formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed at a later stage.
Secondly and more importantly, there is still nobody who has provided a single example where a legal entity ceases to exist because one of it's founding members leaves. These arguments are prefaced upon the belief that Scotland is a state in International Law, it is not. The UK is a state. A state does not cease to exist when a part of it declares it's intention not to be a part of said state anymore.
Complain about this comment
#295
Just to pick up small point in that post. I'm busy a the moment .
Oil is extracted by multi-national corporations. Government rent out the oilfields to them and take tax revenue on the extracted oil.
Governments have nothing to do with the extraction process.
The clever old Norwegians however took shares in the companies doing the extractions so they win all ways. You do understand that the Norwegian Oil Fund now stands at over $400,000,000,000,000 - and in only 13 years. They could pay off UKs national debt twice.
The UK wasted all that and more spending their oil reveues as fast as they could get them to bolster the Uk's collapsing economy.
It was intersting to note that all the news channels carried the news on Wednsday that the 50 years of oil left in Scotland's water will be worth a lot more than what has been taken out to date. I have no idea what brought about that shining ray of truth after over forty years of lies
Complain about this comment
304.
Why can't the government do what the Armed Forces do, and set a flat rate regardless where you live, and you pay it via a small additional tax? Less bureaucracy for a start.
That is essentially what LIT will do, a flat rate of 3% paid centrally to Holyrood, unlike the armed forces, where by definition everyone is employed, there will be an exemption for those with low incomes.
333.
1. Were Scotland to leave the UK we would have to re-apply to join the EU (the SNP now concede this point calling it "renegotiate our membership").
If the union of Great Britain is dissolved, then both Scotland and England would inherit the obligations of Great Britain. So to use one example, the UK is one of the largest contributors to the budget of the European Broadcasting Union, and as such receives a guarenteed position in the final of the Eurovision Song Contest. If we did not "renegotiate our membership" then both successor states would be obliged to provide the same level of funding to the EBU, effectivly doubling this island's contribution.
Complain about this comment
347. sneckedagain
"I have no idea what brought about that shining ray of truth after over forty years of lies "
I suspect what led them to finally admit what has been glaringly obvious for quite some time is the need to bolster the UK financial position. Constantly trumpeting that the "UK oil" is about to run out does not help the UK in financial markets, even though no one in the industry have ever bought that. But it can affect investors.
Complain about this comment
#315
I have read the 20098 GERS report(and understand it).
You obviously have not.
Grow up.
Oil (which was trading at $15 per barrel in the 1970s) has traded at between $70 and $80 per barrel (42 gallons) for the last six months. There is no possibility, in face of rapidly increasing demand, of it dropping below those levels (except perhaps for very short clearing periods)and most industry analysts expect it to be trading regularly at between $90 and $100 dollars sooner rather than later.
Are you perhaps an SNP plant posting on here to give us easy opportunities to shoot you down?
Complain about this comment
346. NCA999
"A state does not cease to exist when a part of it declares it's intention not to be a part of said state anymore."
As I understand it, nobody is saying that the state formerly known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would cease to exist. Only that it would no longer be the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The entity would continue, but in a different form. And, incidentally, the "United Kingdom" part of that entity's name would no longer make any sense.
The precise form and status of the remaining entity - often referred to as Rump UK (RUK), will depend on the settlement negotiated between the two states and between each of those states and various international bodies, ie EU, UN etc.
None of which constitutes any impediment to Scotland seceding from the union.
Complain about this comment
343. JRMacClure
They don't like alliteration with the "B" I have tried it and failed, humourless hapless hierachiel hasbeens that they are.
Don't Panic!: Mind your temper, Captain
Complain about this comment
347 Sneckedagain
The SNP's agenda was hardly embraced over the last 4 decades.
Personally I have no problem with the nationalisation of industry, however those Thatcher years of a privatised economy have alot to answer for.
We aren't Norway nor a Catalan. Scotland can only build with the tools it's got and so far the tool bag your offering is empty and your one so-called sharp blade (oil)is blunt, in terms of the kinda revenues you espouse!.
Complain about this comment
349. Indeed JR, it was that independence high wire act in action again. Telling Scots how utterly hopeless things are and hoping no-one else notices was always going to blow up in their faces.
The subsidy junkie/sponging Jock parasite theme is now so well established in England that even presenting the ignorant with the facts is met with disbelief.
London Labour sold the lie too well and 50 odd million people who weren't even supposed to hear it, let alone believe it, bought into it wholesale.
"Oh what a tangled web we weave...."
Complain about this comment
346. NCA999
"A few points of note, we never formed the United Kingdom on the act of union, we formed the Kingdom of Great Britain. The United Kingdom was formed at a later stage."
Yes, but wasn't the United Kingdom formed from Great Britain and Ireland?
If Scotland ceases to be part of the United Kingdom, it does so by ceasing to be part of Great Britain surely.
Great Britain is England and Scotland.
Without Scotland there is no Great Britain.
How can there be any United Kingdom of Great Britain and anyone if there is no Great Britain to be party to it?
Complain about this comment
350. sneckedagain
"I have read the 20098 GERS report..."
Now that's what I call an advance copy!
Complain about this comment
352. cynicalHighlander
"They don't like alliteration with the "B" I have tried it and failed, humourless hapless hierachiel hasbeens that they are.
Don't Panic!: Mind your temper, Captain"
The amusing thing was that I came as close as I will ever come to defending the man in that I said that being "that kind of person" makes him someone I wouldn't want to associate with but what people will judge is how well (OR badly) he runs and has run the country.
So I was a bit baffled by it being moderated. I've said MUCH worse about GB on this forum any number of times. =)
Complain about this comment
#356 EH
"I have read the 20098 GERS report..."
Time warpping again Electric Dreamer?.
Complain about this comment
346.
there is still nobody who has provided a single example where a legal entity ceases to exist because one of it's founding members leaves.
The USSR, ceased to exist when Russia left, all parties agreed on this, and agreed that Russia should inherit all obligations regarding nuclear weapons and the UN security council seat.
The Socialist Federal Republic of Yugoslavia ceased to exist when Croatia and Slovenia declared independence, Belgrade attempted to claim sole successor status and continue as Yugoslavia for 8 years, Croatia and Slovenia objected.
Complain about this comment
346. NCA999
"Secondly and more importantly, there is still nobody who has provided a single example where a legal entity ceases to exist because one of it's founding members leaves. "
Show me an example of any 'union' between two parties that persists after one of the parties leaves that union.
The Act of Union (1800) explicitly names the entities which create the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland. If Scotland becomes independent then Great Britain no longer exists.
This is the bit i don't get - I can see how two states fall out of this, one is Scotland the other is comprised of England and Northern Ireland; are you saying that your view is that the latter is the current United Kingdom still, despite the fact that the United Kingdom is only defined as a union including an entity which no longer exists (GB)?
Complain about this comment
Formation of the United Kingdom
History of the United Kingdom
Complain about this comment
I had two posts (1641 and 1654) moderated on the last topic. I have received no explanation why this was done though I have asked for explanation and have asked for copies of them for further complaint.
Both postings referred to the Electoral Commissions report on the conduct of the Glenrothes by election and the fact that these deeply disturbing findings have been buried by our media.
This is unacceptable.
Complain about this comment
#353
Threadbare stuff. No facts. No figures. I wont respond to anything you post if they continue to be unsubstantiatd assertions and fantasy facts aimed at the numpty voter.
Complain about this comment
347. sneckedagain
"I have no idea what brought about that shining ray of truth after over forty years of lies "
The shattered state of the UK economy and the need to present ourselves as 'good' for our debt - sterling's looking more and more like a potential target for speculation.
Complain about this comment
NCA999's point is applicable to the Federal Republic of Germany, which allowing for the various bits and pieces lost as a result of the 20th century wars, is essentially the Germany Empire as founded in 1871 by unifying a number of hitherto independent kingdoms, including Prussia, Saxony, Hanover and Bavaria, as well as a number of lesser states, Duchies and the like. Now, were one of these former kingdoms, say Bavaria just for the sake of example, to secede or separate, citing the fact that it formerly existed as an independent state for rather longer than the present republic, the FDR would be diminished thereby but it would still exist as it would still encompass the majority of the Federal States.
Not so the United Kingdom; while the 1707 Treaty of Union joined the two kingdoms of Scotland and England it did not extinguish them, which is why Scotland still has its own legal system etc. In the event of the union being dissolved, as I and other posters have pointed out, there would be no rump United Kingdom simply because it would no longer exist; there would simply be the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England - which could then "stand alone" as it apparently did during WW2
Complain about this comment
360.
If GB is dissolved and both Scotland and England are successor states of GB then it creates "England & NI" and "Scotland & NI".
With the exceptions of Anguilla, Bermuda, Montserrat, and the Virgin, Cayman, and Turks & Caicos islands, which were all English colonies prior to Union, the British dependencies would also belong to both successor states.
We have precedents for a colony declaring independence from the colonial power, and we have examples for the dissolution of unions, but I can't think of an example where the colonial power dissolves, but there are still areas that want to be territories.
Complain about this comment
362. sneckedagain
Is the report to be found here , the 8th link down (entitled - 'Report on the administration of the by-election in Glenrothes')?
Complain about this comment
365. Caledonian54
"...there would be no rump United Kingdom simply because it would no longer exist; there would simply be the Kingdom of Scotland and the Kingdom of England - which could then "stand alone" as it apparently did during WW2"
All of this may be true in a strict legal sense. But in practical, real-world terms none of the things which relate to or are identified with or define the entity now called the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland would simply vanish. All of this would be inherited by some entity. What, for want of a better name, we have come to call the Rump UK (RUK) would surely lay claim to the bulk of this inheritance. To the extent that RUK was successful in this effort it would become effectively the continuation of the entity formerly known as the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland regardless what it chose to call itself.
