Wednesday, 29 February 2012 06:40
53 Comments
by a Newsnet reporter
Since the announcement that Scotland’s independence referendum will be held in autumn 2014, the Scottish public has been subjected to a barrage of negative campaigning from the anti-independence parties and have witnessed Westminster attempts to sieze control of the referendum and bounce the Scottish Parliament into an earlier date. Now a leading academic has warned that such an approach is counter-productive, and may have the unforeseen consequence of “annoying” Scots into voting for independence.
Dr Paul Cairney, Head of the Politics Department at Edinburgh University, airs the warning in a new book, The Scottish Political System Since Devolution. Dr Cairney argues that more Scots want greater devolution than want independence, but warns that Conservative led attempts to force an earlier referendum could anger “a huge population of docile people [who may] suddenly get annoyed enough to vote Yes.”
He added: “We make different decisions when we are annoyed. We make different decisions when we feel that we are being pressured or told what to do … That is why David Cameron’s recent strategy seems so off the mark.”
Linda Fabiani, SNP MSP and convener of the Scotland Bill Committee, backed Dr Paul Cairney’s analysis, but said that positive arguments and aspiration will be the deciding factors for the people of Scotland when they vote on Scotland’s future in the referendum in 2014.
Ms Fabiani, MSP for East Kilbride, said:
“The anti-independence parties and their taskmasters in London must realise that their attempts to dictate the terms and timing of the referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland are hugely unpopular with the people of Scotland.
“The SNP government is consulting with the people of Scotland about what they want from their referendum. Meanwhile the anti-independence parties are the ones creating constitutional uncertainty with their constant attempts to force the issue on everything from the date to the question, and by offering vague promises of ‘jam tomorrow’ on powers, without even bothering to wait until the Scottish people have had their say.
“David Cameron, Michael Moore, Lord Wallace or Margaret Curran can try to distract from the real issue of what is the best future for the people of Scotland, but the reality is that their efforts to play games with the right of the Scottish people to decide their own future will only drive more away from the No camp.
“The positive case for independence will be made by the Yes campaign. It will match the aspirations of the voters and their families and it will be for those reasons that that the people of Scotland will vote Yes in the referendum.”
Comments
#
2012-02-29 10:26
Shhhhh. Never interrupt your enemy when he is in the process of making a mistake.
#
2012-02-29 10:37
I wonder why he singles out Cameron for attack?
They’re all the Unionist leaders are all the same.
They’re all the Unionist leaders are all the same.
#
2012-02-29 10:44
Presumably because Cameron’s the leader of the Westminster regime and therefore arguably the one who is setting the tone for the mischief currently being perpetrated by the anti-Independence camp.
#
2012-02-29 10:43
As I read this headline (and I’m hoping it wont be repeated in the msm) my first thought was SHUT UP! I dont care why folk vote for Independence, so Cameron et al, do your worst/best
#
2012-02-29 10:50
There is a very real prospect that they are not bumbling along but that are making a dogs breakfast of it – deliberately.
We all know they are pretty inept – but what we are seeing is professional ineptitude.
We all know they are pretty inept – but what we are seeing is professional ineptitude.
#
2012-02-29 10:52
There is a clear specific Unionist strategy to confuse and muddy the whole independence campaign enough that Scots will just reject the idea of independence.
It is the oldest trick in the book on how to stop reform by referendum. Confuse the issue continually until you get the idea rejected.
Humans are hard wired to reject things that confuse them. That is what the unionists are doing, confusing the issue.
There is no logical or good argument why Scotland should stay in a political union with England (London) calling all the shots. So the only way of keeping Scotland in now is to confuse everyone into rejecting the idea of independence.
It is the oldest trick in the book on how to stop reform by referendum. Confuse the issue continually until you get the idea rejected.
Humans are hard wired to reject things that confuse them. That is what the unionists are doing, confusing the issue.
There is no logical or good argument why Scotland should stay in a political union with England (London) calling all the shots. So the only way of keeping Scotland in now is to confuse everyone into rejecting the idea of independence.
#
2012-02-29 12:49
I’m wondering Ben if our hard wiring is not more inclined to edge us away from confusion but towards clarity?
I agree entirely that people will switch off from arguments which are confusing but equally they will be drawn to arguments which are clear and positive.
Which is why I often advise cybernats to ignore the puerile rubbish written by most cyber-unionists which is designed to confuse and switch people off.
They should never be engaged with them unless they argue a sensible point. But as long as we stay focused, stay informed and above all stay positive we will win the day and the majority will VOTE YES.
I agree entirely that people will switch off from arguments which are confusing but equally they will be drawn to arguments which are clear and positive.
Which is why I often advise cybernats to ignore the puerile rubbish written by most cyber-unionists which is designed to confuse and switch people off.
They should never be engaged with them unless they argue a sensible point. But as long as we stay focused, stay informed and above all stay positive we will win the day and the majority will VOTE YES.
#
2012-02-29 15:09
Quoting ButeHouse:
But that is the point, The unionist campaign is deliberately creating confusion in the minds of Scots who are not or cannot be as engaged in gathering the full information available as some others are.
They are the voters the unionists are attempting to confuse to keep away from the poll booths and to vote no if they do vote at all.
