Friday, 20 January 2012 00:20
251 Comments
By a Newsnet reporter 
Former Labour First Minister Henry McLeish has said he is prepared to consider leading a campaign that argued for the so called third option of devo-max and he would be “flattered” if asked.
Speaking on STV’s Scotland Tonight Mr McLeish argued that devo-max should be an option offered to the Scottish people in the 2014 referendum alongside independence and the status-quo.
The former Labour First Minister has been an outspoken critic of his party’s stance in refusing to back a third option on the ballot paper, many polls show it to be popular amongst Scots.
He also recently attacked UK PM David Cameron’s intervention into the referendum debate when the Tory leader insisted on setting conditions for the referendum that included limiting the ballot to a single question, Mr McLeish called Cameron's move “ignorant”, a “dangerous tactic” and “cavalier”.
Mr McLeish called the options argued by Westminster led Unionists and Nationalists, namely the status-quo and independence, "a rock" and "a hard place" and claimed that there was growing support for an alternative that went "much, much further" than the powers offered in the Scotland Bill and included full fiscal autonomy.
Mr McLeish when asked if he would like to lead such a campaign replied: “Modesty forbids but on the other had I want to be part of it I feel passionately that Scotland deserves another option, I feel passionate that we can stay within the Union, a changed union but still have far more powers …”
The former First Minister said he would be happy to be associated with other bodies like the STUC, Civic Scotland and the Churches who are calling for devo-max to be included on the ballot and argued that devo-max was a “ great opportunity” for the Scottish Labour party that he hoped they would embrace.
When pressed if he would accept the challenge of leading the third option campaign, Mr McLeish replied: “if I’m asked … I would consider”
Mr McLeish’s apparent willingness to head a progressive-Unionist campaign is indicative of a growing chasm between many Scottish based Unionists over the issue of who should lead the Unionist fight and whether devo-max should be on the ballot.
The Former First Minister’s comments came on the same day that another prominent Scottish Unionist, Lib Dem peer David Steel launched an attack on UK PM David Cameron’s intervention into the referendum debate.
Lord Steel urged the Tory leader to withdraw from the independence debate warning that his actions threatened to hand victory to the SNP.
Speaking in The House magazine Lord Steel described Chancellor George Osborne’s leadership of the current attacks on the SNP as “plain bonkers” and said that the case for the Union should be left to Scottish politicians.
"David Cameron has played into Alex Salmond's hands," he told the magazine.
"The problem with the Scottish issue is that most of the politicians here don't understand Alex Salmond.
"I think I have the measure of him and know him only too well. He is extremely sharp, witty,"
"The idea that George Osborne should take on a 'no' referendum campaign is just plain bonkers. If I were Alex Salmond I would be rubbing my hands in glee at the thought,"
"It's no good having so-called big guns flying in from down south, because Salmond will just dismiss it as London bullying, even though he does the bullying himself. It will just backfire," he warned.
Comments
#
2012-01-20 08:13
I watched the interview. He came across well and presented a balanced arguement. It proves a strong case for the third question.
I would prefer independence but here is someone presenting a reasoned arguement.
A significant contrast to the unionist rants.
His composure and articulate presentation gave a marked contrast to the present leadership of Labour in Scotland
I would prefer independence but here is someone presenting a reasoned arguement.
A significant contrast to the unionist rants.
His composure and articulate presentation gave a marked contrast to the present leadership of Labour in Scotland
#
2012-01-20 09:38
Do you not think he came across as having pre-determined answers? Almost as though he knew what the questions were before they were asked. Perhaps it's just the way he talks but I had the distinct impression he was reading from a memorised script.
#
2012-01-20 08:24
Better get busy then, Henry. Whatever "devo-max" option is offered will have to have been defined, agreed and negotiated beforehand at UK level so that it IS a realistic option, and not just pie in the sky.
#
2012-01-20 08:38
Haha. Well said. Henry should check with the new leader of Labour, David Cameron, to make sure it would be legal.
2 years to go, and hardly a day goes by when the unionists do not shift their ground yet again. feart rabbits in the headlights.
2 years to go, and hardly a day goes by when the unionists do not shift their ground yet again. feart rabbits in the headlights.
#
2012-01-20 09:13
Quoting Robert Louis:
Och, RL! There goes my morning coffee! :-)
Haha. Well said. Henry should check with the new leader of Labour, David Cameron,
Och, RL! There goes my morning coffee! :-)
#
2012-01-20 09:36
Lucky for them that the Scottish Government didn't decide to have the referendum immediately.
It is now so obvious that that was totally impractical but they seem to be going quiet on that one.
It is now so obvious that that was totally impractical but they seem to be going quiet on that one.
#
2012-01-20 12:05
Quoting EricF:
How about a DEVOMADMAX where we take over all ennglish assets and just leave them with all the debts ?
Better get busy then, Henry. Whatever "devo-max" option is offered will have to have been defined, agreed and negotiated beforehand at UK level so that it IS a realistic option, and not just pie in the sky.
How about a DEVOMADMAX where we take over all ennglish assets and just leave them with all the debts ?
#
2012-01-20 12:45
To EricF
No it doesn't. It only needs to be on the ballot as a question. Headings could easily be compiled under which detailed negotiations could take place afterwards.
If Westminster dragged its feet the SNP always has the option of calling for a mandate for full Independence at the 2015 Scottish Parliament election
No it doesn't. It only needs to be on the ballot as a question. Headings could easily be compiled under which detailed negotiations could take place afterwards.
If Westminster dragged its feet the SNP always has the option of calling for a mandate for full Independence at the 2015 Scottish Parliament election
#
2012-01-20 16:39
Rubbish! What would you be asking people to vote for? The option needs to be clearly defined and there needs to be a clear agreement that it will be available if voted for. Otherwise you might just as well ask people to vote for free heavy beer and scotch pies for life.
#
2012-01-20 17:44
Indeed. It's funny how the unionists argue that independence is an unknown because we won't know if we'll be in the EU or out, we don't know what the currency will be, we don't what the defence situation will be, yet they are simultaneously arguing that more powers will come Scotland's way but won't even begin to define it.
Independence is well understood across the world, by nearly 200 nations. It doesn't matter that these nations are interdependent on each other for resources etc. This is the very basis of trade (sell what you don't need, buy what you need) and has gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The big problem for the unionists is that they know they can't define "more powers". They can't even agree amongst themselves what they should be, and they are determined to not give away the most important power, which is power over your own money and resources.
The "more powers" options is a trap for the unionists, but we must be careful that it doesn't become a trap for the electorate. 1979 was quite a long time ago, and it's amazing how many educated people don't seem to know anything about this disgraceful con.
We must get the message across that "more powers" still has the same fundamental problem of being in union with the most important powers held by someone else. Only ending the union solves this.
Independence is the only answer. Then we can decide how interdependent we want to be with our neighbours.
Independence is well understood across the world, by nearly 200 nations. It doesn't matter that these nations are interdependent on each other for resources etc. This is the very basis of trade (sell what you don't need, buy what you need) and has gone on for hundreds if not thousands of years.
The big problem for the unionists is that they know they can't define "more powers". They can't even agree amongst themselves what they should be, and they are determined to not give away the most important power, which is power over your own money and resources.
The "more powers" options is a trap for the unionists, but we must be careful that it doesn't become a trap for the electorate. 1979 was quite a long time ago, and it's amazing how many educated people don't seem to know anything about this disgraceful con.
We must get the message across that "more powers" still has the same fundamental problem of being in union with the most important powers held by someone else. Only ending the union solves this.
Independence is the only answer. Then we can decide how interdependent we want to be with our neighbours.
#
2012-01-20 20:55
You could certainly present a list of headings and hopes, but without a clear belief that these headings are, em, heading somewhere, I don't see this option surviving the first week of the campaign proper.
#
2012-01-20 21:35
Spot on, otherwise: Roll up, roll up for the mystery tour, as the Beatles might have put it.
#
2012-01-20 08:56
It's really a shame this option doesn't have more clear support from all sides, as it seems to be the one favoured by the majority, so far.
I'm a party member of old, but my wife (a Yorkshire lass) surprised me the other day saying she'd be more happy being able to have economic independence first, as a step stone for the whole one later.
It's completely understable non-risk lovers would rather prefer to have that option in the referendum, at least, even if for the old reason of not being desenfranchise.
I think.
I'm a party member of old, but my wife (a Yorkshire lass) surprised me the other day saying she'd be more happy being able to have economic independence first, as a step stone for the whole one later.
It's completely understable non-risk lovers would rather prefer to have that option in the referendum, at least, even if for the old reason of not being desenfranchise.
I think.
#
2012-01-20 08:57
The problem is of course that a third option has to be put forward by a Holyrood political party to be on the Bill, and so far there are no takers in sight.
#
2012-01-20 09:27
The bigger problem is that Devo-Max is a Westminster 'gift' and therefore not reliable as a long term solution. Even if (a very BIG if) the current Westminster government agreed to its inclusion (and before anyone gets too exited, it has to be agreed with Westminster, as the SNP can not deliver this option on their own - the main reason I want full independence and nothing less) future governments are not bound to this agreement. (I am open to correction on this legal point, but this is my understanding). We only have to look at the manipulation of successive Westminster governments of the Act of Union, and now the Scotland Bill to see just how fragile such a Devo-Max option would be in practice.
Yes, it sounds good (a fall back for those Scots still too afraid to let go of nanny's apron strings) but in reality would YOU want to have your economic, social and fiscal planning subject to the whim of the next GE?
Yes, it sounds good (a fall back for those Scots still too afraid to let go of nanny's apron strings) but in reality would YOU want to have your economic, social and fiscal planning subject to the whim of the next GE?
#
2012-01-20 09:31
Alex Massie made a fair case on Newsnight Scotland last night for the Scottish Tories to take it on.
#
2012-01-20 10:12
Didn't see it - I can't get the BBC here (I am an ex-pat with aspirations to return home). Is it on line anywhere?
#
2012-01-20 12:11
Thanks for the link, but BBC iPlayer is not available outwith the UK. I sometimes get some snippets off Youtube, but not always.
Never mind.
Saor Alba
Never mind.
Saor Alba
#
2012-01-20 12:44
Just another thought Kate Higgins who runs the blog burdzeyeview was also part of the discussion she may post it or know where you can find it.
#
2012-01-20 13:50
You need to run a proxy server which you can link to on line before you can get i-player abroad. It makes it look as if you are linking in from a UK IP address. A simple search under "proxy server" should do the trick Aplinal.
#
2012-01-20 15:50
Hi Marga, I don't think you can. If you had two machines then doing this for one would be easy.
#
2012-01-20 17:48
The proxy settings are only for the browser and you can switch them on and off. If you use something like Firefox there are lots of free add-ons available to allow quick and easy switching on and off of a proxy.
There are other more complciated ways of doing it running specialised software, but this is not really necessary.
The basic way to do it to configure in your network settings of your browser, but I would advise looking for some sort of add-on (in Firefox) to make it easier. I could look into it later and suggest one...
BTW, you still have the same IP address as before. All a proxy does is ask for a website via another address rather than directly. Your machine still has the same IP address, but the website (e.g. BBC iPlayer) thinks it has come from the proxy. The proxy then forwards the data back to you.
Imagine you've fallen out with your wife and she will only speak to you through her sister. The sister is the proxy, but you are still you, with the same name as before.
There are other more complciated ways of doing it running specialised software, but this is not really necessary.
The basic way to do it to configure in your network settings of your browser, but I would advise looking for some sort of add-on (in Firefox) to make it easier. I could look into it later and suggest one...
BTW, you still have the same IP address as before. All a proxy does is ask for a website via another address rather than directly. Your machine still has the same IP address, but the website (e.g. BBC iPlayer) thinks it has come from the proxy. The proxy then forwards the data back to you.
Imagine you've fallen out with your wife and she will only speak to you through her sister. The sister is the proxy, but you are still you, with the same name as before.
#
2012-01-20 12:01
Quoting Jim Johnston:
I don't think so, jim.
I believe any civic, church or union group could get it on the ballot
The problem is of course that a third option has to be put forward by a Holyrood political party to be on the Bill, and so far there are no takers in sight.
I don't think so, jim.
I believe any civic, church or union group could get it on the ballot
#
2012-01-20 08:58
Well he's put his hat in the ring all he needs to do now is wait for his masters in London to allow him to go ahead and work for them in their aims, to subjugate and suppress the future prosperity of the people of Scotland.
#
2012-01-20 09:00
Maybe by the time they work out what a 3rd option might be and whether or not Westminster would 'tolerate' such an option, there might be no opposition politicians left ?.
Such is the weakness of unionism and such is the good story for maintaining the union that everyone is heading for the exit.
Such is the weakness of unionism and such is the good story for maintaining the union that everyone is heading for the exit.
#
2012-01-20 09:00
McCleish was alright, Blair just didnt like him, maybe because he wanted to call it the Scottish government rather than executive? so he was set up?
Now they have someone who comes across as not very bright!
Now they have someone who comes across as not very bright!
#
2012-01-20 15:46
That's always been my reading of him. Set up he certainly was, how insignificant his office rent going to the Labour party 'crime' seems now after all the revelations of downright fraud,prosecute d and otherwise, in the Wastemonster trough.
Also remember him signing the declaration at the end of the Democracy March in '92. He represented Labour at that because Dewar was unwell. He came in for a right bollocking for that as well.
Also remember him signing the declaration at the end of the Democracy March in '92. He represented Labour at that because Dewar was unwell. He came in for a right bollocking for that as well.
#
2012-01-20 09:13
Maybe Blair didn't like McLeish but he didn't like the idea of a parliament for Scotland even more.
#
2012-01-20 09:31
The big problem with any form of increased devolution is that it needs to be approved by Westminster in advance of the referendum otherwise it is a wish list only.
My view is that if they can agree a scheme and get it approved in advance it should be on the ballot paper. If it is only a wish list then it should not see the light of day.
My view is that if they can agree a scheme and get it approved in advance it should be on the ballot paper. If it is only a wish list then it should not see the light of day.
#
2012-01-20 17:35
What is the point of asking people to vote for an empty promise? It's fraudulent and I don't think the electorate will forgive whoever dupes them into voting for it. (And that includes the party which puts it on the ballot paper!)
How can you possibly justify your position?
How can you possibly justify your position?
#
2012-01-20 09:34
Devo-max will be just a fig leaf to cover up the continued exploitation of Scotland's resources. Does anyone think Scotland's oil revenues will be collected in Scotland under Devo-max? It might be a stepping stone to independence, but that will only be ceded when those resources that can be plundered are completely exhausted.
#
2012-01-20 09:38
Couldn't we have some type of questions along the lines of:
Do you believe Scotland should become an independent nation YES NO. If no, Do you believe that Scotland should have full control over it's finances ( including welfare benefits) YES NO.
I appreciate it would have to be worded differently but surely that can't be too hard to achieve, well maybe.
Do you believe Scotland should become an independent nation YES NO. If no, Do you believe that Scotland should have full control over it's finances ( including welfare benefits) YES NO.
I appreciate it would have to be worded differently but surely that can't be too hard to achieve, well maybe.
#
2012-01-20 15:55
In that scenario FFA would win.
But by bringing that in, the generational deferment (about 30 years) before having another referendum no longer applies because many of those voting for it would be using it as one final test before going for independence.i.e. they are in favour of independence but see it as one last stepping stone.
Independence would be certain in 5-10 years in a second referendum.
A straight independence v status quo right now, I believe would still result in independence but with a good chance that it might not.
If it lost then we would not have another referendum for a generation.
Its a tricky one.
But by bringing that in, the generational deferment (about 30 years) before having another referendum no longer applies because many of those voting for it would be using it as one final test before going for independence.i.e. they are in favour of independence but see it as one last stepping stone.
Independence would be certain in 5-10 years in a second referendum.
A straight independence v status quo right now, I believe would still result in independence but with a good chance that it might not.
If it lost then we would not have another referendum for a generation.
Its a tricky one.
#
2012-01-20 09:45
I have always thought that this referendum is the unionists to lose. McLeish is a much more credible figure than any others mentioned so far, it has been obvious to anyone who follows his writings that he cares about Scotland (though why he doesn't want to go the whole hog and have independence is a mystery to me personally). A McLeish led Devo max option has a very good chance of winning. Whether or not it has any chance of being implemented under a conservative government is of course, as others have pointed out above, another question.
#
2012-01-20 10:12
Quoting Blanco:
"Devo Max" simply cannot be allowed on the ballot paper until it is defined and unequivocally committed to by the UK Government - otherwise Scotland is just being sold a pup.
It is a red herring, a non-starter.
There is simply not time for Westminster to define, agree to, and legislate for "Devo Max".
What is being pushed by "Devo Max" supporters is the old "Now is not the right time - reject Independence and have jam tomorrow" argument - but we are not even being told what flavour the jam is.
It is reminiscent of the Tory position in 1979 when voters were urged to reject what was on offer at the time, in favour of a Tory promise to bring in better legislation after the upcoming Election. Once they were elected of course, the whole Devolution project was consigned to the dustbin, just as they had always intended.
We won't fall for that one again.
... Devo max option has a very good chance of winning. Whether or not it has any chance of being implemented under a conservative government is of course, as others have pointed out above, another question.
"Devo Max" simply cannot be allowed on the ballot paper until it is defined and unequivocally committed to by the UK Government - otherwise Scotland is just being sold a pup.