Complain about this comment
368. Electric Hermit
That's true i suppose, I guess (for me) the question is - does that happen automatically (with UK obligations falling to one part of the formaer UK), or does it require the rump to reconstitute itself as a new state?
Complain about this comment
364. mrbfaethedee
"The shattered state of the UK economy and the need to present ourselves as 'good' for our debt - sterling's looking more and more like a potential target for speculation.
"
They are currently finishing off munching on Greece. You may well should expect the sterling to be next. And I very much think that is the source of this unwonted honesty.
Complain about this comment
273. kered
"
1/ several compainies become nervous at the thought of an Independent Scotland, so much so! they up sticks and leave creating more unemployment, last month Scotlads unemployment rose by 10,000
I had a reply to this then I re read your question again and thought he should really cut down on the substance abuse! Are you seriously thinking that a company would do that, it sounds more like SoS rant rather than any real concern. Unemployement in the UK is going to go through the roof and Thatcher is going to of seemed compassionate to whats on the horizon.
2/ Scotland's banking sector is in disarray, Independence at this time would only worsen our banking system and the collapse of RBS and HBOS would be immient.
The banks are global corporate bodies who played the roulette wheel and lost and buffoon Brown bailed them out at UK taxpayers expense just for him to keep in power nothing more as the World would of kept on turning without these leeches. They were Scottish in name only and could of been based anywhere on this globe. Who Owns The Bank Of England? My question to you would be if England doesn't own their named bank why should we blamed for HBOS's failings?
3/Scotland would have to hold a referendum of the EU and whether we would accept the Euro, Greeece is in financial turmoil just now and the Euro may even weaken an Independent Scotland further at this persent time.
We could adopt or create any currency that fitted in with our trading partners, if you have something to sell that they need we hold the joker.
4/Scotland can only collect tax revenues from it's oil and gas reserves, although they would be healthy Scotland couldn't live on those revenues alone and we haven't quite can to terms with securing our renewenable energy needs and technology niether.
We have plenty of other resources both human and natural but our ruling neighbours are reluctant for us to progress as we "might get above our station" and show them up. Oil is the icing on the cake which will allow us to reinstate our failing infrastructure to suit our needs not an opiniated few.
5/Scotland remains a complex case in terms of religion and political endeavours, any sudden dive into Independence could spark a very dangerous,, possible situation (Irish issue)
Its OK Murphy will be esconsed in ermine feeding of Westminster. The problem is a West coast problem fueled by Labour politicians for political ends and until the catalyst is removed from dominant power then your concerns can be addressed, remember Scotland stretches outside that area.
6/So far, no one from the nationalist benches has put up exactly what an Independent Scottish governments budget would be?.
Piece of string and until the treasury allow outside auditing who knows, one can only make reasonable assertions.
7/Foreign policy, would an Independent Scotland remove all Scottish personell from Afghan and would an Independent Scotland fund an Independent army, navy and airforce?. Would an Independent Scotland set up ambassadors in foreign countries?
Why are we in Afghanistan to allow the Westminster poodle to cock his leg in public. Scotland has NO empirichal aspirations as far as I know and would create a defense force that suited the defence of Scotland relevant to any percieved threat to its citizens and resources within its territorial boundaries nothing more would be required.
8/What type of health service and social welfare service would an Independent Scotland support?.
No worse than present and hopefully an improvement where needed.
9/What would Scotland do to gain more fishery rights?Would an Independent Scotland nationalise any companies. like whisky companies.
I could quote J Macenroe but will refrain and only say what do you think!
10/ Independence may just be bigger than you imagine cynicalhighlander and the road to that destination is a slow burn."
I will leave you to fathom out how to scale the wall if you have the will I will just walk around corner to get to the other side.
Complain about this comment
369. mrbfaethedee
"That's true i suppose, I guess (for me) the question is - does that happen automatically (with UK obligations falling to one part of the formaer UK), or does it require the rump to reconstitute itself as a new state?"
Some bits of it will doubtless be "automatic". Other bits will be subject to negotiation between and among various parties. My guess would be that all parties, recognising the value of continuity, would see it as being in everybody's interest to maintain RUK as something as close as possible to the old United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
Complain about this comment
I've thought of one potentially major issue that is very likely to arise should the union split:
Time.
A lot of English MPs and business leaders, particularly in the SE, continually demand that the UK adopts CET, which is 2 hours ahead of GMT.
If England decided to do that, what would happen in Scotland.
Something to consider.
We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude.
Complain about this comment
Unionist desperation:
Scotsman on Sunday with a(nother) laughable article claiming that support for the SNP is behind the Tories.
Anyway, look out for the new Newsnet Scotland news site - coming soon !!
Complain about this comment
372. Electric Hermit
Yes, I think that's the most likely scenario - a mix of what must be done and what is desired. Sounds like a good postion for Scotland; where simply being unobstructive might constitute a little leverage.
Complain about this comment
370. JRMacClure
"They are currently finishing off munching on Greece. You may well should expect the sterling to be next. And I very much think that is the source of this unwonted honesty. "
Indeed, it should be a clear measure of the dire state of the UK, and not as just another economic casualty like the rest; but one of the worst. Some speculators may want their pound of sterling!
Complain about this comment
374. Online Ed
"Scotsman on Sunday with a(nother) laughable article claiming that support for the SNP is behind the Tories.
Anyway, look out for the new Newsnet Scotland news site - coming soon !!"
I'm starting to look forward to the campaigns now - just to get to the real polls and lay the unrelenting 'keep saying it till they believe it' strategy to bloody rest.
p.s. stop teasing!
Complain about this comment
373. enneffess
"
We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude"
Aberdeen and Barcelona are within the same longitude, but different time zones. Likewise London and Bordeaux. In fact, for something we "cannot have" it is remarkably common.
Complain about this comment
#373 Neil
'We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude'
Whats wrong with that ? You could have breakfast in Berwick and hop across the border and have second breakfast... and no i'm nae a hobbit !
We could have SCT or Scottish Central Time ;o)}
Complain about this comment
#371
Cynicalhighlander, I'm surprised you didn't surpress the Red-Herrings.
Look! for every good point you make there is a counter-reaction, "walking around the wall" you'll have to get out of the trench first and there's snippers all over the place.
A semi reply is nothing more than a flip/flop however there are some areas that you do try to take on!, if you want to take the people with you, you have got to lay out the strategy! and there has got to be a safety net on all the main issues.
Jumping out of the trench to get a bullet straight in the forehead, is unlikely to enthuse your support.There are no sliver bullets Cynical highlander, it's a slow ride so take it easy.
Complain about this comment
373. enneffess
"We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude."
People manage with time zone anomolies quite well. In the US, the state of Arizona, for example, (yes, Americans are weird--so just go with this) refuse to adopt Daylight Savings Time every year which the rest of the US does. So everyone just knows this and puts up with it.
Time zones and such are nothing but arbitrary constructs and a few minor irregularities just don't matter.
Complain about this comment
379. Scarymannie
"You could have breakfast in Berwick and hop across the border and have second breakfast... and no i'm nae a hobbit ! "
lol!
Mmmmm, breakfasts...
Complain about this comment
380. kered
Life doesn't supply safety nets perse its an adventure so go with the flow and enjoy the thrill in your newbirth with all the knowledge that you have absorbed available giving you a headstart, until you cross the bridge you will never know how green the grass is. The facts that you should of learnt by now is that the UK as an entity will be deemed as a backward country and deserves its demise the same as past civilizations which thought they were invincible and now consigned to extinction. You have two choices either go extinct dragging everyone with you or diversify to build a future for all.
Pictures of a Market Crash: Beware the Ides of March, And What Follows After
Complain about this comment
380. kered
"#371
Cynicalhighlander, I'm surprised you didn't surpress the Red-Herrings."
I didn't wish to insult you, not this time anyway!
Complain about this comment
#382 Mrb
'Mmmmm, breakfasts...'
a bit early yet but you go ahead. Ive just eaten second dinners !
Complain about this comment
#383
Cynicalhighlander, that was quite poetic and thanks for cutting me some slack.
"The grass is green" I argree!. we can chew the cud and burn the bridges
but any settlement must be endorsed by the majority and that's the solid foundation the SNP must lay.
I don't quite grasp your belief, that Independence would shelter us from the coming economic storm?. Scotland shares the same guilt as England, we're as knee deep as our nieghbours, in our 300 yearold plus history.
Complain about this comment
AUNTY'S deliberate aiding of the Labour Party, and burying of real news continues unabated I see.
Liebour have no justification whatever for wanting a referendum on the future of everything but Scottish self-determination.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
386. kered
"Scotland shares the same guilt as England, we're as knee deep as our nieghbours, in our 300 yearold plus history."
Like nuclear energy, Trident, illegal wars, complicity in torture I haven't for any of those.
Complain about this comment
Jeepers ... mayhem in Shetland...
http://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/scotsol/homepage/news/2834860/Council-love-rat-takes-his-leave.html
I was trying to find out the political leanings of the ex Chief executive but cant seem to find it anywhere.
Complain about this comment
#389 cynicalhighlander
Yes! but how many Scots have been involved in you list?.
Not everyone in Scotland is whiter than white, we have our fair share of blame Cynicalhighlander.
Complain about this comment
373.
If England decided to do that, what would happen in Scotland.
GMT would stand for Greenock Mean Time
We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude.