I have seen this ploy pulled so many times over the years, and it is successful unless there is a widespread absolute determination for change to happen.
Hard wiring does exist to positive messages, It also exists to reject confusion. Given a confused choice though and the hard wiring opts for the “safe” choice of no.
I think your comment is correct about staying focused, staying informed and not reacting to the unionist drivel.
The more positive sensible messages from the independence side the less confusion there will be and the majority will vote YES.
I’m wondering Ben if our hard wiring is not more inclined to edge us away from confusion but towards clarity?
I agree entirely that people will switch off from arguments which are confusing but equally they will be drawn to arguments which are clear and positive.
But that is the point, The unionist campaign is deliberately creating confusion in the minds of Scots who are not or cannot be as engaged in gathering the full information available as some others are.
They are the voters the unionists are attempting to confuse to keep away from the poll booths and to vote no if they do vote at all.
I have seen this ploy pulled so many times over the years, and it is successful unless there is a widespread absolute determination for change to happen.
Hard wiring does exist to positive messages, It also exists to reject confusion. Given a confused choice though and the hard wiring opts for the “safe” choice of no.
I think your comment is correct about staying focused, staying informed and not reacting to the unionist drivel.
The more positive sensible messages from the independence side the less confusion there will be and the majority will vote YES.
#
2012-02-29 11:08
Cameron has firmly set the UK Government on course for pushing for an earlier referendum date and I don’t think anything is going to change this. A quick referendum means a less informed electorate and scare stories are less likely to be questioned thoroughly and stick in the minds of voters. The thinking seems to be that it worked well in the AV referendum so why not in the independence referendum. It is also totally disingenuous to accuse the Scottish Government of trying to win the referendum by taking their time over it when the UK Government is trying to do the same thing with a quick referendum. It could be argued that taking over two years isn’t that great an advantage as noone is able to predict random events in the future which will undoubtedly affect the outcome.
The important thing is that this is Scotland’s referendum. It is the right thing for each of us to take time and debate the issues amongst ourselves, with our politicians and and with our families and friends. It should never be forgotten that this is the first and only time in the history of the Union that Scots have been asked whether or not they want to be part of it.
The important thing is that this is Scotland’s referendum. It is the right thing for each of us to take time and debate the issues amongst ourselves, with our politicians and and with our families and friends. It should never be forgotten that this is the first and only time in the history of the Union that Scots have been asked whether or not they want to be part of it.
#
2012-02-29 11:20
Here is a snippet about the 1713 attempt to dissolve the union.
I am told that the time of the debate was brought forward to catch a few Scots representatives out and that is why the vote did not go through.
———————————–
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
nationalarchives.gov.uk/…/…
The legible version below
……………………………………
Attempt to dissolve the union with Scotland, 1713
HLRO Manuscript Minutes, H.L. (1 June 1713)
Adhuc 1 Junii 1713.
Naturaliz
Descury
Bill
The E of Yarmouth Reported from the Com[mitte]e the bill Entituld An Act to Naruralize Symon Descury & Peter Ribot Peter Laffite & others as fitt to passe without any Amendm[en]t
Ordered that ye bill be Engrossed
Queenes
Answere
The Lord Trea[sure]r Reported that he had attended her Ma[jest]y with the Adresse for Papers – acqaint the [superscription ] & her Ma[jest]y had given ord[e]r accordingly
State of ye Nacon
The ord[er] & Reade for taking into consideracon of ye State of ye Nacon
The debate began and opened by ye E. Findlater
A mocion was made for dissolving the Union & other things following.
Scots Propesicon
That leave be given to bring in a bill for dissolving the Union for restoreing ea[ch] kingdom to their Rights & Privileges as atye time of the Union for Effectuall secureing her Ma[jest]y in her regal power & Prerogatives [deleted] authority over both kingdoms, & in asserting and Confirming all her royall Prerogative and effectually securing the succession in ye Protestant line in ye illustreous House of Han[n]over as the same stands Limitted & secured by severall Acts
Adhuc 1 Junii 1713.
of Parliam[en]t in Engl[a]nd and by the second Article of ye Union, or any subsequent Acts made in the parl[iamen]t of Greate Britain and for establishing astrict and perpetuall alliance betwixt the two kingdoms
After debate
It was proposed to have a previous Q[uestion]
After long debate
The prev[ious] Q[uestion] was put whether this Q[uestion] shalbe now put
It was Resolved in the affir[mative]
E. Abingdon [deleted] Clarendon
tellers
E. Sunderland
E Cont[ent] 54
Not cont[ent] 54
Proxys Cont[ent] lllllllllllllll ll
Not lllllllllllll
I[t] was R[esolved] 71
67
Then ye mane [Question] was put as foll[ows]
That leave be given to bring in a bill for dissolving ye Union for restoreing Each Kingdome to their Rights and Priviledges as atye time of the Union for Effectuall securing of her Ma[jest]y in her Royall Powers & Authority over both Kingdomes & in asserting & confirming all her Royall Prerogatives & Effectually securing the Succession in the Protestant line in the Illustreous House of Han[n]over as the same stands Limitted & secured by severall Acts of Parliam[en]t in England & by the second Article of the Union Or any subsequent Acts made in the parliam[en]t of Great Britain for establishing astrict & perpetuall Alliance betwixt the 2 Kingdoms
It was Resolved in the Negative
Cont[ent]
Notice tooke of ye disturbance in ye House.