It is a red herring, a non-starter.
There is simply not time for Westminster to define, agree to, and legislate for "Devo Max".
What is being pushed by "Devo Max" supporters is the old "Now is not the right time - reject Independence and have jam tomorrow" argument - but we are not even being told what flavour the jam is.
It is reminiscent of the Tory position in 1979 when voters were urged to reject what was on offer at the time, in favour of a Tory promise to bring in better legislation after the upcoming Election. Once they were elected of course, the whole Devolution project was consigned to the dustbin, just as they had always intended.
We won't fall for that one again.
#
2012-01-20 10:58
Blanco
"Whether or not it has any chance of being implemented under a conservative government is of course, as others have pointed out above, another question."
That remains my concern. Perhaps this is a clever ploy to keep people in the undecided camp until the last minute. Then they force a straight YES/NO hoping fear makes them flip to the status quo.
"Whether or not it has any chance of being implemented under a conservative government is of course, as others have pointed out above, another question."
That remains my concern. Perhaps this is a clever ploy to keep people in the undecided camp until the last minute. Then they force a straight YES/NO hoping fear makes them flip to the status quo.
#
2012-01-20 11:46
@ Blanco
Agree totally! I'm all for a reasoned debate, for I firmly believe once folk start thinking about the future they will come to understand anything less than total independence is not just unobtainable, but simply illogical.
But this is really not good news...while it might bring a halt to the infantile & pig-like squealing from media and dependency politicians; this guy has the potential to debate my countrymen into a cul-de-sac. Damn.
Agree totally! I'm all for a reasoned debate, for I firmly believe once folk start thinking about the future they will come to understand anything less than total independence is not just unobtainable, but simply illogical.
But this is really not good news...while it might bring a halt to the infantile & pig-like squealing from media and dependency politicians; this guy has the potential to debate my countrymen into a cul-de-sac. Damn.
#
2012-01-20 13:05
Quoting Blanco:
Firstly, as Harry Shanks says, Devo-Max has to be very clearly defined and signed up to by the UK government in clear unequivocal terms (Remember the promise from Alex Douglas Home in respect of the first referendum?) That includes an agreement on the removal of WMD from the Clyde, the right of Scotland not to be involved in any future illegal wars, no more tampering with the boundaries in the North Sea and a cast iron guarantee that Westminster will not attempt to revoke powers at a later date and full control to Scotland on all tax raising and spending of our own taxes. Anyone convinced that Westminster will agree to that? Remember - 'Wha fools me once, shame on him, what fools me twice shame on me'
. A McLeish led Devo max option has a very good chance of winning.
Firstly, as Harry Shanks says, Devo-Max has to be very clearly defined and signed up to by the UK government in clear unequivocal terms (Remember the promise from Alex Douglas Home in respect of the first referendum?) That includes an agreement on the removal of WMD from the Clyde, the right of Scotland not to be involved in any future illegal wars, no more tampering with the boundaries in the North Sea and a cast iron guarantee that Westminster will not attempt to revoke powers at a later date and full control to Scotland on all tax raising and spending of our own taxes. Anyone convinced that Westminster will agree to that? Remember - 'Wha fools me once, shame on him, what fools me twice shame on me'
#
2012-01-20 09:47
Devo-max will only be a fig leaf to cover up the continued exploitation of our resources. Does anyone really think the oil revenues will be handed over to Scotland? It'll be a 100 year wrangle when finally every last drop has been removed. We'll get independence then! with a prize for being the biggest suckers of all time. The unionist Scots will be pushed by Westminster kicking and screaming into an oil free (and free of anything else that's not nailed down) independent nation.
#
2012-01-20 10:03
I give up .. I can't seem to get a comment on here. Presumably you only accept magnolia comments. Maybe you guys are working for the other side.
#
2012-01-20 10:28
It's because your new xyz, sorry you have to be patient. As far as i know, sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong, the guys who run the site are volunteers who have jobs. All new folk go into pre moderation for a wee while so they can check your not likely to say anything offensive.
Welcome to the site, by the way, and please stick with it.
Welcome to the site, by the way, and please stick with it.
#
2012-01-20 11:00
Thanks Snowthistle, I look a bit daft now. All of my comments thus far are on here now.
#
2012-01-20 11:34
no no xyz, didn't mean to make you look stupid and you don't! it's something I got caught out with when i joined
#
2012-01-20 11:55
lol .. no ~you~ didn't make me look daft, I did that myself in my poke about 'working for the other side' ..
However I don't look nearly as daft as those unionist who are selling their children up the river .. if only they could see the truth.
However I don't look nearly as daft as those unionist who are selling their children up the river .. if only they could see the truth.
#
2012-01-20 12:01
Nah! The net is in trouble as I couldn't post last night either.
By the way, Us guys are not a single brain cabal like the Britnats. We speak for ourselves and are NOT all SNP members.
By the way, Us guys are not a single brain cabal like the Britnats. We speak for ourselves and are NOT all SNP members.
#
2012-01-20 10:04
Muddler McLeish had a major opportunity to address these concerns while in office - but did not.
This looks more like an attempt to re-insert himslf into the Scottish political spectrum - and salvage Unionism - rather than meaningfully contribute to Scotland's future.
This looks more like an attempt to re-insert himslf into the Scottish political spectrum - and salvage Unionism - rather than meaningfully contribute to Scotland's future.
#
2012-01-20 12:04
My reading of McLeish last night was that he was nor really ken to set himself up as Aunt Sally but did want to make his point. His body language was a bit uncomfortable at the prospect of being the leading man for the combined Britnat cabal
#
2012-01-20 14:41
Let's ask him if he can guarantee getting our 6000 square miles of territorial waters back.
#
2012-01-20 10:06
Slightly O/T
Just listened to a Lt Col Crawford that the Scottish Governments plans for the military will not be a problem, contrary to Tory minister Hammond who said it would
Looks like another plank fell of the unionist wagon
What I do have a problem with is this 1 -1 - 1 base idea from Alex Salmond
That is 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base and 1 Army base is all that will be needed
That I think is completely wrong
The reason I think its wrong is a future military force , which will be close to what Norway has (Lt Col Crawford also suggested that), will need at the very least 2 air bases and 2 naval bases and 2 Army bases
For air force, it will need a base for fighter squadron(s) and another for a Transport Squadron.
Army will need an infantry base and another for an armoured brigade.
As was mentioned by Crawford this morning the Scottish Government should really have a review of requirements to reflect exactly what the government wants the military to do.
I would reccomend that the Scottish Government urgently qualify that any military will be subject to review and that the 1/1/1/ base idea is just a baseline to start. This will put the inane arguements coming from the unionists down to a peep
Just listened to a Lt Col Crawford that the Scottish Governments plans for the military will not be a problem, contrary to Tory minister Hammond who said it would
Looks like another plank fell of the unionist wagon
What I do have a problem with is this 1 -1 - 1 base idea from Alex Salmond
That is 1 Air Base, 1 Naval Base and 1 Army base is all that will be needed
That I think is completely wrong
The reason I think its wrong is a future military force , which will be close to what Norway has (Lt Col Crawford also suggested that), will need at the very least 2 air bases and 2 naval bases and 2 Army bases
For air force, it will need a base for fighter squadron(s) and another for a Transport Squadron.
Army will need an infantry base and another for an armoured brigade.
As was mentioned by Crawford this morning the Scottish Government should really have a review of requirements to reflect exactly what the government wants the military to do.
I would reccomend that the Scottish Government urgently qualify that any military will be subject to review and that the 1/1/1/ base idea is just a baseline to start. This will put the inane arguements coming from the unionists down to a peep
#
2012-01-20 11:07
I think you resource the plan NOT plan for your resource.
If you have not decided on your political philosophy regarding external intervention (if any)how do you know what you need?
I hope Scotland will not be an aggresive puppy serving America as the UK does at present.
However we may provide international peacekeepers to a greater extent - I don't know.
The military resources are developed to execute your political profile.
We neeed joined up writing here!
If you have not decided on your political philosophy regarding external intervention (if any)how do you know what you need?
I hope Scotland will not be an aggresive puppy serving America as the UK does at present.
However we may provide international peacekeepers to a greater extent - I don't know.
The military resources are developed to execute your political profile.
We neeed joined up writing here!
#
2012-01-20 12:08
As I understand it the SNP thinking is for a Defence force to defend Scotlands borders. A secondary function would be to assist the UN. Along the same lines that the Norwegian defence force does
I Agree there needs to be some joined up writing and the SNP should not be shy about using Norway as a basis for the model to follow
Worth a read/study : mil.no/Pages/default.aspx
I Agree there needs to be some joined up writing and the SNP should not be shy about using Norway as a basis for the model to follow
Worth a read/study : mil.no/Pages/default.aspx
#
2012-01-20 12:09
Woah! There! What is to prevent the Scottish Forces making use of existing facilities? Need I point out to you that, for example Edinburgh Airport was once Turnhouse RAF base AND a civilian airport. Rosyth Dockyard still has a Naval Base but is now a privatised business unit. What is wrong with Macrahanish as a combined forces base. Longest runway in the UK and surrounded by water.
#
2012-01-20 13:17
The bit that had RAF Turnhouse is long gone, its all industrial units and commercial cargo handling facilties
#
2012-01-20 18:25
However, many Norwegian airports are combined civilian and military facilities which share the actual runways.
Dyce (Aberdeen) also started life as an RAF base. I remember all the old military buildings, which were where the current terminal is, from when I first went there as an ATC cadet.
Dyce (Aberdeen) also started life as an RAF base. I remember all the old military buildings, which were where the current terminal is, from when I first went there as an ATC cadet.
#
2012-01-20 21:16
Inverness (Dalcross) airport also started out as an RAF base. Take a look along the coast of the Moray Firth and theres at least a dozen old air stations, the big ones are usually quite easy to spot with the A shaped runways.
#
2012-01-20 19:57
Thats very true. With Scots banker Sir Angus Grossart backing a bid from the Carlyle Group to buy Edinburgh Airport were going to have renegade CIA flights and extraordinary rendition happening on our soil, we may as well let the Yanks base a few planes there.
#
2012-01-20 13:08
Old Smokey, may I suggest that if you have strong views regarding how the Scottish Defence Forces should be organised, that you communicate these ideas to the SDA and join in the working debates. Put forward your ideas to :- info@scottishde mocraticallianc e.org
The same goes for every reader, put your thoughts where they will do some good
The same goes for every reader, put your thoughts where they will do some good
#
2012-01-20 18:28
Might it not do more good to contact the SNP's defence spokesman? The SNP has a real chance of doing something, but the SDA?
#
2012-01-20 19:35
I think Cardrossian's intention was to highlight that the SDA has a working group on Defence and Security and encourage folk like Old Smokey to put forward their ideas. It was not an attempt to engage in a "My party is better than your party" style debate.
#
2012-01-20 21:26
Maybe not, but there certainly seems to be a continuing effort to give the impression that the SDA is the go-to organisation in all this. Is there any reason to think going to the SDA would be anything other than a waste of time?
#
2012-01-20 22:28
Quoting Holebender:
Unfortunately if we all took that attitude most of us wouldnt get out of bed in the morning. Heres the Defence and Security policy of the SDA .../security-and-defence, show me the SNP's and we can compare.
Maybe not, but there certainly seems to be a continuing effort to give the impression that the SDA is the go-to organisation in all this. Is there any reason to think going to the SDA would be anything other than a waste of time?
Unfortunately if we all took that attitude most of us wouldnt get out of bed in the morning. Heres the Defence and Security policy of the SDA .../security-and-defence, show me the SNP's and we can compare.
#
2012-01-20 15:49
Quite agree old Smokey, 1 airbase might be what we'll inherit but keeping all our aircraft there is a recipe for disaster. Only a few months ago a russian bear probed our defences coming within sight of the St Andrews coast, what if Lossiemouth was in the middle of a thunderstorm and couldnt launch anything?
In a 1-1-1 situation a couple of cruise missiles will leave our airforce trapped on the ground, our army wiped out and the navy facing its own Pearl Harbour.
In a 1-1-1 situation a couple of cruise missiles will leave our airforce trapped on the ground, our army wiped out and the navy facing its own Pearl Harbour.
#
2012-01-20 18:06
Hmmm. Are you seriously suggesting that Russia might at some point want to 'invade' or 'attack' Scotland without the UK nuclear 'deterrent'?
Any credible evidence for this?
Any credible evidence for this?
#
2012-01-20 19:13
Quoting Aplinal:
Why would I need to back up something I never said? I did not mention Nuclear Deterrents, it was you.
What I said was that Russia regularly probes the Airspace around Scotland and I have plenty of evidence of this dailyrecord.co.uk/.../... is this somehow going to stop after Independence? When it does continue what do you suggest we do? Let the russians fly where they want because they quite nice folk and wouldnt hurt us. Complacency like that could get a lot of people killed, Russia is not afraid of international opinion, we saw that in their war with Georgia. I'm not suggesting we should assume Russia has any hostile intentions and start shooting down their planes if they approach our airspace but we should be sending a message to them that it belongs to us and it WILL be defended.
Russia also dropped in to the Moray Firth with an Aircraft Carrier recently to say hello which highlighted what a farce the Con-Dem SDSR was. The only aircraft in the RAF equipped for Maritime Patrol (The Nimrods) were lying broken up in Scrapyards, the Ship Strike Tornados from Lossie had their Sea Eagle missiles retired years ago and never replaced and the only Ship the Royal Navy could send was an ancient destroyer which after a 1000ish mile journey to get here doesnt carry any anti ship weapons. It would appear that the Russians were just taking some shelter from a storm but again we shouldnt be complacent, a threat existed.
What I also said was that if we only have one airbase then if it is unable to launch aircraft then the Scottish Air Force would be grounded. A perfectly reasonable thing to say, the old adage "Dont put all your eggs in one basket" still holds true today.
Hmmm. Are you seriously suggesting that Russia might at some point want to 'invade' or 'attack' Scotland without the UK nuclear 'deterrent'?
Any credible evidence for this?
Why would I need to back up something I never said? I did not mention Nuclear Deterrents, it was you.
What I said was that Russia regularly probes the Airspace around Scotland and I have plenty of evidence of this dailyrecord.co.uk/.../... is this somehow going to stop after Independence? When it does continue what do you suggest we do? Let the russians fly where they want because they quite nice folk and wouldnt hurt us. Complacency like that could get a lot of people killed, Russia is not afraid of international opinion, we saw that in their war with Georgia. I'm not suggesting we should assume Russia has any hostile intentions and start shooting down their planes if they approach our airspace but we should be sending a message to them that it belongs to us and it WILL be defended.
Russia also dropped in to the Moray Firth with an Aircraft Carrier recently to say hello which highlighted what a farce the Con-Dem SDSR was. The only aircraft in the RAF equipped for Maritime Patrol (The Nimrods) were lying broken up in Scrapyards, the Ship Strike Tornados from Lossie had their Sea Eagle missiles retired years ago and never replaced and the only Ship the Royal Navy could send was an ancient destroyer which after a 1000ish mile journey to get here doesnt carry any anti ship weapons. It would appear that the Russians were just taking some shelter from a storm but again we shouldnt be complacent, a threat existed.
What I also said was that if we only have one airbase then if it is unable to launch aircraft then the Scottish Air Force would be grounded. A perfectly reasonable thing to say, the old adage "Dont put all your eggs in one basket" still holds true today.
#
2012-01-20 19:18
All right, let me ask:
Are you seriously suggesting that Russia might at some point want to 'invade' or 'attack' Scotland
Sorry but this is scaremongering of an absurd level.
Quote:
Who exactly? Scots? How so, unless Russia decided to invade/attack?
Are you seriously suggesting that Russia might at some point want to 'invade' or 'attack' Scotland
Sorry but this is scaremongering of an absurd level.
Quote:
What I said was that Russia regularly probes the Airspace around Scotland ... is this somehow going to stop after Independence? ... Complacency like that could get a lot of people killed
Who exactly? Scots? How so, unless Russia decided to invade/attack?
#
2012-01-20 19:50
Can you tell me who the next 20 Russian presidents will be and what their political manifestos will contain?
Nope, in otherwords you dont know whats round the next corner.
If we become independent and dont get defence right a lot of dead people is exactly what 'could' happen. One of the major contributing factors of the Falklands War was that Westminster sent the signal that they were not prepared to defend the islands by withdrawing the ship on standby there, it cost 907 lives showing Argentina otherwise.
Nope, in otherwords you dont know whats round the next corner.
If we become independent and dont get defence right a lot of dead people is exactly what 'could' happen. One of the major contributing factors of the Falklands War was that Westminster sent the signal that they were not prepared to defend the islands by withdrawing the ship on standby there, it cost 907 lives showing Argentina otherwise.
#
2012-01-20 20:05
I think a major reason we receive these flypasts from the Russian military is because we are united with england - who are still very heavily involved in strategic weapons manufacturing and we have an unfortunate history of warmongering and imperialism.
Time to change all that.
Polstar, you've already admitted that Westminster is useless as we have no aircraft carriers - which will be the case for the next 20 years or so. As for your comment about the Russian aircraft in our airspace, your implying that Scotland wouldn't have any fighters to send up to have a look - that is not the case. We will have some fighters to send up and intercept.