Someone will need to tell India and everyone it borders.
390.
There are no political parties in Orkney or Shetland, everyone elected stood as an independent.
Complain about this comment
Damage Scotland’s drinks industry & scupper minimum pricing efforts with one blow?
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/financetopics/budget/7331997/Budget-2010-Drinkers-face-rise-in-spirits-duty.html
Union dividend
Complain about this comment
You know I remember Mr. Salmond setting there on... was it Paxman? Anyway some English interviewer he was talking to and he said it would probably be a hung Westminster parliament. Then he said much the same thing or that that was what he was hoping for at the SNP conference. Everyone said "no way that could happen".
I'm not sure that the most recent 2% poll isn't an outlier but the chances of a hung parliament with say a 4-6% difference looks like a high possibility. Of course, there's a tough fought campaign when the Tories will get a heck of a lot more air time. But this isn't going to be any run-away Tory victory.
Obviously Salmond saw the present situation coming. And this CAN be an advantage for the SNP. A strong SNP block especially allied with the PC could be in a fantastic negotiating position in Westminster for protecting Scottish interests and even getting what a lot of Scots want. It will have to fight being squeezed with people afraid that voting SNP will give the election to the Tories. So there are both sides. It won't be easy to put this to their advantage but it could possibly be done.
Complain about this comment
#370 JRMacClure
#376 mrbfaethedee
It is believed that one of the group of hedge fund operators behind difficulties with the Euro is Mr Soros. The man who made more than $1billion by currency speculation when the pound was ejected from the ERM on Black Wednesday in 1992,
He is quoted as saying: I Believe the structure of the euro is 'patently flawed'. 'Makeshift assistance should be enough for Greece, but that leaves Spain, Italy, Portugal and Ireland. 'Together they constitute too large a portion of Euroland to be helped in this way.'
So my guess is that the above group of countries will be the pecking order before they move on to dear old Blighty.
I assume you could call this the ‘Unacceptable face of Capitalism’. Unfortunately it’s not the likes of the Bankers, Politicians or Energy Companies that will pay for this; they indeed have been making hay during this recession. The ones who will pay for this are the same people who paid for it last time in 1992 - us the taxpayers, through higher costs for goods and taxes and an increase in Unemployment.
What is notable about Europe is the ‘tit for tat’ rift between Greece and Germany:
With friends like this: The cover of the German magazine 'Focus' this week, which shows the Venus de Milo giving the finger by a headline accusing Greece of swindling its way into the euro.
In response the Greek daily Eleftheros Typos ran this depiction of the statue of the goddess Victoria, atop the Siegessaeule in Berlin, holding a swastika earlier this week in reaction to the Focus cover.
Complain about this comment
Hootsmon Headline
Complain about this comment
Ah. Someon doesn't like my linking to Conan the Librarian's satire. A bit over-sensitive are we? He's funny as usual.
In fact, someone (now I wonder who that could be... hmmmm?) seems to be doing a lot of referring to moderators.
Complain about this comment
This comment was removed because the moderators found it broke the House Rules.
#392 FatherMacKenzie...
'There are no political parties in Orkney or Shetland, everyone elected stood as an independent.'
Cheers ..I didn't know that.
Complain about this comment
398. JRMacClure
*sigh* I forgot the "English only" rule. I was commenting that in the past 100 years quite a number of European nations have gained and/or regained their independence. There is this pretence that a desire for indepdence (nationalism, if you will) in Scotland is somehow unusual, parochial or shameful. Well let's look at a PARTIAL list (off-the top of my head with no research except checking a few dates). I'm sure I've missed some but I know these, in no particular order:
Montenegro -- independence restored 2006
Bosnia Herzegovina -- independence restored 1992
Republic of Croatia -- independence restored 1991
Republic of Moldova -- independence restored 1991
Ukraine -- independence restored 1991
Republic of Estonia -- independence restored 1991
Belarus -- gained independence 1991
Republic of Lithuania -- declared independence 1990
Republic of Cyprus -- independence declared from the UK 1960
Republic of Malta -- gained independence from the UK 1964
Republic of Latvia -- independence restored 1991
Iceland -- declared independence 1944
Kingdom of Norway -- declared independence 1905
Republic of Albania -- regained independence 1912
Finland -- declared independence 1917
Republic of Ireland -- declared its independence from the UK 1916
Czech Republic -- independence restored 1993
Slovak Republic -- independence restored 1993
-------------------------------
I have never had anyone be able to explain to me why any of these nations are more capable of or worthy of running their own affairs than is Scotland.
I'll try Latin this time.
Audentis fortuna iuvat.
Complain about this comment
386. kered
""The grass is green" I argree!. we can chew the cud and burn the bridges
but any settlement must be endorsed by the majority and that's the solid foundation the SNP must lay."
Very true! Convincing the people of Scotland that independence is the right thing is exactly what the SNP, other pro-indy parties, and all of us who support the idea need to do.
"I don't quite grasp your belief, that Independence would shelter us from the coming economic storm?. Scotland shares the same guilt as England, we're as knee deep as our nieghbours, in our 300 yearold plus history."
It's not so much about sheltering from the current storm as it is about being allowed to steer our own way through it.
I don't believe in national guilt as anything other than analogy, but as far as it goes, Scotland does indeed share in the responsibility for works, good and bad, of the UK & Great Britain.
I do believe that we are more predisposed than our union partners as a nation to turn our back on some of those less positive motivations, and to care more about the lot of our fellows both inside and outside our country and time, and if we allow these predispositions to guide and inform us as an independent nation, that is surely a good thing.
Perhaps once we steer our own course in the world we might see the flowering of another enlightenment in Scotland! Hopeful, I know; but I have no shame in aspiring to it.
Complain about this comment
# 400 JR
A significant problem is that the Unionist parties in Scotland know that they do not have the talent or ability to run an independent country. They are scared of the challenge and therefore try to portray their own lack of ability as that of Scotland as a country.
It is a terrifying thought that the sum of their ambition is to see Scotland continue downhill tied to a tired Union, scared to consider the opportunities that an independent Scotland might well have.
But, as I have said, this is all stems from their own lack of ability and talent.
Complain about this comment
#315. kered:
I mentioned already that GERS has no relevance for a post-independent Scotland. The Government Expenditure and Revenue Scotland, is exactly what it says on the tin, " a Government Analysis of the public finances in Scotland, estimating expenditure, revenue and net borrowing". It is thus their, "Public Finance", their, "estimated expenditure",their, "revenue", and their, "Net borrowing". What is more it is THEIR formula used, for example, to estimate Scotland's contributions to the UK finances. Some things are like a sore thumb in their figures. Where are the figures from that new wee country, "Extra-Regio", just off the Scottish shoreline? Where are the figures from the 6,000 Sq Mls of Scotland annexed by England that would come back to Scotland under the International borders rules? What are the figures for Crown Estates income? ad infinitem.
Complain about this comment
I had the misfortune to switch on my radio before 9.30 this morning,just in time to hear Shereen Nanjiani introduce a discussion about the SNP and their problems over the last two weeks. From the start the whole tone of this piece was about how badly the SNP have been doing, and how much Alex Salmond's stature has been diminished. Anyone listening to this programme could be forgiven for thinking that the SNP might as well disband and go home. As I reached over to switch off I even heard Shereen introduce Glenn Campbell as 'Scoop'. I've already stopped buying Scottish newspapers,and I listen to the BBC less than I used to. The thing that annoys me is that I have to pay for this anti-SNP propaganda. Is there anywhere that I can listen to a straightforward and unbiased discussion of Scottish politics?
Complain about this comment
I see the Scotsman are in good form this morning again:
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/Eddie-Barnes-Our-new-poll.6110863.jp
http://news.scotsman.com/politics/John-Curtice-Struggling-Nationalists-out.6110876.jp
After reading previous contributors discussions Re: YouGov polls, and Prof Curtices particular 'views' on Scottish politics its hardly surprising the conclusion they have managed to draw.
Damage limitation anyone?
Complain about this comment
Oldnat, Brownedov, any other 'pollster' officianados have the breakdown on this latest Hootsmon publicised poll.
I suspect that the sample numbers and methodology will again play a significant part in how the result was achieved, is it as doom laden as we are being le to believe by the ever impartial paragon of the Scottish press and our resident political expert Prof Curtice (who reallt should know better if his academic career and reputation meant anything to him)
Complain about this comment
#322. noblewilliamw.
You ask,would, "Scotland be "better off" as a state in Europe as opposed to being a state within the UK?
The answer has, several times been given here. There is no doubt she would be financially better off and, within the EU she would have a seat at the top table. Lastly, there would be no UK, Westminster, parliament as, if one of the only two signatories of the Treaty Of Union withdraws then there is no UK government. There is only an English parliament with the principallity and the annexed Province. Westminster was purpose built with Union funds and we Scots own part of it. With London property prices it must be a nice little earner. We would propable join the other British countries as a sort of bloc within the EU where we would have more than one voice & vote.
Complain about this comment
379. Scarymannie
"We could have SCT or Scottish Central Time"
We could have Scottish Highlands and Islands Time (SHIT) - which is GMT minus 1 decade.
Complain about this comment
#324. InfrequentAllele2:
Great post. You are correct. It seems not to get through that Treaties are no different to any other form of contract. There are differences in various countries legal systems and Scottish is different from English. Thus, as far as Scottish residents are concerned it is Scottish jurisdiction that defines any matter within Scotland. The Treaty of Union is a contract between only two countries. Anyting signed after that is with the UK of GB and has neither England or Scotland signatures. Any gripe any country has with the former UK of GB has no one to sue. I wonder if that applies to the UK national debt?