Not Ho[use] Adj[ourned] tomor[row] 11 Clocke
close window
image
back to top of page
I am told that the time of the debate was brought forward to catch a few Scots representatives out and that is why the vote did not go through.
———————————–
www.nationalarchives.gov.uk
nationalarchives.gov.uk/…/…
The legible version below
……………………………………
Attempt to dissolve the union with Scotland, 1713
HLRO Manuscript Minutes, H.L. (1 June 1713)
Adhuc 1 Junii 1713.
Naturaliz
Descury
Bill
The E of Yarmouth Reported from the Com[mitte]e the bill Entituld An Act to Naruralize Symon Descury & Peter Ribot Peter Laffite & others as fitt to passe without any Amendm[en]t
Ordered that ye bill be Engrossed
Queenes
Answere
The Lord Trea[sure]r Reported that he had attended her Ma[jest]y with the Adresse for Papers – acqaint the [superscription ] & her Ma[jest]y had given ord[e]r accordingly
State of ye Nacon
The ord[er] & Reade for taking into consideracon of ye State of ye Nacon
The debate began and opened by ye E. Findlater
A mocion was made for dissolving the Union & other things following.
Scots Propesicon
That leave be given to bring in a bill for dissolving the Union for restoreing ea[ch] kingdom to their Rights & Privileges as atye time of the Union for Effectuall secureing her Ma[jest]y in her regal power & Prerogatives [deleted] authority over both kingdoms, & in asserting and Confirming all her royall Prerogative and effectually securing the succession in ye Protestant line in ye illustreous House of Han[n]over as the same stands Limitted & secured by severall Acts
Adhuc 1 Junii 1713.
of Parliam[en]t in Engl[a]nd and by the second Article of ye Union, or any subsequent Acts made in the parl[iamen]t of Greate Britain and for establishing astrict and perpetuall alliance betwixt the two kingdoms
After debate
It was proposed to have a previous Q[uestion]
After long debate
The prev[ious] Q[uestion] was put whether this Q[uestion] shalbe now put
It was Resolved in the affir[mative]
E. Abingdon [deleted] Clarendon
tellers
E. Sunderland
E Cont[ent] 54
Not cont[ent] 54
Proxys Cont[ent] lllllllllllllll ll
Not lllllllllllll
I[t] was R[esolved] 71
67
Then ye mane [Question] was put as foll[ows]
That leave be given to bring in a bill for dissolving ye Union for restoreing Each Kingdome to their Rights and Priviledges as atye time of the Union for Effectuall securing of her Ma[jest]y in her Royall Powers & Authority over both Kingdomes & in asserting & confirming all her Royall Prerogatives & Effectually securing the Succession in the Protestant line in the Illustreous House of Han[n]over as the same stands Limitted & secured by severall Acts of Parliam[en]t in England & by the second Article of the Union Or any subsequent Acts made in the parliam[en]t of Great Britain for establishing astrict & perpetuall Alliance betwixt the 2 Kingdoms
It was Resolved in the Negative
Cont[ent]
Notice tooke of ye disturbance in ye House.
Not Ho[use] Adj[ourned] tomor[row] 11 Clocke
close window
image
back to top of page
#
2012-02-29 11:47
Thank you very much for posting this. It is interesting that just six years after the union of 1707, the Scots wanted to end it.
Surprisingly, unionists like David Cameron seem to think the union has been over three hundred years of prosperity and joy for Scotland. How mistaken can people be??
Surprisingly, unionists like David Cameron seem to think the union has been over three hundred years of prosperity and joy for Scotland. How mistaken can people be??
#
2012-02-29 12:42
Thanks for this Dave, this was the Duke of Argyll’s attempt to dissolve the Union following the imposition of a British Malt Tax in Scotland contrary to the Union Treaty. The debate in Parliament began with the Duke’s opening address. “I am by some reflected on as if I were disgusted and had changed sides, but I despise their persons as much as I undervalue their judgement!” he added “I had a great share in making this Union” but was satisfied that it now be ended. He was supported by all his fellow Scots and a petition carried to Queen Anne for the Union’s repeal.
A hostile “Brandy Nan” gave the delegation a frosty reception. Her subsequent illness and the problems over the Hanovarian succession, overshadowed the Duke’s innitiative which was narrowly defeated.
A hostile “Brandy Nan” gave the delegation a frosty reception. Her subsequent illness and the problems over the Hanovarian succession, overshadowed the Duke’s innitiative which was narrowly defeated.
#
2012-02-29 20:45
Thanks for posting this. Interesting to see that only six years after the union, Westminster was already going back on its promises, a sign of things to come.
Those who had voted for the Union but had now changed their minds must have realised the magnitude of their mistake.
I hope that the people of Scotland don’t make the same mistake in 2014.
Those who had voted for the Union but had now changed their minds must have realised the magnitude of their mistake.
I hope that the people of Scotland don’t make the same mistake in 2014.
#
2012-02-29 23:02
It’s worth remembering for the best part of a year 1745-1746 Scotland was independent again.