It worries me that to hear that this kind of scaremongering goes on - this fear is what sends us to spend £100's of billions on weapons when we can't even feed our bloody kids and heat our homes.
Time to change all that.
Polstar, you've already admitted that Westminster is useless as we have no aircraft carriers - which will be the case for the next 20 years or so. As for your comment about the Russian aircraft in our airspace, your implying that Scotland wouldn't have any fighters to send up to have a look - that is not the case. We will have some fighters to send up and intercept.
It worries me that to hear that this kind of scaremongering goes on - this fear is what sends us to spend £100's of billions on weapons when we can't even feed our bloody kids and heat our homes.
#
2012-01-20 21:01
Quoting tartanfever:
In other words its Englands Fault, thats funny because Norway, Sweden, Denmark and many other countries in Europe not known for warmongering and imperialism also have Russian aircraft probe their airspace. Here is a video of the Czech air force carrying out interceptions www.youtube.com/.../
Quoting tartanfever:
Aircraft Carriers?? Who mentioned Aircraft Carriers?? Finland has produced an attack boat known as the hamina class en.wikipedia.org/.../... it is small, relatively cheap to build 101 million USD compared to 1 Billion GBP for a destroyer. It displaces 250 tons and has a crew of 26, the Type 42 Destroyer the Royal Navy sent Displaces approx 4000 tons and has a crew of about 250. Just because its big and expensive doesnt make it more suitable for the role, we have to asses Scotlands defence needs and buy accordingly.
Quoting tartanfever:
Having fighters is all very well but where you put them is also incredibly important, there is a whole strategy dedicated to not putting all your eggs in one basket, its known as Wide Area Dispersal (scattering your planes over a wide area). It has been a key strategy for nations since the days of the Luftwaffe bombing airfields to destroy the RAF on the ground and keep the remainder from getting airborne due to cratered runways. I do not mention examples such as this or the Falklands because I still live in those times but because we are supposed to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them over again.
Quoting tartanfever:
You need to remove your rose tinted glasses and realise that the world generally isnt a very nice place, you may consider people who want Scotland defended from that unpleasantness to be scaremongers but I consider them realistic and pragmatic. You recognise yourself that Scotland will need fighter aircraft, if you take the attitude that each plane could have paid for 100 nurses then where do you stop? its about balance and that can be struck without sacrifing our ability to defend ourselves or spending obscene quatities of money on vanity projects like aircraft carriers
If we mess up on defence we wont get a second chance so lets get it right.
I think a major reason we receive these flypasts from the Russian military is because we are united with england - who are still very heavily involved in strategic weapons manufacturing and we have an unfortunate history of warmongering and imperialism. .
In other words its Englands Fault, thats funny because Norway, Sweden, Denmark and many other countries in Europe not known for warmongering and imperialism also have Russian aircraft probe their airspace. Here is a video of the Czech air force carrying out interceptions www.youtube.com/.../
Quoting tartanfever:
Polstar, you've already admitted that Westminster is useless as we have no aircraft carriers .
Aircraft Carriers?? Who mentioned Aircraft Carriers?? Finland has produced an attack boat known as the hamina class en.wikipedia.org/.../... it is small, relatively cheap to build 101 million USD compared to 1 Billion GBP for a destroyer. It displaces 250 tons and has a crew of 26, the Type 42 Destroyer the Royal Navy sent Displaces approx 4000 tons and has a crew of about 250. Just because its big and expensive doesnt make it more suitable for the role, we have to asses Scotlands defence needs and buy accordingly.
Quoting tartanfever:
- which will be the case for the next 20 years or so. As for your comment about the Russian aircraft in our airspace, your implying that Scotland wouldn't have any fighters to send up to have a look - that is not the case. We will have some fighters to send up and intercept.
Having fighters is all very well but where you put them is also incredibly important, there is a whole strategy dedicated to not putting all your eggs in one basket, its known as Wide Area Dispersal (scattering your planes over a wide area). It has been a key strategy for nations since the days of the Luftwaffe bombing airfields to destroy the RAF on the ground and keep the remainder from getting airborne due to cratered runways. I do not mention examples such as this or the Falklands because I still live in those times but because we are supposed to learn from our mistakes and not repeat them over again.
Quoting tartanfever:
It worries me that to hear that this kind of scaremongering goes on - this fear is what sends us to spend £100's of billions on weapons when we can't even feed our bloody kids and heat our homes.
You need to remove your rose tinted glasses and realise that the world generally isnt a very nice place, you may consider people who want Scotland defended from that unpleasantness to be scaremongers but I consider them realistic and pragmatic. You recognise yourself that Scotland will need fighter aircraft, if you take the attitude that each plane could have paid for 100 nurses then where do you stop? its about balance and that can be struck without sacrifing our ability to defend ourselves or spending obscene quatities of money on vanity projects like aircraft carriers
If we mess up on defence we wont get a second chance so lets get it right.
#
2012-01-20 21:17
Quoting Polstar:
AND is invasion by space aliens
right up there on your list of
defense priorities ?
Can you tell me who the next 20 Russian presidents will be and what their political manifestos will contain? Nope, in otherwords you dont know whats round the next corner.
.
AND is invasion by space aliens
right up there on your list of
defense priorities ?
#
2012-01-20 21:01
Quoting Polstar:
Probing our defences by Russians is nothing new. In the early 1960's with the cold war at it's peak the RAF opened a newly built, secret 'monitoring facility' at Stornoway airport which also housed a NATO facility. Two days before the low-key official opening a large Russian 'trawler' festooned with massive arrays of antennas berthed in the adjoining bay about 1000 mtrs from the new facility and stayed there for around five days. They were letting the UK military brass know that they were fully aware of their plans and their strategy. Hundreds of Billions have been spent by the UK military in the 50 years which separated the visit by the Russians to Stornoway airport and their recent visit to the Moray Firth and I have no doubt that these visits will continue post-independence.
[quote name="Aplinal"] What I said was that Russia regularly probes the Airspace around Scotland and I have plenty of evidence of this .......
Russia also dropped in to the Moray Firth with an Aircraft Carrier recently to say hello which highlighted what a farce the Con-Dem SDSR was.
Probing our defences by Russians is nothing new. In the early 1960's with the cold war at it's peak the RAF opened a newly built, secret 'monitoring facility' at Stornoway airport which also housed a NATO facility. Two days before the low-key official opening a large Russian 'trawler' festooned with massive arrays of antennas berthed in the adjoining bay about 1000 mtrs from the new facility and stayed there for around five days. They were letting the UK military brass know that they were fully aware of their plans and their strategy. Hundreds of Billions have been spent by the UK military in the 50 years which separated the visit by the Russians to Stornoway airport and their recent visit to the Moray Firth and I have no doubt that these visits will continue post-independence.
#
2012-01-20 10:24
The article says: "devo-max was a “ great opportunity” for the Scottish Labour party".
Is this movement of civic society going to be grabbed by the Labour Party? If I was in the movement, I'd not be too pleased.
I see Hiorta is having the same misgivings.
Is this movement of civic society going to be grabbed by the Labour Party? If I was in the movement, I'd not be too pleased.
I see Hiorta is having the same misgivings.
#
2012-01-20 10:26
I wouldn't trust Henry McLeish as far as I could throw him.
Remember this is the same Henry McLeish who was involved in the theft of 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie, putting it under English jurisdiction.
Remember this is the same Henry McLeish who was involved in the theft of 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie, putting it under English jurisdiction.
#
2012-01-20 16:55
Quoting Caledonian Lass:
I agree with you. This fact is largely unknown by the man in the street. Everyone I tell about it expresses genuine surprise that such a state of affairs could have come about. The missing 6ooo square miles and the associated jiggery-pokery by McLeish and Blair must be given a high profile. It's no use keeping the topic on hold until negotiations with Westminster start. Henry has form and the public have a right to know what he got up to in 1999.
I wouldn't trust Henry McLeish as far as I could throw him.
Remember this is the same Henry McLeish who was involved in the theft of 6,000 square miles of Scottish sea from Berwick-upon-Tweed to Carnoustie, putting it under English jurisdiction.
I agree with you. This fact is largely unknown by the man in the street. Everyone I tell about it expresses genuine surprise that such a state of affairs could have come about. The missing 6ooo square miles and the associated jiggery-pokery by McLeish and Blair must be given a high profile. It's no use keeping the topic on hold until negotiations with Westminster start. Henry has form and the public have a right to know what he got up to in 1999.
#
2012-01-20 10:30
Is this the new tactic from the unionist ? Have they seen the light and are going to put forward a devo - max option ?
After the disaster of the last two weeks when the 'no' campaign has had various unionists MP's coming forward to lead the charge against independence, who's only effect has been to swell the number of the SNP membership.
First Cameron wanted to step in, Osbourne was rumoured to be a good shout - then we had Darling (that photo of him really was a stonker - jacket casually held over the shoulder - classic 'Man at C&A 1970's'). Broon's name has been thrown around, Lord Steel has now offered and so on (thought CHarles Kennedy was a choice to lead the 'no's' ?) and so on....
I wonder if Labour have had their 'road to Damascus moment' and will actually put forward a 'devo-max' option ? One thing's for sure, if they refuse to listen to Henry- then a third question is not going to come from the Labour party. Lamont set out her stall, there would be 'no' third question. The more the suggestions of devo max come from members of her party, the more incompetent and out of touch she will appear. Come on Mr Chisholm, your turn to put some more pressure on.
After the disaster of the last two weeks when the 'no' campaign has had various unionists MP's coming forward to lead the charge against independence, who's only effect has been to swell the number of the SNP membership.
First Cameron wanted to step in, Osbourne was rumoured to be a good shout - then we had Darling (that photo of him really was a stonker - jacket casually held over the shoulder - classic 'Man at C&A 1970's'). Broon's name has been thrown around, Lord Steel has now offered and so on (thought CHarles Kennedy was a choice to lead the 'no's' ?) and so on....
I wonder if Labour have had their 'road to Damascus moment' and will actually put forward a 'devo-max' option ? One thing's for sure, if they refuse to listen to Henry- then a third question is not going to come from the Labour party. Lamont set out her stall, there would be 'no' third question. The more the suggestions of devo max come from members of her party, the more incompetent and out of touch she will appear. Come on Mr Chisholm, your turn to put some more pressure on.
#
2012-01-20 10:32
Quoting Harry.Shanks:
There are a lot of good points there.
We know what London rule is like and so long as we are in this union, they will continue to abuse it. Devo max would be a huge disappointment, London will not keep its word, will the Brits ever let any power go? We will still have their nuclear sh!t and pay for their tridents etc etc
Quoting Blanco:... Devo max option has a very good chance of winning. Whether or not it has any chance of being implemented under a conservative government is of course, as others have pointed out above, another question.
No, No, No!
"Devo Max" simply cannot be allowed on the ballot paper until it is defined and unequivocally committed to by the UK Government - otherwise Scotland is just being sold a pup.
It is a red herring, a non-starter.
There is simply not time for Westminster to define, agree to, and legislate for "Devo Max".
What is being pushed by "Devo Max" supporters is the old "Now is not the right time - reject Independence and have jam tomorrow" argument - except we are not even being told what flavour the jam is.
We won't fall for that one again.
There are a lot of good points there.
We know what London rule is like and so long as we are in this union, they will continue to abuse it. Devo max would be a huge disappointment, London will not keep its word, will the Brits ever let any power go? We will still have their nuclear sh!t and pay for their tridents etc etc
#
2012-01-20 10:58
I have a level of respect for Henry McLeish but I do get tired of his failure to recognise that the solution to all his complaints over Westminster meddling in referendums and so on and disrespecting Scotland and not doing this or that for Scotland (thereby risking independence happening) IS independence.
When is he going to realise that he actually is an independence supporter?
It's like having rats in your house and doing all sorts of patching of holes, chasing them out, trying sonic deterrants or even pleading with them to leave, when the one obvious solution is to get a bloody great big cat.
Scottish independence is to the constitutional problem what cats are to rats. Polls show that 8 out of 10 people like cats.
When is he going to realise that he actually is an independence supporter?
It's like having rats in your house and doing all sorts of patching of holes, chasing them out, trying sonic deterrants or even pleading with them to leave, when the one obvious solution is to get a bloody great big cat.
Scottish independence is to the constitutional problem what cats are to rats. Polls show that 8 out of 10 people like cats.
#
2012-01-20 11:11
I think the ground is shifting and that the choice is no longer between Independence and the union, and is really now between Independence and Devo Max. The status quo is now a non starter.
#
2012-01-20 11:18
Agreed - and that is why Salmond has a reputation as a master tactician. By floating the idea of Devo Max as something the SNP might consider including, the entire ground has shifted in our direction.
Those who are formulating the Devo Max position have to include sufficient fiscal and legislative powers for it to capture that middle ground, and thus the differences between that and independence start to diminish to insignificance.
Those who are formulating the Devo Max position have to include sufficient fiscal and legislative powers for it to capture that middle ground, and thus the differences between that and independence start to diminish to insignificance.
#
2012-01-20 11:14
I think it's time to print out my bumper stickers,
"Vote Devo Max - Get Calman"
It depresses me to think that our once in three hundred year shot at independence could evaporate if Scots voters fall for Devo Max.
It will be no consolation after we've voted for it and Henry McLiesh regretfully informs us that the MP's in England wouldn't wear it. He genuinely thought he was offering us Full Fiscal Autonomy, he'd put so much work in getting cross unionist party support and that of civic Scotland, truly it would have been great.
Back to the status quo or worse but it sincerely was a muddle not a fiddle.
"Vote Devo Max - Get Calman"
It depresses me to think that our once in three hundred year shot at independence could evaporate if Scots voters fall for Devo Max.
It will be no consolation after we've voted for it and Henry McLiesh regretfully informs us that the MP's in England wouldn't wear it. He genuinely thought he was offering us Full Fiscal Autonomy, he'd put so much work in getting cross unionist party support and that of civic Scotland, truly it would have been great.
Back to the status quo or worse but it sincerely was a muddle not a fiddle.
#
2012-01-20 11:17
The problem with DevoMax, FFA and any other proposition falling short of independence is that it has to agreed upon by the opposition side, defined and offered.
Any proposition short of independence, if accepted by the people of Scotland would then be subject to further delays in nit picking, obfuscation and leger de main by the incumbent Westminster regime, which would last for years.
That is why I think that the unionists will eventually arrive at the table with some halfway house of an offer, which like the Calman Commission will be a crock of keich dressed and polished up. It will take time to unpick it from the nationalist point of view.
That is why timing is vitally important, not only to the SNP's downhill rolling snowball, but to the opposition's chance of hoodwinking the electorate. To far from the referendum and their proposal will be minced in Scotland.
They need to pull this rabid rabbit out of the hat very shortly before the referendum, as a some sort of grand coalition compromise.
Any proposition short of independence, if accepted by the people of Scotland would then be subject to further delays in nit picking, obfuscation and leger de main by the incumbent Westminster regime, which would last for years.
That is why I think that the unionists will eventually arrive at the table with some halfway house of an offer, which like the Calman Commission will be a crock of keich dressed and polished up. It will take time to unpick it from the nationalist point of view.
That is why timing is vitally important, not only to the SNP's downhill rolling snowball, but to the opposition's chance of hoodwinking the electorate. To far from the referendum and their proposal will be minced in Scotland.
They need to pull this rabid rabbit out of the hat very shortly before the referendum, as a some sort of grand coalition compromise.
#
2012-01-20 16:19
Problem with devomax is, as far as the people who can give it are concerned; its the Scotland Bill.
Hopefully people will realise the difference between real devomax and independence is a mere bawhair so will plump for the latter.
As far as westminster are concerned, there is no difference between devomax (their idea of it) and Calman.
Independence is the only way.
Hopefully people will realise the difference between real devomax and independence is a mere bawhair so will plump for the latter.
As far as westminster are concerned, there is no difference between devomax (their idea of it) and Calman.
Independence is the only way.
#
2012-01-20 11:27
I think that the trap has been sprung. Labour in Scotland seems to at the same time at odds with the UK contingent (by whom I include ALL the unionists) and in cahoots with the Tories - I think they are in a terrible dilemma and so called devo max is the only path open to them but they will have to negotiate it's terms with the LibCon outfit (aye, good luck with that) in a very limited timeframe where there will be no agreement. Cats in a bag or rats in a trap, choose your mental image.
Suddenly it'll be like Countdown (cue music and clock) and "Let's see what you've come up with folks, oh dear a blank bit of paper, that's a shame, now here's the yes/no question."
Suddenly it'll be like Countdown (cue music and clock) and "Let's see what you've come up with folks, oh dear a blank bit of paper, that's a shame, now here's the yes/no question."
#
2012-01-20 11:29
The lady who interviewed him on STV was most enthusiastic about getting him to do the job, to the point of embarrassing the viewers.
I suppose Devo Max could be considered as Salmond's gradualist approach, creeping along to a position where ostensibly there is very little difference bewteen it and independence. However, I do worry that it would be an opportunity for Westminister to delay and prevaricate and it would never get off the ground in a reasonable time, if at all.
The excuse would be, 'we don't have time to deal with this at the moment because we have to concentrate on the economy and in getting the deficit down.'
Would there come a time when Westminster could say, 'things have changed, we should consult the people again about separation of powers.'
Independence, Yes or No. seems a much clearer proposition. If it's independence Yes, then the UK government has no place to hide.
UDI anyone?