Complain about this comment
Joan McAlpine: Stormy waters help Alex Salmond sail ahead
He has something fresh to say: the UK is heading for stormy waters. The good ship Britannia is heaving with a cargo of debt worth £1.1 trillion. Does Scotland want to be dragged under with it? Suggesting we can no longer afford to remain in the union flies in the face of the orthodoxy that suffocates Scotland’s public discourse.
Complain about this comment
First: an interesting letter from a regular contributor to the Sunday Herald.
http://tinyurl.com/ygxb8kl
And a risible article from the Scottish (sic) Sunday Express accusing Alex Salmond of attempting to manipulate STV for his own political purposes.
http://tinyurl.com/yjrgkh9
This contains quite a few equally risible quotes, including this nugget from Iain Gray,
“The suggestion that Alex Salmond attempted to manipulate Scotland’s largest commercial broadcaster is deeply concerning. Alex Salmond’s obsession with trying to manipulate the media tallies completely with these revelations.”
Silly me, I thought manipulation of the media was a reserved matter solely under Labours’ jurisdiction.
Complain about this comment
# 393 Cassidy - it might explain why Labour (Scotland) have been stalling on the minimum pricing issue. The "BIG boys" in Westminster will sort it for us.
Complain about this comment
The next smoke screen has been sent up to replace 'lunch gate' and Nicolas letter:
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/160936/Riddle-of-Salmond-and-STV-promises-
Complain about this comment
#330. NCA999 wrote:
Nice try - but no coconut. The Treaty Of Union predates international law. Nearest they had was the Pop's blessing. In any case your Pakistan example falls as :- 1940 - Lahore Resolution, which endorses idea of separate nation for India's Muslims, to be called Pakistan. 1947 - July 18; The British Parliament passes the Indian Independence Act. There was no Pakistan before that time. It comes under what jurisdiction? Remember it, unlike Scotland, was a new country. The Treaty of Union was thus subject to Scottish jurisdiction in Scotland & English jurisdiction in England. As were both Acts Of Union.
So there was no United Kingdom law before that date and no international jurisdiction either. As to your example of company law, are you quoting The Scottish or English legal position. Remember we are talking about a situation where the UK has gone TA!Ta!
There is no doubt that either England, Scotland, Wales or indeed either Irish faction, could plead for International Legal help. So what?
The definition of a nation state is - The nation-state is a state that self-identifies as deriving its political legitimacy from serving as a sovereign entity for a nation as a sovereign territorial unit. A state is a political and geopolitical entity. A nation is a cultural and/or ethnic entity. A "nation-state" implies that the two geographically coincide, and this distinguishes the nation state from the other types of state, which historically preceded it.
Complain about this comment
#406 ScotInNotts
Afraid details are not up on YouGov site so there's no telling, yet.
Complain about this comment
Two articles in the Herald today that, if substantiated, don't exactly cover the Scottish government in glory. I still think of the SFT can be made to work that it is better than the black hole of PFI (almost anyhting is!), but the articel Re: Scottish water is worrying. Mutualisation is one thing, privatisation is another.
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/sft-spends-400k-on-consultants-but-achieves-nothing-1.1009894
http://www.heraldscotland.com/business/corporate-sme/salmond-s-secret-talks-on-scottish-water-sell-off-1.1009804
Complain about this comment
#410 cynicalhighlander
I'm shocked you managed to find such an article in todays press, surely there's been some mistake?
Complain about this comment
413. ScotInNotts
"The next smoke screen has been sent up..."
Nothing as substantial as smoke in this.
Complain about this comment
#415 handclapping
Cheers for the heads up
Complain about this comment
#413 ScotInNotts....
'“We also need to know whether the SNP Government had a role in removing popular programmes, like The Bill, from our screens.'
Oh no .. nae The Bill. Does it not occur to them that perhaps The Bill might have just run its course and nae cos Alex Salmond didnt watch it. Mebbe The Express wants the SNP to back such channels as Television X instead ! Well it would be slightly better than The Bill i suppose.
Complain about this comment
Auld Bob
It's naiive questions like "I wonder if that applied to the UK's national debt" that highlight how little you understand the subject on which you are preaching.
If two people get divorced, do you honestly think that the Bank doesn't still hold them both liable for the mortgage they took out in their joint account?
The daft and idiotic posts being put on here about how the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland are defined as a state by the Act of Union is ludicrous. First of all, it was the Kingdom of Great Britain that was formed by the Act of Union, not the United Kingdom. But secondly and more importantly, for your argument to have any bearing, even in it's no single piece of precedence and contrary to international legal history status, Scotland would have to still be a state. It is not.
The United Kingdom is not a sovereign state in international law because of the Act of Union. It is as such because we are recognised by the United Nations as being such. This is why the Knights of Malta still continue to be a state, despite no longer retaining any connection to the previous country, because states and countries in modern international law are not absolutist linked concepts.
The United Kingdom would still remain up and until the point where the United Nations seeked to recognise it as a state. They could change their to whatever they wanted and it wouldn't matter as they would still be the same legal entity.
International Law doesn't recognise the Act of Union as being the reason why our state exists.
But further, I doubt even Scottish Law does. When we signed the Act of Union we did two things.
1. We created a new state.
2. We ceded our powers to and joined that new state.
Then a short time later;
3. Other countries joined that new state.
Acting in the opposite way to number 2 would not nullify number 1. Northern Ireland, Wales and England all have equal rights to us in terms of maintaining their state.
And finally I would say one last thing. International Law is as much about what other countries agree to as what precedence dictates. Whilst I have already pointed out a dozen examples of countries with regions containing seperatist minorities who would not be on our side, can anyone here tell me in what way it would be fair for us to take a decision on behalf of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that their country no longer exists. Can anyone here cite a single example of a state who would side with us in thinking it acceptable to remove them from their international involvement as well as us?
Complain about this comment
anyone seen or heard anything about Douglas Alexander's speech yesterday to the labour supporters of strathclyde uni?
I wonder if Mr Curtice was present?
Sid
Complain about this comment
#333. NCA999 wrote:
Apples, Oragges and Bananas! First one wee point. Renegotiate means negotiating a former negotiaton not a new negotiaton.
Then you continually ignore two simple facts, A new country formed by breaking away from another country is not the same as one country stopping a partnership with another county. The UK of GB & NI. is not, and never has been, "A", country.
The Treaty Of Union joined, the already existing, "United Kingdom", countries formed by the Union of the Crowns into one Political Union but did not make them one country. As evidenced by The Treaty of Union, and both Acts Of Union. Get the text of them here - www.rahbarnes.demon.co.uk/Union/index.htm. Go read the text. Your Pakistan example fails as it was Westminster that passed the act of partition from India and formed a new country named Pakistan. Scotland is not a new country.
Complain about this comment
416. ScotInNotts
"
http://www.heraldscotland.com/news/politics/sft-spends-400k-on-consultants-but-achieves-nothing-1.1009894
"
This is just silly! The SFT isn't even fully functional yet. The idiots criticising it seem to imagine such things can be up and running in a matter of weeks. They also seem to imagine it can all be done for free. It will be at least another year before any meaningful assessment of the the SFT is possible.
Complain about this comment
#420 Scarymannie
Your not a fan of those programmes either? Can't say I've ever seen an episode of any of them, so no big loss to me personally if they were replaced with programmes I possibly may find more appealing.
Had to laugh that this particular publisher is accusing the SNP of influencing the media to show 'Scottish content' whilst being quite happy for Labour to influence the media for political gain.
#422 sid
"anyone seen or heard anything about Douglas Alexander's speech yesterday to the labour supporters of strathclyde uni?
I wonder if Mr Curtice was present?"
Only what he planned to say during his speech, no post match analysis that I've seen. I wouldn't be surprised if the Prof had invited Dougie to speak in the first place.
And to think Doulgas is heralded as being one of the best things to come out of my old high school, I used to have respect for him, no longer.
Complain about this comment
421. NCA999
"...can anyone here tell me in what way it would be fair for us to take a decision on behalf of the English, Welsh and Northern Irish that their country no longer exists."
Your efforts to make secession from the union look problematic get more ridiculous as they grow increasingly desperate. No countries cease to exist upon Scotland's secession. Only the union of two countries ceases to exist.
As frantically as you might strive to pretend otherwise, there is no impediment in international law and convention to Scotland choosing to dissolve a union (supposedly) entered into voluntarily.
Complain about this comment
#424 Electric Hermit
I don't know how long it takes to set up bodies of this nature to start initiating projects, however if industry at large is anything to go by then I'd rather they took the time to plan properly instead of getting the ball rolling only to find out they have to spend more to correct mistakes made due to poor preliminary organisation.
The article also implied that because the government had it's own lawyers in employ that they had no need to pay consultants or others with expertise to find better solutions. I'm sure they'd be crying foul if they had kept it in house only consulting said lawyers to only find themselves not having taken the best course of action.
As ever, it's easy to complain but not put forward an alternative working solution. I agree that the SFT has to be given an opportunity to work, PFI has been an unmitigated disaster that will still have to be paid for, in some cases,long after the projects they were used to fund have ceased to provide any useful function.
Buy noe, pay (a lot more) later.
Complain about this comment
427. ScotInNotts
"...I'd rather they took the time to plan properly instead of getting the ball rolling only to find out they have to spend more to correct mistakes made due to poor preliminary organisation."
Precisely!
And it is not true to say that the SFT has delivered nothing. Their Lessons Learnt review of school building projects could easily turn out to be one of the most worthwhile exercises ever undertaken in the sector.