#
2012-02-29 11:20
For a very jaundiced view of Scottish politics read the Lord Forsyth in the Telegraph. Some of the very racists comments are worth noting too. Lord (another noble!) Robertson, please note!
telegraph.co.uk/…/…
telegraph.co.uk/…/…
#
2012-02-29 12:37
You’ll need sunglasses to paliate the glare of this yellow:
heraldscotland.com/…/…
“During a contribution to the committee stage of the Scotland Bill last night, Lord Steel told peers: “When I switched on my television that Saturday at 4.30 to watch that dreadful Calcutta Cup match, the last thing I wanted to see was the First Minister popping up to give his inexpert views. He should be concentrating on governing the country, not looking for camera calls wherever he can.”
The LibDem peer added: “We are being told by some people that to be anti-SNP is to be anti-Scottish. It is time they understood that the rest of us resent being told that to be pro- Scotland, you have to be pro-SNP. That’s not the case”.
Referring to the TV row, Lord Steel said: “I have been told by other broadcasters that the Salmond rugby experience was not unique for them and that SNP heavies have made more regular calls of complaint to newsrooms than all the other political parties put together and that this is running at times close to intimidation.
“We are seeing a trend towards the attributes of the one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the dear leader has been doing today and that is a real danger.”
Lord Maxton, the Labour peer, interjected, saying the strangest aspect of the BBC row was the claim by the First Minister that somehow the corporation was biased against him. “I would suggest anybody who listens to Good Morning Scotland…would know the exact opposite is the truth,” he said.
His Labour colleague, Lord Foulkes, said some people now regarded Mr Salmond as something of a “messiah”, who was showered with accolades including from “his best friend”, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, but who was now “melting under the heat of the spotlight” on policy scrutiny”
It seems that NNS and its posters’ comments are heavely contributing to intimidate the BBC.
I already knew we were good, but not that good. Well done! Everybody!
heraldscotland.com/…/…
“During a contribution to the committee stage of the Scotland Bill last night, Lord Steel told peers: “When I switched on my television that Saturday at 4.30 to watch that dreadful Calcutta Cup match, the last thing I wanted to see was the First Minister popping up to give his inexpert views. He should be concentrating on governing the country, not looking for camera calls wherever he can.”
The LibDem peer added: “We are being told by some people that to be anti-SNP is to be anti-Scottish. It is time they understood that the rest of us resent being told that to be pro- Scotland, you have to be pro-SNP. That’s not the case”.
Referring to the TV row, Lord Steel said: “I have been told by other broadcasters that the Salmond rugby experience was not unique for them and that SNP heavies have made more regular calls of complaint to newsrooms than all the other political parties put together and that this is running at times close to intimidation.
“We are seeing a trend towards the attributes of the one-party state, where news bulletins are led by stories of what the dear leader has been doing today and that is a real danger.”
Lord Maxton, the Labour peer, interjected, saying the strangest aspect of the BBC row was the claim by the First Minister that somehow the corporation was biased against him. “I would suggest anybody who listens to Good Morning Scotland…would know the exact opposite is the truth,” he said.
His Labour colleague, Lord Foulkes, said some people now regarded Mr Salmond as something of a “messiah”, who was showered with accolades including from “his best friend”, media tycoon Rupert Murdoch, but who was now “melting under the heat of the spotlight” on policy scrutiny”
It seems that NNS and its posters’ comments are heavely contributing to intimidate the BBC.
I already knew we were good, but not that good. Well done! Everybody!
#
2012-02-29 12:50
I wonder if David Steele, would care to support his assertions regarding SNP heavies complaining to newsrooms with verifiable facts. You see, I had no knowledge that newsrooms kept a note of the political allegiance of people calling to complain.
Are those statistics to be made public??
It strikes me, that their is a quite intentional policy of total dis information going on within the house of Lords right now. Is that in some way to ‘set the pretext’ for Westminster imposing the Scotland bill, without the consent of the Scottish parliament???
David Steele, who I actually previously had a small amount of respect for was a disgrace saying what he said. he will know that it is lies.
Are those statistics to be made public??
It strikes me, that their is a quite intentional policy of total dis information going on within the house of Lords right now. Is that in some way to ‘set the pretext’ for Westminster imposing the Scotland bill, without the consent of the Scottish parliament???
David Steele, who I actually previously had a small amount of respect for was a disgrace saying what he said. he will know that it is lies.
#
2012-02-29 15:30
RL
Anyone who complains about the BBC (Or MSM) has to be a nationalist since the unionists have nothing to complain about – simples.
Anyone who complains about the BBC (Or MSM) has to be a nationalist since the unionists have nothing to complain about – simples.
#
2012-02-29 14:01
Interesting that the SNP make the most complaints. Steels view is probably that they are a bunch of whinging Jocks. Maybe, just maybe it’s actally because they are the party most commonly sidelined by the media and the only ones who have GENUINE grounds for complaint?
#
2012-02-29 12:52
The telegraph manages to carry both Lord Forsyth complaining that Scottish students don’t pay the fees he voted for English students to pay…and this story:
telegraph.co.uk/…/… (Students working in sex trade to pay university fees)
telegraph.co.uk/…/… (Students working in sex trade to pay university fees)
#
2012-02-29 14:22
This is unbelievable! It’s just down right made up!