I suppose Devo Max could be considered as Salmond's gradualist approach, creeping along to a position where ostensibly there is very little difference bewteen it and independence. However, I do worry that it would be an opportunity for Westminister to delay and prevaricate and it would never get off the ground in a reasonable time, if at all.
The excuse would be, 'we don't have time to deal with this at the moment because we have to concentrate on the economy and in getting the deficit down.'
Would there come a time when Westminster could say, 'things have changed, we should consult the people again about separation of powers.'
Independence, Yes or No. seems a much clearer proposition. If it's independence Yes, then the UK government has no place to hide.
UDI anyone?
#
2012-01-20 11:30
Henry smells an opportunity here, that is all, he is yesterdays man. He has no credibility and is not to be trusted. DevoMax is just a red herring and is designed to confuse the issue, so instead of addressing the substance of the debate all this argie bargie about the question ebbs and flows like the tide and like the tide never really goes any where. I can only imagine that DevoMax is being rolled out of the rough by the SNP for some devious reason, and the rest are happy to hack away at it as it stops them having to put the case for the union.
The reason we here nothing but negative scaremongering about the union is quite simple, there is no other case to be put, there is no need for the union any more it has been overtaken by time and political democracy and reality, it never was valid. If and when we get to have our say, it will be the first time ever that the Scottish electorate has been asked to have an opinion. We need to hear the substance.
I do not want DevoMax, which we should rename as DeviousMax. If it were the preferred option it would just be an excuse for years and years of wrangling and recrimination, and international humiliation for Scotland. The same as Pierre_Trudeau did to the Quebec nationalists . He promised them the earth and then when they failed to vote for their independence he turned his back on them. He was the Canadians own Wallace of Tankerness. A true Liberal in every sense of the word as we have come to know them.
I do not want to be asked about DeviousMax, I want to be asked one question:
"DO YOU WANT SCOTLAND TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY....YES/ NO".
I am getting slowly sick and tired of this posturing. Get on with campaigning for that YES vote, and let the Devious ones fight amongst them selves. You will never find a question to satisfy every taste. Campaign and campaign hard for total independence, stop this silly bloody side show. Come on Alex Salmond show us what you are made of?
The reason we here nothing but negative scaremongering about the union is quite simple, there is no other case to be put, there is no need for the union any more it has been overtaken by time and political democracy and reality, it never was valid. If and when we get to have our say, it will be the first time ever that the Scottish electorate has been asked to have an opinion. We need to hear the substance.
I do not want DevoMax, which we should rename as DeviousMax. If it were the preferred option it would just be an excuse for years and years of wrangling and recrimination, and international humiliation for Scotland. The same as Pierre_Trudeau did to the Quebec nationalists . He promised them the earth and then when they failed to vote for their independence he turned his back on them. He was the Canadians own Wallace of Tankerness. A true Liberal in every sense of the word as we have come to know them.
I do not want to be asked about DeviousMax, I want to be asked one question:
"DO YOU WANT SCOTLAND TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY....YES/ NO".
I am getting slowly sick and tired of this posturing. Get on with campaigning for that YES vote, and let the Devious ones fight amongst them selves. You will never find a question to satisfy every taste. Campaign and campaign hard for total independence, stop this silly bloody side show. Come on Alex Salmond show us what you are made of?
#
2012-01-20 12:26
Quoting DonaldMhor:
_______________ _______________ __________
You say it all for me here DonaldMhor and so save me typing a long detailed post. DeviousMax = Genius lol!
Henry smells an opportunity here, that is all, he is yesterdays man. He has no credibility and is not to be trusted. DevoMax is just a red herring and is designed to confuse the issue, so instead of addressing the substance of the debate all this argie bargie about the question ebbs and flows like the tide and like the tide never really goes any where. I can only imagine that DevoMax is being rolled out of the rough by the SNP for some devious reason, and the rest are happy to hack away at it as it stops them having to put the case for the union.
The reason we here nothing but negative scaremongering about the union is quite simple, there is no other case to be put, there is no need for the union any more it has been overtaken by time and political democracy and reality, it never was valid. If and when we get to have our say, it will be the first time ever that the Scottish electorate has been asked to have an opinion. We need to hear the substance.
I do not want DevoMax, which we should rename as DeviousMax. If it were the preferred option it would just be an excuse for years and years of wrangling and recrimination, and international humiliation for Scotland. The same as Pierre_Trudeau did to the Quebec nationalists . He promised them the earth and then when they failed to vote for their independence he turned his back on them. He was the Canadians own Wallace of Tankerness. A true Liberal in every sense of the word as we have come to know them.
I do not want to be asked about DeviousMax, I want to be asked one question:
"DO YOU WANT SCOTLAND TO BECOME AN INDEPENDENT COUNTRY....YES/ NO".
I am getting slowly sick and tired of this posturing. Get on with campaigning for that YES vote, and let the Devious ones fight amongst them selves. You will never find a question to satisfy every taste. Campaign and campaign hard for total independence, stop this silly bloody side show. Come on Alex Salmond show us what you are made of?
_______________ _______________ __________
You say it all for me here DonaldMhor and so save me typing a long detailed post. DeviousMax = Genius lol!
#
2012-01-20 13:15
One benefit I see from Henry leading a debate on Devo-max is that it splits the Unionist 'No' support, especially within Labour in Scotland
#
2012-01-20 11:46
Apparently Wallace of Tankerness is giving a speech in Scotland (today or tomorrow) to give his case on the legality of the referendum.
#
2012-01-20 12:38
Quoting J Wil:
The dead sheep syndrome. I will be painting the shed brown and sitting down to watch it drying if he gets on the TV or wireless.
Apparently Wallace of Tankerness is giving a speech in Scotland (today or tomorrow) to give his case on the legality of the referendum.
The dead sheep syndrome. I will be painting the shed brown and sitting down to watch it drying if he gets on the TV or wireless.
#
2012-01-20 11:55
YES, DEVOMAX, NO
All three opinions need non-party leadership to step forward soon, so that the Scottish public at large, those that are less interested in political positions, and those with loyalty to UK parties, but a desire for independence can be given a voice.
All three opinions need non-party leadership to step forward soon, so that the Scottish public at large, those that are less interested in political positions, and those with loyalty to UK parties, but a desire for independence can be given a voice.
#
2012-01-20 12:00
Even if all the unionist parties offered Devo max they would water it down after the referendum just as they did with Calman.Devolution was designed to stop Independence,Ca lman was designed to stop Independence and devo max is exactly the same.
#
2012-01-20 12:03
Well..
if henry gets devomax as the third question and it wins then westminister can drag it out for years or ignore it.
...then it is UDI folks.
if henry gets devomax as the third question and it wins then westminister can drag it out for years or ignore it.
...then it is UDI folks.
#
2012-01-20 12:13
Three choices 1) Independence, 2) Devo Max example Isle of Man, 3), Status Quo, unless one choice reaches 50% plus 1 of the total votes cast a run off between the top two choices would be held.
This was the voting system used in the Newfoundland 1948 referendum and was accepted by the British government at that time.......
Multi-option referendums on constitutional change. Newfoundland, 1948 there was originally two choices agree by the Convention either to remain under British rule or regain independence but after a motion to add to enter the Canadian Confederation was defeated--------The British government intervened and overruled the Convention, deciding that Confederation with Canada would indeed be on the ballot--------They (British government) did this after having concluding, "It would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue at the referendum".------
There was two ballots because since after the 1st ballot none of the 3 choices had gained over 50%, a second referendum with only the two most popular choices was held, result 52.3% to join the Canadian Confederation.
This was the voting system used in the Newfoundland 1948 referendum and was accepted by the British government at that time.......
Multi-option referendums on constitutional change. Newfoundland, 1948 there was originally two choices agree by the Convention either to remain under British rule or regain independence but after a motion to add to enter the Canadian Confederation was defeated--------The British government intervened and overruled the Convention, deciding that Confederation with Canada would indeed be on the ballot--------They (British government) did this after having concluding, "It would not be right that the people of Newfoundland should be deprived of an opportunity of considering the issue at the referendum".------
There was two ballots because since after the 1st ballot none of the 3 choices had gained over 50%, a second referendum with only the two most popular choices was held, result 52.3% to join the Canadian Confederation.
#
2012-01-20 18:52
interesting precedent... but we could save the expense of a second ballot by having a single transferable vote, maybe?
#
2012-01-20 12:22
Independence = Independence
DevoMax = delayed Independence
Status Quo = further devolution = slow route to Independence
WORK FOR IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE!
DevoMax = delayed Independence
Status Quo = further devolution = slow route to Independence
WORK FOR IMMEDIATE INDEPENDENCE!
#
2012-01-20 12:25
We have reasoned arguements for Independence.
We now have the beginnings of reasoned arguements for Devo-Max
Back in the unionist camp we have Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories all saying "NO!" to Scots in unision and indulging in fears and smears. The lack of reason is that of a spoilt 5 year old.
We now have the beginnings of reasoned arguements for Devo-Max
Back in the unionist camp we have Labour, Lib Dems and the Tories all saying "NO!" to Scots in unision and indulging in fears and smears. The lack of reason is that of a spoilt 5 year old.
#
2012-01-20 12:39
The stupid outbursts by Britnat Cabal numpties is an erroneous fixed mindset. Whether by red, yellow or blue conservatives, (small, "c".), they are singing from the same hymn sheet. There are many flies in their ointment. The terms, England, United Kingdom, Britain and Great Britain are clearly, not one and the same entity. Thus, the Britnat Cabal member, react with the, “Classical Conditioning Theory”, shown by Pavlov's Dogs. Their collective Britnat Cabal mindset, being a quite illegal, ideological mantra making the whole basis of Brtitnatism on things like, “The country”, “The whole country”, “Britain”, “Great Britain”, “Westminster”, “Parliament”, and “England”, mean absolutely nothing. Yet these errors permeates each, and every, idea the Britnat Cabal holds dear.
We have the non-elected, ermine tippit, “Tankerness”, assuming the law of England is supreme and Scotland's law inferior. There is only English Law, Scottish Law and International Law. Westminster legislates on these laws but there is no such entity as, “United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”, Law.
A Road Traffic Bill will eventually become Traffic Acts titled in the manner of, “Road Traffic, (Scotland), Act", and applied to only Scotland. It will be titled in different manner for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union states The Scottish Legal System is independent and sacrosanct. The treaty itself gives it protection.
We must examine the Pavlov's Dogs mantra errors of thinking of the typical Britnat. Tankerness will make a fool of himself today in his lecture on a legal challenge on the right of the SG referendum in Scotland. He assumes, in his Pavlovian way, the Westminster created Supreme Court can rule upon any Scottish legal matter. The Britnat, “UK Defence Secretary, Phillip Hammond”, claims, “the SNP plans to take some British Military units into a Scottish Defence Force is, “Laughable” . Claiming Scotland should pay for the removal of the nuclear deterrent , the base installations and the clean-up after their going. He, too, obviously assumes Scotland is breaking away from the United Kingdom Government, or that it will continue as if it were a rump UK or perhaps the non-existent English Parliament. He assumes that English law supersedes the Scottish law that must apply as the bases, and equipments, are all under Scotland's jurisdiction. He is thus wrong on both counts.
We also have the lugubrious Jim Murphy demanding the FM explain what Devo-Max means. Devo-Max is not for the SNP to define. It has never been party policy. The term, IF anyone else cares to propose it, is for them to define.
So what is the legal position of the relationship between Scottish law and the views of Westminster?
Simple really, English law applies to England and also in the two countries that joined, “The United Kingdom Parliament of Great Britain”, under the skirts of the English Crown at the ratification of The Treaty Of Union, The two underskirt countries were not signatories, in their own right, to the Treaty Of Union. The Treaty clearly states that Scottish Law is independent of English Law and is, under the protection of that treaty, sacrosanct.
However, there are some other factors The Britnat Cabal fails to understand and these too are simple. Two equal Sovereign countries signed the Treaty of Union but their lawful sovereignty is not the same, (and was not the same when they signed the treaty).
Both countries are a Constitutional Monarchy, (a monarchy governed according to a constitution that limits and defines the powers of the sovereign). However, in England the monarch is sovereign. In Scotland the people are sovereign. The English monarch's power, (sovereignty), has been delegated to, “Her Majesty's Government”, who were elected by the English people. In Scotland the Scottish people's sovereignty has been delegated to their elected representatives too.
However, in today's situation, the sovereign Scottish people HAVE NOT delegated their sovereign powers to the Westminster Parliament, to do so requires they gave that parliament a mandate to wield their sovereignty but, with more pandas in Scotland than Conservative members elected to Westminster, there is not, even with the few Libdems, a mandate given to Westminster.
The sovereignty of the Scottish People has, though, been given with a massive mandate to the Holyrood Parliament, as the people's elected government.
Thus, English law cannot supersede Scottish Law and nothing in the Treaty of Union gives Westminster, even one mandated by the Scots, the power to do so.
We have the non-elected, ermine tippit, “Tankerness”, assuming the law of England is supreme and Scotland's law inferior. There is only English Law, Scottish Law and International Law. Westminster legislates on these laws but there is no such entity as, “United Kingdom Of Great Britain & Northern Ireland”, Law.
A Road Traffic Bill will eventually become Traffic Acts titled in the manner of, “Road Traffic, (Scotland), Act", and applied to only Scotland. It will be titled in different manner for the rest of the United Kingdom. The Treaty of Union states The Scottish Legal System is independent and sacrosanct. The treaty itself gives it protection.
We must examine the Pavlov's Dogs mantra errors of thinking of the typical Britnat. Tankerness will make a fool of himself today in his lecture on a legal challenge on the right of the SG referendum in Scotland. He assumes, in his Pavlovian way, the Westminster created Supreme Court can rule upon any Scottish legal matter. The Britnat, “UK Defence Secretary, Phillip Hammond”, claims, “the SNP plans to take some British Military units into a Scottish Defence Force is, “Laughable” . Claiming Scotland should pay for the removal of the nuclear deterrent , the base installations and the clean-up after their going. He, too, obviously assumes Scotland is breaking away from the United Kingdom Government, or that it will continue as if it were a rump UK or perhaps the non-existent English Parliament. He assumes that English law supersedes the Scottish law that must apply as the bases, and equipments, are all under Scotland's jurisdiction. He is thus wrong on both counts.
We also have the lugubrious Jim Murphy demanding the FM explain what Devo-Max means. Devo-Max is not for the SNP to define. It has never been party policy. The term, IF anyone else cares to propose it, is for them to define.
So what is the legal position of the relationship between Scottish law and the views of Westminster?
Simple really, English law applies to England and also in the two countries that joined, “The United Kingdom Parliament of Great Britain”, under the skirts of the English Crown at the ratification of The Treaty Of Union, The two underskirt countries were not signatories, in their own right, to the Treaty Of Union. The Treaty clearly states that Scottish Law is independent of English Law and is, under the protection of that treaty, sacrosanct.
However, there are some other factors The Britnat Cabal fails to understand and these too are simple. Two equal Sovereign countries signed the Treaty of Union but their lawful sovereignty is not the same, (and was not the same when they signed the treaty).
Both countries are a Constitutional Monarchy, (a monarchy governed according to a constitution that limits and defines the powers of the sovereign). However, in England the monarch is sovereign. In Scotland the people are sovereign. The English monarch's power, (sovereignty), has been delegated to, “Her Majesty's Government”, who were elected by the English people. In Scotland the Scottish people's sovereignty has been delegated to their elected representatives too.
However, in today's situation, the sovereign Scottish people HAVE NOT delegated their sovereign powers to the Westminster Parliament, to do so requires they gave that parliament a mandate to wield their sovereignty but, with more pandas in Scotland than Conservative members elected to Westminster, there is not, even with the few Libdems, a mandate given to Westminster.
The sovereignty of the Scottish People has, though, been given with a massive mandate to the Holyrood Parliament, as the people's elected government.
Thus, English law cannot supersede Scottish Law and nothing in the Treaty of Union gives Westminster, even one mandated by the Scots, the power to do so.
#
2012-01-20 12:43
This DevoMax stuff just smells of an updated version of 'shooting the nationalist fox'. I'm highly suspicious. I hope we end up with a straight YES/NO to Independence. Of course FFA would be infinitely better than the present set-up or Calman minus, but I reckon the only way DevoMax should be allowed on the referendum ballot would be to have it in place as the status quo going into the referendum, so we could have straight run-off between it and Independence. Any wishy-washy 'vote DevoMax and we'll see what we can do' nonsense against a background of the present status quo or Calman minus should be dismissed out of hand by the Scottish Government.
#
2012-01-20 12:51
What's the difference between a Britnat numptie and a Britnat?
The Britnat numptie doesn't know he/she is numptie. The Britnat knows knowes the Britnat numptie is a numptie but votes for him/her anyway
The Britnat numptie doesn't know he/she is numptie. The Britnat knows knowes the Britnat numptie is a numptie but votes for him/her anyway
#
2012-01-20 12:53
I think Salmond has played a blinder regarding Devo-Max. Whoever takes up the mantle of this proposal will have to justify Scotland's economic capability. This in effect will result in the truth coming out which is why the unionists are so reluctant to embrace this.Once the facts and figures are revealed it will no doubt lead the Scots to realise their potential. The result: independence. Masterstroke
#
2012-01-20 12:55
This is a copy of a post made on Bellacaledonia in answer to people there who claimed FFA (my preferred term)had to be fully agreed beforehand.