There is more to major development projects than simply piling bricks on top of one another. Whatever the ultimate fate of the SFT, it is heartening to see a government which is more concerned with well-thought long-term planning for the country than ribbon-cutting photo opportunities for politicians.
Complain about this comment
#425 scotinnotts - thanks for that, if it had been a rip roaring success it would have been all over the place today.
no sign of anything = not a lot of people turned up maybe!
If only that silent majority would break cover now and again and speak up for goodness sake!
Maybe they are all saving themselves for Kay Adams new show tomorrow on the radio.
Sid
Complain about this comment
#346. NCA999.
You are still all wrong.
Do you know what the word, "King", means? Do you know what the word, "Kingdom means"? Now get it right - the United Kingdom Of Great Britain was formed by the Union of the Crowns in 1603. That means both Kingdoms have had a common monarch since 1603. More than 100 years later the two United Kingdom countries signed, A Treaty of Union, both then went home to their respective parliaments, drew-up and passed, in their own parliament, An Act Of Union", to join their own parliament with their, across the border, neighbour. That was in 1707. What was then formed, "The, (United), Parliament of The United Kingdom". We have also now had a common parliament since 1707. Get it now? The Parliament of Scotland, (who already had the same king as England), joined with the Parliament of England, (who already had the same king as Scotland), to make a single parliament of, "The United Kingdom".
That is two countries, one common monarch and one common parliament.
Neither Wales nor Ireland signed either treaty as both were already part of England and had been absorbed by former Kings of England while Scotland was not absorbed by England.
Complain about this comment
From the Express article on STV:
Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “The suggestion that Alex Salmond attempted to manipulate Scotland’s largest commercial broadcaster is deeply concerning. Alex Salmond’s obsession with trying to manipulate the media tallies completely with these revelations.”
Well that's rich coming from him, media manipulator extraordinary.
It seems that Iain Gray has lots of 'concerns' and so he should have.
Complain about this comment
It looks more and more like Curtis has been inveigled into the spiders web of deceit that Labour and BBC Scotland have created. Well he must realise where his next crust is coming from with his high media profile.
It would certainly be interesting to get a slant on what his contemporaries think about his activities.
Complain about this comment
NCA999
With regards to student debt, it was foolhardy for the SNP to claim they could right off all student debt however an admirable an ambition it may have been, made completely impossible by the mismanagement of the UK economy which has had a knock on effect on the money available.
However the Graduate Endowment (tuition fees by another name), while being much reduced than those paid by students in the rest of the UK was still a disastrous policy. It was claimed it was only fair and right that those earning a degree should pay for that privillege and so help future students also obtain their qualifications, based on the premise that those graduates would benefit through improved earning power.
That premise has not come to fruition to many for a number of reasons. The biggest fallacy was when we were sold the fairness of this proposal wes that no-one was required to pay until earning a minimum amount (£10,000 if I remember correctly) which could then be taken from the individuals salary at a convenient rate to that person. In practice you either had to pay the full lump sum or face exhorbitant interest rates for any outstanding balance, resulting in poorer students being dispraportionately penalised if they could not pay sooner rather than later. No differential was made based on degree earned, potential earning power or personal financial circumstances.
The Lib Dems pledged to abolish the graduate endowment and then sold out so they could have a marginal hold on the reigns of power at the start of the Lib/Lab coalition.
The SNP scrapped the Graduate Endowment, many students liable to pay never had to as a result (i.e. they had yet to graduate). Unfortunately I was on of those happy lot that did have to pay, we'll see in the future if this has had any benefit for future genertaions of students, somehow I doubt it.
Also, the broken promises routine
Complain about this comment
#351. Electric Hermit:
Awa wi ye! The United Kingdom refers to the Monarchy.
What would cease to exist is the joint Parliament of the United Kingdom. Scotland's monarch would continue as would England's monarch I.e., "Auld Lizzie", or whoever succeeds her if the split is later.
Interesting point, though, If, after the split, the Queen were to die then there could be a very strange constitutional problem. Now I could be wrong about England's position but, as the Monarch down there is Queen of England, and the succession is to the eldest child they have to have Charles as King. Scotland, though, has A Queen of Scots and the people choose their monarch from among the Royals. If we had not already ditched the Monarch, who would we choose? There is a royal patron for Rugby.
Complain about this comment
431. hamish42
"Scottish Labour leader Iain Gray said: “The suggestion that Alex Salmond attempted to manipulate Scotland’s largest commercial broadcaster is deeply concerning.""
The point is that it is no more than a suggestion. There is no actual evidence that any such thing has happened. It is a propaganda trick. A way of using the words so as to put the "suggestion" into people's heads without actually making an outright accusation which would have to be substantiated.
We can all play that game. I could, for example, say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any suggestion that Iain Gray wears ladies' undergarments.
Complain about this comment
#360. mrbfaethedee:
You know, it would make life on here a lot easier if people would stop and think what, "United Kingdom", means. It means two, or more, kingdoms joined together. In this instance, when they joined, the existing situation was that all Ireland had been absorbed by the English Crown and Wales was an English Principallity. What got joined in 1707 was two parliaments that already had a common monarch. What gets disolved on independence is the joint common parliament of, "The United Kingdom", but it does not affect the situation of the common monarch 'cause that's the kingdom bit. If you like, the kingdom, (UK), goes on but the parliament of the joint, (UK), becomes just as it was before 1707. Two parliaments, Two countries and a monarch who is monarch of both.
Complain about this comment
#435 Electric Hermit...
'it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any suggestion that Iain Gray wears ladies' undergarments'
Whats wrong with wearing ladies undergarments like ?
Complain about this comment
435 Elecrtic Hermit
"I could, for example, say that it would be inappropriate for me to comment on any suggestion that Iain Gray wears ladies' undergarments."
But he does doesn't he? Well doesn't he???
The problem is that the media won't take up your suggestion even although we all know that Iain Gray...etc.
Complain about this comment
437. Scarymannie
"Whats wrong with wearing ladies undergarments like ?"
Absolutely nothing! I would be the first to defend Mr Gray's right to wear the undergarments of his choice and would dissociate myself entirely from the suggestion that this reflects badly upon his abilities as a politician.
Complain about this comment
438. hamish42
"But he does doesn't he? Well doesn't he???"
Tomorrow's headline in The Sowhatsman -
Labour leader under pressure to reveal underwear!
Complain about this comment
#439 Electric Hermit ... maybe a thong would explain the sudden high pitched voice when he is in 'attack' mode. Only a suggestion of course.
Complain about this comment
I read in the Daily Record the headline ReferenDUMB - saying that the bill is confusing and the questions are unclear. What is unclear about "Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" and "Do you want independence for Scotland?" This headline totally demonstrates the unionist bias of the media. It will be a very interesting story if this bill doesn't get passed and the Tories win the GE. How will Labour defend Scotland against Conservatism then without holding a referendum of their own?
Complain about this comment
Giggity in G String-gate?
Might explain how he looks so uncomfortable at FMQ, I hear they're devils for riding up :O)
Complain about this comment
#439 Electric Hermit
After the bashing he gets at FMQ, why shouldn't the man have a bit of comfort?
Complain about this comment
I can see an exasperated Electric Hermit explaining to "scoop" Campbell, "for the last time I didn't say The leader of the oppositon at Holyrood wears women's underwear, I said Iain Gray is pants!"
Complain about this comment
442. egc88
"What is unclear about "Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" and "Do you want independence for Scotland?""
These are not the suggested questions, of course. But anyone who is confused by what is proposed must be "dumb". Apparently, this includes Labour's constitution spokeswoman, Pauline McNeill. Which begs the questions, if the poor soul is confused by this, how the hell does she get to be "constitution spokeswoman"?
Complain about this comment
378. At 11:42pm on 27 Feb 2010, Electric Hermit wrote:
373. enneffess
"
We cannot have two time zones within the same longitude"
Aberdeen and Barcelona are within the same longitude, but different time zones. Likewise London and Bordeaux. In fact, for something we "cannot have" it is remarkably common.
-------------------
Mmm, (thinking of second breakfasts!). Let me approach this from a different angle. We are a few hundred miles from Bordeaux, but about 200 odd from Manchester.
I'm actually annoyed at the annual attempt by SE England MPs to change the time, without any consideration for anyone north of Lincolnshire. Sending kids to school when it is dark isn't my idea of a good time, since under current arrangements they are home just before it gets dark.
-------------------------------------------------------
442. egc88:
Actually, both questions in that format are ambiguous, since they lack the context for absolute clarity.
"Do you want independence for Scotland?"
Now? Next year? Next century? Independence from whom - UK or Europe?
"Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?"
What sort of powers?
What would be needed on a ballot paper is totally clarity on precisely what each question means, and what an answer would mean.
I might be nitpicking but some of the electorate may have difficulty in interpreting the questions. Being absoutely clear also negates any criticism or accusation of an attempt the "rig" the vote through ambiguity.
The last Scottish elections were bad enough with multiple choice ballot papers. I know I screwed up at least one because of the confusion.
----------------------------------------------------------
444. handclapping:
Is that the 18 hour girdle?
------------------------------------------
441. Scarymannie:
Naw, it's Andy Kerr giving him a wedgie in despair.
------------------------------------------
436. Auld Bob:
What about the republicans in the SNP? One certainly springs to mind, doubt if they will wished to be classed as living in a "Kingdom".
And I dare you to go to North Wales and tell them that Wales is not a country but an English principality. Have a fast horse saddled!