First of all there is no such thing as a free education. Someone has to pay. Scottish students receiving a so called free education are paid for by the Scottish government, so it’s the UK government that is failing English, Irish and Welsh students by refusing to pay for them. (And that includes the ones studying in England!)
Also, direct quote – “Parents of EU students pay no taxes,” Really? Which country is this that does not pay taxes? Like the Scottish students, EU students do not get a free ride, they don’t pay fees because their government pays for them. Simple really, and yet Forsyth can’t comprehend that.
And, foreign affairs are a retained power which means only Westminster is empowered to negotiate policy with the rest of Europe, so again it’s the UK government who have allowed the situation where EU students can have a free education in Scotland, not Holyrood.
Free education has been a Scottish policy since 1496 two hundred years before the union (Let’s not get into the argument about Westminster ignoring Scottish tradition) and has served us well leading to the Scottish Enlightenment.
Under current policy Scotland can become a country of great innovation again, whilst UK policy sees the rest of the union descend into darkness. No wonder people like Forsyth Lash are lashing out blindly unable to see!
And don’t get me started on the Scotland bill Forsyth, you and your mates have screwed that one right up for us!
First of all there is no such thing as a free education. Someone has to pay. Scottish students receiving a so called free education are paid for by the Scottish government, so it’s the UK government that is failing English, Irish and Welsh students by refusing to pay for them. (And that includes the ones studying in England!)
Also, direct quote – “Parents of EU students pay no taxes,” Really? Which country is this that does not pay taxes? Like the Scottish students, EU students do not get a free ride, they don’t pay fees because their government pays for them. Simple really, and yet Forsyth can’t comprehend that.
And, foreign affairs are a retained power which means only Westminster is empowered to negotiate policy with the rest of Europe, so again it’s the UK government who have allowed the situation where EU students can have a free education in Scotland, not Holyrood.
Free education has been a Scottish policy since 1496 two hundred years before the union (Let’s not get into the argument about Westminster ignoring Scottish tradition) and has served us well leading to the Scottish Enlightenment.
Under current policy Scotland can become a country of great innovation again, whilst UK policy sees the rest of the union descend into darkness. No wonder people like Forsyth Lash are lashing out blindly unable to see!
And don’t get me started on the Scotland bill Forsyth, you and your mates have screwed that one right up for us!
#
2012-02-29 14:25
Oh, and way to drum up support in Scotland by refering to Thatcher as Lady. That’ll remind us of the good old days and why we should support you!
#
2012-02-29 14:26
If Michael Forsyth is so dead set against Scottish freeloaders, shouldn’t he set a goodexample and resign from the house of Lords???
#
2012-02-29 11:52
So David Cameron should put oor Wee Eck “in his place”. It is the Scottish people that has put Alex Salmond in his place, which is as First Minister of Scotland, we did not give a mandate to David Cameron. Know your place indeed.
#
2012-02-29 12:54
Quoting Mark MacLachlan:
Like it a lot. But just what is Willie doing squatting like that at the Forth Bridge, and did his minder bring along a wee plastic bag?
Seems those fine folk at Pixar are on our side…sort of.
www.youtube.com/…/
Like it a lot. But just what is Willie doing squatting like that at the Forth Bridge, and did his minder bring along a wee plastic bag?
#
2012-02-29 15:50
At 0.30 secs…..Willie Rennie had an uncanny resemblence to “Gollum” from “The Lord of the Rings” Scary! 😉
#
2012-02-29 16:07
That’s the funniest thing I’ve seen in a long time. Well done Mark, for posting this; absolutely hillarious
#
2012-02-29 12:32
From the Sun:
A top Tory yesterday claimed that David Cameron “blurred” his party’s position on devolution when he hinted at more powers for Holyrood.
Former Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson said Conservatives are split on the issue.
He spoke at the launch of a new cross-party campaign backing extra rights for Holyrood, Devo Plus.
The Devo Plus group is headed by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purvis and is backed by his ex-leader Tavish Scott and Labour’s Duncan McNeil.
If these Three Stooges are the leaders heaven help the followers.
tinyurl.com/74lcfv8
A top Tory yesterday claimed that David Cameron “blurred” his party’s position on devolution when he hinted at more powers for Holyrood.
Former Presiding Officer Alex Fergusson said Conservatives are split on the issue.
He spoke at the launch of a new cross-party campaign backing extra rights for Holyrood, Devo Plus.
The Devo Plus group is headed by former Lib Dem MSP Jeremy Purvis and is backed by his ex-leader Tavish Scott and Labour’s Duncan McNeil.
If these Three Stooges are the leaders heaven help the followers.
tinyurl.com/74lcfv8
#
2012-02-29 12:41
Paul Cairney’s complete blog is here: paulcairney.blogspot.com/…/…
It’s quite academic, so dinnae get annoyed, noo.
It’s quite academic, so dinnae get annoyed, noo.
#
2012-02-29 12:52
A restoration of both Nations to their rightful, current positions? Worth a read.
What would also be worth a read is: how are England going to cope in todays’ world with their major (unwitting) benefactor gone?
How will they cope when they do not produce enough food for themselves?
How will they manage with water, power and financial shortages?
What will they be forced to do with their superflous nuclear armaments?
At what cost?
How will they ever cope with the loss of prestige on the world stage – assuming they ever did walk on it in their own light?