The ‘converted’ on here have to realise that A YES vote on Independence is by no means guaranteed and that a NO vote would be such a catastrophe for Scotland that full fiscal authority FFA must be on the ballot as a fall back position. There are over two years to go before the referendum and a broad outline of what FFA would comprise could be worked out fairly easily by the Scottish Civil Service and/or others. And yes the oil wouldn't be Scotland's, as the latter would still be part of the UK. But FFA would mean a fairer distribution of the oil benefits to Scotland.
The Isle of Man, Channel Isles, Catalonia in Spain, et al have FFA so it would not be as difficult to engineer as some think. And it doesn’t matter if union supporters and Westminster agree beforehand. If they agree, or disagree, they can campaign for FFA and NO, or NO, while the SNP can campaign for YES. Others in Scotland who support FFA can campaign for that. If a YES vote for Independence is achieved FFA would be academic. If a NO vote for Independence and a YES for FFA were the result then Westminster would have to start negotiating seriously about FFA otherwise the SNP could campaign in the 2016 or later Scottish Parliament elections to be given a mandate for Independence using a ‘perfidious Albion’ ticket.
So it is no wonder that Westminster would like only a simple YES/NO question. A NO vote in that case would kill the Independence issue at Westminster for a generation. However I cannot understand Scottish Labour’s objections to FFA except to believe that the larger UK Labour Party values MPs’ careers at Westminster above the will of the Scottish people.
It is welcoming to see in Mr McLeish at least one Scottish Labour person who is not anti-scottish
The ‘converted’ on here have to realise that A YES vote on Independence is by no means guaranteed and that a NO vote would be such a catastrophe for Scotland that full fiscal authority FFA must be on the ballot as a fall back position. There are over two years to go before the referendum and a broad outline of what FFA would comprise could be worked out fairly easily by the Scottish Civil Service and/or others. And yes the oil wouldn't be Scotland's, as the latter would still be part of the UK. But FFA would mean a fairer distribution of the oil benefits to Scotland.
The Isle of Man, Channel Isles, Catalonia in Spain, et al have FFA so it would not be as difficult to engineer as some think. And it doesn’t matter if union supporters and Westminster agree beforehand. If they agree, or disagree, they can campaign for FFA and NO, or NO, while the SNP can campaign for YES. Others in Scotland who support FFA can campaign for that. If a YES vote for Independence is achieved FFA would be academic. If a NO vote for Independence and a YES for FFA were the result then Westminster would have to start negotiating seriously about FFA otherwise the SNP could campaign in the 2016 or later Scottish Parliament elections to be given a mandate for Independence using a ‘perfidious Albion’ ticket.
So it is no wonder that Westminster would like only a simple YES/NO question. A NO vote in that case would kill the Independence issue at Westminster for a generation. However I cannot understand Scottish Labour’s objections to FFA except to believe that the larger UK Labour Party values MPs’ careers at Westminster above the will of the Scottish people.
It is welcoming to see in Mr McLeish at least one Scottish Labour person who is not anti-scottish
#
2012-01-20 14:55
I cannot understand Scottish Labour’s objections to FFA
Its what they have done all along, oppose for oppositions sake, whilst the SNP have taken a more conciliatory approach and given way on some things.
Its what they have done all along, oppose for oppositions sake, whilst the SNP have taken a more conciliatory approach and given way on some things.
#
2012-01-20 16:44
Jamieson you say "The Isle of Man, Channel Isles, Catalonia in Spain, et al have FFA" - sorry it's not true, Catalonia does NOT have FFA, only the Basque Country and Navarre have it. Catalonia wants it.
I've read this elsewhere in authoritative articles (Neal Ascherson?) but as regards Catalonia it's not true. It would be better to eliminate this from your arguments.
The Basque Country has FFA supposedly for historical reasons, but it has been whispered that ETA also had a lot to do with it. So it's a thorny question.
I've read this elsewhere in authoritative articles (Neal Ascherson?) but as regards Catalonia it's not true. It would be better to eliminate this from your arguments.
The Basque Country has FFA supposedly for historical reasons, but it has been whispered that ETA also had a lot to do with it. So it's a thorny question.
#
2012-01-20 12:58
The Inverness Courier edition dated 20/01/12 has a piece written by regular columnist Lorraine Mann. Not available in online version yet.
Lorraine isn't the best writer but she goes of piste into the referendum today titled "Wee Eck must be rubbing his hands with glee."
While Lorraine is entitled to express her opinion, she comments "Scratch many a nationalist and what you'll find is simply a racist in a kilt."
Lorraine also personalises the issue by remarks such as "wee hauns of "wur wee" first meenister" and by referring to his "stubby little finger."
The rest of the piece just runs over the recent events with Cameron's intervention etc.
What this demonstrates is that at a local press level there is a heavy bias element present. Lorraine Mann is just another anti-SNP loudmouth masquarading as a journalist. The worrying thing is her comments labelling Nationlists as racists. Very disappointing for the Inverness Courier editor to let this pass.
Lorraine isn't the best writer but she goes of piste into the referendum today titled "Wee Eck must be rubbing his hands with glee."
While Lorraine is entitled to express her opinion, she comments "Scratch many a nationalist and what you'll find is simply a racist in a kilt."
Lorraine also personalises the issue by remarks such as "wee hauns of "wur wee" first meenister" and by referring to his "stubby little finger."
The rest of the piece just runs over the recent events with Cameron's intervention etc.
What this demonstrates is that at a local press level there is a heavy bias element present. Lorraine Mann is just another anti-SNP loudmouth masquarading as a journalist. The worrying thing is her comments labelling Nationlists as racists. Very disappointing for the Inverness Courier editor to let this pass.
#
2012-01-20 13:24
I know Lorraine has a reputation as a stalwart campaigner against nuclear dumping in Scotland but comments like
Quote:
also made in The Inverness Courier make her sound as if she is either ill informed about the civic nationalism of the SNP or stirring it for political gain.
Quote:
As I’ve said here several times before, I don’t feel particularly strongly about independence one way or the other. I don’t value the Union but I also have a deep unease with Nationalism which I see as being just a little too close to racism for comfort.
also made in The Inverness Courier make her sound as if she is either ill informed about the civic nationalism of the SNP or stirring it for political gain.
#
2012-01-20 14:58
It's the usual tactic of trying to sound reasonable and in tune with the mass of the population and at the same time using unacceptable language.
It would be interesting to know if the paper gets any reaction to her ravings through the letters page, or is there a censorship culture within? In other words does the paper try to represent all political hues (which it should do) or is it just a worthless propaganda rag?
It would be interesting to know if the paper gets any reaction to her ravings through the letters page, or is there a censorship culture within? In other words does the paper try to represent all political hues (which it should do) or is it just a worthless propaganda rag?
#
2012-01-20 16:50
Looking at her last 4 articles, only 1 attracted 1 comment. But that doesn't mean no-one reads them.
#
2012-01-20 13:29
It seems like you don't even have to scratch Lorraine to see what lies beneath.
I think that her views are unacceptable and unwarranted.
I think that her views are unacceptable and unwarranted.
#
2012-01-20 13:54
Lorraine Mann writes:
"...I also have a deep unease with Nationalism which I see as being just a little too close to racism for comfort..."
I would have to ask Ms Mann what it is that's racist about wanting your Country to stand on it's own two feet?
Surely it's those who characterise Scots as " too poor and too stupid" to do so who are the real racists?
"...I also have a deep unease with Nationalism which I see as being just a little too close to racism for comfort..."
I would have to ask Ms Mann what it is that's racist about wanting your Country to stand on it's own two feet?
Surely it's those who characterise Scots as " too poor and too stupid" to do so who are the real racists?
#
2012-01-20 14:28
There is only nationalism you are either a Scottish Nationalist or a British Nationalist.
#
2012-01-20 16:52
Wave, maybe you would be so kind as to give us a nudge when it comes on line, as it usefully gives a comments facility.
#
2012-01-20 19:29
The Inverness Courier has considerable form for being very pro Labour.
David Stewart gets his mug in pretty much every edition and it always presents the SNP in a negative manner
inverness-courier.co.uk/.../...
and apparently this SNP government is just a mistake because Scottish Labour didnt listen to Wendy Alexander, yes her that gave us the (Anti) Scotland Bill and we will all realise our mistake soon, Labour will be returned to power and normal service will resume. inverness-courier.co.uk/.../...
Theres another fella writes for the Inverness Courier, I think his last name is Campbell. He labelled the SNP zealots over minimum alcohol pricing and pretty much regurgitated Jackie Bailley's bizarre reasoning on why its a bad thing by saying it would descriminate against pensioners, now I dont know about their Grannies but mine doesnt spend her days getting pi$hed on White Lightning and other drain cleaner substitutes.
David Stewart gets his mug in pretty much every edition and it always presents the SNP in a negative manner
inverness-courier.co.uk/.../...
and apparently this SNP government is just a mistake because Scottish Labour didnt listen to Wendy Alexander, yes her that gave us the (Anti) Scotland Bill and we will all realise our mistake soon, Labour will be returned to power and normal service will resume. inverness-courier.co.uk/.../...
Theres another fella writes for the Inverness Courier, I think his last name is Campbell. He labelled the SNP zealots over minimum alcohol pricing and pretty much regurgitated Jackie Bailley's bizarre reasoning on why its a bad thing by saying it would descriminate against pensioners, now I dont know about their Grannies but mine doesnt spend her days getting pi$hed on White Lightning and other drain cleaner substitutes.
#
2012-01-20 13:06
Devo max has a place to play in the discussions over the next 30 months. However, it needs to be developed by one of the opposition parties. Henry has a brain and is articulate, rare attributes in Scottish Labour these days. I think he would make a good case. However, has Milliband even thought about what Johann's independent position on this is yet?
#
2012-01-20 14:02
It would be preferable to have 'DevoMax' argued from a status quo of Independence, avoiding which is the whole point of raising it.
This provides a much clearer picture of available options for Scots:
Union: - useless, a busted flush.
Devolution: Too much foreign control.
Independence: The best option by far - tried and tested world wide.
DevoMax: a desperate attempt to head off Independence by the Big Loser. Nothing is known of it.
Westminster might be well advised to apply its thinking to ameliorating its coming difficulties rather than continually undermining Scottish desire for Self Determination.
This provides a much clearer picture of available options for Scots:
Union: - useless, a busted flush.
Devolution: Too much foreign control.
Independence: The best option by far - tried and tested world wide.
DevoMax: a desperate attempt to head off Independence by the Big Loser. Nothing is known of it.
Westminster might be well advised to apply its thinking to ameliorating its coming difficulties rather than continually undermining Scottish desire for Self Determination.
#
2012-01-20 13:13
Turning the so far mythical Devo Max on its head - I'm more interested in what it will leave out which may well be the decider for many more to go for Independence. If it leaves out fundamental autonomy to run our economic affairs and other principal interests without Westminster strings attached - what's the point of voting for a virtual status quo?
The deafening silence from the wounded souls of the non "anti-Scottish" apparently 'Pro-Scottish' unionists on the potential inclusions and Westminster caveats in this issue is telling.
I would imagine its crafting not to include too much or too little is perhaps dawning on the Devo Max proponents and may end indeed earning the designation - Too wee, too poor, too stupid, too late?
The deafening silence from the wounded souls of the non "anti-Scottish" apparently 'Pro-Scottish' unionists on the potential inclusions and Westminster caveats in this issue is telling.
I would imagine its crafting not to include too much or too little is perhaps dawning on the Devo Max proponents and may end indeed earning the designation - Too wee, too poor, too stupid, too late?
#
2012-01-20 13:22
I think that any Devo Max settlement has to include Scottish control over her natural resources, especially oil. One option would be to "buy" some "Federalist" institutions such as Defense and Foreign affairs, the arithmetic based on Scotland's landmass, population or GDP.
e.g. we could "buy" or "contribute" approx 9% of the British Isles defense based on our population of the combined UK.
Some better heads than mine can perhaps work out how the mechanics would look for the other suggestion, i.e. Foreign Affairs, but I see this as "shared" but with Scotland exerting influence via a "buy" scheme again, for example, if Scotland disagreed about a Foreign Policy objective (I exaggerate to illustrate) such as going to war with Iran, then we hold back our payment. If we agree a policy, we "buy" into the policy by paying via an agreed mechanism.
I think I need to go lay down for a wee while......
e.g. we could "buy" or "contribute" approx 9% of the British Isles defense based on our population of the combined UK.
Some better heads than mine can perhaps work out how the mechanics would look for the other suggestion, i.e. Foreign Affairs, but I see this as "shared" but with Scotland exerting influence via a "buy" scheme again, for example, if Scotland disagreed about a Foreign Policy objective (I exaggerate to illustrate) such as going to war with Iran, then we hold back our payment. If we agree a policy, we "buy" into the policy by paying via an agreed mechanism.
I think I need to go lay down for a wee while......
#
2012-01-20 17:21
Yes, when you think about it, leaving undevolved areas like defence to the UK does not end up in our having 9% influence, it means our having 0% influence.
You see how SNP MPs get treated in Westminster.
You see how SNP MPs get treated in Westminster.
#
2012-01-20 13:51
The problem with Devo-Max is the unionist dependency parties can't be trusted with it. Look at devolution we are just over 10 years in and Labour/Lib Dems are trying to dismantle devolution through the Scotland Bill. If Labour won an election in the future they would start handing back powers to their London masters just as they started to do before the SNP win 2007.
The next time a unionist dependency party is in power they will work to undermine the parliament. So the situation we are in just now will never happen again.
The next time a unionist dependency party is in power they will work to undermine the parliament. So the situation we are in just now will never happen again.
#
2012-01-20 14:02
Let's get it straight McLeish is a lame-brain egotist who smells an opportunity to get himself back in the spotlight. When not 'mishandling' or his expenses or misplacing large slices of Scottish territorial waters he is spouting total pi*H about Scottish Fitba' or 'Devomax'. To quote one of his favourite cliches: he's not 'fit for purpose'. Another Unionist apologist trying to obfuscate the real issue: Scotland free or a desert. McLeish and the Devo Max smokescreen are a collective Trojan Horse aimed at derailing the Independence momemtum. I've said it before don't believe the hype! Devomax is a getout clause for fearties..let's stick to the point and squash this particular fox!
#
2012-01-20 14:06
Westminster debating Westminster daylight saving bill just now... news.bbc.co.uk/.../default.stm
I have problems getting up for my work as it is when it is dark in the morning in winter... getting up in the middle of the night is just not my thing!
I have problems getting up for my work as it is when it is dark in the morning in winter... getting up in the middle of the night is just not my thing!
#
2012-01-20 14:07
If the unionist dependency parties went down the road of Devo-Max it would be because they could see themselves loosing the referendum. Even then it would be used to give an ambiguous promise of maximum powers. Which they would bog down and drag out for years. A new Calman to look at Devo-Max. A raft of amendments in Westminster and the House of Lards watering it down and trussing it up.
We only have one shot at this.
We only have one shot at this.
#
2012-01-20 14:12
All those proposing Independence Y/N should bear in mind that they are asking for the same as Gideon. The ConDems are making a huge gamble on a NO and the Nats an equal sized one on a YES.
However for the nats there is a more fundamental problem with any one question referendum and that is their belief in the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Why should the Scots be constrained to answer just the one question? There are people in Scotland, all of them called Ruth, who would like to go back to the old 'Moore for Governor General' system. There is probably someone who will be satisfied with the system after the Scotland Bill.
There are probably lots of people who would be happy if we just kept the same welfare as the rUK and then there are those for DevoMax. The Nats and the Torys want to disenfranchise all of these for a Y/N. Not good.
In less than 5 months we will be using a system to choose our councils. We could use that system to choose between the 5 possibilities. The only addition I would make is a question on how long the Scottish Government(s) have to implement the choice before having to come back and pose the first question again.
However for the nats there is a more fundamental problem with any one question referendum and that is their belief in the sovereignty of the Scottish people. Why should the Scots be constrained to answer just the one question? There are people in Scotland, all of them called Ruth, who would like to go back to the old 'Moore for Governor General' system. There is probably someone who will be satisfied with the system after the Scotland Bill.
There are probably lots of people who would be happy if we just kept the same welfare as the rUK and then there are those for DevoMax. The Nats and the Torys want to disenfranchise all of these for a Y/N. Not good.
In less than 5 months we will be using a system to choose our councils. We could use that system to choose between the 5 possibilities. The only addition I would make is a question on how long the Scottish Government(s) have to implement the choice before having to come back and pose the first question again.
#
2012-01-20 14:12
Hi Jamieson, I clocked your comment above and think you're very wrong on this.
I'll explain;
1. Independence leaves us free to negotiate (IF WE WISH) a new alliance or treaty with the remaining countries in the British Isles. It would allow our government to act solely for the benefit of Scotland and not have one arm tied behind its back as is the case now.
2. Devo/Max/FFA or call it what you will would have to be debated, voted on and ratified as a solid position by westminster so that it could be voted on because otherwise if the people of Scotland voted for it then the politicians in westminster could kick it into the long grass after the referendum or worse still play political football by bouncing it to and fro between the commons and the house of lords.
If westminster had been honourable and honest and straightforward with us over the last 40 or so years I would say it would be reasonable to trust them.