------------------------------------------
433. ScotInNotts:
A degree does not entitle anyone to employment, nor does it entitle them to a higher wage. It helps, but it depends on the individual. And before you have a go at me, I worked in graduate recruitment for several years, both as an employer and within the recruitment business.
------------------------------------------
Complain about this comment
444. handclapping
"After the bashing he gets at FMQ..."
Contemplating FMQ Gray might do well to consider something in latex.
Complain about this comment
445. GrassyKnollington
"I can see an exasperated Electric Hermit explaining to "scoop" Campbell, "for the last time I didn't say The leader of the oppositon at Holyrood wears women's underwear, I said Iain Gray is pants!""
Indeed! I am heartily sick of the media using Gray's pants to cover up the real issues.
Complain about this comment
441. Scarymannie
"...maybe a thong would explain the sudden high pitched voice when he is in 'attack' mode."
If he was wearing a thong surely he'd whistle when he speaks.
Complain about this comment
#368. Electric Hermit:
For the umpteenth time the correct title of what is being broken up is, "The United Kingdom Parliament". There will continue to be a United Kingdom that includes Scotland but there will not be a Parliament of the United Kingdom that includes Scotland. Let Wales and Ireland sort out their own positions. BTW: The Republic of Ireland is in a strange position as its status was withdrawl from the UK Parliament AND to ditch the common monarch they shared with the UK.
Complain about this comment
The 'Scottish' media is pretty much controlled by a very, very small number of individuals who are not at all representative of today's Scotland, nor do they have Scotland's interests at heart.
They are merely seeking to maintain the current establishment that benefits both them and their offspring, independence is a threat to their livelihood. Glenn Campbell's ridiculous scoop award was almost a parody in that he seems to have been given it on the basis of someone deciding to call him on the telephone.
There is an ever increasing number of Scots who are well aware of what is happening within our media and they are not going away, indeed if anything their ranks are steadly growing.
On the ever laughable 'Big Debate' (it is in fact nothing of the sort) subjects are routinely ignored in favour of froth. The latest topic deemed more important than the referendum white paper was the 'ABE' T-shirt being sold in Aberdeen. The topic allowed the usual guff about anti-English sentiment to be aired.
Any criticism of these so called journalists, no matter how qualified and justified is met with the blanket response that it is simply 'online abuse', 'personal attacks' or 'paranoid rants' - The Caledonian Mercury is the latest to use such a defence.
What passes for a media in Scotland is not - absolutely not - intended to educate and inform, it is there to influence and mislead. I have said already it serves those from outwith Scotland's borders and handsomely rewards those Scots who meekly conform.
I believe that many of them know full well what is going on but that they are afraid for their own careers - Joan MacAlpine is a noteable exception and she has already stated that the opposition to the SNP is not Labour but is in fact the media.
We can do nothing about the BBC in Scotland nor the very clear lies that is reported by Scottish newspapers, complaining may well be logged but it seems that far from being acknowledged and acted upon the news coverage gets steadily worse.
For instance the day after Nicola Sturgeon and Alex Salmond were officially cleared by the standards commission over the lunch auction fundraising event; The Record ran an article that began:
ALEX Salmond and Nicola Sturgeon broke strict rules by auctioning Holyrood lunches with themselves to the highest bidder, parliament bosses confirmed last night.
As clear a lie as it is possible to find, yet it will not result in any sanction against the paper. One comment pointing this out was simply removed from the online comments.
The very people that buy the paper are those who are about to be hit hard by Labour mismanagement - the people for whom sensible investment of the oil money (squandered by successive London governments) would have provided job opportunities and a defence against the global recession.
Such mismanagement from a football manager would have the ever loyal fans highlighting the shortcomings and demanding action in the form of either new players, new manager or a change in tactics.
The record though simply ignores the clear failings of Labour and instead increases the frequency of smear stories and innuendo against the SNP, the worse Labour are the more The Record attacks the SNP. Corruption within Labour, expenses, illegal wars, economic mess, Brown's character flaws, Jim Murphy's series of blunders etc, etc, do not appear to register.
It treats it's readership with contempt and appears to believe that Labour should simply be allowed to continue it's destructive ways.
The current media modus operandi is thus:
1. Print and broadcast smear stories en masse to give them substance, embelish trivia.
2. Print and broadcast resultant condemnation/accusations from unionist parties.
3. Run with these stories over several days, adding the most recent Unionist attack and repeat the original trivia.
4. Use the shear volume of articles, complaints and broadcasts as evidence that this is something big and that the SNP is in trouble.
5. Headline figures from a poll that 'proves' that the SNP is indeed in trouble.
At no point must the campaign be derailed, even if it is proven that Unionist politicians have engaged in similar behaviour or indeed worse behaviour. Attack critics, suggest that they are paranoid, abusive and that their criticism are personal attacks. Do not under any circumstances ever address any mature criticism.
At no point must policies, or the lack of, get in the way of the campaign. If there is no evidence of wrongdoing then simply ask the question anyway. This will produce the sought after 'SNP deny' headline.
Do not under any circumstances headline the fact that the accusations have been proven groundless, simply ignore any announcements that the SNP have been cleared.
In the interim print Labour press releases without scrutiny and ensure that the press release is presented as a 'savage attack' on the SNP. For added effect, trail the press release/speech in order to maximise it's effect and shelf life.
Oh, be very carefull of double digit drops in circulation!!
Evening Times Suffers Double-digit Year-on-Year Sales Drop
Now, back to the soon to go live Newsnet Scotland news site !!
Complain about this comment
447. enneffess
"I might be nitpicking but some of the electorate may have difficulty in interpreting the questions."
Not if they actually read the (proposed) ballot papers.
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Publications/2010/02/22120157/6
Complain about this comment
#442 - "What is unclear about "Do you want more powers for the Scottish Parliament?" and "Do you want independence for Scotland?" This headline totally demonstrates the unionist bias of the media."
Yep, another example of the unionist point of view. The people of Scotland are too dumb to make these kinds of decisions for themselves.
Complain about this comment
447. enneffess
"What about the republicans in the SNP?"
Although not "in the SNP" I am a republican. But I have sense enough to realise that politics is the art of the achievable. Let's be rid of the union first. Then we can deal with the relatively minor matter of the monarchy.
Complain about this comment
But thongs ain't what they used to be.
Complain about this comment
#450 - "If he was wearing a thong surely he'd whistle when he speaks."
Wouldn't it be more of a reed instrument?
Complain about this comment
American comic Al Franken employed a very funny and very effective tactic in his book Lies and the lying liars who tell them
Franken would begin a chapter by telling the reader that he was about to write a lie and that the reader ought not to take it seriously. He would then write what we all recognise to be a smear story aimed at some right wing commentator or republican politician.
Franken demonstrated the power of suggestion and how 'news' could be manipulated by vendors like Fox News.
The very clear satirical suggestion employed by Electric Hermit at 435 is a perfect example of what Franken did.
Now, if we had a news outlet that was less than supportive of labour we might see a headline along the lines of:
Iain Gray refuses to comment on ladies undergarment suggestion
If Gray deigns to deny the smear:
Gray denies wearing ladies underwear
He is damaged, for the electorate will assume no smoke without fire and ignire the facts of the case.
If though we had a Labour supporting outlet then we might see:
SNP activists spread disgusting smears
or
SNP deny co-ordinated smear campaign
There is no story, nothing, nada - zilch. However one can see just how easy it is to create a story, and one that can be very damaging at that.
Of course it won't work with ridiculous accusations, smears only work when they appear to have substance.
The latest change in attack over the Rauf letter is a case in point. The statement from the Holyrood Housekeeping committee over use of Holyrood resources was as clear as mud. If I wanted to provide ammuninition to be misused then I couldn't have done it better.
The Record, Herald and Scotsman have all conflated the statement with the investigation into Salmond and Sturgeon and used it to suggest that they were indeed guilty of breaking rules when they held the fundrasing dinner in a Glasgow Indian restaurant.
The other smear that was attempted was an attack on the FM as a result of his heated exchanges with Iain Gray at FMQ's. Salmonds comments have been taken out of context and used by the Unionists and the media in an attempt at attacking the integrity of the FM.
I urge people to read Franken's book for you will instantly recognise the Scottish media.
Complain about this comment
436. Auld Bob
My understanding of the story is this -
Union of Crowns = Kingdom Of Scotland and Kingdom of England share a monarch but remain 2 distinct and separate states.
Kingdom of Scotland + Kingdom of England (inc Wales, but not Ireland)
= Kingdom of Great Britain (1707, not 1603) as a single state.
Kingdom of Great Britain + Kingdom of Ireland = United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (1800) as a single state.
(what is now) Republic of Ireland leaves the UK, Northern Ireland stays = 2 states, Republic of Ireland and the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland.
-----
Part of one of the states composing the UK already left (the current Republic of Ireland) and the UK continued, so now I'm coming around to thinking that the UK will just continue (as the United Kindom of England and Northern Ireland?) if Scotland leaves (being part the Great Britain part of the UK).
I couldn't care what happens to the monarchs - i'd rather there were none.
This is little more than idle curiosity for me, the process of taking Scotland out of the UK may require the continuing UK to be formally redefined or not, the new states have to negotiate their standing on various organisations, etc... whatever needs to be done will be - the business of statehood doesn't really have an controlling body.
Common acceptability will be sufficient.
Complain about this comment
#447 Neil
"A degree does not entitle anyone to employment, nor does it entitle them to a higher wage. It helps, but it depends on the individual. And before you have a go at me, I worked in graduate recruitment for several years, both as an employer and within the recruitment business."
I just realised I shouldn't have left that last line in my post at #433, I didn't finish that thought in that particular post (oops!).