These are just some of the urgent problems now coming into focus for the everyday man in the English street, for businesses, for their economy.
Yet, they waste time, energy and resources in peddling fear and despondency, showing our European neighbours just what depths they can so easily reach.
What would also be worth a read is: how are England going to cope in todays’ world with their major (unwitting) benefactor gone?
How will they cope when they do not produce enough food for themselves?
How will they manage with water, power and financial shortages?
What will they be forced to do with their superflous nuclear armaments?
At what cost?
How will they ever cope with the loss of prestige on the world stage – assuming they ever did walk on it in their own light?
These are just some of the urgent problems now coming into focus for the everyday man in the English street, for businesses, for their economy.
Yet, they waste time, energy and resources in peddling fear and despondency, showing our European neighbours just what depths they can so easily reach.
#
2012-02-29 13:00
We know that the anti-independence parties will not deliver on their devolution promises. When that becomes apparent to ordinary Scots they will vote YES in their droves.
#
2012-02-29 14:11
Stop the Union I WANT TO GET OFF!
bbc.co.uk/…/…
Another UK disgrace.
Come on Mr Moore,come up here and explain this one.
bbc.co.uk/…/…
Another UK disgrace.
Come on Mr Moore,come up here and explain this one.
#
2012-02-29 15:40
Don’t you trust the LibDems?
I admire their ability to have such flexible convictions that the can be in a coalition with Labour in Scotland and thereafter one with the Tories and it is all so seamless.Having Tavish leading Devo+ will I am certain ensure success.
I admire their ability to have such flexible convictions that the can be in a coalition with Labour in Scotland and thereafter one with the Tories and it is all so seamless.Having Tavish leading Devo+ will I am certain ensure success.
#
2012-02-29 14:57
As far as I am aware, this “devo plus” group does not have the backing of their partys. So what,s going on? Is this projected multiplicity of choice designed to confuse the electorate,and what happened to all the “lines in the sand” from the unionist party leaders? Has the tide come in and wiped them away? Or does this just demonstrate the confusion that exists amongst the anti-independence camp, who now seem to have more leaders than followers. My, all this thinking is fair tiring me oot.
#
2012-02-29 15:40
Love this one in the comments re Steele…. I think its from Auld Bob
heraldscotland.com/…/…
Allan Thompson, Glasgow: Salmond , a big fish in a small pond.
Robert Peffers, Kelty: Indeed and backed up by a Sturgeon, however, both are only members of a great team of ministers and back benchers who have made great strides in returning Scotland to her proper status as a sovereign nation. One that has punched well above her weight for as long as there has been a Scotland. It was Scotland that led Europe into, “The Enlightenment”, and Scottish people that led the World in medicine, engineering and electronics into the modern age. That great man, Voltaire said, “It is to Scotland we look for our ideas of Civilisation”. Old Voltaire knew a thing or two. So put it this way – do I believe Voltaire or Allan Thompson of Glasgow?
lol 😀
heraldscotland.com/…/…
Allan Thompson, Glasgow: Salmond , a big fish in a small pond.
Robert Peffers, Kelty: Indeed and backed up by a Sturgeon, however, both are only members of a great team of ministers and back benchers who have made great strides in returning Scotland to her proper status as a sovereign nation. One that has punched well above her weight for as long as there has been a Scotland. It was Scotland that led Europe into, “The Enlightenment”, and Scottish people that led the World in medicine, engineering and electronics into the modern age. That great man, Voltaire said, “It is to Scotland we look for our ideas of Civilisation”. Old Voltaire knew a thing or two. So put it this way – do I believe Voltaire or Allan Thompson of Glasgow?
lol 😀
#
2012-02-29 15:58
This group has members from the tories and lib dems. The parties in power in London. If they were serious about extra powers the only need to seek an accord today with the Scottish Parliament and they can transfer powers today. Why are we waiting….
#
2012-02-29 20:13
Never mind Cameron annoying me into voting for independence, my mind was made up years ago. More annoying was the BBC Scotland news tonight with the first three stories all with a negative slant toward Scotland, then to compound the ” annoyance ” a reply rejecting my compalint about Robertson and his extremely rude interview with Nicola Sturgeon a coupole of weeks ago. Anyone got directions to thon darkened room and is there a waiting list??
#
2012-02-29 23:36
Peter, what did the beeb say about Gary’s world record interruption at the start of the interview?
#
2012-02-29 22:34
Yet again another academic tells us something we already know by intuition. Hopefully Cameron will react in true style, believing he knows best, and keeps on annoying us. 🙂
#
2012-02-29 23:37
Let’s hope the “Wastemonster gang” are too drunk with power to actually get down to reading Dr Paul Cairney’s book, The Scottish Political System Since Devolution, well at least until after we win Independence in 2014!
#
2012-02-29 23:40
According to the article; Ms Fabiani, MSP for East Kilbride, said:
“The anti-independence parties and their taskmasters in London must realise that their attempts to dictate the terms and timing of the referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland are hugely unpopular with the people of Scotland.
“The SNP government is consulting with the people of Scotland about what they want from their referendum. Meanwhile the anti-independence parties are the ones creating constitutional uncertainty with their constant attempts to force the issue on everything from the date to the question, and by offering vague promises of ‘jam tomorrow’ on powers, without even bothering to wait until the Scottish people have had their say.”