Given the actual events, how can I possibly trust a political conclave that has systematically lied to and cheated and stolen from the people of Scotland.
Do I think their actions regarding ratifying a Devo/Max/FFA agreement after the referendum would be honourable - no, of course not. Think it through for yourself.
To then have Scotland left in the awkward position of asking "are we there yet?" of westminster would be untenable. To tie up the question of independence with an election at that time would be a nonsense because there are people that vote for SNP without wanting independence and by this reasoning you would throw the baby out with the bathwater and force people to vote with a party that they didn't agree with.
Do you not see this?
I'll explain;
1. Independence leaves us free to negotiate (IF WE WISH) a new alliance or treaty with the remaining countries in the British Isles. It would allow our government to act solely for the benefit of Scotland and not have one arm tied behind its back as is the case now.
2. Devo/Max/FFA or call it what you will would have to be debated, voted on and ratified as a solid position by westminster so that it could be voted on because otherwise if the people of Scotland voted for it then the politicians in westminster could kick it into the long grass after the referendum or worse still play political football by bouncing it to and fro between the commons and the house of lords.
If westminster had been honourable and honest and straightforward with us over the last 40 or so years I would say it would be reasonable to trust them.
Given the actual events, how can I possibly trust a political conclave that has systematically lied to and cheated and stolen from the people of Scotland.
Do I think their actions regarding ratifying a Devo/Max/FFA agreement after the referendum would be honourable - no, of course not. Think it through for yourself.
To then have Scotland left in the awkward position of asking "are we there yet?" of westminster would be untenable. To tie up the question of independence with an election at that time would be a nonsense because there are people that vote for SNP without wanting independence and by this reasoning you would throw the baby out with the bathwater and force people to vote with a party that they didn't agree with.
Do you not see this?
#
2012-01-20 21:32
Agreed. I think we have Maxed the Devo already, as far as Westminster are concerned. Even if thy agreed to it being included in the referendum, it would be delayed and watered down over years until it it amounted to less than we alrwady have.
Jake
Jake
#
2012-01-20 14:22
Devo Max would be a popular solution in Scotland. Independence would not be far behind.
Independence would win a Yes/No. The people who voted for Devolution would vote for Independence.
Ex-Labour voters voted for the SNP, that helped in the May victory.
Independence would win a Yes/No. The people who voted for Devolution would vote for Independence.
Ex-Labour voters voted for the SNP, that helped in the May victory.
#
2012-01-20 14:27
As far as the Unionist parties in Holyrood and Westminster are concerned they have responded to calls for more powers for the Scottish Parliament. Their response was the Scotland Bill - a flawed and much amended piece of legislation which is more about taking powers away from Holyrood and emasculating those that remain.
So the Unionist parties have no interest in DevoMax and as many posters above have said it requires Westminster to implement it because the powers being devolved are powers currently residing with Westminster.
As for the involvement of Civic Scotland I think they would be reluctant to become involved. Many elements and institutions that make up Civic Scotland were involved in making submissions to the Calman Commission - and look how well that turned out! So Civic Scotland will not want to go through a similar process for such poor gains.
Mr Salmond has made it clear that the pro-union side has to define DevoMax. He should also make it clear that the pro-union side has to give cast iron guarantees that they would implement DevoMax if it was the majority choice in the referendum.
So the Unionist parties have no interest in DevoMax and as many posters above have said it requires Westminster to implement it because the powers being devolved are powers currently residing with Westminster.
As for the involvement of Civic Scotland I think they would be reluctant to become involved. Many elements and institutions that make up Civic Scotland were involved in making submissions to the Calman Commission - and look how well that turned out! So Civic Scotland will not want to go through a similar process for such poor gains.
Mr Salmond has made it clear that the pro-union side has to define DevoMax. He should also make it clear that the pro-union side has to give cast iron guarantees that they would implement DevoMax if it was the majority choice in the referendum.
#
2012-01-20 14:36
Devo/Max is the gift Westminster will never deliver,there will always be more pressing problems,we would still be waiting 300 years from now.If the labour party came to power Devo/Max would disappear in a puff of smoke.Henry I am supprised at you. VOTE for Independence we have no other option.
#
2012-01-20 14:37
Given my strong views on independence, I realise that I still have to allow people to have their own "internal" conversation regarding the Devo/Max thing. Brow-beating someone into seeing an argument my way achieves nothing and therefore my arguments have to be clear and concise and nothing more.
Most folk tend to go for the middle way in life anyway and Devo/Max is nice and cuddly because it doesn't change too much in their eyes. Life goes on in much the same way and that is also nice.
The only problem with it is that westminster would see hell freeze over before being stupid enough to grant such a thing. And they may be plenty of things but they're not daft.
However, as I said, allowing the consideration of Devo/Max is not a bad thing and we should be helping people at least pose this argument in their own heads. There are 30 odd months to go and I see this internal debate as healthy and fruitful. My tick will still be in the full independence box anyway.
Most folk tend to go for the middle way in life anyway and Devo/Max is nice and cuddly because it doesn't change too much in their eyes. Life goes on in much the same way and that is also nice.
The only problem with it is that westminster would see hell freeze over before being stupid enough to grant such a thing. And they may be plenty of things but they're not daft.
However, as I said, allowing the consideration of Devo/Max is not a bad thing and we should be helping people at least pose this argument in their own heads. There are 30 odd months to go and I see this internal debate as healthy and fruitful. My tick will still be in the full independence box anyway.
#
2012-01-20 16:45
I wish I knew what Devo/Max was, to at least give me a snowballs chance of considering it!
#
2012-01-20 17:44
Don't we all Eva - and whatever it is or intended to be Westminster better get its finger out and be irrevocably committed to all it entails before I would give it time for thought.
#
2012-01-20 14:48
Hi Saltire. Thanks for the comments.
Your viewpoints really depend on the assumption that the referendum vote will be YES. But while I hope that is the case it is by no means certain.
You should visit "Max Headroom" on Bella to find many of your points debated.
Your viewpoints really depend on the assumption that the referendum vote will be YES. But while I hope that is the case it is by no means certain.
You should visit "Max Headroom" on Bella to find many of your points debated.
#
2012-01-20 15:10
We did have Tankerness on the lunchtime news explaining his position. He insists that they will only give the SNP legality for the referendum if they accept attached strings. (Not sure where he gets the authority to say this).
I think we are heading for more confrontation as Alex Salmond and the SNP are not for shifting.
I think we are heading for more confrontation as Alex Salmond and the SNP are not for shifting.
#
2012-01-20 15:24
Greetings from Raleigh, North Carolina. I think there is no doubt that a move to independence is a matter for each nation to take up and decide for itself. However, given that democracy in the UK is already rather lopsided, surely DevoMax is a matter for the UK nations to decide, as part of a wholesale renegotiation of the UK's constitutional arrangements? In other words DevoMax = Federal State, with England's interference in the internal affairs of the smaller nations prohibited by a written constitution.
Now, if the DevoMax debate is to involve all nations in the UK, it follows that the Scottish referendum must be a straight yes/no. I have been away from
Scotland for far too long, so I have no independent idea what the mood of the country really is, but I have to wonder if a poorly-defined DevoMax will nudge voters into the independence camp.
As an aside, does anyone else think that Brian Taylor's recent blog posts (aside from the Lamont Love-Ins) have been making the case for independence to those who are not as committed as the vast majority on this site are?
Now, if the DevoMax debate is to involve all nations in the UK, it follows that the Scottish referendum must be a straight yes/no. I have been away from
Scotland for far too long, so I have no independent idea what the mood of the country really is, but I have to wonder if a poorly-defined DevoMax will nudge voters into the independence camp.
As an aside, does anyone else think that Brian Taylor's recent blog posts (aside from the Lamont Love-Ins) have been making the case for independence to those who are not as committed as the vast majority on this site are?
#
2012-01-20 15:28
Henry Mcleish is only intrested in devo-max because he is the only one in the labour party who has realised the tide for independance and that with independance the unionists (the SNP have no one sitting in the house of lords because its SNP policy) in the house of lords will no longer exist like all of the Scottish MPs at westminister and all the Scottish lords and that all of them will all of a sudden no longer be able to claim expenses for there posh London flats and the chances of being elected in Scotland will evaporate (excluding SNP mps who are happy to give up there seat for Scottish independance after all there not fighting to save there jobs in Westminster) and making them unemployed and all the unionists MPs won't know what to do since they haven't had a real job in there lives - I mean it would be brilliant watching Michael moore stacking shelves in Asda or something (incidentally that's what there sacred of working for pennies instead of stealing from the taxpayer like there use to) I also think devo-max is a scam (remember Calman not delivered, the Scotland bill not delivered as its a power grab) also alex salmond said the unionists can have it if they can define it which to this day they haven't done! labour have form on not delivering anything to Scotland the1979 referendum 40% rule as an excuse, not even the Scottish parliament that labour pretend they did it was the council of Europes pressure to do it or face being frozen out of the European market thus the referendum for it and in exchange labour took 6000sq miles of Scottish water which Henry mcleish happily gave over and over the years handed back billions of underspent money to the treasury, also the media saga when the SNP published there contacts and showed it did nothing wrong and then when labour was asked still to this day they haven't published so as you can see from a few examples labour can not be trusted to deliver for Scotland and when they do it takes ages and reluctantly so even devo-max will probably be the same make some promises then make excuses after excuses why it can't do it at the moment etc. so I think it is now time to ditch the devo-max option as the unionists have had plenty of time to indicate what they would do and nothing has been forthcoming!
#
2012-01-20 17:48
Henry Mcleish, may well be regarded as a suitable figurehead for Devo Max on the simple premiss he has no executive standing in the political arena.
#
2012-01-20 16:26
Saltire G.
Quite agree that "hell will freeze over before Westminster would agree" to Devo Max!
However, there may be a case for making them SAY IT before we get on with the real business.
Quite agree that "hell will freeze over before Westminster would agree" to Devo Max!
However, there may be a case for making them SAY IT before we get on with the real business.
#
2012-01-20 16:29
Also. I suspect that the continueing hassle over legality is to serve one purpose only and that is to insert a legality clause in the Scotland Bill.
However, we are going to throw that out anyway atleast I am assuming we can?
However, we are going to throw that out anyway atleast I am assuming we can?
#
2012-01-20 18:04
It may not be a good idea to comcede that as it can be used as precedent in the future. It also undermines the argument about the Supreme Court interfering with Scottish law.
#
2012-01-20 16:47
"The problem with the Scottish issue is that most of the politicians here don't understand Alex Salmond.
"I think I have the measure of him and know him only too well. He is extremely sharp, witty,"
This is where I think the unionists are getting themselves in a ridiculous bind, not that i'm complaining. It's not about beating Salmond. I dont blindly follow every word the man says and take it as gospel. I look for the facts, read the news, look for other news sources to try and get the balance.
Salmond has one vote just like the rest of us.
Their failure to grasp the fact that people are flocking to the SNP is not because of Salmond but because the majority of us can now freely share news, opinions, Facts and figures and dont just swallow what the MSM feed us means that we are choosing to follow the SNP because they stand up for what we want. Not because Salmond tells us to.
Having the measure of Salmond will do you know good Steel. Only winning the argument will.
"I think I have the measure of him and know him only too well. He is extremely sharp, witty,"
This is where I think the unionists are getting themselves in a ridiculous bind, not that i'm complaining. It's not about beating Salmond. I dont blindly follow every word the man says and take it as gospel. I look for the facts, read the news, look for other news sources to try and get the balance.
Salmond has one vote just like the rest of us.
Their failure to grasp the fact that people are flocking to the SNP is not because of Salmond but because the majority of us can now freely share news, opinions, Facts and figures and dont just swallow what the MSM feed us means that we are choosing to follow the SNP because they stand up for what we want. Not because Salmond tells us to.
Having the measure of Salmond will do you know good Steel. Only winning the argument will.
#
2012-01-20 17:21
I think that some of the people who are considering Devo/Max wouldn't have considered anything barely resembling any kind of independence or any move towards it in the past. Therefore, it is entirely helpful and at least gets people thinking about it. This can only be a good thing in the long run and one would do well to at least help someone in this frame of mind who you know would have rejected outright independence in the past.
Very few people favour the status quo and so we'll find that perhaps "one or two" will look at Devo/Max or FFA and decide that going the whole way and voting for independence is the only logical alternative to the status quo.
Go easy, this will be a long campaign and we have got such a good vision to paint for the Scottish people. Let's not disenfranchise folk simply because they are considering a political question, perhaps for the first time in their lives. "Their journey across the river will be made easier if they've got a stepping stone to jump onto."
Very few people favour the status quo and so we'll find that perhaps "one or two" will look at Devo/Max or FFA and decide that going the whole way and voting for independence is the only logical alternative to the status quo.
Go easy, this will be a long campaign and we have got such a good vision to paint for the Scottish people. Let's not disenfranchise folk simply because they are considering a political question, perhaps for the first time in their lives. "Their journey across the river will be made easier if they've got a stepping stone to jump onto."
#
2012-01-20 17:31
I see on STV Lord macsporran McConnell is spouting off the unionist line bring the referendum on sooner as it is bad for business having to wait he the man who sent the money back to London and left the SNP to pick up the bill for slopping out.
#
2012-01-20 17:53
Yes, and he did nothing for his "pigsty" of a constituency, which would be a rather more obvious way of improving business and not scaring off investment.
#
2012-01-20 17:43
As someone who supports Full Fat Autonomy, I struggle to get my head around the argument that we should have power over most things but leave a few bits and pieces to the 'grown ups' in Westminster.
They have screwed up the financial management of the country and the moral compass went spinning out of control long time ago.
Lets be a normal nation and decide our own affairs.
If we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours over a specific matter, then thats exactly what we will do.
Just say 'Aye'.
They have screwed up the financial management of the country and the moral compass went spinning out of control long time ago.
Lets be a normal nation and decide our own affairs.
If we have to stand shoulder to shoulder with our neighbours over a specific matter, then thats exactly what we will do.
Just say 'Aye'.
#
2012-01-20 17:50
"As someone who supports Full Fat Autonomy, I struggle to get my head around the argument that we should have power over most things but leave a few bits and pieces to the 'grown ups' in Westminster."
And i think over the 2 1/2 years the majority of DevoMax supporters will come to the same conclusion as you.
Its a stepping stone but just a stepping stone of the decision process to choosing independence. Not a step we actually need to put into practise.
And i think over the 2 1/2 years the majority of DevoMax supporters will come to the same conclusion as you.
Its a stepping stone but just a stepping stone of the decision process to choosing independence. Not a step we actually need to put into practise.
#
2012-01-20 17:47
Red Alert - looking at the other articles in Newsnet, it seems very much as though Scottish law is fast becoming a reserved matter. Or am I exaggerating?
#
2012-01-20 17:50
I haven't read through all the posts but there are two important issues/opportunities to consider.
The first is that Devo-max will not get rid of Trident. How many people would sign up to independence enthusiasticall y
just for that reason alone? I don't think there will be many in the SNP, SSP or Greens who could contemplate keeping WMD. However there will be many in the Libdems and Labour who are CND sympathisers who would see this as an opportunity to create a new paradigm in the affairs of an uppity state and take the opportunity to do down the imperialists amongst the Tories and Labour.
The second is that when people like Hilary Wainright of the far left in England see the referendum debate and Scootish independence in terms of an opportunity to re-model Westminster, The Scots present a real opportunity for the whole of the UK. This is about momentum and being on the right side of the argument. Such a situation would create even more panic in the breasties of Forsyth and Rifkind.
The first is that Devo-max will not get rid of Trident. How many people would sign up to independence enthusiasticall y
just for that reason alone? I don't think there will be many in the SNP, SSP or Greens who could contemplate keeping WMD. However there will be many in the Libdems and Labour who are CND sympathisers who would see this as an opportunity to create a new paradigm in the affairs of an uppity state and take the opportunity to do down the imperialists amongst the Tories and Labour.
The second is that when people like Hilary Wainright of the far left in England see the referendum debate and Scootish independence in terms of an opportunity to re-model Westminster, The Scots present a real opportunity for the whole of the UK. This is about momentum and being on the right side of the argument. Such a situation would create even more panic in the breasties of Forsyth and Rifkind.
#
2012-01-20 18:52
Yes 62% (was better the other day) and no at 38%.
Could use a few more Yes clicks.
Could use a few more Yes clicks.
#
2012-01-20 20:43
Currently running at 78% YES for Independence
Hamilton Advertiser == 62.9% also YES
Time: 1942pm 20th Jan
Hamilton Advertiser == 62.9% also YES
Time: 1942pm 20th Jan
#
2012-01-20 23:59
[quote name="Mako"]Independence poll in Wishaw Press. jump on and vote.