In any case I agree with your statement, and said as much:
"...based on the premise that those graduates would benefit through improved earning power.
That premise has not come to fruition to many for a number of reasons."
My point was that the Graduate Endowment at that time was peddled to both students and the public on this basis.
Complain about this comment
Will Kaye Adams new radio show be just another jaundiced view of politics in Scotland, like Brian's Big Biased Debacle (sorry, Debate)?
Complain about this comment
374. Online Ed:
Hey! They are right. In a UK Parliament context, the Tory Party is ahead of the SNP. They are, though, almost a no go party in Scotland. Did you hear Cameron telling of his patriotic duty? What if he loses the one Tory seat in Scotland, will that make him only an English patriot? I feel it my patriotic duty to vote SNP.
Complain about this comment
451. Auld Bob
"There will continue to be a United Kingdom that includes Scotland but there will not be a Parliament of the United Kingdom that includes Scotland."
As I understand it the United Kindom has nothing to do with the monarch.
The Kingdom of Scotland and the Kngdom of England shared a monarch, they remained separate states.
If Scotland left the UK but kept the monarch the Queen would be the head of state for two separate states.
Sharing a monarch does not automatically make a single kingdom, despite the name. Indeed James VI/I tried to actually unify the crowns formally and become King of Britain, but was refused.
Complain about this comment
#379. Scarymannie:
The way politics go in Scotland, if the SNP government decided to call it ECT, (Edinburgh Central Time), the Grey man would demand they resign and say it should be called, GCST, (Glasgow Central Station Time).
Complain about this comment
459. mrbfaethedee
"...the process of taking Scotland out of the UK may require the continuing UK to be formally redefined or not..."
Correct! It is no impediment to the process.
Neither does it matter a jot what Rump UK is called. Or whether and to what extent it is even considered to be the "UK". None of it constitutes an obstacle to Scotland's secession from the union. However desperately some may try to represent it as such.
Complain about this comment
#392. FatherMacKenzie:
Chief Executives are not elected.
Complain about this comment
451. Auld Bob
"For the umpteenth time the correct title of what is being broken up is, "The United Kingdom Parliament". There will continue to be a United Kingdom that includes Scotland but there will not be a Parliament of the United Kingdom that includes Scotland. Let Wales and Ireland sort out their own positions. BTW: The Republic of Ireland is in a strange position as its status was withdrawl from the UK Parliament AND to ditch the common monarch they shared with the UK. "
Sir, I'm sorry but you have a complete lack of understanding of your own nation's history and status.
It is not and never has been the monarch that made the United Kingdom such. It was that very merging of the parliaments which created the United Kingdom in 1707. Scotland and England had shared a monarch since James VI inherited the throne of England from Elizabeth I without becoming one kingdom. At the present time, a number of other countries recognize your monarch as titular head of state (Australia, for example) without being part of the United Kingdom or a province thereof.
The rule by parliament is the salient factor not the monarch.
Complain about this comment
After all the hilarity of Brownedov's claims that small sample polls are 'very heavily skewed against the SNP', there was absolutely no way I could let this slide by today. I'll post it again tomorrow though, so the 'weekday warriors' don't miss the fun!
YouGov 28 Feb. Sample size: 1002
Westminster:
Labour 38%
SNP 21%
Con 20%
H'wood Constituency:
Labour 33%
SNP 28%
H'wood Regional:
Labour 31%
SNP 26%
Strange how these seem to match those small sample polls that Brownedov was so insistent were badly biased against the SNP.
Oh, there was also:
"Is Alex Salmond doing a good job as FM?":
Yes 36%
No 38%
Tis a good day. A good day.
Off to enjoy the rest of this lazy Sunday. See you tomorrow!
Complain about this comment
#463 MrB
O'to Joy! after an Independence referendum, we can have another referendum to choose a monarch!. Charles,William, Harry, Philip, Edward and we can chuck Fergie in to prop up the choice.
Referenda........La/de/da...the cheese mountain grows!.
Complain about this comment
400. JRMacClure wrote:
That's easy - most other countries who gain independence do so from a country or regime that is their superior. So the World say good for them. But in the UK those who know the difference between England & the UK, and those who think the UK is just one country don't think it nice that the Scots, Welsh or Irish should want to leave an Equal Partnership. Aye! Richt! Some are more equal than others.
English MPs 533; Scottish MPs 59; Welsh MPs 40; NI MPs 18.
Complain about this comment
421. NCA999
"The United Kingdom is not a sovereign state in international law because of the Act of Union. It is as such because we are recognised by the United Nations as being such. This is why the Knights of Malta still continue to be a state, despite no longer retaining any connection to the previous country, because states and countries in modern international law are not absolutist linked concepts.
The United Kingdom would still remain up and until the point where the United Nations seeked to recognise it as a state. They could change their to whatever they wanted and it wouldn't matter as they would still be the same legal entity."
Nonsense. Being a state has to do with self-governance and does not (and never has) required recognition by any particular body, certainly not the United Nations. The Act of Union is relevant because THAT was what formed Scotland and England into a single, unitary state. It was certainly not the UN that did so.
While no doubt the UN WOULD recognize a newly formed Republic of Scotland (just as it has the many other newly formed states) that is NOT what would make Scotland a state.
Let's be clear. By definition Scotland IS a nation. It is not a state because it is governed from without. If and/or when it becomes self-governing, it IS a state with or without any recognition.
As for making the country that England, Wales and NI belong to no longer exist, they might or might not want to continue under the same name but they would certainly continue just without an existing province just as the UK continued to exist with it lost province after province already, just as Russia continued to exist when numerous states regained their sovereignty. I suggest going to Russia and telling them that they no longer exist and see what reaction you get.
Complain about this comment
469. kered
"'to Joy! after an Independence referendum, we can have another referendum to choose a monarch!. Charles,William, Harry, Philip, Edward and we can chuck Fergie in to prop up the choice.
Referenda........La/de/da...the cheese mountain grows!."
Just the same they there are referenda in the US and in Switzerland, frequent ones in which the people vote on matters concerning their governance.
I know that democracy is a shock to some, but welcome to a world where it exists.
Complain about this comment
#464 Auld Bob ...
'the Grey man would demand they resign and say it should be called, GCST, (Glasgow Central Station Time).'
Well i dont think he can have Glasgow Union Station Eastern Time or GUSET altho that would be firmly in his mind !
#458 Online Ed...
'SNP activists spread disgusting smears
or
SNP deny co-ordinated smear campaign'
I would laugh out loud or LOL (for you youngsters out there) if such a headline was in tomorrows Daily Record after what was only a bit of banter.
Complain about this comment
468. Reluctant-Expat
Ah you actually found ONE REAL poll to support your position. Congratulations as opposed to all the wee pretendy ones you've been spouting. (They're still only wee pretendy ones that mean nothing) We're happy for you.
A poll that would still show the SNP in a better position (if only by one MP) than in 2005 but you're still happy. Good on you. Now we'll have to wait for more polls to see if this is indeed a true trend. Yes, dear, REAL polls.
Complain about this comment
406. ScotInNotts
"the ever impartial paragon of the Scottish press and our resident political expert Prof Curtice (who reallt should know better if his academic career and reputation meant anything to him)
"
Could this man turn himself any MORE into nothing but a mouthpiece for the Labour Party. What an academic sham he is. Whether you support Labour or not, he is an embarrassment.
Complain about this comment
472. JRMacClure
"I know that democracy is a shock to some..."
I have noticed that the unionist cabal seem distinctly uncomfortable with democracy in practice.
Complain about this comment
468. Reluctant-Expat
"Tis a good day. A good day."
Seems we've found the one other person who rejoices in the prospect of Iain Gray becoming First Minister.
Complain about this comment
One thing Labour had better beware of is making it appear (as it has for Brown, for example) that they are simply beating up on Salmond and making the SNP look like the underdogs. (Well, they are but making that obvious has a disadvantage)
What happens when that becomes the perception is, in my opinion, exactly what has happened to fuel this nascent Labour recovery.
Complain about this comment
#468 Reluctant-Expat
"Strange how these seem to match those small sample polls that Brownedov was so insistent were badly biased against the SNP."
I'd save the crowing for now until we get the details of how te poll was conducted. As handclapping (#415) has already pointed out, those aren't available yet.
Consider that the poll reflects true voting intentions then the following results:
Labour - 38% (40 seats) change since 2005 GE (-1.5%) (-1)
SNP - 21% (7 seats) change since 2005 GE (+3.3%) (+1)
Tory - 20% (3 seats) change since 2005 GE (+4.2%) (+2)
Lib Dems - 15% (9 seats) change since 2005 GE (-11.6%) (-2)
I'll reserve judgement until the poll details have been released. Whilst it isn't exactly he resounding success some might have been hoping for the SNP are still on the up, even taking into account the dead tree press we have here and the 'natural' Lab/Con squeeze at a UK GE.
It bodes well that once the campaign starts in earnest perhaps more minds can be persuaded come the actual election of the SNP's merits and their case for the future of our country.
Complain about this comment
Stupid Aussies. They should know that if they'd stayed a province of the UK they wouldn't have to BOTHER to vote on their governance--like the Scots.
Complain about this comment
I always thought that bloomers suited Iain Gray and Murphy must have some as well. Scottish Episcopal Church attacks Labour 'party of faith' claims
Re last poll I heard that Ugov had changed their weightings to 1.4 Labour and all others at 0.6, another poll by mori out tonight for the Times.
Complain about this comment
#468 Reluctant-Expat
Why exactly is this a good day?
What is it you find so attractive in a Labour party that has done such enormous damage to both the UK and Scottish economies?