The consultation does not seem to be in line with the SNP aims set out in the Party’s Constitution.
CONSTITUTION OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY
Name
1. The Party shall be named the Scottish National Party.
Aims
2. The aims of the Party shall be:
(a) Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of
full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering
international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.
(b) the furtherance of all Scottish interests
MY bolding
“The anti-independence parties and their taskmasters in London must realise that their attempts to dictate the terms and timing of the referendum on the constitutional future of Scotland are hugely unpopular with the people of Scotland.
“The SNP government is consulting with the people of Scotland about what they want from their referendum. Meanwhile the anti-independence parties are the ones creating constitutional uncertainty with their constant attempts to force the issue on everything from the date to the question, and by offering vague promises of ‘jam tomorrow’ on powers, without even bothering to wait until the Scottish people have had their say.”
The consultation does not seem to be in line with the SNP aims set out in the Party’s Constitution.
CONSTITUTION OF THE SCOTTISH NATIONAL PARTY
Name
1. The Party shall be named the Scottish National Party.
Aims
2. The aims of the Party shall be:
(a) Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of
full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering
international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.
(b) the furtherance of all Scottish interests
MY bolding
#
2012-02-29 23:46
I’m unsure why you keep on banging on about this. The SNP has a Draft Constitution for an independent Scotland.
Article VII of it states “This Constitution, including this Article of this Constitution, may be amended only by the following procedure :
The passing of a proposed measure at its third stage by a majority of three-fifths of the whole membership of the Parliament of Scotland followed, within a period of between two and six months, reference to the proposed measure to a National Referendum in which a majority of those voting shall have voted for the proposed measure.”
Article VII of it states “This Constitution, including this Article of this Constitution, may be amended only by the following procedure :
The passing of a proposed measure at its third stage by a majority of three-fifths of the whole membership of the Parliament of Scotland followed, within a period of between two and six months, reference to the proposed measure to a National Referendum in which a majority of those voting shall have voted for the proposed measure.”
#
2012-03-01 01:49
oldnat 2012-02-29 22:46
“I’m unsure why you keep on banging on about this. The SNP has a Draft Constitution for an independent Scotland.”
The reason I keep banging on about this as you put it is: this referendum is supposed to be about “constitutional change”. The question is what constitutional change are we discussing the UK’s?
Or are we discussing Independence for Scotland, defined in the SNP constitution as: Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.
Is it a case of “jam after we vote for Independence” or are we going to approve this written constitution before we make that decision in 2014?
“I’m unsure why you keep on banging on about this. The SNP has a Draft Constitution for an independent Scotland.”
The reason I keep banging on about this as you put it is: this referendum is supposed to be about “constitutional change”. The question is what constitutional change are we discussing the UK’s?
Or are we discussing Independence for Scotland, defined in the SNP constitution as: Independence for Scotland; that is the restoration of Scottish national sovereignty by restoration of full powers to the Scottish Parliament, so that its authority is limited only by the sovereign power of the Scottish People to bind it with a written constitution and by such agreements as it may freely enter into with other nations or states or international organisations for the purpose of furthering international cooperation, world peace and the protection of the environment.
Is it a case of “jam after we vote for Independence” or are we going to approve this written constitution before we make that decision in 2014?
#
2012-03-01 02:14
I really fail to understand why you are so confused.
You may not have noticed, but there is no mechanism for Scotland to decide on its Constitution, other than through the process of Scotland deciding to become, once again, a sovereign state.
If you are calling for the Scottish government to officially publish the Draft Constitution as part of its prospectus for independence, then that seems eminently reasonable.
It will be a very large prospectus, since the changes to the existing UK constitution will be considerable. There is no reason for the draft constitution for Scotland not to be part of that prospectus.
You seem to assume that the Scottish Government will fail to include the proposed constitution in that. You haven’t produced a single shred of evidence that they will fail to do so.
If they don’t, you and I might make common cause. Until then, why do you repeat your demand so repetitively (repetitively , repetitively .repetitively)?
You may not have noticed, but there is no mechanism for Scotland to decide on its Constitution, other than through the process of Scotland deciding to become, once again, a sovereign state.
If you are calling for the Scottish government to officially publish the Draft Constitution as part of its prospectus for independence, then that seems eminently reasonable.
It will be a very large prospectus, since the changes to the existing UK constitution will be considerable. There is no reason for the draft constitution for Scotland not to be part of that prospectus.
You seem to assume that the Scottish Government will fail to include the proposed constitution in that. You haven’t produced a single shred of evidence that they will fail to do so.
If they don’t, you and I might make common cause. Until then, why do you repeat your demand so repetitively (repetitively , repetitively .repetitively)?
#
2012-03-01 00:05
The consultation does not seem to be in line with the SNP aims set out in the Party’s Constitution.
The SNP’s aims are what the SNP wants. The consultation is about finding out what the people want. It would be nice for the SNP if the people want what the SNP want, but it would be nicer for the people if the SNP tried to give the people what the people want. Westminster parties might be more used to telling the public what they’re supposed to want. I quite like the SNP version of democracy.