83% + for YES (so far)
83% + for YES (so far)
#
2012-01-20 17:56
slighty off-topic perhaps but should we be considering the like of the following:
"if Scottish independence is coming (and why not, if the Scots want it) how do we stop my part of the world and yours being crushed by the London/South-East juggernaut? And what role could ‘regional’ identity play in that struggle? Here I entirely agree with your closing paragraph. In the hearts and minds of the people English regional identities are strong, but as a political force they hardly exist, and few regard them as a basis for resisting the London dominance they grumble about so much"
That's from a debate between a Cornish Nationalist and a Yorkshire Regionalist. Perhaps the changing situation in Scotland may change attitudes in other parts of England towards Westminster?
more here
.../regionalism-response-from-john.html
"if Scottish independence is coming (and why not, if the Scots want it) how do we stop my part of the world and yours being crushed by the London/South-East juggernaut? And what role could ‘regional’ identity play in that struggle? Here I entirely agree with your closing paragraph. In the hearts and minds of the people English regional identities are strong, but as a political force they hardly exist, and few regard them as a basis for resisting the London dominance they grumble about so much"
That's from a debate between a Cornish Nationalist and a Yorkshire Regionalist. Perhaps the changing situation in Scotland may change attitudes in other parts of England towards Westminster?
more here
.../regionalism-response-from-john.html
#
2012-01-20 18:04
Holebender 2012-01-20 15:39
“Rubbish! What would you be asking people to vote for? The option needs to be clearly defined and there needs to be a clear agreement that it will be available if voted for. Otherwise you might just as well ask people to vote for free heavy beer and scotch pies for life.”
I agree, but isn’t that why consultation is to take place, we do not even know the question yet?
“Rubbish! What would you be asking people to vote for? The option needs to be clearly defined and there needs to be a clear agreement that it will be available if voted for. Otherwise you might just as well ask people to vote for free heavy beer and scotch pies for life.”
I agree, but isn’t that why consultation is to take place, we do not even know the question yet?
#
2012-01-20 18:19
To paraphrase some advert or other,
"The answer is YES ( to independence )
What is the question?
"The answer is YES ( to independence )
What is the question?
#
2012-01-20 21:43
The consultation is about the independence referendum. The poster I was replying to was saying we should have a devo-max option and then flesh it out after the vote. It's a fraudulent position as it is asking people to vote for a pig in a poke (which might turn out to not even be a pig at all once it's been voted for).
#
2012-01-20 18:19
An article in today's Telegraph about using the UK pound in an independent Scotland:
Worth a read and definitely worth a comment
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
Worth a read and definitely worth a comment
telegraph.co.uk/.../...
#
2012-01-20 19:37
"If an independent Scotland were to wish to continue using sterling, the rest of the UK..."
If Scotland is independent, there is no UK.
If Scotland is independent, there is no UK.
#
2012-01-20 18:19
Henry McLeish says he is not interested in independence and therefore I declare that I have no interest in hearing from Mr McLeish.Off you pop ya chancer.
#
2012-01-20 18:28
O/T but in relation to the fact that under devomax/FFA, without doubt Trident will remain based on our shores and as a country (Scotland) we would not be able to avoid entering illegal wars as Westminster would always have the last say n o matter our opinion.
Bearing this in mind, does anyone know what the position of the crown estates would be, if, in an independent Scotland, we retained the queen as monarch.
Obviously she would own everything that she or her descendents had bought as private sales, including Balmoral I understand, but where would the crown estates sit?
Bearing this in mind, does anyone know what the position of the crown estates would be, if, in an independent Scotland, we retained the queen as monarch.
Obviously she would own everything that she or her descendents had bought as private sales, including Balmoral I understand, but where would the crown estates sit?
#
2012-01-20 18:30
O/T
New blog from Derek Bateman. Tells us to keep calm!! Tomorrows programme sounds a cracker!
New blog from Derek Bateman. Tells us to keep calm!! Tomorrows programme sounds a cracker!
#
2012-01-20 19:09
Just left a message on the only blog on BBC Scotland open for comments. May I suggest we enjoy this while we can, cause when GMS comes in, that will be the complete closure of the BBC Scotland website.
Disgrace.
Link to the page kindly put up by cynical Highlander on his post.
Disgrace.
Link to the page kindly put up by cynical Highlander on his post.
#
2012-01-20 19:16
Heard McLeish on the way home from work in the unionist propaganda filled news drive.
I dont like the man and i dont trust him.
I don't want devo max on the ballot.
This is a battle that we can win and I don't want to wait another 20 years to see independence and all the benefits that it will bring.
I dont like the man and i dont trust him.
I don't want devo max on the ballot.
This is a battle that we can win and I don't want to wait another 20 years to see independence and all the benefits that it will bring.
#
2012-01-20 19:20
I posted on this before lunch about the need for not only devomax but the other alternatives to be on the question, see quirkynats. All I would add is a question on how long before the question must be put again.
I am just sorry that I cannot join in your debates.
I am just sorry that I cannot join in your debates.
#
2012-01-20 19:25
Coffee smelling at Citigroup Corp?
On Torygraph Business page:
15.59 Citigroup has released an interesting note mulling the break-up of the UK:
We certainly do not rule out a break-up of the UK over time. ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]. Scotland could have a viable future as an independent country, although there are a lot of questions that would have to be resolved before that happens.
On Torygraph Business page:
15.59 Citigroup has released an interesting note mulling the break-up of the UK:
We certainly do not rule out a break-up of the UK over time. ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]. Scotland could have a viable future as an independent country, although there are a lot of questions that would have to be resolved before that happens.
#
2012-01-20 19:41
As I posted yesterday, ask your bank and other organisations what preparations they are making for the possibility of Scotland's independence.
#
2012-01-20 19:38
I don't trust Henry and I think devo anything will shackle Scotland in the Union and they will sting us with the details. Westminister can't be trusted and Labour can't either. Party and union before Scotland and her people every time.
#
2012-01-20 19:52
Has anyone else heard the Distorting Scotland report on the latest on the referendum with "I'm a Rhinestone Cowboy" reporting from outside?
I very nearly booked a trip to the shops to buy a new telly !!!!
I very nearly booked a trip to the shops to buy a new telly !!!!
#
2012-01-20 19:58
Think you are referring to Reporting Scotland and Glenn C, basic question for anyone with an SNP hotline .... who is this senior source re the Electoral Com. Check before dismissing then you can build a story. For me I'd like to know if indeed the SNP has conceded on this point.
#
2012-01-20 20:13
I came in towards the end of the story, but from what I could fathom, the concession is that the Electoral Commission will run the vote, however they will be reporting to Holyrood now, not Westminster.
Maybe someone else saw the whole story ?
Maybe someone else saw the whole story ?
#
2012-01-20 20:17
That's pretty much it. Made me think...just let the Electoral Commission put one foot wrong on this and they are toast.
I hope there is also some kind of international oversight. I think that is essential. I don't know if that happens automatically or does it need to be requested. Although, I'm sure that international organisations will be watching the process carefully.
I hope there is also some kind of international oversight. I think that is essential. I don't know if that happens automatically or does it need to be requested. Although, I'm sure that international organisations will be watching the process carefully.
#
2012-01-20 20:22
I really think there should be international oversight, perhaps from the UN.
The unionists will cry that 'do we not trust the electroal commission'
but they should be ignored
Noted that Magnusson was beside herself when she was reporting this. We got an interview with sunny Jim Wallace, but strangely no interview from anyone in the Scottish Government
The unionists will cry that 'do we not trust the electroal commission'
but they should be ignored
Noted that Magnusson was beside herself when she was reporting this. We got an interview with sunny Jim Wallace, but strangely no interview from anyone in the Scottish Government
#
2012-01-20 20:25
That would be worrying. The Electoral Commission has been shown to be bias. The Wendy Alexander fiasco was proof of that. The fact Westminster desperately want them used would also point to the fact they hold influence over the Electoral Commission. Remember Westminster is clearly undemocratic and constantly trying to undermine democracy in Scotland. If they are hell bent on the Electoral Commission being used it will be for good reason.
#
2012-01-20 23:23
Strange I saw that also but now it as been pulled, what the fek is going on at Pathetic Quay. Do you think that they prepare these things in advance like the Queen Mothers funeral gaff?
#
2012-01-20 20:24
"For me I'd like to know if indeed the SNP has conceded on this point."
We should know on Wednesday next week when the Scottish Government publishes its consultation document.
We should know on Wednesday next week when the Scottish Government publishes its consultation document.
#
2012-01-20 20:38
As that was my query in the realms of day to day news this just sounds like spin, has it been decided or not? And J Wil if you're just an average jo fair enough if not?
#
2012-01-20 19:58
NewsnetScotland .com just like Lech Walesa's use of photocopiers hidden all over Poland to get his message out through newsletters to the people,your use of the internet to spread the word of Scottish Independence has been inspirational.Thank you all for your time and effort.
#
2012-01-20 20:22
Apparently the move to introduce European time in the UK has been thrown out at Westminster because, if it was implemented, it might affect the result of the referendum!
That suggests that it will be implemented if Scotland votes no to independence.
That suggests that it will be implemented if Scotland votes no to independence.
#
2012-01-20 20:52
So far we have -
No devo max criteria (except we know it will be in the reserved remit of Westminster to grant/'gift')
No devo max leader
No devo max team membership
No dependency vote leader
No dependency vote team membership
I still maintain that it will be what devo max leaves out that will be a major determinant to vote Independence for the undecideds and some unstable 'No' voters. Whatever is included will have strings attached to the whim of Westminster recalling Mr Cameron's "cast iron" promise for an EU vote for the UK?
Little wonder the non-appearance or definative reference to the potential content of devo max remains a mystery.
Are they waiting for the SNP paper next week to cadge ideas for devo max and calculate some of the more complex or contentious areas to be those they leave out of devo max - just asking.
No devo max criteria (except we know it will be in the reserved remit of Westminster to grant/'gift')
No devo max leader
No devo max team membership
No dependency vote leader
No dependency vote team membership
I still maintain that it will be what devo max leaves out that will be a major determinant to vote Independence for the undecideds and some unstable 'No' voters. Whatever is included will have strings attached to the whim of Westminster recalling Mr Cameron's "cast iron" promise for an EU vote for the UK?
Little wonder the non-appearance or definative reference to the potential content of devo max remains a mystery.
Are they waiting for the SNP paper next week to cadge ideas for devo max and calculate some of the more complex or contentious areas to be those they leave out of devo max - just asking.
#
2012-01-20 21:21
Mel Gibson has another Scottish epic to follow braveheart.
It is called "DEVOMADMAX"
(Beyond Calman)
It is called "DEVOMADMAX"
(Beyond Calman)
#
2012-01-20 22:06
Yep.
Guaranteed mention of SNP if this was role reversal.
Just an other example of BBC Bias.
Guaranteed mention of SNP if this was role reversal.
Just an other example of BBC Bias.
#
2012-01-20 23:06
Was there not an ex chief of police from strathclyde who was recently selected by the Labour party to stand as an MSP and he went on to win?
Now I'm not saying that he would be a good contact.
Now I'm not saying that he would be a good contact.
#
2012-01-20 21:35
Westminster keep blabbing on and on (like the bbc) about 'Alex Salmond" when it is actually the Scottish people who are looking for more substantive powers than the status quo option will deliver.
Truth is, if westminster strengthened the Scotland Bill well beyond the lame stalemate for the constitution that it undoubtedly is (and a dangerous financial option is built in to the Scotland bill; let's not forget) then it would take the wind out of the referendum-but the truth is that westminster (tory labour and libdems) are only keen on attaching faux obstacles on to any constitutional change for the better because of their own narrow interests.
Steel and the lord bloke wallace should be advocating federalist powers instead of lamely supporting labour and the tories and joining in as hardline unionists, the reason they do not want to be seen as different (and they always claimed they were) is because the leadership of the libdems are gung ho british nationalists with no intention of delivering what Scotland wants.
Truth is, if westminster strengthened the Scotland Bill well beyond the lame stalemate for the constitution that it undoubtedly is (and a dangerous financial option is built in to the Scotland bill; let's not forget) then it would take the wind out of the referendum-but the truth is that westminster (tory labour and libdems) are only keen on attaching faux obstacles on to any constitutional change for the better because of their own narrow interests.
Steel and the lord bloke wallace should be advocating federalist powers instead of lamely supporting labour and the tories and joining in as hardline unionists, the reason they do not want to be seen as different (and they always claimed they were) is because the leadership of the libdems are gung ho british nationalists with no intention of delivering what Scotland wants.
#
2012-01-20 21:41
OT - Our old pal 'homeruleforengl and' has shown face over here on Al Jazeera,
aljazeera.com/.../...
spouting his usual about independence for Shetland, etc...
Otherwise good wee discussion/debate has been had
aljazeera.com/.../...
spouting his usual about independence for Shetland, etc...
Otherwise good wee discussion/debate has been had
#
2012-01-20 22:03
A tweet from Calum Cashley
The word on the street is that Tankerness tanked this afternoon
The word on the street is that Tankerness tanked this afternoon
#
2012-01-20 22:12
15.59 Citigroup has released an interesting note mulling the break-up of the UK:
We certainly do not rule out a break-up of the UK over time. ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]. Scotland could have a viable future as an independent country, although there are a lot of questions that would have to be resolved before that happens.
We certainly do not rule out a break-up of the UK over time. ONS data suggest that an independent Scotland would have a slightly better fiscal position than the rest of the UK [assuming Scotland gets its geographic share of oil and gas receipts]. Scotland could have a viable future as an independent country, although there are a lot of questions that would have to be resolved before that happens.
#
2012-01-20 22:25
I note there has been no OFFICIAL word from Holyrood re using the Electoral Commission under the control of the Scottish Government.
I would still want CofE or UN overview.
I would still want CofE or UN overview.
#
2012-01-21 00:10
Quoting Alx1:
JEEZ! HOW BRILLIANT WOULD THAT BE ?
How can Westminister say no without appearing shifty AND what a "kick in the groin" (Being polite)that would be for D. Cameron et al.
I think that is the nuclear option in this round rhymer.
JEEZ! HOW BRILLIANT WOULD THAT BE ?
How can Westminister say no without appearing shifty AND what a "kick in the groin" (Being polite)that would be for D. Cameron et al.
#
2012-01-20 22:53
Devo Max /FFa is a non starter you would need Westminster to agree.
That would mean a Federal state of UK .
That lot have been threatening to reform the House of lords for over 100 years and nothing has happenned of note.
There is no chance of them reforming the Uk into a federal state
That would mean a Federal state of UK .
That lot have been threatening to reform the House of lords for over 100 years and nothing has happenned of note.
There is no chance of them reforming the Uk into a federal state
#
2012-01-20 23:40
It,s not the case that Devo Max/FFA requires the support of a Holyrood party. If Civic Scotland/STUC SCVO etc plus other politicions semi-detached from a Unionist party come together, they will carry significantly more clout than either of the coalition UK parties. The case for "that" question to appear on the ballot paper would be hard to refute.An early move on this front could maybe force a better offer to be included in the Scotland Bill on extra powers for Holyrood - if it's not already too late for that. Aye, interesting times! Jings - just heard that all three of my daughters have just joined the SNP!! Say nae mair. Ye'd better hurry up Henry - it'll soon be too late to save your Union.
#
2012-01-21 00:10
There is no major impediment to any interested party putting Devo-whatever on the ballot, but how will they deliver if it wins?
#
2012-01-20 23:55
ramstam 2012-01-20 22:40
"It,s not the case that Devo Max/FFA requires the support of a Holyrood party. If Civic Scotland/STUC SCVO etc plus other politicions semi-detached from a Unionist party come together, they will carry significantly more clout than either of the coalition UK parties.
The case for "that" question to appear on the ballot paper would be hard to refute."
I agree ramstam: Until the consultation is complete and the Scottish people have had their say, nobody knows.
It certainly seems to me that the SNParty are having problems with the various wings of their party, and consequently need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.
"It,s not the case that Devo Max/FFA requires the support of a Holyrood party. If Civic Scotland/STUC SCVO etc plus other politicions semi-detached from a Unionist party come together, they will carry significantly more clout than either of the coalition UK parties.
The case for "that" question to appear on the ballot paper would be hard to refute."
I agree ramstam: Until the consultation is complete and the Scottish people have had their say, nobody knows.
It certainly seems to me that the SNParty are having problems with the various wings of their party, and consequently need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.
#
2012-01-21 00:14
You are wrong (again) exel. There is no problem with the SNP's wings, the SNP is fully committed to independence and the SNP's question on the ballot will reflect that.
If any other party (and that doesn't necessarily mean a political party) wants to include an additional question said party will have to define it, demonstrate support for it, and show how they intend to implement it if it wins. Understood?
If any other party (and that doesn't necessarily mean a political party) wants to include an additional question said party will have to define it, demonstrate support for it, and show how they intend to implement it if it wins. Understood?
#
2012-01-21 00:55
Quoting exel:
It's not THEIR referendum. It's OUR referendum.
It certainly seems to me that the SNParty ... need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.
It's not THEIR referendum. It's OUR referendum.
#
2012-01-21 02:21
How strange, perhaps you can enlighten everyone as to how or why you come to the conclusion that the SNP are having problems with 'various wings' of the party. Its actually the Libdems, Labour and Tory that are having problems with 'various wings' as neither of these London based parties can come up with any proper agreement and strategy to debate their views
#
2012-01-21 00:15
Quote:
A tad disingenuous excel. Sounds more like what you f ing hope for.
For a start the 'SNP party' are the only majority Government in these British Isles........delivered by resounding electoral win in the Scottish Parliament under an electoral system that was designed by Westminster (your true nemesis and mine-but I remember that fact at least) specifically to deny them that mandate.
I can't be arsed.........need I go on as to why you are wrong since I am one of 'us'?
You think there is a big problem going on for what reasons related to this forthcoming wednesday and the consultation of the Scottish Government?