Complain about this comment
478. JRMacClure
"...they are simply beating up on Salmond and making the SNP look like the underdogs."
The same thought occurred to me the other day. Salmond in particular is so much more capable than the "opposition" that he is constantly in danger of being perceived in an unsympathetic way. A few wee setbacks may be to his advantage.
Complain about this comment
#468 RE
You missed the one in the Sunday Times
Labour 49%
SNP 17%
LibDem 14%
Tory 14%
Oh and of course the Tory lead down to 2 points in the UK. Anther 5 years of Gordon, 'cos they won't be able to sack him if he wins. What an enticing prospect!
Complain about this comment
The YouGov national poll gave a Tories a six point lead in first editions of the Times this morning and a two point lead in later editions prited two hours later.
Says all that has to be said about polls that are being used to manipulate public opinion not record it.
Complain about this comment
If there was a power to create the union of parliaments then there is the power to dismantle a union of parliaments. Technicaly...how can we at the moment be united when we have two different Parliaments and the Queen is just a superficial monarch? The day the Scottish Parliament 'resumed' the United Kingdom ceased.
Complain about this comment
481. cynicalHighlander
"I always thought that bloomers suited Iain Gray and Murphy must have some as well. Scottish Episcopal Church attacks Labour 'party of faith' claims
Re last poll I heard that Ugov had changed their weightings to 1.4 Labour and all others at 0.6, another poll by mori out tonight for the Times."
Answer me this. Is there ANY coverage of this attack in the Scottish press? Anywhere? And they have the blatant nerve to accuse Salmond of manipulating the press. Ha! I don't see that one going over.
On the subject of poll weighting it is worthwhile looking at the UNWEIGHTED numbers. I am not arguing that weighting is wrong per se, but there is considerable reason to think that the weighting is being done in a way that disadvantages anyone except Labour.
When unweighted numbers are available on this poll if someone else doesn't post them I will. I think this is worth discussing. I am not by any means expert enough on UK polling to suggest what correct weighting might be but there are others here who are and I want to see that discussion--not that it will take away the damage that this campaign does.
Having one party in control of so much media is a real problem to democracy, I believe.
Complain about this comment
# 431 & 435 The Express roars as the once mighty unionist media front is now only 99.99% solid. It's pathetic. More smear and inuendo.
Complain about this comment
462. At 5:01pm on 28 Feb 2010, Auld Bob wrote:
374. Online Ed:
Hey! They are right. In a UK Parliament context, the Tory Party is ahead of the SNP. They are, though, almost a no go party in Scotland. Did you hear Cameron telling of his patriotic duty? What if he loses the one Tory seat in Scotland, will that make him only an English patriot? I feel it my patriotic duty to vote SNP.
I read a comment of yours that sought to demonstrate the contribution Scotland makes to the Treasury. If you would like to get in touch with us at Newsnet Scotland then we could use your clear expertise.
Our news site is beginning to take shape, I think we are about to surprise many people, and we will need people capable of contributing intelligent and cogent pieces.
The use of polls also underlines the need for someone with the skills to analyse them!!
On polls:
Thanks to RE for highlighting this poll - and I mean it.
Why so?
In one month Mr Devine is due to make a court appearance and this news will be reported nationally, so our local media will not be able to suppress it. They will though run another diversion but my feeling is that it will have limited effect.
The blunder of this snapshot is that it relied on just these smear stories in order to produce the result and the methodology/weightings cannot get any worse for the SNP - this is as bad as it gets for the SNP and as good as it gets for Labour.
I fully expect that when the election campaign starts in earnest and the recent smear campaign run by the media in Scotland is long forgotten the SNP's position will improve significantly.
Hey presto !! SNP closing the gap.
Expect the SNP to take full advantage of the 'surge' in support as election day nears.
Of course we all know that the final week will see the Scottish media produce figures suggesting all sorts of leads for Labour - but my gut feeling is that by then people will have made their mind up.
Expect the SNP to have a big story or two up their sleeve that the media will not be able to ignore. They have been keeping their powder dry lately and are allowing the Unionists to use up their ammo early.
Let's hope that the Unionists are as complacent as RE appears to be - their weakness is that they overestimate their support, the independence movement's strength is that they take nothing for granted.
Complain about this comment
Independent Scotland '£142 billion in the red'
Based on official Treasury forecasts, it suggests that, even taking into account North Sea revenue, Scotland’s deficit stands at £17.7 billion in the current financial year, falling to £16.8 billion in 2010-11.
They must getting more desperate day by day.
Since UK £600 - £800 billion in debt and getting worse all the time they must think we are all numpties.
Solved Curtis land.
Complain about this comment
#472 JRMcClure
And just how will our resident "Ronald McDonald" be casting his/her vote come the referenda?.
Big tops and center rings as McClure tries to shuffle with Democracy!.
Complain about this comment
On the Monarchy. It may only be a figurehead, but it pulls in a lot of tourist income, both directly and indirectly.
There are one or two republican members of the SNP, as there are in all parties. But a certain one sticks in the mind. Remember the leaked emails? Perhaps Salmond should make her attend the next royal event. After all, she is a representative of the Scottish Government, who's head of state is the Queen.
Or does she want to play silly games like the SSP?
Complain about this comment
Would someone care to post a link to Conan the Librarian's Hootsmon Headline.
One thing I have noticed of late (strange but true) is that when I post it, it is deemed evil and moderated yet others are sometimes allowed to post the same link.
Moderators are strange creatures but no hard feelings.
Complain about this comment
Labour - the bullying party
Complain about this comment
421. NCA999:only a
Nah! A Kingdom, (Kinrick in Lallans Scots), is defined as, "A country, realm or domain headed by a King, or Queen. Such an arrangement is a Monarchy. A Constitutional Monarchy is defined, (Britanica), as - A System of government in which a monarch shares power with a constitutionally organized government. The monarch may be the de facto head of state or a purely ceremonial leader. The constitution allocates the rest of the government’s power to the legislature and judiciary. Britain became a constitutional monarchy under the Whigs; other constitutional monarchies include Belgium, Cambodia, Jordan, The Netherlands, Norway, Spain, Sweden, and Thailand. James VI was King of Scots 1567-1625 and, as James I, was King of England & Ireland from 1603 - 1625. Wales at that time was under complete English rule as a Principality, (or Princedom) which is a monarchical feudatory or sovereign state, ruled or reigned over by a monarch with the title of prince or princess. The Principality of Wales, was ruled by the Prince of Wales directly. It was formally founded in 1216 at the Council of Aberdyfi and later recognised by the 1218 Treaty of Worcester between Llywelyn the Great and the English Crown. The treaty gave substance to the political reality of 13th century Wales and England, both part of the Angevin Empire. The, "King of Ireland" was by an act of the Irish Parliament in 1541. The Parliament of Ireland was a legislature that existed in Dublin from 1297 until 1800. The Crown of Ireland Act 1542 established a personal union between the English and Irish crowns, whoever became the king of England was also king of Ireland. Starting with King Henry VIII of England. So in 1603 there were no Irish or Welsh signatories and thus the United Kingdoms before 1603 treaty was only England & Ireland. As Jaimie Sax was already King of Scots he became King of England, Ireland and Wales to form the United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, (the main Island) and Ireland. The United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland resulted from the 1603 Treaty between the Scottish Parliament & the English Parliament and each country retained its own parliament, church, laws and coinage until 1707, "The Union Of The Parliaments". In 1632 Charles I ordered the Edinburgh authorities to build a dedicated Parliament and courts. Parliament House was built behind St Giles’ Cathedral and was first used for a meeting of the Parliament in 1639. It continued to be used for Parliament meetings until the union of 1707. So until 1707. there were four countries under one Monarch, A United Kingdom of Great Britain & Ireland, but with three Parliaments, England/Wales, Ireland and Scotland. Most certainly that meant three distinct entities with one Monarch. So in 1707 the Treaty of Union was signed to make, "The Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain", and the King was still King of Great Britain & Ireland but the title of the parliament did not then include Ireland as Ireland still retained her parliament until 1800, but that's another story.
Complain about this comment
Hootsman
Complain about this comment
#468 R.E. evening , and where pray tell me is this H/WOOD constituency you talk about in your post?? may be JR could help you with that one .
Sid
Complain about this comment
487. JRMacClure:
There is no end to the number of ways that poll data can be weighted. The basic version is a scoring based on whatever factors you wish, as long as they are applied to all comparitive data sets.
Use raw data is useless, unless you are taking a massive poll, and the best one for that is an election! The problem with small samples is that you get extreme values. In the case of political polls most likely people lying about their voting intentions.
The other problem with using raw data is that current affairs have an impact on polls. Go to an area just after a political scandal such as the expenses, and you will find the voters rebelling. But go in again a few weeks later and the responses might be different.
I think of it the same as predicting football results: a team at the top of the league is likely to win all of its matches, but come derby and cup games it is a different scenario. So the team plays a league match and wins, a local derby and draws, and a cup game and loses. The stats show them likely to draw their next match, based on raw data. But in reality if you apply weighting to their league position etc then you predict a win.
If that makes sense let me know, how the hell I came out with that lot beats me!!
Complain about this comment
440. Electric Hermit:
He'll just have to resign himsel to it!!
Complain about this comment
I missed The Politics Show - did Glenn do his newspaper headline thing ?
What Gray will need to answer once Brown is shown the door in a few weeks time is why Gray is prepared to settle for becoming First Minister under a Tory government rather than Prime Minister of an Independent Scotland - what vision does little Gray have for our country ?
Complain about this comment
View these comments in RSS