The SNP’s aims are what the SNP wants. The consultation is about finding out what the people want. It would be nice for the SNP if the people want what the SNP want, but it would be nicer for the people if the SNP tried to give the people what the people want. Westminster parties might be more used to telling the public what they’re supposed to want. I quite like the SNP version of democracy.
#
2012-03-01 03:17
Totally Off topic!
However, given the frequent concerns about the BBC regularly aired on here, this tweet from STV’s weatherman might be appreciated.
Twitter
Sean Batty@SeanBatty STV
In taxi past STV – nice to see we’ve switched off all outside signs. BBC still lit up brightly! #publicmoney #badforenvironm ent
However, given the frequent concerns about the BBC regularly aired on here, this tweet from STV’s weatherman might be appreciated.
Sean Batty@SeanBatty STV
In taxi past STV – nice to see we’ve switched off all outside signs. BBC still lit up brightly! #publicmoney #badforenvironm ent
#
2012-03-01 13:24
oldnat 2012-03-01 01:14
“I really fail to understand why you are so confused.”
I am not confused oldnat.
As you say I repeatedly sound off about a written constitution. But the whole problem with the union in my opinion stems from the fact that there is no Written Constitution.
It has been established that the Scottish Parliament can hold a consultative referendum. There is plenty of time to do so before autumn 2014 on a Scottish Written Constitution.
We are being asked to vote for Independence, without knowing or accepting what our constitutional position will be post independence.
As I posted to Jiggsbro 2012-02-29 14:30: “You raise some interesting points here J.”
What will the Scottish state be like after independence?
How will the Scottish people exercise their sovereignty?
How will the political parties be prevented from dictating where and on what our tax pounds will be spent?
“I really fail to understand why you are so confused.”
I am not confused oldnat.
As you say I repeatedly sound off about a written constitution. But the whole problem with the union in my opinion stems from the fact that there is no Written Constitution.
It has been established that the Scottish Parliament can hold a consultative referendum. There is plenty of time to do so before autumn 2014 on a Scottish Written Constitution.
We are being asked to vote for Independence, without knowing or accepting what our constitutional position will be post independence.
As I posted to Jiggsbro 2012-02-29 14:30: “You raise some interesting points here J.”
What will the Scottish state be like after independence?
How will the Scottish people exercise their sovereignty?
How will the political parties be prevented from dictating where and on what our tax pounds will be spent?
#
2012-03-01 23:20
Holebender 2012-03-01 13:31
“If only that were the only problem with the union, you’re fooling yourself.”
The unwritten UK constitution is a collection of laws, which can be changed to suit the diktat of the government in power, not a centralised written document as understood in the rest of the world. It is a hierarchical, top-down, system of centralised government that obstructs rather than reflects true representative democracy.
This unwritten constitution has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.
The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters.
What will the Scottish state be like after independence?
How will the Scottish people exercise their sovereignty?
How will the political parties be prevented from dictating where and on what our tax pounds will be spent?
“If only that were the only problem with the union, you’re fooling yourself.”
The unwritten UK constitution is a collection of laws, which can be changed to suit the diktat of the government in power, not a centralised written document as understood in the rest of the world. It is a hierarchical, top-down, system of centralised government that obstructs rather than reflects true representative democracy.
This unwritten constitution has been high jacked by the UK political parties and parliament cannot be held to account by the people other than at the time of a general election. In parliament, the party leader with the most seats is appointed by convention, not elected by Parliament or the electorate, and as Prime Minister, controls and appoints the executive, and thus essentially a party controls parliament. The situation is further exacerbated and democracy diminished, by the “Whip system” on party MPs to ensure the outcome of a vote suits the party line. The fusion of powers currently controlled by the party leader in effect results in an elective dictatorship.
The democratic accountability and citizen involvement with the present system is minimal at best, resulting in apathy and indifference and a justifiable lack of trust in government by the voters.
What will the Scottish state be like after independence?
How will the Scottish people exercise their sovereignty?
How will the political parties be prevented from dictating where and on what our tax pounds will be spent?
Donate to Newsnet Scotland
Latest Comments
- Believe in yourself says Sturg...
I've never responded well to intimidatio... - David Cameron pleads with News...
Oh bugger! - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
It is interesting to note that only a fe... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
What people need to realise is that it's... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
Ex-BBC Newsnight correspondent Paul Maso... - David Cameron pleads with News...
You do realise Lynda that by not consent... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
The BBC are leading with Deutsche Bank f... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
Bullying,blackm ail and threats. Do we r... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
Jim Sillars is simply giving vivid examp... - The Real IndyRef Division
One thing that is missing from this anal... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
Mr Salmond must keep the pressure on abo... - David Cameron pleads with News...
Aye, they would have us swallow this. 'E... - RBS leak 'extraordinary' says ...
Funny I do not see any banner headlines ... - Believe in yourself says Sturg...
The saddest thing ever was that strong, ... - Miliband slammed for standing ...
I have been a member of the YouGov panel... - RBS leak 'extraordinary' says ...
I see that true to form our pals at BBC ... - New referendum poll confirms b...
Note that ICM are applying a weighting o... - RBS leak 'extraordinary' says ...
Doesn't Peston have form on this? Do I r... - RBS leak 'extraordinary' says ...
Two links to a couple of articles on the... - RBS leak 'extraordinary' says ...
The Nikkei would be open before the Lond...