Why no words about the faux british government 'consultation' which has no reason to even exist?
Will that deliver a meaningful discourse on constitutional change or will it be reported by the media as being firking brilliant? I think we voters with a brain know the answer to that one!
Who will deliver any constitutional change in Scotland if the SNP 'party' are as shite as you claim?
It certainly seems to me that the SNP party are having problems with the various wings of their party, and consequently need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.Excel:
A tad disingenuous excel. Sounds more like what you f ing hope for.
For a start the 'SNP party' are the only majority Government in these British Isles........delivered by resounding electoral win in the Scottish Parliament under an electoral system that was designed by Westminster (your true nemesis and mine-but I remember that fact at least) specifically to deny them that mandate.
I can't be arsed.........need I go on as to why you are wrong since I am one of 'us'?
You think there is a big problem going on for what reasons related to this forthcoming wednesday and the consultation of the Scottish Government?
Why no words about the faux british government 'consultation' which has no reason to even exist?
Will that deliver a meaningful discourse on constitutional change or will it be reported by the media as being firking brilliant? I think we voters with a brain know the answer to that one!
Who will deliver any constitutional change in Scotland if the SNP 'party' are as shite as you claim?
#
2012-01-21 00:36
Quoting exel:
Are you for real?
Labour has Ms Lamont backing the Tories, whilst Henry "Mr Muddle" McLeish talks up a completely different policy altogether. Meanwhile, Foulkes is off on a different tangent altogether!
Ms Davidson sings 3 choruses of Rule Britannia at the same time as Peter Duncan and Murdo Frazer talk up Devo Max. I'm spelling it "FraZer" because I can almost hear him advising the fragrant Ruth "Doomed! Doomed! We're aw doomed I tell ye!"
Oor Wullie (Rennie) sits on his bucket waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before he decides what to think today whilst his so-called "Federalist/Home Rule" party sends in Lord "Slopping-out Scandal" Wallace to tell us what the Scots can and cannot do - this from a man(?) who has already cost the Scottish Government a fortune because of his botched judgement and whose opinion we are now supposed to respect.
And you say the SNP are having problems?
Is Exel not a brand of petrol anyway?
Have you been sniffing it?
...It certainly seems to me that the SNParty are having problems with the various wings of their party...
Are you for real?
Labour has Ms Lamont backing the Tories, whilst Henry "Mr Muddle" McLeish talks up a completely different policy altogether. Meanwhile, Foulkes is off on a different tangent altogether!
Ms Davidson sings 3 choruses of Rule Britannia at the same time as Peter Duncan and Murdo Frazer talk up Devo Max. I'm spelling it "FraZer" because I can almost hear him advising the fragrant Ruth "Doomed! Doomed! We're aw doomed I tell ye!"
Oor Wullie (Rennie) sits on his bucket waiting to see which way the wind is blowing before he decides what to think today whilst his so-called "Federalist/Home Rule" party sends in Lord "Slopping-out Scandal" Wallace to tell us what the Scots can and cannot do - this from a man(?) who has already cost the Scottish Government a fortune because of his botched judgement and whose opinion we are now supposed to respect.
And you say the SNP are having problems?
Is Exel not a brand of petrol anyway?
Have you been sniffing it?
#
2012-01-21 00:42
Exel is a Lib Dem. No further explanation required. However if you ask Exel to explain being a Lib Dem he makes like a clam.
#
2012-01-21 00:50
We all belong to some party when we comment on news net or most of us do-or we have a specific opinion on Scotland's economy, culture or constitutional future...............
I am surprised at a libdem supporter on any public forum believing they have any insight into Scottish politics but perhaps excel could prove me wrong?
I am particularly perturbed that a libdem supporter could claim that the SNP are bad for Scottish politics?
Who would they say would serve Scotland better and why?
I am surprised at a libdem supporter on any public forum believing they have any insight into Scottish politics but perhaps excel could prove me wrong?
I am particularly perturbed that a libdem supporter could claim that the SNP are bad for Scottish politics?
Who would they say would serve Scotland better and why?
#
2012-01-21 00:57
I have said many times I'd love to discuss with a lib dem what it means to be a lib dem what makes them tick. I'm genuinely curious. However Exel seems a bit slippery and reticent when you try to engage him on the subject. He certainly appears to be a lib dem by all accounts.
#
2012-01-21 01:00
Not a crime to hide is it Islegard but who cares about a libdem in modern Scotland?
Too few.
That is what worries labour and the tories as well as the unionist scapegoats in Scotland.....too daft to realise they are being rogered relentlessly by both labour and the tories...... step forward the libdems!
Who cares about them?
In Scotland?
Too few may be the answer over the next few years!
Labour deserve the same fate and will deservedly suffer as well - but time will tell therefore that is why they, like their tory bum chums want the referendum 'sooner than later".
The union is like a looped bbc question time where we males all shout like tits at Nicola Sturgeon ............forever!
Scotland won't notice of course..........
Too few.
That is what worries labour and the tories as well as the unionist scapegoats in Scotland.....too daft to realise they are being rogered relentlessly by both labour and the tories...... step forward the libdems!
Who cares about them?
In Scotland?
Too few may be the answer over the next few years!
Labour deserve the same fate and will deservedly suffer as well - but time will tell therefore that is why they, like their tory bum chums want the referendum 'sooner than later".
The union is like a looped bbc question time where we males all shout like tits at Nicola Sturgeon ............forever!
Scotland won't notice of course..........
#
2012-01-21 01:03
True Kinghob but I find lib dems a strange species a party lacking morals, policies or any view point. I genuinely don't understand why any person would support or vote for them. I need to know.
#
2012-01-21 01:21
Then libdems are f ed Islegard, in these Isles people find their politics confusing when you consider their raisin d'être: Federalism and what promotion of this entails in the real world of uk politics.....they couldn't have a better situation than an SNP Scottish Government with a referendum mandate on this matter and themselves in coalition power at westminster!
Ever!
Two and a half years of us plebs all working it all out suits me as a democrat with a social conscience if not westminster who would prefer we Scots didn't think at all on such matters as they know best!
Which is westminster bawbaggery?
Both!
Ever!
Two and a half years of us plebs all working it all out suits me as a democrat with a social conscience if not westminster who would prefer we Scots didn't think at all on such matters as they know best!
Which is westminster bawbaggery?
Both!
#
2012-01-21 01:26
Kinghob they are no federalists. As you pointed out in Scotland they have the perfect environment to push forward their federalism. However they have chosen to block federalism at every opportunity.
Liars and opportunists.
Liars and opportunists.
#
2012-01-21 01:36
Can someone correct me? Is a Lib Dem a lying scumbag with no integrity? Are you going to get this comment removed too Exel or will you retort on a democratic discussion site?
#
2012-01-21 01:40
People who look at Scottish politics and the future constitution know full well the difference between 'Federalism' and Libdem 'opportunism".
Enough of us are interested.
Let a libdem commentator defend the Libdems over their much boasted about federalism stance ........it doesn't exist!
When was Fedarlism last mentioned by chief negotiator Michael Moore for instance.........?
Scotland .....Federalism....Devo Max........which is Federalism!
Wnen was defending the status quo last mentioned by Moore.........all the time!
Without actually mentioning the most boring shitist option that no Scot wants....the status quo!
And for the next two and a half years!
Enough of us are interested.
Let a libdem commentator defend the Libdems over their much boasted about federalism stance ........it doesn't exist!
When was Fedarlism last mentioned by chief negotiator Michael Moore for instance.........?
Scotland .....Federalism....Devo Max........which is Federalism!
Wnen was defending the status quo last mentioned by Moore.........all the time!
Without actually mentioning the most boring shitist option that no Scot wants....the status quo!
And for the next two and a half years!
#
2012-01-21 01:44
Scotland to Exel are you receiving us over? Are you going to bitch about everything or debate?
#
2012-01-21 12:40
# Islegard 2012-01-20 23:42
Exel is a Lib Dem. No further explanation required. However if you ask Exel to explain being a Lib Dem he makes like a clam.
# Islegard 2012-01-20 23:57
I have said many times I'd love to discuss with a lib dem what it means to be a lib dem what makes them tick. I'm genuinely curious. However Exel seems a bit slippery and reticent when you try to engage him on the subject. He certainly appears to be a lib dem by all accounts.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:03
True Kinghob but I find lib dems a strange species a party lacking morals, policies or any view point. I genuinely don't understand why any person would support or vote for them. I need to know.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:26
Kinghob they are no federalists. As you pointed out in Scotland they have the perfect environment to push forward their federalism. However they have chosen to block federalism at every opportunity.
Liars and opportunists.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:36
Can someone correct me? Is a Lib Dem a lying scumbag with no integrity? Are you going to get this comment removed too Exel or will you retort on a democratic discussion site?
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:44
Scotland to Exel are you receiving us over? Are you going to bitch about everything or debate?
What in my post, which was; “I agree ramstam: Until the consultation is complete and the Scottish people have had their say, nobody knows. It certainly seems to me that the SNParty are having problems with the various wings of their party, and consequently need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.” Would you like to debate?
Exel is a Lib Dem. No further explanation required. However if you ask Exel to explain being a Lib Dem he makes like a clam.
# Islegard 2012-01-20 23:57
I have said many times I'd love to discuss with a lib dem what it means to be a lib dem what makes them tick. I'm genuinely curious. However Exel seems a bit slippery and reticent when you try to engage him on the subject. He certainly appears to be a lib dem by all accounts.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:03
True Kinghob but I find lib dems a strange species a party lacking morals, policies or any view point. I genuinely don't understand why any person would support or vote for them. I need to know.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:26
Kinghob they are no federalists. As you pointed out in Scotland they have the perfect environment to push forward their federalism. However they have chosen to block federalism at every opportunity.
Liars and opportunists.
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:36
Can someone correct me? Is a Lib Dem a lying scumbag with no integrity? Are you going to get this comment removed too Exel or will you retort on a democratic discussion site?
# Islegard 2012-01-21 00:44
Scotland to Exel are you receiving us over? Are you going to bitch about everything or debate?
What in my post, which was; “I agree ramstam: Until the consultation is complete and the Scottish people have had their say, nobody knows. It certainly seems to me that the SNParty are having problems with the various wings of their party, and consequently need more than I bit of help from us in forming the question for THEIR referendum.” Would you like to debate?
#
2012-01-21 01:58
Being a pleb is pure magic!
Especially a pleb who believes that Cameron and Miliband aren't by any means the be all and end all of Scotland and her place on this planet...........someone is taking the piss there!
Scotland and those who inhabit that geographical entity are cool as F!
Well able to counter those two twattishly average clowns!
Honest!
Kinghob
Especially a pleb who believes that Cameron and Miliband aren't by any means the be all and end all of Scotland and her place on this planet...........someone is taking the piss there!
Scotland and those who inhabit that geographical entity are cool as F!
Well able to counter those two twattishly average clowns!
Honest!
Kinghob
#
2012-01-21 02:15
I saw Henry on TV and it struck me that he had a lot more natural ability than the Labour front bench has been able to muster for some time.
He seemed pretty positive about the whole issue of a ballot, 16 and 17 year old voting rights and of course Devo Max. It was refreshing after so much negativity from Cameron, Hammond, Murphy, Lamont and Clegg. If there is going to be a third question I would be a lot more comfortable with people like McLeish, Chisholm and Kenyon being involved than something concocted by Osborne.
I know some want a simple yes no but there is a long time to go and there are going to be a lot of twists and turns along the way. Whatever one might think about the Constitutional Commission it is a lot more pro Scotland than some others would be. Let any movement for a third question come from people that actually do want Scotland to prosper and then we can let battle commence on the merits of Independence vs more powers.
I can't imagine Eck will be disappointed that a relatively sane voice has been aired in favour of both ballot and options. If only that shows that Labour and the Coalition are not representing the broader roots of even their own parties.
He seemed pretty positive about the whole issue of a ballot, 16 and 17 year old voting rights and of course Devo Max. It was refreshing after so much negativity from Cameron, Hammond, Murphy, Lamont and Clegg. If there is going to be a third question I would be a lot more comfortable with people like McLeish, Chisholm and Kenyon being involved than something concocted by Osborne.
I know some want a simple yes no but there is a long time to go and there are going to be a lot of twists and turns along the way. Whatever one might think about the Constitutional Commission it is a lot more pro Scotland than some others would be. Let any movement for a third question come from people that actually do want Scotland to prosper and then we can let battle commence on the merits of Independence vs more powers.
I can't imagine Eck will be disappointed that a relatively sane voice has been aired in favour of both ballot and options. If only that shows that Labour and the Coalition are not representing the broader roots of even their own parties.
#
2012-01-21 09:25
I've had a further thought Hendry about your leadership on this spoiling tactic called Devo Max. While you have your devious hat on will you be planning on stealing any more of Scotlands territorial waters just like you sneakily did in 1999 when you treatcherously handed England 6000 square miles of our East Coast ?.,
What's in your mind now Orkney and Shetland ?.
What's in your mind now Orkney and Shetland ?.
#
2012-01-21 11:50
Spoiling tactic for who though? Labour and the Coalition have gone awfully quiet on Devo Max. Some are suggesting that it should be promised as pie in the sky if we reject Independence just like in 79. If there is going to be a Devo Max proposal then I for one want it out in the open so people can see it.
To be fair to Henry the Adjacent Waters Boundary was part of the Scotland Act 98 drawn up by Blair and Co before the first Scottish Elections and long before he was leader in Holyrood.
I know we are all jumpy given the dirty tricks and misrepresentati ons by people like Hammond but I'm not sure we help our cause by calling all opponents quislings. Henry might be Old Labour and a Unionist but he is a decent enough stick and talks a lot more sense than most of current Labour bods.
To be fair to Henry the Adjacent Waters Boundary was part of the Scotland Act 98 drawn up by Blair and Co before the first Scottish Elections and long before he was leader in Holyrood.
I know we are all jumpy given the dirty tricks and misrepresentati ons by people like Hammond but I'm not sure we help our cause by calling all opponents quislings. Henry might be Old Labour and a Unionist but he is a decent enough stick and talks a lot more sense than most of current Labour bods.
#
2012-01-21 22:14
Henry McLeish is a good guy and we need to persuade him over to our side.
That is the object of the SNP - conversion.
That is the object of the SNP - conversion.
#
2012-01-22 21:10
Islegard 2012-01-21 20:34
“Yes I'd like to debate why you support the Lib Dems.”
I no longer support the Liberal Democratic Party. Since the 2010 coalition agreement came into being.
"The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to modernise the system of governance in the United Kingdom and our support for this stands. This Final Report makes the case for a changing role for Scotland within that modernised United Kingdom. In so doing we recommend: a new written constitution for the United Kingdom recognising Scotland’s position within a modern union; increased policy and legislative powers for the Scottish Parliament; and a new finance system of fiscal federalism backed by a set of constitutional and fiscal principles that recognise Scotland’s historic status in the UK. In a number of areas we have made very specific recommendations for action and change. In other areas we recognise that there are a number of options that a second Constitutional Convention should address and we offer our opinion on the way forward on those matters."
The above paragraph is from the “Steele Commission” report and would be a good place to start any discussion, on why I prefer a Lib/Dem approach to convince the Scottish electorate to vote for Independence
“Yes I'd like to debate why you support the Lib Dems.”
I no longer support the Liberal Democratic Party. Since the 2010 coalition agreement came into being.
"The Liberal Democrats have long campaigned to modernise the system of governance in the United Kingdom and our support for this stands. This Final Report makes the case for a changing role for Scotland within that modernised United Kingdom. In so doing we recommend: a new written constitution for the United Kingdom recognising Scotland’s position within a modern union; increased policy and legislative powers for the Scottish Parliament; and a new finance system of fiscal federalism backed by a set of constitutional and fiscal principles that recognise Scotland’s historic status in the UK. In a number of areas we have made very specific recommendations for action and change. In other areas we recognise that there are a number of options that a second Constitutional Convention should address and we offer our opinion on the way forward on those matters."
The above paragraph is from the “Steele Commission” report and would be a good place to start any discussion, on why I prefer a Lib/Dem approach to convince the Scottish electorate to vote for Independence
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Conservatives at war over Came...
If Babe Ruth feels betrayed, she ain't s... - The 'Great Debate' isn't just ...
Was Angus refusing "to acknowledge peopl... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Suggestion taken on board tartanfever a... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
I would also add, even if they (the SNP)... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Thats exactly what I'm suggesting DW. - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Marga - there's a vast difference betwee... - Cameron now not fussy about ...
Irony and hypocrisy, all in less than t... - A Unionist lexicon: An A-Z of ...
I think there was one fairly vocal SNP e... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Council news - leader of "Independents" ... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
"In its latest statement, the Edinburgh-... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
the SNP voted for 'no confidence' in Cal... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
OT. Clackmannanshir e Council has been t... - Cameron now not fussy about ...
So Rebekah's friend Dave isn't fussed ab... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
OT.HATE crimes RISE again.This is Scotla... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
I'm afraid that Marga has it right. The ... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
This is typical of an area were a lot of... - Scottish Independence: The Dar...
Sorry to go O/T but just wanted to highl... - East Lothian: Labour ally with...
Saltire - you're forgetting 1979. That's... - The girls on the bridge: Part ...
This is such a sad story. The saddest pa... - A Unionist lexicon: An A-Z of ...
You are correct spooky, that Alex Salmon...